The Comparison of the Application of Percutaneous Transpedicular and Extrapedicular Vertebroplasty: Which Approach has Better Results?

Q Medicine
N. Uçler, Ş. Yucetas, Tuncay Ateş, H. Çakın
{"title":"The Comparison of the Application of Percutaneous Transpedicular and Extrapedicular Vertebroplasty: Which Approach has Better Results?","authors":"N. Uçler, Ş. Yucetas, Tuncay Ateş, H. Çakın","doi":"10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000140","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Vertebral compression fractures are a common complication of various pathologies. Vertebroplasty is a choice in these fractures, but the approach to the fractured vertebra corpus with this technique is relatively an important issue. Patients and Methods:In this retrospective study, we evaluated and compared 90 patients with vertebral fractures treated with extrapedicular or transpedicular vertebroplasty, with respect to visual analog score (VAS), cement leakage risk, postoperative bed rest time, and postoperative analgesic use. Results:Our retrospective study showed that intraspinal canal and intervertebral cement leakage were lower in the extrapedicular group than in the transpedicular group (1 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 6). In addition, postoperative bed rest time and postoperative anagesic use were higher in the transpedicular group than in the extrapedicular group (24 vs. 15 h and 7 vs. 3 d). When compared, the extrapedicular group had lower cost and first-year VAS than the transpedicular group, despite preoperative VAS being higher in the extrapedicular group. Conclusions:Our comparative retrospective study showed that extrapedicular approach has better results with respect to VAS, cement leakage risk, postoperative bed rest time, and postoperative analgesic use. In addition to these advantages, extrapedicular approach may have some potential complications, but these complications may be prevented from meticulous manipulations.","PeriodicalId":56275,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgery Quarterly","volume":"26 1","pages":"116–119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000140","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgery Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNQ.0000000000000140","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background:Vertebral compression fractures are a common complication of various pathologies. Vertebroplasty is a choice in these fractures, but the approach to the fractured vertebra corpus with this technique is relatively an important issue. Patients and Methods:In this retrospective study, we evaluated and compared 90 patients with vertebral fractures treated with extrapedicular or transpedicular vertebroplasty, with respect to visual analog score (VAS), cement leakage risk, postoperative bed rest time, and postoperative analgesic use. Results:Our retrospective study showed that intraspinal canal and intervertebral cement leakage were lower in the extrapedicular group than in the transpedicular group (1 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 6). In addition, postoperative bed rest time and postoperative anagesic use were higher in the transpedicular group than in the extrapedicular group (24 vs. 15 h and 7 vs. 3 d). When compared, the extrapedicular group had lower cost and first-year VAS than the transpedicular group, despite preoperative VAS being higher in the extrapedicular group. Conclusions:Our comparative retrospective study showed that extrapedicular approach has better results with respect to VAS, cement leakage risk, postoperative bed rest time, and postoperative analgesic use. In addition to these advantages, extrapedicular approach may have some potential complications, but these complications may be prevented from meticulous manipulations.
经皮椎弓根椎体成形术与椎弓根外椎体成形术的比较:哪种方法效果更好?
背景:椎体压缩性骨折是各种病理的常见并发症。椎体成形术是治疗这些骨折的一种选择,但椎体骨折的入路是一个相对重要的问题。患者和方法:在这项回顾性研究中,我们评估和比较了90例椎体骨折经椎弓根外或经椎弓根椎体成形术治疗的患者,包括视觉模拟评分(VAS)、水泥渗漏风险、术后卧床休息时间和术后镇痛药的使用。结果:我们回顾性研究显示脊柱内的运河和椎间水泥泄漏extrapedicular组低于置钉组(1和3和3和6)。此外,术后卧床休息时间和术后anagesic使用高置钉组比extrapedicular组(24比15 h和7比3 d)相比,extrapedicular组较低成本和一年级比置钉组血管,尽管椎弓根外组术前VAS较高。结论:我们的回顾性比较研究表明,椎弓根外入路在VAS、骨水泥渗漏风险、术后卧床休息时间和术后镇痛药使用方面具有更好的效果。除这些优点外,椎弓根外入路可能有一些潜在的并发症,但这些并发症可以通过细致的操作来预防。
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
Neurosurgery Quarterly
Neurosurgery Quarterly 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
0.08
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurosurgery Quarterly synthesizes the broad wealth of material on international developments in the diagnosis, management, and surgical treatment of neurological disorders. By encompassing viewpoints from worldwide sources, the journal provides information in greater depth than is usually found in the medical literature.
×
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