Spine deformity · 2023
Development of a sacral fracture model to demonstrate effects on sagittal alignment.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Homer Cole J, Haselhuhn Jason J, Ellingson Arin M, Bechtold Joan E, Polly David W
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To develop a modeling framework to predict the secondary consequences on spinal alignment following correction and to demonstrate the impact of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) location on sagittal alignment.
METHODS: Six patients were included, and pelvic incidence (PI) was measured. Full-length standing radiographs were uploaded into PowerPoint and manipulated to model S1-S2 joint line sacral fractures at 15°, 20°, 25°, and 30°. PSO corrections with hinge points at the anterior superior corner and vertical midpoint of the L3-5 vertebral bodies were modeled. Anterior translation (AT) and vertical shortening (VS) were calculated for the six PSO locations in the four fracture angle (FA) models.
RESULTS: PI had a strong effect in the mixed AT and VS models (P < 0.001). Both AT and VS were significantly different from zero at all FA (p < 0.001), and pairwise comparisons revealed all FA were different from each other with respect to both AT and VS after adjusting for PSO location (p < 0.001), increasing as FA increased. Varying PSO location resulted in significant differences in AT when comparing all locations (p < 0.001). AT was greatest for all FA in all patients when the PSO correction was performed at the L3-AS (p < 0.001). There were significant differences in VS when comparing the L5-Mid PSO location to the L3-AS, L3-Mid, L4-AS, and L4-Mid PSO locations (p < 0.034).
CONCLUSION: PSO correction superior to a sacral fracture resulted in AT and VS of the spine. It is crucial that these changes in spinal measures be predicted and accounted for to optimize patient sagittal alignment and outcomes.
METHODS: Six patients were included, and pelvic incidence (PI) was measured. Full-length standing radiographs were uploaded into PowerPoint and manipulated to model S1-S2 joint line sacral fractures at 15°, 20°, 25°, and 30°. PSO corrections with hinge points at the anterior superior corner and vertical midpoint of the L3-5 vertebral bodies were modeled. Anterior translation (AT) and vertical shortening (VS) were calculated for the six PSO locations in the four fracture angle (FA) models.
RESULTS: PI had a strong effect in the mixed AT and VS models (P < 0.001). Both AT and VS were significantly different from zero at all FA (p < 0.001), and pairwise comparisons revealed all FA were different from each other with respect to both AT and VS after adjusting for PSO location (p < 0.001), increasing as FA increased. Varying PSO location resulted in significant differences in AT when comparing all locations (p < 0.001). AT was greatest for all FA in all patients when the PSO correction was performed at the L3-AS (p < 0.001). There were significant differences in VS when comparing the L5-Mid PSO location to the L3-AS, L3-Mid, L4-AS, and L4-Mid PSO locations (p < 0.034).
CONCLUSION: PSO correction superior to a sacral fracture resulted in AT and VS of the spine. It is crucial that these changes in spinal measures be predicted and accounted for to optimize patient sagittal alignment and outcomes.