胸腰椎骨折,前后治疗:病例系列和文献综述

M. Kotb, A. Kotb, H. Anwer, M. Khattab
{"title":"胸腰椎骨折,前后治疗:病例系列和文献综述","authors":"M. Kotb, A. Kotb, H. Anwer, M. Khattab","doi":"10.21608/ESJ.2019.7091.1087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Data: The management of unstable traumatic thoracolumbar fractures has shifted from more conservative treatment towards more operative treatment modalities. Different surgical options have been reported in the literature. Purpose: To review two surgical techniques, anterolateral and posterior approaches, in management of thoraco-lumbar fractures and present a brief literature review. Study Design: A retrospective case series with review of literature. Patients and Methods: Thirty patients managed in the period from October 2012 to November 2016 for thoraco-lumbar burst fractures. Two patients’ groups were identified, group 1 underwent anterolateral fixation and included 15 patients whereas group 2 underwent posterior fixation and included 15 patients. Follow up was done at 3 months, 6 months and one year postoperative using VAS for pain assessment and ASIA scale for neurological status evaluation. Radiological outcome involved the vertebral height restoration, spinal canal compromise and kyphus deformity correction. Operative time, operative blood loss and perioperative complications were all reported for both groups. Results: The most common spinal level affected in our study was L1 vertebra in 10 cases. Operative time and blood loss were found to be significantly less in the posterior approach. A significant improvement of VAS has been reported in both study groups with more improvement in the posterior group compared to the anterolateral one. 93.3% of anterior group patients within the showed either improved or fixed neurological status according to ASIA scale where in posterior group all patients showed either improved or fixed neurological status. The mean canal compromise percentage decreased in group 1 from 69.3% preoperatively to 15.62% postoperative whereas in group 2 it decreased from 66.2% preoperative to 18.8%. Kyphotic angle has been corrected in posterior group from 13.42° preoperative to 11° at 6 months and 12.5° at one year, where in anterolateral group has been corrected from 19.42° to 17.57° and 20.9° respectively with a statistically significant difference between both groups (P<0.01). Conclusion: Our data suggest that both anterior and posterior approach showed no difference in neurological outcome in patients with thoraco-lumbar fractures. However anterior approach was superior to the posterior one in spinal canal compromise clearance and kyphotic angle correction.","PeriodicalId":11610,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thoracolumbar Fractures, Posterior versus Anterior Management: A Case Series and Literature Review\",\"authors\":\"M. Kotb, A. Kotb, H. Anwer, M. Khattab\",\"doi\":\"10.21608/ESJ.2019.7091.1087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Data: The management of unstable traumatic thoracolumbar fractures has shifted from more conservative treatment towards more operative treatment modalities. Different surgical options have been reported in the literature. Purpose: To review two surgical techniques, anterolateral and posterior approaches, in management of thoraco-lumbar fractures and present a brief literature review. Study Design: A retrospective case series with review of literature. Patients and Methods: Thirty patients managed in the period from October 2012 to November 2016 for thoraco-lumbar burst fractures. Two patients’ groups were identified, group 1 underwent anterolateral fixation and included 15 patients whereas group 2 underwent posterior fixation and included 15 patients. Follow up was done at 3 months, 6 months and one year postoperative using VAS for pain assessment and ASIA scale for neurological status evaluation. Radiological outcome involved the vertebral height restoration, spinal canal compromise and kyphus deformity correction. Operative time, operative blood loss and perioperative complications were all reported for both groups. Results: The most common spinal level affected in our study was L1 vertebra in 10 cases. Operative time and blood loss were found to be significantly less in the posterior approach. A significant improvement of VAS has been reported in both study groups with more improvement in the posterior group compared to the anterolateral one. 93.3% of anterior group patients within the showed either improved or fixed neurological status