使用和不使用辅助后部接线进行 C1-2 固定的比较。

Mai Tran, Rishi Wadhwa, John Ziewacz, Praveen Mummaneni, Dean Chou
{"title":"使用和不使用辅助后部接线进行 C1-2 固定的比较。","authors":"Mai Tran, Rishi Wadhwa, John Ziewacz, Praveen Mummaneni, Dean Chou","doi":"10.1055/s-0034-1371972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study Design Retrospective analysis. Clinical Question Is there a difference between the screw-rod construct (SRC) procedure without wiring and the SRC procedure with wiring with respect to fusion, implant failure, reoperation, donor-site morbidity, and complication rates? Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 26 patients who underwent C1-2 fixation between 2004 and 2012 (SRC with wiring and structural bone graft, 13 patients; SRC with autograft but without wiring, 13 patients). Fusion was assessed using dynamic X-rays in all patients and computed tomographic scans in selected cases. Pseudoarthrosis was confirmed during reoperation. Results The mean follow-up time was 2 years and 5 months for the SRC without wiring group and 2 years and 1 month for the SRC with wiring group. Patients with less than 1-year follow-up time were excluded. The fusion rate, implant failure rate, and reoperation rates for the SRC without wiring group were 92, 8, and 8%, respectively. The fusion, implant failure, and reoperation rates for the SRC with wiring group were 100, 0, and 0%, respectively. There were no donor-site morbidities or complications in either group (both 0%). There were no differences in parameters we examined between the two groups (p > 0.05 for each rate, Fisher exact test). Conclusions The results suggest that supplementing the SRC procedure with wiring may increase fusion rate, but this difference is not statistically significant. Although the sample size was small, there was not a significant discrepancy in outcomes between the two groups at an average follow-up of 2 years. [Table: see text]. </p>","PeriodicalId":89675,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"12-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969422/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between C1-2 Fixation with and without Supplemental Posterior Wiring.\",\"authors\":\"Mai Tran, Rishi Wadhwa, John Ziewacz, Praveen Mummaneni, Dean Chou\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0034-1371972\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Study Design Retrospective analysis. Clinical Question Is there a difference between the screw-rod construct (SRC) procedure without wiring and the SRC procedure with wiring with respect to fusion, implant failure, reoperation, donor-site morbidity, and complication rates? Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 26 patients who underwent C1-2 fixation between 2004 and 2012 (SRC with wiring and structural bone graft, 13 patients; SRC with autograft but without wiring, 13 patients). Fusion was assessed using dynamic X-rays in all patients and computed tomographic scans in selected cases. Pseudoarthrosis was confirmed during reoperation. Results The mean follow-up time was 2 years and 5 months for the SRC without wiring group and 2 years and 1 month for the SRC with wiring group. Patients with less than 1-year follow-up time were excluded. The fusion rate, implant failure rate, and reoperation rates for the SRC without wiring group were 92, 8, and 8%, respectively. The fusion, implant failure, and reoperation rates for the SRC with wiring group were 100, 0, and 0%, respectively. There were no donor-site morbidities or complications in either group (both 0%). There were no differences in parameters we examined between the two groups (p > 0.05 for each rate, Fisher exact test). Conclusions The results suggest that supplementing the SRC procedure with wiring may increase fusion rate, but this difference is not statistically significant. Although the sample size was small, there was not a significant discrepancy in outcomes between the two groups at an average follow-up of 2 years. [Table: see text]. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":89675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based spine-care journal\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"12-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969422/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based spine-care journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1371972\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based spine-care journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1371972","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计回顾性分析。临床问题 在融合、植入失败、再次手术、供体部位发病率和并发症发生率方面,无接线的螺钉连杆结构(SRC)手术与有接线的SRC手术是否存在差异?患者和方法 我们对 2004 年至 2012 年间接受 C1-2 固定术的 26 例患者进行了回顾性分析(13 例患者接受了带接线和结构性骨移植的 SRC 术;13 例患者接受了带自体移植但不带接线的 SRC 术)。所有患者的融合情况均通过动态 X 光片进行评估,部分病例通过计算机断层扫描进行评估。假关节在再次手术时得到确认。结果 SRC 无接线组的平均随访时间为 2 年 5 个月,SRC 有接线组的平均随访时间为 2 年 1 个月。随访时间不足 1 年的患者被排除在外。无布线 SRC 组的融合率、植入失败率和再手术率分别为 92%、8% 和 8%。有接线SRC组的融合率、植入失败率和再手术率分别为100%、0%和0%。两组均无供体部位发病或并发症(均为0%)。我们对两组之间的参数进行了检验,结果显示两组之间没有差异(费雪精确检验,每项比率的 p > 0.05)。结论 结果表明,SRC术中辅以接线可能会提高融合率,但这种差异在统计学上并不显著。虽然样本量较小,但在平均 2 年的随访中,两组的结果并无明显差异。[表:见正文]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison between C1-2 Fixation with and without Supplemental Posterior Wiring.

Comparison between C1-2 Fixation with and without Supplemental Posterior Wiring.

Study Design Retrospective analysis. Clinical Question Is there a difference between the screw-rod construct (SRC) procedure without wiring and the SRC procedure with wiring with respect to fusion, implant failure, reoperation, donor-site morbidity, and complication rates? Patients and Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 26 patients who underwent C1-2 fixation between 2004 and 2012 (SRC with wiring and structural bone graft, 13 patients; SRC with autograft but without wiring, 13 patients). Fusion was assessed using dynamic X-rays in all patients and computed tomographic scans in selected cases. Pseudoarthrosis was confirmed during reoperation. Results The mean follow-up time was 2 years and 5 months for the SRC without wiring group and 2 years and 1 month for the SRC with wiring group. Patients with less than 1-year follow-up time were excluded. The fusion rate, implant failure rate, and reoperation rates for the SRC without wiring group were 92, 8, and 8%, respectively. The fusion, implant failure, and reoperation rates for the SRC with wiring group were 100, 0, and 0%, respectively. There were no donor-site morbidities or complications in either group (both 0%). There were no differences in parameters we examined between the two groups (p > 0.05 for each rate, Fisher exact test). Conclusions The results suggest that supplementing the SRC procedure with wiring may increase fusion rate, but this difference is not statistically significant. Although the sample size was small, there was not a significant discrepancy in outcomes between the two groups at an average follow-up of 2 years. [Table: see text].

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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