Sean Taylor, Saurabh Rawall, Asa Peterson, Gerald McGwin, Sakthivel Rajaram
{"title":"经皮腰椎骨盆内固定与开放式腰椎骨盆内固定治疗脊柱骨盆分离的疗效。","authors":"Sean Taylor, Saurabh Rawall, Asa Peterson, Gerald McGwin, Sakthivel Rajaram","doi":"10.1155/aort/9946662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Spinopelvic dissociation is a devastating injury that remains difficult to manage due to its complexity and low incidence. Lumbopelvic fixation is a treatment option traditionally performed with an open approach. However, open fixation is associated with substantial blood loss and infection risk in critical polytrauma patients. Technological advancements have enabled this procedure to be performed percutaneously. Thus, we evaluate outcomes between patients receiving open lumbopelvic fixation and those receiving percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing either open or percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation for spinopelvic dissociation from 2012 to 2024. The AOSpine classification system was used to classify all fractures. Patient demographic, clinical, and operative outcomes were analyzed. <b>Results:</b> 48 patients with spinopelvic dissociation were included in the final analysis, with 21 receiving open lumbopelvic fixation and 27 receiving percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation. Preoperative characteristics and demographics were similar between the two groups. The percutaneous group demonstrated significantly reduced blood loss (82 vs. 679 mL; <i>p</i> < 0.01), shorter operative time (168 vs. 284 min; <i>p</i> < 0.01), fewer surgical site infections (0 vs. 4; <i>p</i>=0.03), and reduced OR cost ($35,097 vs. $23,743; <i>p</i>=0.01) but had a higher rate of anterior pelvic ring injuries (63% vs. 19%; <i>p</i>=0.003). There was no significant difference in length of stay (<i>p</i>=0.63) or length of follow-up (<i>p</i>=0.64). <b>Conclusion:</b> Our findings suggest that percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation offers an attractive less invasive and shorter procedure to treat spinopelvic dissociation without added morbidity.</p>","PeriodicalId":7358,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Orthopedics","volume":"2025 ","pages":"9946662"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283201/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of Percutaneous Versus Open Lumbopelvic Fixation of Spinopelvic Dissociation.\",\"authors\":\"Sean Taylor, Saurabh Rawall, Asa Peterson, Gerald McGwin, Sakthivel Rajaram\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/aort/9946662\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Spinopelvic dissociation is a devastating injury that remains difficult to manage due to its complexity and low incidence. Lumbopelvic fixation is a treatment option traditionally performed with an open approach. However, open fixation is associated with substantial blood loss and infection risk in critical polytrauma patients. Technological advancements have enabled this procedure to be performed percutaneously. Thus, we evaluate outcomes between patients receiving open lumbopelvic fixation and those receiving percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing either open or percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation for spinopelvic dissociation from 2012 to 2024. The AOSpine classification system was used to classify all fractures. Patient demographic, clinical, and operative outcomes were analyzed. <b>Results:</b> 48 patients with spinopelvic dissociation were included in the final analysis, with 21 receiving open lumbopelvic fixation and 27 receiving percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation. Preoperative characteristics and demographics were similar between the two groups. The percutaneous group demonstrated significantly reduced blood loss (82 vs. 679 mL; <i>p</i> < 0.01), shorter operative time (168 vs. 284 min; <i>p</i> < 0.01), fewer surgical site infections (0 vs. 4; <i>p</i>=0.03), and reduced OR cost ($35,097 vs. $23,743; <i>p</i>=0.01) but had a higher rate of anterior pelvic ring injuries (63% vs. 19%; <i>p</i>=0.003). There was no significant difference in length of stay (<i>p</i>=0.63) or length of follow-up (<i>p</i>=0.64). <b>Conclusion:</b> Our findings suggest that percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation offers an attractive less invasive and shorter procedure to treat spinopelvic dissociation without added morbidity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7358,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\"2025 \",\"pages\":\"9946662\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12283201/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/aort/9946662\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/aort/9946662","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导读:脊柱骨盆分离是一种毁灭性的损伤,由于其复杂性和低发病率,仍然难以管理。腰椎骨盆固定是一种传统的治疗选择,采用开放入路。然而,在严重的多发创伤患者中,开放式固定与大量失血和感染风险相关。技术的进步使得这种手术可以经皮进行。因此,我们评估了接受开放式腰骨盆固定和接受经皮腰骨盆固定的患者之间的结果。方法:回顾性分析2012年至2024年接受开放或经皮腰骨盆固定治疗脊柱骨盆分离的患者。采用AOSpine分类系统对所有骨折进行分类。分析患者人口统计学、临床和手术结果。结果:48例脊柱骨盆分离患者纳入最终分析,其中21例接受开放式腰骨盆固定,27例接受经皮腰骨盆固定。两组患者术前特征和人口统计学相似。经皮组出血量明显减少(82 mL vs. 679 mL;P < 0.01),手术时间较短(168∶284 min;P < 0.01),手术部位感染较少(0比4;p=0.03),降低了手术室成本(35,097美元vs. 23,743美元;P =0.01),但盆腔前环损伤率较高(63% vs. 19%;p = 0.003)。两组患者的住院时间(p=0.63)和随访时间(p=0.64)均无统计学差异。结论:我们的研究结果表明,经皮腰盆腔内固定术是一种具有吸引力的微创且时间短的治疗脊柱盆腔分离的方法,而且不会增加发病率。
Outcomes of Percutaneous Versus Open Lumbopelvic Fixation of Spinopelvic Dissociation.
Introduction: Spinopelvic dissociation is a devastating injury that remains difficult to manage due to its complexity and low incidence. Lumbopelvic fixation is a treatment option traditionally performed with an open approach. However, open fixation is associated with substantial blood loss and infection risk in critical polytrauma patients. Technological advancements have enabled this procedure to be performed percutaneously. Thus, we evaluate outcomes between patients receiving open lumbopelvic fixation and those receiving percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing either open or percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation for spinopelvic dissociation from 2012 to 2024. The AOSpine classification system was used to classify all fractures. Patient demographic, clinical, and operative outcomes were analyzed. Results: 48 patients with spinopelvic dissociation were included in the final analysis, with 21 receiving open lumbopelvic fixation and 27 receiving percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation. Preoperative characteristics and demographics were similar between the two groups. The percutaneous group demonstrated significantly reduced blood loss (82 vs. 679 mL; p < 0.01), shorter operative time (168 vs. 284 min; p < 0.01), fewer surgical site infections (0 vs. 4; p=0.03), and reduced OR cost ($35,097 vs. $23,743; p=0.01) but had a higher rate of anterior pelvic ring injuries (63% vs. 19%; p=0.003). There was no significant difference in length of stay (p=0.63) or length of follow-up (p=0.64). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that percutaneous lumbopelvic fixation offers an attractive less invasive and shorter procedure to treat spinopelvic dissociation without added morbidity.
期刊介绍:
Advances in Orthopedics is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for orthopaedics working on improving the quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to arthroplasty, hand surgery, limb reconstruction, pediatric orthopaedics, sports medicine, trauma, spinal deformities, and orthopaedic oncology.