Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Songjiang District Central Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai General Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024 Apr;34(3):1609-1617. doi: 10.1007/s00590-024-03849-2. Epub 2024 Feb 16.
A retrospective cohort study.
To compare the safety and clinical efficacy between using cement-augmented pedicle screws (CAPS) and conventional pedicle screws (CPS) for the treatment of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis. Management of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis undergoing spine surgery is challenging. The clinical efficacy and potential complications of the mid-term performance of the CAPS technique in the treatment of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis remain to be evaluated.
The data of 131 lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis who were treated with screw fixation from May 2016 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. The patients were divided into the following two groups according to the type of screw used: (I) the CAPS group (n = 85); and (II) the CPS group (n = 46). Relevant data were compared between two groups, including the demographics data, clinical results and complications.
The difference in the VAS, ODI and JOA scores at three and 6 months after the operation between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). At 12 months after surgery and the final follow-up, a significant difference in the fusion rate was found between the two groups (P < 0.05). Four cemented screws loosening were observed in the CAPS group (loosening rate 4/384, 1.04%) and 15 screws loosening were observed in the CPS group (loosening rate 15/214, 7.01%). In the CAPS group, a total of 384 augmented screws were used, and cement leakage was observed in 25 screws (25/384, 6.51%), but no obvious clinical symptoms or serious complications were observed. Adjacent vertebral fractures occurred in six patients in the CAPS group and one in the CPS group.
CAPS technique is an effective strategy for the treatment of lumbar degenerative patients with osteoporosis, with a higher fusion rate and lower screw loosening rate than CPS.
回顾性队列研究。
比较骨水泥增强椎弓根螺钉(CAPS)和传统椎弓根螺钉(CPS)治疗腰椎退行性骨质疏松患者的安全性和临床疗效。骨质疏松性腰椎退行性疾病患者的脊柱手术管理具有挑战性。CAPS 技术治疗腰椎退行性骨质疏松症患者的中期疗效及其潜在并发症仍有待评估。
回顾性分析了 2016 年 5 月至 2019 年 12 月采用螺钉固定治疗的 131 例腰椎退行性骨质疏松症患者的数据。根据使用的螺钉类型,将患者分为以下两组:(I)CAPS 组(n=85);和(II)CPS 组(n=46)。比较两组间相关数据,包括一般资料、临床结果及并发症。
术后 3 个月和 6 个月时两组 VAS、ODI 和 JOA 评分差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后 12 个月和末次随访时,两组融合率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。CAPS 组有 4 枚骨水泥螺钉松动(松动率 4/384,1.04%),CPS 组有 15 枚螺钉松动(松动率 15/214,7.01%)。在 CAPS 组中,共使用 384 枚增强螺钉,25 枚螺钉出现水泥渗漏(25/384,6.51%),但未观察到明显的临床症状或严重并发症。CAPS 组有 6 例患者发生邻近椎体骨折,CPS 组有 1 例患者发生邻近椎体骨折。
CAPS 技术是治疗腰椎退行性骨质疏松症的有效策略,融合率高于 CPS,螺钉松动率较低。