文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

术中影像引导方式和神经生理监测对骶髂关节融合术安全性的影响

The Impact of Intraoperative Image-Guidance Modalities and Neurophysiologic Monitoring in the Safety of Sacroiliac Fusions.

作者信息

Montenegro Thiago Scharth, Hoelscher Christian, Hines Kevin, Thalheimer Sara, Matias Caio, Wilent Bryan, Harrop James, Heller Joshua E

机构信息

Department of Neurosurgery, 6559Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Hospital for Neuroscience, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Clinical Neurophysiology, 17389SpecialtyCare, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

Global Spine J. 2022 Sep;12(7):1400-1406. doi: 10.1177/2192568220981977. Epub 2021 Jan 12.


DOI:10.1177/2192568220981977
PMID:33432824
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9393999/
Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. OBJECTIVE: A review of efficiency and safety of fluoroscopy and stereotactic navigation system for minimally invasive (MIS) Sacroiliac (SI) fusion through a lateral technique. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of an observational cohort of 96 patients greater than 18 years old, that underwent MIS SI fusion guided by fluoroscopy or navigation between January 2013 and April 2020 with a minimum of 3 months follow-up. Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) with a variable combination of electromyography (EMG), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) was also utilized. RESULTS: The overall complication rate in the study was 9.4%, and there was no difference between the fluoroscopy (10.1%), and navigation groups (8%). Neurological complication rate was 2.1%, without a significant difference between both intraoperative guidance modality groups (p = 0.227). There was a significant difference between the modalities of IONM used and the occurrence of neurological injury (p = 0.01).The 2 patients who had a neurological complication postoperatively were monitored only with EMG and SSEP, but none of the patients (n = 76) in which MEPs were utilized had neurologic complication. The mean pain improvement 3 months after surgery was greater in the navigation group (2.44 ± 2.72), but was not statistically different than the improvement in the fluoroscopy group (1.90 ± 2.07) (p = 0.301). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in the safety of the procedure was found between the fluoroscopy and the stereotactic navigation techniques. The contribution of the IONM to the safety of SI fusions could not be determined, but the data indicates that MEPs provide the highest level of sensitivity.

摘要

研究设计:回顾性观察队列研究。 目的:回顾透视和立体定向导航系统用于经外侧技术的微创骶髂关节融合术的效率和安全性。 方法:对96例年龄大于18岁的观察队列患者进行回顾性分析,这些患者在2013年1月至2020年4月期间接受了透视或导航引导下的微创骶髂关节融合术,且随访至少3个月。术中还采用了肌电图(EMG)、体感诱发电位(SSEP)和运动诱发电位(MEP)的不同组合进行神经监测(IONM)。 结果:该研究中的总体并发症发生率为9.4%,透视组(10.1%)和导航组(8%)之间无差异。神经并发症发生率为2.1%,两种术中引导方式组之间无显著差异(p = 0.227)。所使用的IONM方式与神经损伤的发生之间存在显著差异(p = 0.01)。术后发生神经并发症的2例患者仅接受了EMG和SSEP监测,但使用MEP的患者(n = 76)均未发生神经并发症。导航组术后3个月的平均疼痛改善程度更大(2.44±2.72),但与透视组的改善程度(1.90±2.07)无统计学差异(p = 0.301)。 结论:透视和立体定向导航技术在该手术安全性方面未发现差异。IONM对骶髂关节融合术安全性的贡献尚无法确定,但数据表明MEP具有最高的敏感性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c8b2/9393999/ab92c1ca8808/10.1177_2192568220981977-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c8b2/9393999/5a435afd1954/10.1177_2192568220981977-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c8b2/9393999/99d4ca4e2986/10.1177_2192568220981977-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c8b2/9393999/ab92c1ca8808/10.1177_2192568220981977-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c8b2/9393999/5a435afd1954/10.1177_2192568220981977-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c8b2/9393999/99d4ca4e2986/10.1177_2192568220981977-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c8b2/9393999/ab92c1ca8808/10.1177_2192568220981977-fig3.jpg

相似文献

[1]
The Impact of Intraoperative Image-Guidance Modalities and Neurophysiologic Monitoring in the Safety of Sacroiliac Fusions.

Global Spine J. 2022-9

[2]
Intraoperative Neuromonitoring During Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Neurospine. 2021-9

[3]
Use of motor evoked potentials during lateral lumbar interbody fusion reduces postoperative deficits.

Spine J. 2018-4-3

[4]
Utility of motor evoked potentials to diagnose and reduce lower extremity motor nerve root injuries during 4,386 extradural posterior lumbosacral spine procedures.

Spine J. 2019-8-31

[5]
What is the predictive value of intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring for postoperative neurological deficit in cervical spine surgery?-a meta-analysis.

Spine J. 2021-4

[6]
Intraoperative Neuromonitoring and Lumbar Spinal Instrumentation: Indications and Utility.

Neurodiagn J. 2021-3

[7]
Diagnostic Accuracy of Neuromonitoring for Identification of New Neurologic Deficits in Pediatric Spinal Fusion Surgery.

Anesth Analg. 2016-12

[8]
Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring for Adult Patients Undergoing Posterior Spinal Fusion.

World Neurosurg. 2017-3

[9]
Predictive value of neurophysiologic monitoring during neurovascular intervention for postoperative new neurologic deficits.

Neuroradiology. 2019-2

[10]
Intraoperative Spinal Cord Monitoring Does Not Decrease New Postoperative Neurological Deficits in Patients With Cervical Radiculopathy or Spondylotic Myelopathy Undergoing One or Two Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy And Fusion.

Iowa Orthop J. 2021

引用本文的文献

[1]
Clinical outcome measures following lateral versus posterior sacroiliac joint fusion: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Brain Spine. 2025-2-12

本文引用的文献

[1]
Randomized Trial of Sacroiliac Joint Arthrodesis Compared with Conservative Management for Chronic Low Back Pain Attributed to the Sacroiliac Joint.

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019-3-6

[2]
Transcranial Motor Evoked Potential Alarm Criteria to Predict Foot Drop Injury During Lumbosacral Surgery.

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018-2-15

[3]
Postoperative complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion.

Spine J. 2016-11

[4]
Randomized Controlled Trial of Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Using Triangular Titanium Implants vs Nonsurgical Management for Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: 12-Month Outcomes.

Neurosurgery. 2015-11

[5]
Utility of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring during Minimally Invasive Fusion of the Sacroiliac Joint.

Adv Orthop. 2014

[6]
Three-dimensional navigation is more accurate than two-dimensional navigation or conventional fluoroscopy for percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation in the dysmorphic sacrum: a randomized multicenter study.

J Orthop Trauma. 2014-12

[7]
Utilization of Minimally Invasive Surgical Approach for Sacroiliac Joint Fusion in Surgeon Population of ISASS and SMISS Membership.

Open Orthop J. 2014-1-24

[8]
Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes.

Ann Surg Innov Res. 2013-10-30

[9]
Analysis of postmarket complaints database for the iFuse SI Joint Fusion System®: a minimally invasive treatment for degenerative sacroiliitis and sacroiliac joint disruption.

Med Devices (Auckl). 2013-5-29

[10]
Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: indications, efficacy, and role of the preoperative checklist.

Neurosurg Focus. 2012-11

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

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索