齿状突骨折的后路复位和临时固定:肌间剥离入路与中线标准肌肉剥离入路。

IF 4.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Zhenji Xu, Wenqing Wang, Ji Wu, Wenwen Wang, Dongqing Zhu, Qunfeng Guo
{"title":"齿状突骨折的后路复位和临时固定:肌间剥离入路与中线标准肌肉剥离入路。","authors":"Zhenji Xu, Wenqing Wang, Ji Wu, Wenwen Wang, Dongqing Zhu, Qunfeng Guo","doi":"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.08.337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Both the intermuscular dissection approach and the midline, standard muscle stripping approach in posterior reduction and temporary fixation (PRTF) technique can effectively avoid the loss of atlantoaxial motion function caused by posterior atlantoaxial fusion. The intermuscular dissection approach demonstrates superior paravertebral muscles integrity preservation. Therefore, we hypothesize that the range of motion (ROM) in rotation of C1-C2 after instrumentation removal would be superior in patients undergoing PRTF through the intermuscular dissection approach compared to the muscle stripping approach.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment efficacy of PRTF for odontoid fractures, with a secondary comparative analysis of the intermuscular dissection approach versus the muscle stripping approach.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Patient samples: </strong>From January 2020 to June 2022, clinical data of 58 patients with acute odontoid fractures who underwent PRTF technique were retrospectively reviewed from the hospital's internal database. The cohort comprised two matched groups: 29 patients treated with the intermuscular dissection approach PRTF technique and 29 patients treated with the muscle stripping approach PRTF technique.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The degree of paravertebral tissue edema in the short-term postoperatively was assessed using the edema coefficient. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative paravertebral tissue edema, pain, and supplementary use of narcotics were recorded and compared between the two groups. Fracture healing was evaluated using computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstruction. Instrumentation was removed after fracture healing, and the outcome assessments included American Spinal Injury Association scoring grade, Visual Analog Scale Score for Neck Pain, and Neck Disability Index. Dynamic rotational computed tomography examination of the C1-C2 was performed to compare the ROM in rotation of C1-C2 between the two groups at 3 months after instrumentation removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 58 cases with odontoid fractures who underwent PRTF technique were reviewed. The patients' general information, clinical outcomes, and radiographic outcomes were collected. Subsequently, to test our hypothesis, the patients were divided into two groups based on the different techniques of surgical exposure. Clinical data were analyzed between the two groups for differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 58 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 46.9±12.0 years old. Fracture healing was achieved in all patients in this study, and all patients in this study chose to remove the instrumentation after fracture healing. All patients returned to their preoperative work. There were no significant differences between the two groups in American Spinal Injury Association scoring grade and Neck Disability Index, fracture healing rate, or time. Compared to the muscle stripping approach group, the intermuscular dissection approach group had a longer operative time but less intraoperative blood loss, lower short-term postoperative pain, less need for supplementary narcotics, and lower postoperative paravertebral tissue edema. The Visual Analog Scale Score for Neck Pain in the intermuscular dissection approach group were lower than those in the muscle stripping approach group, but the difference was not statistically significant after instrumentation removal. After the removal of instrumentation, the ROM in C1-C2 rotation in the intermuscular dissection approach group was superior to that in the muscle stripping approach group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PRTF technique represents a clinically safe and feasible treatment option for odontoid fractures with an intact transverse ligament. Compared with the muscle stripping approach, the PRTF technique through intermuscular dissection approach provides a greater ROM in C1-C2 rotation after the removal of instrumentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49484,"journal":{"name":"Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Posterior reduction and temporary fixation for odontoid fractures: an intermuscular dissection approach versus a midline standard muscle stripping approach.\",\"authors\":\"Zhenji Xu, Wenqing Wang, Ji Wu, Wenwen Wang, Dongqing Zhu, Qunfeng Guo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.spinee.2025.08.337\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background context: </strong>Both the intermuscular dissection approach and the midline, standard muscle stripping approach in posterior reduction and temporary fixation (PRTF) technique can effectively avoid the loss of atlantoaxial motion function caused by posterior atlantoaxial fusion. The intermuscular dissection approach demonstrates superior paravertebral muscles integrity preservation. Therefore, we hypothesize that the range of motion (ROM) in rotation of C1-C2 after instrumentation removal would be superior in patients undergoing PRTF through the intermuscular dissection approach compared to the muscle stripping approach.