Suppr超能文献

三种不同手术入路和方法治疗神经功能正常的胸腰椎骨折的比较:一项回顾性研究。

A comparison of three different surgery approaches and methods for neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures: a retrospective study.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics, The Affiliated Jiangning Hospital with Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, People's Republic of China.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Affiliated Jiangning Hospital with Nanjing Medical University, No. 169 Hushan Road, Nanjing, 211100, Jiangsu Province, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 May 10;16(1):306. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02459-6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of conventional open pedicle screw fixation (COPSF), percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF), and paraspinal posterior open approach pedicle screw fixation (POPSF) for treating neurologically intact thoracolumbar fractures.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 108 patients who were posteriorly stabilized without graft fusion. Among them, 36 patients underwent COPSF, 38 patients underwent PPSF, and 34 patients underwent POPSF. The clinical outcomes, relative operation indexes, and radiological findings were assessed and compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

All of the patients were followed up for a mean time of 20 months. The PPSF group and POPSF group had shorter operation times, lower amounts of intraoperative blood loss, and shorter postoperative hospital stays than the COPSF group (P < 0.05). The radiation times and hospitalization costs were highest in the PPSF group (P < 0.05). Every group exhibited significant improvements in the Cobb angle (CA) and the vertebral body angle (VBA) correction (all P < 0.05). The COPSF group and the POPSF group had better improvements than the PPSF group at 3 days postoperation and the POPSF group had the best improvements in the last follow-up (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both PPSF and POPSF achieved similar effects as COPSF while also resulting in lower incidences of injury. PPSF is more advantageous in the early rehabilitation time period, compared with COPSF, but POPSF is a better option when considering the long-term effects, the costs of treatment, and the radiation times.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估和比较传统经皮椎弓根螺钉固定术(COPSF)、经皮椎弓根螺钉固定术(PPSF)和经椎旁后路开放椎弓根螺钉固定术(POPSF)治疗神经完整胸腰椎骨折的可行性、安全性和疗效。

方法

我们回顾性分析了 108 例未行植骨融合的后路稳定患者。其中,36 例行 COPSF,38 例行 PPSF,34 例行 POPSF。评估和比较了 3 组患者的临床结果、相关手术指标和影像学发现。

结果

所有患者平均随访 20 个月。与 COPSF 组相比,PPSF 组和 POPSF 组手术时间更短,术中出血量更少,术后住院时间更短(P < 0.05)。PPSF 组的放射时间和住院费用最高(P < 0.05)。每组的 Cobb 角(CA)和椎体角(VBA)矫正均有显著改善(均 P < 0.05)。术后 3 天,COPSF 组和 POPSF 组的改善情况优于 PPSF 组,POPSF 组末次随访时的改善情况最佳(P < 0.05)。

结论

PPSF 和 POPSF 与 COPSF 一样能取得相似的效果,同时损伤发生率更低。与 COPSF 相比,PPSF 在早期康复时间方面更有优势,但从长期效果、治疗费用和放射时间来看,POPSF 是更好的选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e6ca/8108453/022f0d29aebc/13018_2021_2459_Fig1_HTML.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