腰盆腔内固定治疗脊柱转移的疗效及安全性比较S2髂椎弓根螺钉与常规髂椎弓根螺钉。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pawin Akkarawanit, Siravich Suvithayasiri, Borriwat Santipas, Sirichai Wilartratsami, Panya Luksanapruksa
{"title":"腰盆腔内固定治疗脊柱转移的疗效及安全性比较S2髂椎弓根螺钉与常规髂椎弓根螺钉。","authors":"Pawin Akkarawanit, Siravich Suvithayasiri, Borriwat Santipas, Sirichai Wilartratsami, Panya Luksanapruksa","doi":"10.1007/s00586-025-08774-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The clinical issue of lumbosacral metastases (LM) is really significant. This study aims to compare in patients with lumbar pathology (LM) the outcomes of the conventional iliac (CI) screw technique against the S2 alar-iliac (S2AI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of institutional databases was performed for lumbar metastasis patients. who underwent lumbopelvic fixation, with or without decompression, between April 2014 and April 2022. Demographic information, reoperation rates, operational time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of hospital stay (LOS) were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D-5L, which were examined both before and after surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 38 patients were involved in the study, with 21 allocated to the S2AI group and 17 to the CI group. The S2AI group demonstrated a length of stay (LOS) of 13.38 ± 8.35 days, in contrast to 24.35 ± 21.59 days, yielding a p-value of 0.047. The estimated blood loss in the S2AI group exhibited a decrease (592.86 ± 353.92 ml compared to 1073.53 ± 1122.45 ml; P = 0.137), alongside a reduction in operative time (181.19 ± 47.35 min versus 207.06 ± 105.69 min; variance = 0.648). Within the CI group, there were six patients who encountered surgical complications, accounting for 35.3%, while the S2AI group noted an absence of complications. The postoperative outcomes demonstrated a notable enhancement in both cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to CI, S2AI had better reoperation rates, estimated blood loss, operating duration, and length of stay. Both groups improved patient-reported outcomes, but the S2AI group improved significantly three months after surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of lumbopelvic fixation in spinal metastasis comparing S2 Alar-iliac screw and conventional iliac screw.\",\"authors\":\"Pawin Akkarawanit, Siravich Suvithayasiri, Borriwat Santipas, Sirichai Wilartratsami, Panya Luksanapruksa\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-025-08774-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The clinical issue of lumbosacral metastases (LM) is really significant. This study aims to compare in patients with lumbar pathology (LM) the outcomes of the conventional iliac (CI) screw technique against the S2 alar-iliac (S2AI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of institutional databases was performed for lumbar metastasis patients. who underwent lumbopelvic fixation, with or without decompression, between April 2014 and April 2022. Demographic information, reoperation rates, operational time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of hospital stay (LOS) were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D-5L, which were examined both before and after surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 38 patients were involved in the study, with 21 allocated to the S2AI group and 17 to the CI group. The S2AI group demonstrated a length of stay (LOS) of 13.38 ± 8.35 days, in contrast to 24.35 ± 21.59 days, yielding a p-value of 0.047. The estimated blood loss in the S2AI group exhibited a decrease (592.86 ± 353.92 ml compared to 1073.53 ± 1122.45 ml; P = 0.137), alongside a reduction in operative time (181.19 ± 47.35 min versus 207.06 ± 105.69 min; variance = 0.648). Within the CI group, there were six patients who encountered surgical complications, accounting for 35.3%, while the S2AI group noted an absence of complications. The postoperative outcomes demonstrated a notable enhancement in both cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to CI, S2AI had better reoperation rates, estimated blood loss, operating duration, and length of stay. Both groups improved patient-reported outcomes, but the S2AI group improved significantly three months after surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08774-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08774-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:腰骶部转移瘤(LM)的临床问题十分重要。本研究旨在比较腰椎病变(LM)患者采用传统髂(CI)螺钉技术与骶髂(S2AI)螺钉技术的疗效。方法:对腰椎转移患者的机构数据库进行回顾性分析。在2014年4月至2022年4月期间接受了腰盆腔固定,不论有无减压。收集患者的人口学信息、再手术率、手术时间、估计失血量(EBL)和住院时间(LOS)。患者报告的结果是视觉模拟量表(VAS)、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和EQ-5D-5L,这些都是在手术前和术后检查的。结果:共纳入38例患者,其中S2AI组21例,CI组17例。S2AI组的住院时间(LOS)为13.38±8.35天,而S2AI组为24.35±21.59天,p值为0.047。S2AI组的估计失血量(592.86±353.92 ml)比1073.53±1122.45 ml减少;P = 0.137),同时手术时间缩短(181.19±47.35 min vs 207.06±105.69 min;方差= 0.648)。CI组有6例患者出现手术并发症,占35.3%,而S2AI组无并发症。两组患者的术后结果均有显著改善。结论:与CI相比,S2AI具有更好的再手术率、估计出血量、手术时间和住院时间。两组均改善了患者报告的结果,但S2AI组在手术后三个月显著改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and safety of lumbopelvic fixation in spinal metastasis comparing S2 Alar-iliac screw and conventional iliac screw.

Purpose: The clinical issue of lumbosacral metastases (LM) is really significant. This study aims to compare in patients with lumbar pathology (LM) the outcomes of the conventional iliac (CI) screw technique against the S2 alar-iliac (S2AI).

Methods: A retrospective review of institutional databases was performed for lumbar metastasis patients. who underwent lumbopelvic fixation, with or without decompression, between April 2014 and April 2022. Demographic information, reoperation rates, operational time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of hospital stay (LOS) were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D-5L, which were examined both before and after surgery.

Results: A total of 38 patients were involved in the study, with 21 allocated to the S2AI group and 17 to the CI group. The S2AI group demonstrated a length of stay (LOS) of 13.38 ± 8.35 days, in contrast to 24.35 ± 21.59 days, yielding a p-value of 0.047. The estimated blood loss in the S2AI group exhibited a decrease (592.86 ± 353.92 ml compared to 1073.53 ± 1122.45 ml; P = 0.137), alongside a reduction in operative time (181.19 ± 47.35 min versus 207.06 ± 105.69 min; variance = 0.648). Within the CI group, there were six patients who encountered surgical complications, accounting for 35.3%, while the S2AI group noted an absence of complications. The postoperative outcomes demonstrated a notable enhancement in both cohorts.

Conclusions: Compared to CI, S2AI had better reoperation rates, estimated blood loss, operating duration, and length of stay. Both groups improved patient-reported outcomes, but the S2AI group improved significantly three months after surgery.

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
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
×
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