1Department of Neurosurgery and.
2School of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Mar 1;46(3):E4. doi: 10.3171/2018.12.FOCUS18577.
OBJECTIVEWhile blunt spinal trauma accounts for the majority of spine trauma, penetrating injuries affect a substantial number of patients. The goal of this study was to examine the epidemiology of penetrating spine injuries compared with blunt injuries and review the operative interventions and outcomes in the penetrating spine injury group.METHODSThe prospectively maintained trauma database was queried for spinal fractures from 2012 to 2018. Charts from patients with penetrating spine trauma were reviewed.RESULTSA total of 1130 patients were evaluated for traumatic spinal fractures; 154 injuries (13.6%) were secondary to penetrating injuries. Patients with penetrating injuries were significantly younger (29.2 years vs 44.1 years, p < 0.001), more likely male (87.7% vs 69.2%, p < 0.001), and more commonly African American (80.5% vs 33.3%, p < 0.05). When comparing primary insurers, the penetrating group had a significantly higher percentage of patients covered by Medicaid (60.4% vs 32.6%, p < 0.05) or prison (3.9% vs 0.1%, p < 0.05) or being uninsured (17.5% vs 10.3%, p < 0.05). The penetrating group had a higher Injury Severity Score on admission (20.2 vs 15.6, p < 0.001) and longer hospital length of stay (20.1 days vs 10.3 days, p < 0.001) and were less likely to be discharged home (51.3% vs 65.1%, p < 0.05). Of the penetrating injuries, 142 (92.2%) were due to firearms. Sixty-three patients (40.9%) with penetrating injuries had a concomitant spinal cord or cauda equina injury. Of those, 44 (69.8%) had an American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grade of A. Ten patients (15.9%) improved at least 1 AIS grade, while 2 patients (3.2%) declined at least 1 AIS grade. Nine patients with penetrating injuries underwent neurosurgical intervention: 5 for spinal instability, 4 for compressive lesions with declining neurological examination results, and 2 for infectious concerns, with some patients having multiple indications. Patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention did not show a significantly greater change in AIS grade than those who did not. No patient experienced a complication directly related to neurosurgical intervention.CONCLUSIONSPenetrating spinal trauma affects a younger, more publicly funded cohort than blunt spinal trauma. These patients utilize more healthcare resources and are more severely injured. Surgery is undertaken for limiting progression of neurological deficit, stabilization, or infection control.
目的
虽然钝性脊柱创伤占脊柱创伤的大多数,但穿透性损伤也会影响大量患者。本研究的目的是比较穿透性脊柱损伤与钝性损伤的流行病学,并回顾穿透性脊柱损伤组的手术干预和结果。
方法
前瞻性维护的创伤数据库从 2012 年至 2018 年查询脊柱骨折。对穿透性脊柱创伤患者的图表进行了回顾。
结果
共评估了 1130 例创伤性脊柱骨折患者;154 例(13.6%)为穿透性损伤。穿透性损伤患者明显更年轻(29.2 岁 vs 44.1 岁,p < 0.001),更可能为男性(87.7% vs 69.2%,p < 0.001),且更常见于非裔美国人(80.5% vs 33.3%,p < 0.05)。在比较主要保险时,穿透组有更高比例的患者由医疗补助(60.4% vs 32.6%,p < 0.05)或监狱(3.9% vs 0.1%,p < 0.05)或无保险(17.5% vs 10.3%,p < 0.05)覆盖。穿透组入院时的损伤严重程度评分更高(20.2 分 vs 15.6 分,p < 0.001),住院时间更长(20.1 天 vs 10.3 天,p < 0.001),且更不可能出院回家(51.3% vs 65.1%,p < 0.05)。穿透伤中,142 例(92.2%)是由枪支造成的。63 例(40.9%)穿透性损伤患者合并脊髓或马尾神经损伤。其中,44 例(69.8%)美国脊髓损伤协会损伤分级(AIS)为 A 级。10 例(15.9%)患者的 AIS 分级至少提高了 1 级,而 2 例(3.2%)患者至少降低了 1 级。9 例穿透性损伤患者接受了神经外科干预:5 例为脊柱不稳定,4 例为压迫性病变伴神经功能检查结果下降,2 例为感染性病变,部分患者有多种适应证。接受神经外科干预的患者的 AIS 分级变化并不显著大于未接受神经外科干预的患者。没有患者出现直接与神经外科干预相关的并发症。
结论
穿透性脊柱创伤影响的是比钝性脊柱创伤更年轻、更多依赖公共资金的患者群体。这些患者使用更多的医疗资源,损伤更严重。手术是为了控制神经功能缺损的进展、稳定脊柱或控制感染。