首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Global Spine Journal >Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis
【2h】

Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation versus Unilateral Pedicle and Contralateral Facet Screws for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Analysis

机译:双侧椎弓根螺钉固定与单侧椎弓根和对侧小平面螺钉治疗微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术的临床结果和成本分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Study Design Retrospective clinical study. >Objectives Recent biomechanical studies have shown no differences in stiffness or range of motion following minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) between unilateral pedicle and contralateral facet screw (UPFS) and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) constructs. No studies have compared these two constructs based upon clinical outcomes. >Methods Twenty-six consecutive patients who had single-level MIS TLIF were retrospectively reviewed. Outcome measures collected for patients with BPS were compared with those with UPFS. >Results No associations were found between construct and length of stay (p = 0.5), operative time (p = 0.2), or Odom's criteria (p = 0.7); 79% of patients in the UPFS group as compared with 71.5% in the BPS group had good or excellent outcomes. Mean follow-up was 17.7 months for the UPFS group and 20.2 months for the BPS group. There was one complication in each group, including a seroma in the BPS group and a revision operation in the UPFS group. Implant costs for the BPS group were 35% greater than the UPFS group. >Conclusions The present study is the first to demonstrate that patients undergoing MIS TLIF with BPS as compared with UPFS for single-level degenerative lumbar disease had similar clinical outcomes.
机译:>研究设计回顾性临床研究。 >目标最近的生物力学研究表明,单侧椎弓根与对侧小平面螺钉(UPFS)之间的微创(MIS)经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)和双侧椎弓根小螺钉(BPS)之间的刚度或运动范围无差异) 结构体。没有研究根据临床结果比较这两种结构。 >方法回顾性分析了连续26例单水平MIS TLIF患者。将为BPS患者收集的结局指标与UPFS进行比较。 >结果在结构和住院时间(p = 0.5),手术时间(p = 0.2)或奥多姆标准(p = 0.7)之间没有发现关联; UPFS组的患者有79%,而BPS组的患者为71.5%,具有良好或优异的疗效。 UPFS组平均随访17.7个月,BPS组平均随访20.2个月。每组有一个并发症,包括BPS组的血清肿和UPFS组的修订手术。 BPS组的种植成本比UPFS组高35%。 >结论本研究首次证明接受MIS TLIF联合BPS治疗的单级退行性腰椎疾病患者与UPFS相比具有相似的临床疗效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号