Lang Siegmund, Neumann Carsten, Fiedler Lasse, Alt Volker, Loibl Markus, Kerschbaum Maximilian
Department of Trauma Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Department of Spine Surgery, Schulthess Clinic Zurich, Lenghalde 2, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland.
J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 12;10(6):1185. doi: 10.3390/jcm10061185.
It remains questionable if the treatment of cervical fractures with dynamic plates in trauma surgery provides adequate stability for unstable fractures with disco-ligamentous injuries. The primary goal of this study was to assess the radiological and mid-term patient-reported outcome of traumatic subaxial cervical fractures treated with different plate systems.
Patients, treated with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) between 2001 and 2015, using either a dynamic plate (DP: Mambo™, Ulrich, Germany) or a rigid locking plate (RP: CSLP™, Depuy Synthes, USA), were identified. For radiological evaluation, the sagittal alignment, the sagittal anterior translation and the bony consolidation were evaluated. After at least two years, the patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) were evaluated using the German Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Neck Disability Index (NDI) and the EuroQol in 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores.
33 patients met the inclusion criteria (DP: 13; RP:20). Twenty-six patients suffered from AO Type B or C fractures. Both the sagittal alignment and the sagittal translation could be sufficiently improved in both groups ( ≥ 0.05). No significant loss of reduction could be observed at the follow-up in both groups ( ≥ 0.05). Bony consolidation could be observed in 30 patients (DP: 12/13 (92%); RP: 18/20 (90%); ( ≥ 0.05)). In 20 patients, PROMs could be evaluated (follow-up: 71.2 ± 25.5 months). The whole cohort showed satisfactory PROM results (EQ-5D: 72.0 ± 4.9; SF-36 PCS: 41.9 ± 16.2, MCS: 45.4 ± 14.9; NDI: 11.0 ± 9.1). without significant differences between the DP and RP group ( ≥ 0.05) Conclusion: The dynamic plate concept provides enough stability without a difference in fusion rates in comparison to rigid locking plates in a population that mostly suffered fragile fractures.
在创伤手术中,使用动力型钢板治疗颈椎骨折能否为伴有椎间盘韧带损伤的不稳定骨折提供足够的稳定性仍存在疑问。本研究的主要目的是评估采用不同钢板系统治疗创伤性下颈椎骨折的影像学结果及患者中期报告的预后情况。
确定2001年至2015年间接受颈椎前路椎间盘切除融合术(ACDF)治疗的患者,这些患者使用的是动力型钢板(DP:Mambo™,德国乌尔里希公司)或刚性锁定钢板(RP:CSLP™,美国迪普伊辛迪思公司)。对于影像学评估,评估矢状面排列、矢状面前方移位和骨融合情况。至少两年后,使用德国简短健康调查问卷(SF-36)、颈部功能障碍指数(NDI)和五维度欧洲生活质量量表(EQ-5D)评分对患者报告的预后指标(PROM)进行评估。
33例患者符合纳入标准(DP组:13例;RP组:20例)。26例患者为AO B型或C型骨折。两组的矢状面排列和矢状面移位均得到充分改善(≥0.05)。两组随访时均未观察到明显的复位丢失(≥0.05)。30例患者观察到骨融合(DP组:12/13(92%);RP组:18/20(90%);(≥0.05))。20例患者的PROM可进行评估(随访时间:71.2±25.5个月)。整个队列显示出令人满意的PROM结果(EQ-5D:72.0±4.9;SF-36身体成分评分(PCS):41.9±16.2,心理成分评分(MCS):45.4±14.9;NDI:11.0±9.1)。DP组和RP组之间无显著差异(≥0.05)。结论:在大多数为脆性骨折的人群中,与刚性锁定钢板相比,动力型钢板概念提供了足够的稳定性,且融合率无差异。