Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chinese journal of surgery] · 2006
[Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion with preserved posterior vertebral wall for multi-level cervical spondylosis: a prospective random study of 84 cases].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Yuan Wen, Zhang Ying, Wang Xin-wei, Zhang Jun-jie, Xu Sheng-ming, Zhang Tao, Zhang Jing
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion with preserved posterior vertebral wall (PWCF) with the classical anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion (ACF).
METHODS: Eighty-four patients with multi-level cervical spondylosis were randomized to ACF (n = 42) or PWCF (n = 42). Postoperative JOA score were evaluated by an independent observer. Fusion rate, segmental lordosis, and disc height were assessed by radiographs at postoperative 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Fusion evidence was observed by CT scan.
RESULTS: JOA score improvement was similar for both treatments. The operation time was shorter in the PWCF group than in the ACF group. The intraoperative blood loss was less in the PWCF group than in the ACF group. Fusion rate was 100% for both groups 3 months after operation. The segmental lordosis and the disc height increased were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Except for reduced risk, time and blood loss during the operation, PWCF is the same as for ACF procedure. Reservation of posterior vertebral wall results in more reliable fusion. But replication of the results by other team and intensive assessment still need to be carried out.
METHODS: Eighty-four patients with multi-level cervical spondylosis were randomized to ACF (n = 42) or PWCF (n = 42). Postoperative JOA score were evaluated by an independent observer. Fusion rate, segmental lordosis, and disc height were assessed by radiographs at postoperative 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Fusion evidence was observed by CT scan.
RESULTS: JOA score improvement was similar for both treatments. The operation time was shorter in the PWCF group than in the ACF group. The intraoperative blood loss was less in the PWCF group than in the ACF group. Fusion rate was 100% for both groups 3 months after operation. The segmental lordosis and the disc height increased were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Except for reduced risk, time and blood loss during the operation, PWCF is the same as for ACF procedure. Reservation of posterior vertebral wall results in more reliable fusion. But replication of the results by other team and intensive assessment still need to be carried out.