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment efficacy of PRTF for odontoid fractures, with a secondary comparative analysis of the intermuscular dissection approach versus the muscle stripping approach.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Patient samples: </strong>From January 2020 to June 2022, clinical data of 58 patients with acute odontoid fractures who underwent PRTF technique were retrospectively reviewed from the hospital's internal database. The cohort comprised two matched groups: 29 patients treated with the intermuscular dissection approach PRTF technique and 29 patients treated with the muscle stripping approach PRTF technique.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The degree of paravertebral tissue edema in the short-term postoperatively was assessed using the edema coefficient. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative paravertebral tissue edema, pain, and supplementary use of narcotics were recorded and compared between the two groups. Fracture healing was evaluated using computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstruction. Instrumentation was removed after fracture healing, and the outcome assessments included American Spinal Injury Association scoring grade, Visual Analog Scale Score for Neck Pain, and Neck Disability Index. Dynamic rotational computed tomography examination of the C1-C2 was performed to compare the ROM in rotation of C1-C2 between the two groups at 3 months after instrumentation removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 58 cases with odontoid fractures who underwent PRTF technique were reviewed. The patients' general information, clinical outcomes, and radiographic outcomes were collected. Subsequently, to test our hypothesis, the patients were divided into two groups based on the different techniques of surgical exposure. Clinical data were analyzed between the two groups for differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 58 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 46.9±12.0 years old. Fracture healing was achieved in all patients in this study, and all patients in this study chose to remove the instrumentation after fracture healing. All patients returned to their preoperative work. There were no significant differences between the two groups in American Spinal Injury Association scoring grade and Neck Disability Index, fracture healing rate, or time. Compared to the muscle stripping approach group, the intermuscular dissection approach group had a longer operative time but less intraoperative blood loss, lower short-term postoperative pain, less need for supplementary narcotics, and lower postoperative paravertebral tissue edema. The Visual Analog Scale Score for Neck Pain in the intermuscular dissection approach group were lower than those in the muscle stripping approach group, but the difference was not statistically significant after instrumentation removal. After the removal of instrumentation, the ROM in C1-C2 rotation in the intermuscular dissection approach group was superior to that in the muscle stripping approach group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PRTF technique represents a clinically safe and feasible treatment option for odontoid fractures with an intact transverse ligament. Compared with the muscle stripping approach, the PRTF technique through intermuscular dissection approach provides a greater ROM in C1-C2 rotation after the removal of instrumentation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.08.337\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2025.08.337","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景背景:在后路复位临时固定(PRTF)技术中,无论是采用肌间剥离入路还是采用中线、标准肌剥离入路,都能有效避免寰枢椎后融合导致的寰枢椎运动功能丧失。肌间解剖入路显示更佳的椎旁肌肉完整性保存。因此,我们假设:与肌肉剥离入路相比,通过肌间剥离入路行PRTF的患者在取出内固定后C1-C2旋转的活动范围(ROM)更优越。目的:本研究的主要目的是评估PRTF治疗齿状突骨折的疗效,并对肌间剥离入路和肌肉剥离入路进行二次比较分析。研究设计:回顾性研究。患者样本:从2020年1月至2022年6月,回顾性分析医院内部数据库中58例接受PRTF技术治疗的急性齿状突骨折患者的临床资料。该队列包括两个匹配组:29例患者采用肌间解剖入路PRTF技术,29例患者采用肌肉剥离入路PRTF技术。观察指标:采用水肿系数评价术后短期椎旁组织水肿程度。记录两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后椎旁组织水肿、疼痛、麻醉辅助使用情况。采用计算机断层扫描(CT)和三维重建评估骨折愈合情况。骨折愈合后取出固定物,结果评估包括美国脊髓损伤协会(ASIA)评分等级、颈部疼痛视觉模拟量表评分(VASSNP)和颈部残疾指数(NDI)。在取出内固定3个月后,对C1-C2进行动态旋转CT检查,比较两组C1-C2旋转时的ROM。方法:对58例行PRTF技术治疗的齿状突骨折进行回顾性分析。收集患者的一般信息、临床结果和影像学结果。随后,为了验证我们的假设,根据不同的手术暴露技术将患者分为两组。分析两组临床资料的差异。结果:共纳入58例患者,平均年龄46.9±12.0岁。本研究中所有患者均实现骨折愈合,且所有患者在骨折愈合后均选择取出内固定物。所有患者均恢复术前工作。两组在ASIA评分等级、NDI、骨折愈合率和时间上均无显著差异。与肌肉剥离入路组相比,肌间剥离入路组手术时间更长,术中出血量更少,术后短期疼痛更轻,需要补充麻醉剂更少,术后椎旁组织水肿更低。肌间剥离入路组的VASSNP低于肌肉剥离入路组,但去除内固定后差异无统计学意义。取出内固定后,肌间剥离入路组C1-C2旋转的ROM优于肌肉剥离入路组。结论:PRTF技术是一种临床安全可行的治疗齿状突骨折横韧带完整的选择。与肌肉剥离入路相比,通过肌间剥离入路的PRTF技术在取出内固定后C1-C2旋转时提供了更大的ROM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Posterior reduction and temporary fixation for odontoid fractures: an intermuscular dissection approach versus a midline standard muscle stripping approach.

