World neurosurgery · 2021
Cortical Bone Trajectory-Based Dynamic Stabilization.
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.
Kuo Yi-Hsuan, Kuo Chao-Hung, Chang Hsuan-Kan, Ko Chin-Chu, Tu Tsung-Hsi, Chang Chih-Chang, Cheng Henrich, Lirng Jiing-Feng, Huang Wen-Cheng, Wu Jau-Ching
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screws have demonstrated similar biomechanical strength and fusion rates as conventional pedicle screws for short-segment lumbar fusion. However, very few studies have verified the viability of CBT screws in dynamic stabilization. In the present study, we compared the clinical outcomes of CBT-based Dynesys dynamic stabilization (CBT-DDS) with standard minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).
METHODS: Consecutive patients who had undergone CBT-DDS or MI-TLIF at L4-L5 or L3-L5 were retrospectively reviewed. All the radiological and clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. The patient-reported outcomes included the visual analog scale scores for back and leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, and Oswestry disability index. The pre- and postoperative radiological evaluations were also reviewed.
RESULTS: A total of 60 patients (20 patients in the CBT-DDS and 40 in the MI-TLIF groups) were analyzed. The MI-TLIF group had required a longer operation time (P = 0.010) than the CBT-DDS group but had had a similar estimated blood loss (P = 0.484). The perioperative complications, including screw loosening, wound infection, and radiculopathy, were similar in both groups (P > 0.05 for all). The degree of decreased range of motion after surgery was similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.781), and no pseudarthrosis developed in the MI-TLIF group.
CONCLUSIONS: Because the clinical and radiological outcomes of CBT-DDS were similar to those of MI-TLIF in patients with L4-L5 or L3-L5 spondylosis and spondylolisthesis, CBT-DDS appears to be a viable and effective alternative to MI-TLIF, with a shorter operation time and similarly limited segmental motility.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who had undergone CBT-DDS or MI-TLIF at L4-L5 or L3-L5 were retrospectively reviewed. All the radiological and clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. The patient-reported outcomes included the visual analog scale scores for back and leg pain, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, and Oswestry disability index. The pre- and postoperative radiological evaluations were also reviewed.
RESULTS: A total of 60 patients (20 patients in the CBT-DDS and 40 in the MI-TLIF groups) were analyzed. The MI-TLIF group had required a longer operation time (P = 0.010) than the CBT-DDS group but had had a similar estimated blood loss (P = 0.484). The perioperative complications, including screw loosening, wound infection, and radiculopathy, were similar in both groups (P > 0.05 for all). The degree of decreased range of motion after surgery was similar between the 2 groups (P = 0.781), and no pseudarthrosis developed in the MI-TLIF group.
CONCLUSIONS: Because the clinical and radiological outcomes of CBT-DDS were similar to those of MI-TLIF in patients with L4-L5 or L3-L5 spondylosis and spondylolisthesis, CBT-DDS appears to be a viable and effective alternative to MI-TLIF, with a shorter operation time and similarly limited segmental motility.