Posterior segmental fixation for thoraco-lumbar and lumbar fractures: a comparative outcome study between open and percutaneous techniques.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-30 DOI:10.1080/02688697.2021.1981236
Marco G A Teli, Anthony C Amato-Watkins
{"title":"Posterior segmental fixation for thoraco-lumbar and lumbar fractures: a comparative outcome study between open and percutaneous techniques.","authors":"Marco G A Teli, Anthony C Amato-Watkins","doi":"10.1080/02688697.2021.1981236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Showing results of open and percutaneous surgical management of traumatic AO type A3, A4 and B2 thoracic and lumbar fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective comparative analysis of traditional open fusion versus percutaneous navigated fixation of thoracic and lumbar spinal fractures. Minimum 24 months follow-up to collect ODI and VAS outcome scores for comparative analysis was required.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-seven patients with a mean age of 39 years met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-six patients were in the open group (Group O) and 31 in the percutaneous group (Group P). The majority of fractures were either type A3 or A4; there were three type B chance fractures in Group O and one in Group P. VAS and ODI scores followed comparable trends in the two groups until the final follow-up. The main statistically significant result between the two groups was blood loss, which was lower in Group P (110 versus 270 ml in Group O on average), although this did not reflect into different clinical outcomes. Similar peri-operative measures of operating time and length of stay were found between the two groups. A significantly higher degree of loss of reduction was noted at follow-up in Group P (8° versus 5° in Group O on average).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Open and percutaneous posterior fixation techniques of thoracic and lumbar fractures in this cohort were associated with different perioperative blood losses as well as radiological measurements, but not with clinically meaningful differences in patient reported outcome measures at 24 months' follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2021.1981236","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Showing results of open and percutaneous surgical management of traumatic AO type A3, A4 and B2 thoracic and lumbar fractures.

Methods: Retrospective comparative analysis of traditional open fusion versus percutaneous navigated fixation of thoracic and lumbar spinal fractures. Minimum 24 months follow-up to collect ODI and VAS outcome scores for comparative analysis was required.

Results: Fifty-seven patients with a mean age of 39 years met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-six patients were in the open group (Group O) and 31 in the percutaneous group (Group P). The majority of fractures were either type A3 or A4; there were three type B chance fractures in Group O and one in Group P. VAS and ODI scores followed comparable trends in the two groups until the final follow-up. The main statistically significant result between the two groups was blood loss, which was lower in Group P (110 versus 270 ml in Group O on average), although this did not reflect into different clinical outcomes. Similar peri-operative measures of operating time and length of stay were found between the two groups. A significantly higher degree of loss of reduction was noted at follow-up in Group P (8° versus 5° in Group O on average).

Conclusions: Open and percutaneous posterior fixation techniques of thoracic and lumbar fractures in this cohort were associated with different perioperative blood losses as well as radiological measurements, but not with clinically meaningful differences in patient reported outcome measures at 24 months' follow-up.

胸腰椎和腰椎骨折的后段固定术:开放式和经皮技术的疗效对比研究。
目的:展示创伤性 AO A3、A4 和 B2 型胸椎和腰椎骨折的开放和经皮手术治疗结果:胸椎和腰椎骨折传统开放融合术与经皮导航固定术的回顾性比较分析。要求至少随访24个月,以收集ODI和VAS结果评分进行比较分析:符合纳入标准的患者有 57 名,平均年龄 39 岁。26名患者属于开放组(O组),31名患者属于经皮组(P组)。大多数骨折为 A3 型或 A4 型;O 组有三例 B 型偶然骨折,P 组有一例。两组患者的 VAS 和 ODI 评分趋势相当,直至最后随访。两组的主要统计学差异在于失血量,P 组的失血量更少(平均 110 毫升,而 O 组为 270 毫升),但这并没有反映出不同的临床结果。两组围手术期的手术时间和住院时间相似。在随访中发现,P 组的复位损失程度明显更高(8°,而 O 组平均为 5°):结论:在这批患者中,胸椎和腰椎骨折的开放式和经皮后路固定技术与不同的围手术期失血量和放射学测量结果有关,但在 24 个月的随访中,患者报告的结果测量结果并无临床意义上的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信