according to ASIA scale where in posterior group all patients showed either improved or fixed neurological status. The mean canal compromise percentage decreased in group 1 from 69.3% preoperatively to 15.62% postoperative whereas in group 2 it decreased from 66.2% preoperative to 18.8%. Kyphotic angle has been corrected in posterior group from 13.42° preoperative to 11° at 6 months and 12.5° at one year, where in anterolateral group has been corrected from 19.42° to 17.57° and 20.9° respectively with a statistically significant difference between both groups (P<0.01). Conclusion: Our data suggest that both anterior and posterior approach showed no difference in neurological outcome in patients with thoraco-lumbar fractures. However anterior approach was superior to the posterior one in spinal canal compromise clearance and kyphotic angle correction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Egyptian Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Egyptian Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21608/ESJ.2019.7091.1087\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ESJ.2019.7091.1087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景资料:不稳定创伤性胸腰椎骨折的治疗已从更保守的治疗方式转向更手术的治疗方式。文献中报道了不同的手术选择。目的:回顾两种治疗胸腰椎骨折的手术技术,前外侧入路和后入路,并简要回顾文献。研究设计:回顾性病例系列,并对文献进行回顾。患者和方法:2012年10月至2016年11月期间,30名患者因胸腰椎爆裂性骨折接受治疗。确定了两个患者组,第一组接受了前外侧固定,包括15名患者,而第二组接受了后固定,包括了15名患者。在术后3个月、6个月和1年进行随访,使用VAS进行疼痛评估,使用ASIA量表进行神经状态评估。影像学检查结果包括脊椎高度恢复、椎管内妥协和脊柱后凸畸形矫正。两组均报告了手术时间、手术出血量和围手术期并发症。结果:在我们的研究中,最常见的脊椎水平受到影响的是10例L1椎骨。术后入路的手术时间和出血量明显减少。据报道,两个研究组的VAS均有显著改善,与前侧组相比,后侧组的VAS改善更多。根据ASIA量表,93.3%的前组患者的神经状态改善或固定,其中后组所有患者的神经状况改善或固定。第1组的平均椎管内折损率从术前的69.3%下降到术后的15.62%,而第2组的平均管腔内折损百分比从术前66.2%下降到18.8%。后部组的后突角已从术前13.42°矫正到6个月时的11°和1年时的12.5°,其中前外侧组分别从19.42°矫正为17.57°和20.9°,两组之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。但前路在椎管折衷清除和后凸角矫正方面优于后路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Thoracolumbar Fractures, Posterior versus Anterior Management: A Case Series and Literature Review
Background Data: The management of unstable traumatic thoracolumbar fractures has shifted from more conservative treatment towards more operative treatment modalities. Different surgical options have been reported in the literature. Purpose: To review two surgical techniques, anterolateral and posterior approaches, in management of thoraco-lumbar fractures and present a brief literature review. Study Design: A retrospective case series with review of literature. Patients and Methods: Thirty patients managed in the period from October 2012 to November 2016 for thoraco-lumbar burst fractures. Two patients’ groups were identified, group 1 underwent anterolateral fixation and included 15 patients whereas group 2 underwent posterior fixation and included 15 patients. Follow up was done at 3 months, 6 months and one year postoperative using VAS for pain assessment and ASIA scale for neurological status evaluation. Radiological outcome involved the vertebral height restoration, spinal canal compromise and kyphus deformity correction. Operative time, operative blood loss and perioperative complications were all reported for both groups. Results: The most common spinal level affected in our study was L1 vertebra in 10 cases. Operative time and blood loss were found to be significantly less in the posterior approach. A significant improvement of VAS has been reported in both study groups with more improvement in the posterior group compared to the anterolateral one. 93.3% of anterior group patients within the showed either improved or fixed neurological status according to ASIA scale where in posterior group all patients showed either improved or fixed neurological status. The mean canal compromise percentage decreased in group 1 from 69.3% preoperatively to 15.62% postoperative whereas in group 2 it decreased from 66.2% preoperative to 18.8%. Kyphotic angle has been corrected in posterior group from 13.42° preoperative to 11° at 6 months and 12.5° at one year, where in anterolateral group has been corrected from 19.42° to 17.57° and 20.9° respectively with a statistically significant difference between both groups (P<0.01). Conclusion: Our data suggest that both anterior and posterior approach showed no difference in neurological outcome in patients with thoraco-lumbar fractures. However anterior approach was superior to the posterior one in spinal canal compromise clearance and kyphotic angle correction.
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
审稿时长
3 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信