Background context: Both the intermuscular dissection approach and the midline, standard muscle stripping approach in posterior reduction and temporary fixation (PRTF) technique can effectively avoid the loss of atlantoaxial motion function caused by posterior atlantoaxial fusion. The intermuscular dissection approach demonstrates superior paravertebral muscles integrity preservation. Therefore, we hypothesize that the range of motion (ROM) in rotation of C1-C2 after instrumentation removal would be superior in patients undergoing PRTF through the intermuscular dissection approach compared to the muscle stripping approach.

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the treatment efficacy of PRTF for odontoid fractures, with a secondary comparative analysis of the intermuscular dissection approach versus the muscle stripping approach.

Study design: A retrospective study.

Patient samples: From January 2020 to June 2022, clinical data of 58 patients with acute odontoid fractures who underwent PRTF technique were retrospectively reviewed from the hospital's internal database. The cohort comprised two matched groups: 29 patients treated with the intermuscular dissection approach PRTF technique and 29 patients treated with the muscle stripping approach PRTF technique.

Outcome measures: The degree of paravertebral tissue edema in the short-term postoperatively was assessed using the edema coefficient. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative paravertebral tissue edema, pain, and supplementary use of narcotics were recorded and compared between the two groups. Fracture healing was evaluated using computed tomography and three-dimensional reconstruction. Instrumentation was removed after fracture healing, and the outcome assessments included American Spinal Injury Association scoring grade, Visual Analog Scale Score for Neck Pain, and Neck Disability Index. Dynamic rotational computed tomography examination of the C1-C2 was performed to compare the ROM in rotation of C1-C2 between the two groups at 3 months after instrumentation removal.

Methods: A total of 58 cases with odontoid fractures who underwent PRTF technique were reviewed. The patients' general information, clinical outcomes, and radiographic outcomes were collected. Subsequently, to test our hypothesis, the patients were divided into two groups based on the different techniques of surgical exposure. Clinical data were analyzed between the two groups for differences.

Results: A total of 58 patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 46.9±12.0 years old. Fracture healing was achieved in all patients in this study, and all patients in this study chose to remove the instrumentation after fracture healing. All patients returned to their preoperative work. There were no significant differences between the two groups in American Spinal Injury Association scoring grade and Neck Disability Index, fracture healing rate, or time. Compared to the muscle stripping approach group, the intermuscular dissection approach group had a longer operative time but less intraoperative blood loss, lower short-term postoperative pain, less need for supplementary narcotics, and lower postoperative paravertebral tissue edema. The Visual Analog Scale Score for Neck Pain in the intermuscular dissection approach group were lower than those in the muscle stripping approach group, but the difference was not statistically significant after instrumentation removal. After the removal of instrumentation, the ROM in C1-C2 rotation in the intermuscular dissection approach group was superior to that in the muscle stripping approach group.

Conclusions: The PRTF technique represents a clinically safe and feasible treatment option for odontoid fractures with an intact transverse ligament. Compared with the muscle stripping approach, the PRTF technique through intermuscular dissection approach provides a greater ROM in C1-C2 rotation after the removal of instrumentation.

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
Spine Journal
Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
680
审稿时长
13.1 weeks
期刊介绍: The Spine Journal, the official journal of the North American Spine Society, is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed articles on research and treatment related to the spine and spine care, including basic science and clinical investigations. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to The Spine Journal have not been published, and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere. The Spine Journal also publishes major reviews of specific topics by acknowledged authorities, technical notes, teaching editorials, and other special features, Letters to the Editor-in-Chief are encouraged.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信