首页> 外文期刊>Spine >Transpedicular fixation in management of thoracolumbar burst fractures: monosegmental fixation versus short-segment instrumentation.
【24h】

Transpedicular fixation in management of thoracolumbar burst fractures: monosegmental fixation versus short-segment instrumentation.

机译:经椎弓根固定治疗胸腰椎爆裂骨折:单节段固定与短节段器械。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective clinical trial was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and radiologic late results of monosegmental transpedicular fixation versus short-segment pedicle instrumentation (SSPI) in management of thoracolumbar burst fractures and evaluate the efficacy of monosegmental transpedicular fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SSPI (1 level above and 1 below the fracture level) are accepted by many surgeons as an accepted technique for the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures. To preserve more motion segments, some authors have advocated monosegmental pedicle instrumentation (MSPI). The recent developments showed that MSPI yielded good clinical results; however, there were no report about comparison of clinical outcome between monosegmental and biosegmental transpedicular fixation in management of thoracolumbar burst fractures. METHODS: Eighty-five patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The patients were randomized by a simple method into 2 groups. Group 1 were treated with monosegmental transpedicular fixation (n = 47), and group 2 were treated with biosegmental transpedicular fixation (n = 38). Clinical (Low Back Outcome Score and Oswestry Disability Index) and radiologic (load-sharing classification index, sagittal index, and percentage of anterior body height compression) outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: The 2 groups were similar in age, follow-up period, and severity of the deformity and fracture. The postoperative and follow-up sagittal index, local kyphosis, percentage of anterior body height compression, and average correction loss in local kyphosis in both groups were not significantly different. The failure rate between the 2 surgical approaches was also not significantly different (group 1 = 6.38% and group 2 = 5.26%). Oswestry Disability Index improved in both groups by >25 points in a similar amount (P = 0.23). The average follow-up Low Back Outcome Score was 74.9 and 60.2 for group 1 and group 2, respectively (P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, radiologic parameters demonstrated that both MSPI and SSPI are the effective and reliable operative techniques for selected thoracolumbar burst fractures. MSPI shortened the operative time and decreased the amount of blood loss significantly and, thus, offered better clinical results. Nevertheless, long-term studies are supposed to be performed to support the outcomes.
机译:研究设计:进行了一项前瞻性临床试验。目的:比较单节段经椎弓根固定与短节段椎弓根器械(SSPI)在胸腰椎爆裂骨折治疗中的临床和影像学最新结果,并评估单节段经椎弓根固定的疗效。背景技术概述:SSPI(骨折水平1级以上,骨折水平1级以下)已被许多外科医生接受,作为治疗胸腰椎爆裂性骨折的公认技术。为了保留更多的运动节段,一些作者提倡单节段椎弓根器械(MSPI)。最近的进展表明,MSPI产生了良好的临床效果。然而,目前尚无关于在胸腰椎爆裂性骨折的治疗中单节段和生物节段经椎弓根固定的临床疗效比较的报道。方法:符合纳入标准的85例胸腰椎爆裂骨折患者被纳入研究。通过简单方法将患者随机分为两组。第1组采用单节段椎弓根固定治疗(n = 47),第2组采用生物节段椎弓根固定治疗(n = 38)。分析了临床(低腰预后评分和Oswestry残疾指数)和放射学(负荷分担分类指数,矢状面指数以及前身高压缩百分比)的结果。结果:两组患者的年龄,随访时间,畸形和骨折的严重程度相似。两组的术后和后续矢状面指数,局部后凸畸形,前身高度压缩百分比以及局部后凸畸变的平均矫正损失均无显着差异。两种手术方法之间的失败率也没有显着差异(组1 = 6.38%,组2 = 5.26%)。两组的Oswestry残疾指数均提高了25分以上(P = 0.23)。第一组和第二组的平均随访低腰结局评分分别为74.9和60.2(P = 0.033)。结论:总结,放射学参数表明MSPI和SSPI都是选定的胸腰椎爆裂骨折的有效和可靠的手术技术。 MSPI缩短了手术时间并显着减少了失血量,从而提供了更好的临床效果。但是,应该进行长期研究以支持结果。

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