Wiltse Approach versus Conventional Open Approach in Neurologically Intact Patients with Thoracolumbar Fractures: Clinical and Radiological Outcome Study

M. Shater, M. Hassanein
{"title":"Wiltse Approach versus Conventional Open Approach in Neurologically Intact Patients with Thoracolumbar Fractures: Clinical and Radiological Outcome Study","authors":"M. Shater, M. Hassanein","doi":"10.21608/esj.2018.18389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Data: Percutaneous screws fixation became popular as it depends on minimal muscle destruction and no para-spinal muscle stripping. However, there is a lot of disadvantages of percutaneous fixation technique including the high radiation exposure. Complications reported in conventional midline approach including muscle stripping from lamina and spinous processes and long-term postoperative pain and muscle weakness led the spine surgeon to rediscover minimally invasive technique to manage spinal fractures through posterior approach. One of these techniques is Wiltse technique which access the pedicle through blunt dissection between the longissimus muscle and multifidus muscle. Purpose: This study aims to compare pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach, and the traditional posterior midline approach outcome. Study Design: Prospective comparative study. Patients and Methods: A total of 36 patients of single-level thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury underwent pedicle screw fixation using two different approaches. Twenty patients were treated using conventional technique (Group 1 ), and 16 patients were operated using Wiltse technique (Group 2 ). Screw placement accuracy rate, operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, radiation exposure time, postoperative improvement of Cobb angle for regional kyphosis, functional disability index using Oswestry Disability Index, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of the two groups were compared. Results: There were no significant differences in the accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement, radiation exposure and Cobb angle improvement between the two groups. However, the Wiltse technique had obvious advantages over the conventional technique in operative time, blood loss, hospitalization time, ODI improvement and postoperative short-term improvement in VAS. Conclusion: Our data suggest that pedicle screw insertion using Wiltse technique for treatment of thoracolumbar fracture has the advantages of less tissue trauma, short operative and rehabilitative time on the premise of guaranteed accuracy rate and no significant increased radiation exposure. (2018ESJ160)","PeriodicalId":11610,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/esj.2018.18389","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Data: Percutaneous screws fixation became popular as it depends on minimal muscle destruction and no para-spinal muscle stripping. However, there is a lot of disadvantages of percutaneous fixation technique including the high radiation exposure. Complications reported in conventional midline approach including muscle stripping from lamina and spinous processes and long-term postoperative pain and muscle weakness led the spine surgeon to rediscover minimally invasive technique to manage spinal fractures through posterior approach. One of these techniques is Wiltse technique which access the pedicle through blunt dissection between the longissimus muscle and multifidus muscle. Purpose: This study aims to compare pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach, and the traditional posterior midline approach outcome. Study Design: Prospective comparative study. Patients and Methods: A total of 36 patients of single-level thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury underwent pedicle screw fixation using two different approaches. Twenty patients were treated using conventional technique (Group 1 ), and 16 patients were operated using Wiltse technique (Group 2 ). Screw placement accuracy rate, operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospitalization time, radiation exposure time, postoperative improvement of Cobb angle for regional kyphosis, functional disability index using Oswestry Disability Index, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of the two groups were compared. Results: There were no significant differences in the accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement, radiation exposure and Cobb angle improvement between the two groups. However, the Wiltse technique had obvious advantages over the conventional technique in operative time, blood loss, hospitalization time, ODI improvement and postoperative short-term improvement in VAS. Conclusion: Our data suggest that pedicle screw insertion using Wiltse technique for treatment of thoracolumbar fracture has the advantages of less tissue trauma, short operative and rehabilitative time on the premise of guaranteed accuracy rate and no significant increased radiation exposure. (2018ESJ160)
Wiltse入路与传统开放入路在神经完整胸腰椎骨折患者中的应用:临床和放射学结果研究
背景资料:经皮螺钉固定术因其依赖最小的肌肉破坏和无脊旁肌肉剥离而广受欢迎。然而,经皮固定技术存在许多缺点,包括高辐射暴露。传统中线入路的并发症报告,包括椎板和棘突的肌肉剥离,以及长期的术后疼痛和肌肉无力,导致脊柱外科医生重新发现了通过后路治疗脊柱骨折的微创技术。其中一种技术是Wiltse技术,通过最长肌和多裂肌之间的钝性解剖进入椎弓根。目的:本研究旨在比较Wiltse入路椎弓根螺钉固定和传统后中线入路的疗效。研究设计:前瞻性比较研究。患者和方法:36例无神经损伤的单级胸腰椎骨折患者采用两种不同的方法进行椎弓根螺钉固定。20例患者使用常规技术进行治疗(第1组),16例患者使用Wiltse技术进行手术(第2组)。比较两组的螺钉置入准确率、手术时间、失血量、术后住院时间、放疗时间、Cobb角术后对区域后凸的改善情况、Oswestry残疾指数的功能残疾指数和视觉模拟量表(VAS)。结果:两组椎弓根螺钉置入、放射照射和Cobb角改善的准确率无显著差异。然而,与传统技术相比,Wiltse技术在手术时间、失血量、住院时间、ODI改善和术后VAS短期改善方面具有明显优势。结论:Wiltse椎弓根螺钉置入术治疗胸腰椎骨折具有组织创伤小、手术时间短、康复时间短、准确率高、放疗剂量无明显增加的优点。(2018ESJ160)
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 weeks
×
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