Andrea Perna, Andrea Franchini, Franco Lucio Gorgoglione, Felice Barletta, Biagio Moretti, Andrea Piazzolla, Maria Beatrice Bocchi, Calogero Velluto, Francesco Tamburrelli, Luca Proietti
{"title":"短节段经皮椎体融合与开放后路螺钉融合治疗胸腰椎交界段爆裂性椎体骨折","authors":"Andrea Perna, Andrea Franchini, Franco Lucio Gorgoglione, Felice Barletta, Biagio Moretti, Andrea Piazzolla, Maria Beatrice Bocchi, Calogero Velluto, Francesco Tamburrelli, Luca Proietti","doi":"10.25259/jnrp_370_2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The treatment options for thoracolumbar junction burst fractures remain a topic of controversy. Short-segment percutaneous fixation (SSPF) and short-segment open fixation including the fractured level (SSOFIFL) are both viable procedures for managing these fractures. At present, there is a lack of evidence in the literature demonstrating the absolute superiority of one treatment over the other. This study aimed to compare these two surgical strategies with a focus on radiological and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: This retrospective case–control multicenter analysis involved patients with A3 and A4 vertebral fractures at the thoracolumbar junction (T11–L2) who underwent surgical treatment with either SSPF or SSOFIFL in the participating centers. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale (VAS) both pre- and postoperatively. Radiological outcomes included kyphotic deformity (KD), anterior vertebral body height (AVBH), segmental kyphosis, and sagittal alignment parameters. Results: A total of 156 patients were enrolled in the study, with 81 patients in Group A (SSPF) and 75 patients in Group B (SSOFIFL). Group B demonstrated better correction of KD (Group B: 3.4 ± 2.7° vs. Group A: 8.3 ± 3.2°, P = 0.003), AVBH, and sagittal alignment. A minor loss of correction was observed in Group B with respect to Group A (0.9 ± 1.7° vs 4.3° ± 2.1°, P = 0.043). Blood losses were lower in Group A (78 ± 15 min vs. 118 ± 23 min, P = 0.021) as well as during surgery (121.3 ± 34 mL vs. 210.2 ± 52 mL, P = 0.031), but the post-operative hemoglobin levels were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: SSOFIFL appears to show a major amount of KD correction and prevent loss of correction. This technique should be the preferred choice whenever possible. However, SSPF can be considered a valid alternative for damage control in polytrauma patients and fractures with low KD.","PeriodicalId":16443,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice","volume":"145 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Short-segment percutaneous fusion versus open posterior fusion with screw in the fractured vertebra for thoracolumbar junction burst vertebral fracture treatment\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Perna, Andrea Franchini, Franco Lucio Gorgoglione, Felice Barletta, Biagio Moretti, Andrea Piazzolla, Maria Beatrice Bocchi, Calogero Velluto, Francesco Tamburrelli, Luca Proietti\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/jnrp_370_2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: The treatment options for thoracolumbar junction burst fractures remain a topic of controversy. Short-segment percutaneous fixation (SSPF) and short-segment open fixation including the fractured level (SSOFIFL) are both viable procedures for managing these fractures. At present, there is a lack of evidence in the literature demonstrating the absolute superiority of one treatment over the other. This study aimed to compare these two surgical strategies with a focus on radiological and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: This retrospective case–control multicenter analysis involved patients with A3 and A4 vertebral fractures at the thoracolumbar junction (T11–L2) who underwent surgical treatment with either SSPF or SSOFIFL in the participating centers. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale (VAS) both pre- and postoperatively. Radiological outcomes included kyphotic deformity (KD), anterior vertebral body height (AVBH), segmental kyphosis, and sagittal alignment parameters. Results: A total of 156 patients were enrolled in the study, with 81 patients in Group A (SSPF) and 75 patients in Group B (SSOFIFL). Group B demonstrated better correction of KD (Group B: 3.4 ± 2.7° vs. Group A: 8.3 ± 3.2°, P = 0.003), AVBH, and sagittal alignment. A minor loss of correction was observed in Group B with respect to Group A (0.9 ± 1.7° vs 4.3° ± 2.1°, P = 0.043). Blood losses were lower in Group A (78 ± 15 min vs. 118 ± 23 min, P = 0.021) as well as during surgery (121.3 ± 34 mL vs. 210.2 ± 52 mL, P = 0.031), but the post-operative hemoglobin levels were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: SSOFIFL appears to show a major amount of KD correction and prevent loss of correction. This technique should be the preferred choice whenever possible. However, SSPF can be considered a valid alternative for damage control in polytrauma patients and fractures with low KD.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice\",\"volume\":\"145 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/jnrp_370_2023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/jnrp_370_2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:胸腰段连接处爆裂骨折的治疗选择仍然是一个有争议的话题。短节段经皮内固定(SSPF)和短节段开放内固定(SSOFIFL)都是治疗这些骨折的可行方法。目前,文献中缺乏证据表明一种治疗方法比另一种治疗方法具有绝对优势。本研究的目的是比较这两种手术策略,重点是放射学和临床结果。材料和方法:本回顾性病例对照多中心分析纳入了在参与中心接受SSPF或SSOFIFL手术治疗的胸腰椎连接处(T11-L2) A3和A4椎体骨折患者。术前和术后采用Oswestry残疾指数和视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量临床结果。放射学结果包括后凸畸形(KD)、前椎体高度(AVBH)、节段性后凸和矢状面对齐参数。结果:共有156例患者入组,其中A组(SSPF) 81例,B组(SSOFIFL) 75例。B组表现出更好的KD矫正(B组:3.4±2.7°,A组:8.3±3.2°,P = 0.003)、AVBH和矢状面对齐。B组相对于A组有轻微的矫正损失(0.9±1.7°vs 4.3°±2.1°,P = 0.043)。A组出血量较低(78±15 min vs. 118±23 min, P = 0.021),术中出血量较低(121.3±34 mL vs. 210.2±52 mL, P = 0.031),但两组术后血红蛋白水平相当。结论:SSOFIFL似乎显示了大量的KD校正,并防止了校正的丢失。无论何时,这种技术都应该是首选。然而,对于多发创伤患者和低KD骨折患者,SSPF可以被认为是一种有效的损伤控制方法。
Short-segment percutaneous fusion versus open posterior fusion with screw in the fractured vertebra for thoracolumbar junction burst vertebral fracture treatment
Objectives: The treatment options for thoracolumbar junction burst fractures remain a topic of controversy. Short-segment percutaneous fixation (SSPF) and short-segment open fixation including the fractured level (SSOFIFL) are both viable procedures for managing these fractures. At present, there is a lack of evidence in the literature demonstrating the absolute superiority of one treatment over the other. This study aimed to compare these two surgical strategies with a focus on radiological and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: This retrospective case–control multicenter analysis involved patients with A3 and A4 vertebral fractures at the thoracolumbar junction (T11–L2) who underwent surgical treatment with either SSPF or SSOFIFL in the participating centers. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale (VAS) both pre- and postoperatively. Radiological outcomes included kyphotic deformity (KD), anterior vertebral body height (AVBH), segmental kyphosis, and sagittal alignment parameters. Results: A total of 156 patients were enrolled in the study, with 81 patients in Group A (SSPF) and 75 patients in Group B (SSOFIFL). Group B demonstrated better correction of KD (Group B: 3.4 ± 2.7° vs. Group A: 8.3 ± 3.2°, P = 0.003), AVBH, and sagittal alignment. A minor loss of correction was observed in Group B with respect to Group A (0.9 ± 1.7° vs 4.3° ± 2.1°, P = 0.043). Blood losses were lower in Group A (78 ± 15 min vs. 118 ± 23 min, P = 0.021) as well as during surgery (121.3 ± 34 mL vs. 210.2 ± 52 mL, P = 0.031), but the post-operative hemoglobin levels were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: SSOFIFL appears to show a major amount of KD correction and prevent loss of correction. This technique should be the preferred choice whenever possible. However, SSPF can be considered a valid alternative for damage control in polytrauma patients and fractures with low KD.