Suppr超能文献

强直性脊柱炎颈椎骨折修复中后路与联合入路手术疗效比较

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of the Posterior and Combined Approaches for Repair of Cervical Fractures in Ankylosing Spondylitis.

作者信息

Luksanapruksa Panya, Millhouse Paul William, Carlson Victor, Ariyawatkul Thanase, Heller Joshua, Kepler Christopher Keppel

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University & Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

Asian Spine J. 2019 Jun;13(3):432-440. doi: 10.31616/asj.2018.0197. Epub 2019 Feb 13.

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE

To evaluate surgical outcomes and complications of cervical spine fractures in ankylosing spondylitis (CAS) patients who were treated using either the posterior (P) or combined approach (C).

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Ankylosing spondylitis typically causes progressive spinal stiffness that makes patients susceptible to spinal fractures. CAS is a highly unstable condition. There is contradictory evidence regarding which treatment option, the posterior or the combined approach, yields superior clinical results.

METHODS

A single institution database was reviewed for data in the period 1999 to 2015. All CAS patients who underwent posterior or combined instrumented fusion were enrolled. We analyzed demographic data, radiographic results, perioperative complications, and postoperative results.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were enrolled (23 in the P group, 10 in the C group). All patients presented with neck pain after a fall. In the P group, mean operative time was 161.1 minutes (100-327 minutes), and mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 306.4 mL (50-750 mL). In the C group, 90% of patients underwent a staged procedure, typically with posterior surgery first. Mean EBL was 124 mL (25-337 mL). For posterior surgery, mean EBL was 458.3 mL (400-550 mL). EBL of posterior surgery in the C group was higher but this difference was not significant (p=0.16). Postoperative complication rate was higher in the C group but this difference was not significant (50% vs. 17.4%, p=0.09). In the follow-up period, no late reoperations were performed. Patients who underwent C surgery had a higher rate of neurological improvement but this difference was not significant (p=0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

Both P and C provided good clinical results. P surgery had lower EBL, lower postoperative complication rate, and shorter length of stay than C surgery; none of these differences were statistically significant.

摘要

研究设计

回顾性队列研究。

目的

评估采用后路(P)或联合入路(C)治疗的强直性脊柱炎颈椎骨折(CAS)患者的手术结果及并发症。

文献综述

强直性脊柱炎通常会导致进行性脊柱僵硬,使患者易发生脊柱骨折。CAS是一种高度不稳定的病症。关于哪种治疗方案(后路或联合入路)能产生更好的临床效果,存在相互矛盾的证据。

方法

回顾了一家机构数据库中1999年至2015年期间的数据。纳入所有接受后路或联合器械融合术的CAS患者。我们分析了人口统计学数据、影像学结果、围手术期并发症及术后结果。

结果

共纳入33例患者(P组23例,C组10例)。所有患者均在跌倒后出现颈部疼痛。P组平均手术时间为161.1分钟(100 - 327分钟),平均估计失血量(EBL)为306.4毫升(50 - 750毫升)。C组中,90%的患者接受分期手术,通常先进行后路手术。平均EBL为124毫升(25 - 337毫升)。后路手术的平均EBL为458.3毫升(400 - 550毫升)。C组后路手术的EBL较高,但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.16)。C组术后并发症发生率较高,但差异无统计学意义(50%对17.4%,p = 0.09)。在随访期间,未进行晚期再次手术。接受C手术的患者神经功能改善率较高,但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.57)。

结论

P和C两种手术方式均取得了良好的临床效果。与C手术相比,P手术的EBL更低、术后并发症发生率更低且住院时间更短;但这些差异均无统计学意义。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4ec7/6547398/670288d25dea/asj-2018-0197f1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验