...
【24h】

Surgical techniques for spinopelvic reconstruction following total sacrectomy: A systematic review

机译:完全sa骨切除术后脊柱盆腔重建手术技术:系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose: To identify all available reconstruction methods for a total sacrectomy. Secondarily, we aimed to evaluate outcomes based on different interventions. Methods: We searched PubMed to identify sacral resections for tumors requiring internal fixation for stabilization. Demographic information, fixation techniques and postoperative outcomes were abstracted. Results: Twenty-three publications (43 patients) met inclusion criteria from an initial search of 856 (κ 0.93). Mean age was 37 years and follow-up was 33 months. Fixation methods included a combination of spinopelvic fixation (SPF), posterior pelvic ring fixation (PPRF), and/or anterior spinal column fixation (ASCF). For the purposes of analysis, patients were segregated based on whether they received ASCF. Postoperative complications including wound/instrument infections, GI or vascular complications were reported at a higher rate in the non-ASCF group (1.63 complications/patient vs. 0.7 complications/patient). Instrument failure was seen in 5 (16.1 %) out of the 31 patients with reported outcomes. Specifically, 1 out of 8 patients (12.5 %) with ASCF compared with 4 out of 23 patients (17.4 %) without ASCF had hardware failure. At final follow-up, 35 of 39 patients were ambulating. Conclusion: While surgical treatment of primary sacral tumors remains a challenge, there have been advances in reconstruction techniques following total sacrectomy. SPF has shifted from intrapelvic rod and hook constructs to pedicle and iliac screw-rod systems for improved rigidity. PPRF and ASCF have adapted for deficiencies in the posterior ring and anterior column. A trend toward a lower rate of hardware failure emerged in the group utilizing anterior spinal column support. Despite a more involved reconstruction with ASCF, surgical complications such as infection rates and blood loss were lower compared to the group without ASCF. While we cannot definitively say one system is superior to the other, based on the data gleaned from this systematic review, it is our opinion that incorporation of ASCF in reconstructing the spinopelvic junction may lead to improved outcomes. However, most importantly, we recommend that the treating surgeon operate on patients requiring a total sacrectomy based on his or her level of comfort, as these cases can be extremely challenging even among experts.
机译:目的:确定用于全sa骨切除术的所有可用重建方法。其次,我们旨在评估基于不同干预措施的结果。方法:我们搜索PubMed以鉴定identify骨切除术是否需要内固定以稳定肿瘤。人口统计信息,固定技术和术后结局进行了抽象。结果:23篇出版物(43例患者)符合856个标准的纳入标准(κ0.93)。平均年龄为37岁,随访时间为33个月。固定方法包括脊柱骨盆固定(SPF),骨盆后环固定(PPRF)和/或脊柱前固定(ASCF)的组合。为了进行分析,根据患者是否接受ASCF对其进行隔离。非ASCF组的术后并发症包括伤口/器械感染,胃肠道或血管并发症的发生率较高(1.63例/患者vs. 0.7例/患者)。在报告结果的31例患者中,有5例(16.1%)出现仪器故障。具体而言,在有ASCF的8例患者中,有1例(12.5%)与没有ASCF的23例中有4例(17.4%)发生硬件故障。在最后的随访中,39名患者中有35名正在活动。结论:原发性骨肿瘤的外科手术治疗仍然是一个挑战,但全sa切除术后的重建技术已有进步。 SPF已从骨盆内的杆和钩结构转移到椎弓根和的螺杆系统,以提高刚度。 PPRF和ASCF已适应于后环和前柱的不足。在使用前脊柱支撑的组中,出现了硬件故障率降低的趋势。尽管使用ASCF进行的重建更加复杂,但与未使用ASCF的组相比,手术并发症(如感染率和失血量)更低。尽管我们不能确切地说一个系统优于另一个系统,但根据本系统综述的数据,我们认为在重建脊柱盆腔连接处纳入ASCF可能会改善结局。但是,最重要的是,我们建议主治医师根据其舒适程度对需要进行全sa膜切除术的患者进行手术,因为即使在专家当中,这些情况也极具挑战性。

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