Long segment versus short segment stabilization in thoracolumbar spine fracture: A retrospective clinical and radiological analysis

IF 0.4 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
S. Y. Mak, Y. Siu, W. Chau, C. Lo, C. Ma
{"title":"Long segment versus short segment stabilization in thoracolumbar spine fracture: A retrospective clinical and radiological analysis","authors":"S. Y. Mak, Y. Siu, W. Chau, C. Lo, C. Ma","doi":"10.1177/22104917221128836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Thoracolumbar spine fracture is one of the commonest spinal fractures. The treatment of choice of surgery is still controversial. This is a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes of long and short segment stabilization for patients admitted with thoracolumbar fracture in our hospitals. Material and Method: Inclusion criteria included a single level of thoracolumbar fracture, excluding pre-existing deformity or spinal surgery, osteoporosis, and pathological fracture. Clinical parameters included visual analogue scale (VAS), operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative length of stay. Radiological parameters included wedge angle and anterior and posterior vertebral height ratio. Results: From June 2007 to May 2020, 56 patients (male = 31, female = 25) were recruited. There were 25 patients in the short segment group (open = 11, minimal invasive surgery (MIS) = 14) and 31 patients in the long segment group. Clinically, significantly better VAS at 6 months (1 vs. 1.96; p = 0.041), shorter post-op length of stay (16 days vs. 25 days; p = 0.01), and less blood loss (178 ml vs. 824 ml; p < 0.01) were found in the short segment group. Radiologically, the short segment group showed significantly better wedge angle at immediate (5° vs. 9.23°; p = 0.002) and long-term follow-up (7.41° vs. 11.43°; p = 0.01). Moreover, the short segment group has significantly better post-op anterior and posterior vertebral height ratios. Within the short segment group, the MIS group showed significantly less blood loss (82 ml vs. 303 ml; p < 0.01). However radiological parameters favour the open group. Discussion and Conclusion: For single-level thoracolumbar fracture, both long and short stabilizations were effective in reducing and stabilizing the fracture. However, the short segment group showed significantly superior results. Moreover, a minimally invasive technique in short segment stabilization showed even less blood loss but less optimal radiological results. Therefore, short segment stabilization could be the treatment of choice for traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures.","PeriodicalId":42408,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917221128836","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Thoracolumbar spine fracture is one of the commonest spinal fractures. The treatment of choice of surgery is still controversial. This is a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes of long and short segment stabilization for patients admitted with thoracolumbar fracture in our hospitals. Material and Method: Inclusion criteria included a single level of thoracolumbar fracture, excluding pre-existing deformity or spinal surgery, osteoporosis, and pathological fracture. Clinical parameters included visual analogue scale (VAS), operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative length of stay. Radiological parameters included wedge angle and anterior and posterior vertebral height ratio. Results: From June 2007 to May 2020, 56 patients (male = 31, female = 25) were recruited. There were 25 patients in the short segment group (open = 11, minimal invasive surgery (MIS) = 14) and 31 patients in the long segment group. Clinically, significantly better VAS at 6 months (1 vs. 1.96; p = 0.041), shorter post-op length of stay (16 days vs. 25 days; p = 0.01), and less blood loss (178 ml vs. 824 ml; p < 0.01) were found in the short segment group. Radiologically, the short segment group showed significantly better wedge angle at immediate (5° vs. 9.23°; p = 0.002) and long-term follow-up (7.41° vs. 11.43°; p = 0.01). Moreover, the short segment group has significantly better post-op anterior and posterior vertebral height ratios. Within the short segment group, the MIS group showed significantly less blood loss (82 ml vs. 303 ml; p < 0.01). However radiological parameters favour the open group. Discussion and Conclusion: For single-level thoracolumbar fracture, both long and short stabilizations were effective in reducing and stabilizing the fracture. However, the short segment group showed significantly superior results. Moreover, a minimally invasive technique in short segment stabilization showed even less blood loss but less optimal radiological results. Therefore, short segment stabilization could be the treatment of choice for traumatic thoracolumbar spine fractures.
胸腰椎骨折的长节段稳定与短节段稳定:回顾性临床和放射学分析
胸腰椎骨折是最常见的脊柱骨折之一。手术治疗的选择仍存在争议。本文回顾性分析我院收治的胸腰椎骨折患者采用长节段和短节段稳定治疗的临床和影像学结果。材料和方法:纳入标准包括单一级别的胸腰椎骨折,排除先前存在的畸形或脊柱手术,骨质疏松症和病理性骨折。临床参数包括视觉模拟评分(VAS)、手术时间、术中出血量、术后住院时间。放射学参数包括楔角和前后椎体高度比。结果:2007年6月至2020年5月,共纳入56例患者(男31例,女25例)。短节段组25例(开放11例,微创手术14例),长节段组31例。临床方面,6个月时VAS明显改善(1 vs. 1.96;P = 0.041),术后住院时间较短(16天vs. 25天;P = 0.01),出血量较少(178 ml vs. 824 ml;P < 0.01)。放射学上,短节段组在即刻表现出更好的楔形角(5°vs. 9.23°;P = 0.002)和长期随访(7.41°vs. 11.43°;p = 0.01)。此外,短节段组术后前后椎体高度比明显更好。在短段组中,MIS组的失血量显著减少(82 ml vs 303 ml;p < 0.01)。然而放射学参数有利于开放基团。讨论与结论:对于单节段胸腰椎骨折,长、短固定均可有效复位和稳定骨折。然而,短节段组表现出明显更好的结果。此外,微创短节段稳定技术的失血量更少,但放射学效果较差。因此,短节段稳定可作为创伤性胸腰椎骨折的治疗选择。
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
8 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