首页> 外文期刊>Neurospine. >Comparative Clinical Results of Vertebroplasty Using Jamshidi? Needle and Bone Void Filler for Acute Vertebral Compression Fractures
【24h】

Comparative Clinical Results of Vertebroplasty Using Jamshidi? Needle and Bone Void Filler for Acute Vertebral Compression Fractures

机译:Jamshidi?椎体成形术的临床比较结果针和骨空隙填充物治疗急性椎体压缩性骨折

获取原文
       

摘要

Objective Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is an effective treatment modality for management of osteoporotic compression fracture. However physicians sometimes have problems of high pressure in cement delivery and cement leakage when using Jamshidi? needle (JN). Bone void filler (BVF) has larger lumen which may possibly diminish these problems. This study aims to compare the radiologic and clinical outcome of JN and BVF for PVP. Methods One hundred twenty-eight patients were treated with PVP for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture (VCF) where 46 patients underwent PVP with JN needle and 82 patients with BVF. Radiologic outcome such as kyphotic angle and vertebral body height (VBH) and clinical outcome such as visual analog scale (VAS) scores were measured after treatment in both groups. Results In JN PVP group, mean of 3.26 cc of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) were injected and 4.07 cc in BVF PVP group (p0.001). For radiologic outcome, no significant difference in kyphotic angle reduction was observed between two groups. Cement leakage developed in 6 patients using JN PVP group and 2 patients using BVF group (p=0.025). No significant difference in improvement of VAS score was observed between JN and BVF PVP groups (p=0.43). Conclusion For the treatment of osteoporotic VCF, usage of BVF for PVP may increase injected volume of cement, easily control the depth and direction of PMMA which may reduce cement leakage. However, improvement of VAS score did not show difference between two groups. Usage of BVF for PVP may be an alternative to JN PVP in selected cases.
机译:目的经皮椎体成形术(PVP)是一种治疗骨质疏松性压缩性骨折的有效方法。但是,当使用Jamshidi?时,医生有时会在水泥输送中产生高压压力,并导致水泥泄漏。针(JN)。骨空隙填充物(BVF)的内腔较大,可以减少这些问题。本研究旨在比较JN和BVF对PVP的放射学和临床结局。方法对128例骨质疏松性椎体压缩性骨折(VCF)患者行PVP治疗,其中46例行JN针行PVP,82例行BVF。两组在治疗后均测量了放射学结果,例如后凸角和椎体高度(VBH),以及临床结果,例如视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分。结果在JN PVP组中,平均注射了3.26 cc的聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA),在BVF PVP组中注射了4.07 cc(p <0.001)。对于放射学结果,两组之间的后凸角减小没有显着差异。使用JN PVP组的6例患者和使用BVF组的2例患者发生了水泥渗漏(p = 0.025)。在JN和BVF PVP组之间,VAS评分的改善没有显着差异(p = 0.43)。结论治疗骨质疏松性VCF时,BVP用于PVP可增加水泥的注入量,易于控制PMMA的深度和方向,可减少水泥渗漏。但是,VAS评分的改善并未显示两组之间的差异。在某些情况下,将BVF用于PVP可以替代JN PVP。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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