单独椎体成形术与短节段后路内固定联合椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折的临床结果:倾向评分匹配分析。

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Asian Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-04 DOI:10.31616/asj.2024.0231
Borriwat Santipas, Nath Adulkasem, Korawish Mekariya, Ekkapoj Korwutthikulrangsri, Monchai Ruangchainikom, Werasak Sutipornplalangkul
{"title":"单独椎体成形术与短节段后路内固定联合椎体成形术治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折的临床结果:倾向评分匹配分析。","authors":"Borriwat Santipas, Nath Adulkasem, Korawish Mekariya, Ekkapoj Korwutthikulrangsri, Monchai Ruangchainikom, Werasak Sutipornplalangkul","doi":"10.31616/asj.2024.0231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study with propensity-score-matched analysis.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the efficacy of vertebroplasty (VP) versus short-segment posterior instrumentation (SS) with VP in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>OVFs significantly affect the aging population, causing pain, reduced mobility, and increased dependence. Treatment guidelines vary, and a consensus on the most effective approach remains unclear. To the best of our knowledge, no previous report focused on the efficacy comparison of VP alone versus SS with VP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included patients with OVFs undergoing VP with or without SS from 2017 to 2021. Baseline demographic and patient-reported outcome scores, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality-of-Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes, including Cobb angle, sagittal angle reduction, and kyphotic progression, were assessed. Perioperative data were gathered. Propensity-score matching was conducted to compare both groups after adjusting for baseline characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 60 patients. The subsequent analyses included 19 patients in both the SS+VP group and the VP groups after matching patient cohorts across various covariates. The SS+VP group demonstrated better ODI (30.38±17.12 vs. 49.68±19.43, p=0.0025) and EQ-5D scores (0.80±0.19 vs. 0.6±0.31, p=0.0018) at 1 year postoperative. Sagittal angle correction was higher in the SS+VP group (10.63°±6.34° vs. 5.74°±5.91°, p=0.0188). The SS+VP group exhibited higher blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SS with VP generated superior patient-reported outcomes and sagittal angle correction for OVFs when evaluated one year postoperatively compared to VP alone. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar despite increased blood loss and extended operative time.</p>","PeriodicalId":8555,"journal":{"name":"Asian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"28-37"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11895134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical outcome of vertebroplasty alone versus short-segment posterior instrumentation with vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a propensity-score-matched analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Borriwat Santipas, Nath Adulkasem, Korawish Mekariya, Ekkapoj Korwutthikulrangsri, Monchai Ruangchainikom, Werasak Sutipornplalangkul\",\"doi\":\"10.31616/asj.2024.0231\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study with propensity-score-matched analysis.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the efficacy of vertebroplasty (VP) versus short-segment posterior instrumentation (SS) with VP in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).</p><p><strong>Overview of literature: </strong>OVFs significantly affect the aging population, causing pain, reduced mobility, and increased dependence. Treatment guidelines vary, and a consensus on the most effective approach remains unclear. To the best of our knowledge, no previous report focused on the efficacy comparison of VP alone versus SS with VP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study included patients with OVFs undergoing VP with or without SS from 2017 to 2021. Baseline demographic and patient-reported outcome scores, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality-of-Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes, including Cobb angle, sagittal angle reduction, and kyphotic progression, were assessed. Perioperative data were gathered. Propensity-score matching was conducted to compare both groups after adjusting for baseline characteristics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included 60 patients. The subsequent analyses included 19 patients in both the SS+VP group and the VP groups after matching patient cohorts across various covariates. The SS+VP group demonstrated better ODI (30.38±17.12 vs. 49.68±19.43, p=0.0025) and EQ-5D scores (0.80±0.19 vs. 0.6±0.31, p=0.0018) at 1 year postoperative. Sagittal angle correction was higher in the SS+VP group (10.63°±6.34° vs. 5.74°±5.91°, p=0.0188). The SS+VP group exhibited higher blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SS with VP generated superior patient-reported outcomes and sagittal angle correction for OVFs when evaluated one year postoperatively compared to VP alone. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar despite increased blood loss and extended operative time.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"28-37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11895134/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0231\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:采用倾向-评分匹配分析的回顾性队列研究。目的:比较椎体成形术(VP)与短节段后路内固定(SS)治疗骨质疏松性椎体骨折(ovf)的疗效。文献综述:ovf显著影响老龄人口,引起疼痛、活动能力降低和依赖性增加。治疗指南各不相同,关于最有效的方法的共识仍不清楚。据我们所知,之前没有报道关注单独VP与SS联合VP的疗效比较。方法:该研究包括2017年至2021年接受VP伴或不伴SS的ovf患者。术前和术后1年收集基线人口统计学和患者报告的结局评分,包括Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和欧洲生活质量5维度(EQ-5D)。评估影像学结果,包括Cobb角、矢状角降低和后凸进展。收集围手术期资料。在调整基线特征后,进行倾向得分匹配以比较两组。结果:本研究纳入60例患者。在对不同协变量的患者队列进行匹配后,随后的分析包括SS+VP组和VP组的19例患者。SS+VP组术后1年ODI(30.38±17.12比49.68±19.43,p=0.0025)和EQ-5D评分(0.80±0.19比0.6±0.31,p=0.0018)较好。SS+VP组矢状角矫正率更高(10.63°±6.34°vs. 5.74°±5.91°,p=0.0188)。SS+VP组出血量大,手术时间长。两组围手术期并发症、后凸进展、邻近骨折和再手术率相似。结论:与单独VP相比,SS联合VP在术后一年评估ovf时产生了更好的患者报告结果和矢状角矫正。尽管出血量增加,手术时间延长,围手术期并发症、后凸进展、邻近骨折和再手术率相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical outcome of vertebroplasty alone versus short-segment posterior instrumentation with vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fracture: a propensity-score-matched analysis.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study with propensity-score-matched analysis.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of vertebroplasty (VP) versus short-segment posterior instrumentation (SS) with VP in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs).

Overview of literature: OVFs significantly affect the aging population, causing pain, reduced mobility, and increased dependence. Treatment guidelines vary, and a consensus on the most effective approach remains unclear. To the best of our knowledge, no previous report focused on the efficacy comparison of VP alone versus SS with VP.

Methods: The study included patients with OVFs undergoing VP with or without SS from 2017 to 2021. Baseline demographic and patient-reported outcome scores, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and European Quality-of-Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes, including Cobb angle, sagittal angle reduction, and kyphotic progression, were assessed. Perioperative data were gathered. Propensity-score matching was conducted to compare both groups after adjusting for baseline characteristics.

Results: This study included 60 patients. The subsequent analyses included 19 patients in both the SS+VP group and the VP groups after matching patient cohorts across various covariates. The SS+VP group demonstrated better ODI (30.38±17.12 vs. 49.68±19.43, p=0.0025) and EQ-5D scores (0.80±0.19 vs. 0.6±0.31, p=0.0018) at 1 year postoperative. Sagittal angle correction was higher in the SS+VP group (10.63°±6.34° vs. 5.74°±5.91°, p=0.0188). The SS+VP group exhibited higher blood loss and longer operative time. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions: SS with VP generated superior patient-reported outcomes and sagittal angle correction for OVFs when evaluated one year postoperatively compared to VP alone. Perioperative complications, kyphotic progression, adjacent fractures, and reoperation rates were similar despite increased blood loss and extended operative time.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Spine Journal
Asian Spine Journal ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
108
审稿时长
24 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