Suppr超能文献

经皮与开放后路稳定术治疗 AOSpine 分型 A3 胸腰椎骨折。

Percutaneous versus open posterior stabilization in AOSpine type A3 thoracolumbar fractures.

机构信息

Department of Trauma Surgery, BG Trauma Center Murnau, Professor-Küntscher Str. 8, 82418 Murnau, Murnau am Staffelsee, Germany.

Department of Orthopaedics, Trauma Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

出版信息

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Feb 5;21(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-3099-6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare treatment strategies of two level-one trauma centers regarding clinical and radiological outcomes focusing on non-osteoporotic AOSpine type A3 fractures of the thoracolumbar spine at levels T11 to L2.

METHODS

Eighty-seven patients between 18 and 65 years of age that were treated operatively in either of two trauma centers were included. One treatment strategy includes open posterior stabilization whereas the other uses percutaneous posterior stabilization. Both included additional anterior fusion if necessary. Demographic data, McCormack classification, duration of surgery, hospital stay and further parameters were assessed. Owestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and SF-36 were measured for functional outcome. Bisegmental kyphosis angle, reduction loss and sagittal alignment parameters were assessed for radiological outcome. Follow up was at least 24 months.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference regarding our primary functional outcome parameter (ODI) between both groups. Regarding radiological outcome kyphosis angle at time of follow up did not show a significant difference. Reduction loss at time of follow up was moderate in both groups with a significantly lower rate in the percutaneously stabilized group. Surgery time was significantly shorter for posterior stabilization and anterior fusion in the percutaneous group. Time of hospital stay was equal for posterior stabilization but shorter for anterior fusion in the open stabilized group.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment strategies are safe and effective showing only minor loss of reduction. Clinical relevant differences in functional and radiographic outcome between the two surgical groups could not be demonstrated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

It was conducted according to ICMJE guidelines and has been retrospectively registered with the German Clinical Trials Registry (identification number: DRKS00015693, 07.11.2018).

摘要

背景

本回顾性队列研究的目的是比较两个一级创伤中心的治疗策略,重点关注 T11 至 L2 水平非骨质疏松性 AOSpine 型 A3 胸腰椎骨折的临床和影像学结果。

方法

纳入了在两个创伤中心接受手术治疗的 87 名年龄在 18 至 65 岁之间的患者。一种治疗策略包括开放性后路稳定,另一种则采用经皮后路稳定,如果需要,还包括额外的前路融合。评估了人口统计学数据、麦考密克分类、手术时间、住院时间和其他参数。采用 Owestry 残疾指数(ODI)、视觉模拟评分(VAS)和 SF-36 评估功能结果。评估影像学结果的矢状面和双节段后凸角、复位丢失和对线参数。随访时间至少 24 个月。

结果

两组之间主要的功能结果参数(ODI)没有显著差异。在影像学结果方面,随访时的后凸角没有显著差异。两组随访时的复位丢失均为中度,经皮稳定组的复位丢失率明显较低。后路稳定和前路融合的手术时间在经皮组明显缩短。后路稳定的住院时间相同,但前路融合的住院时间在开放稳定组较短。

结论

两种治疗策略都是安全有效的,仅显示轻微的复位丢失。在功能和影像学结果方面,两组手术之间没有明显的差异。

试验注册

本研究符合 ICMJE 指南,并已在德国临床试验注册中心(注册号:DRKS00015693,2018 年 11 月 7 日)进行了回顾性注册。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3444/7003397/18ea57bbb199/12891_2020_3099_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验