European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022
Combined anterior-posterior versus all-posterior approaches for adult spinal deformity correction: a matched control study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Haddad Sleiman, Vila-Casademunt Alba, Yilgor Çaglar, Nuñez-Pereira Susana, Ramirez Manuel, Pizones Javier, Alanay Ahmet, Kleinstuck Frank, Obeid Ibrahim, Pérez-Grueso Francisco Javier Sánchez, Pellisé Ferran, European Spine Study Group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Anterior approaches are gaining popularity for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgeries especially with the introduction of hyperlordotic cages and improvement in MIS techniques. Combined Approaches provide powerful segmental sagittal correction potential and increase the surface area available for fusion in ASD surgery, both of which would improve overall. This is the first study directly comparing surgical outcomes between combined anterior-posterior approaches and all-posterior approach in a matched ASD population.
METHODS: This is a retrospective matched control cohort analysis with substitution using a multicenter prospectively collected ASD data of patients with > 2 year FU. Matching criteria include: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Score, Lumbar Cobb angle, sagittal deformity (Global tilt) and ODI.
RESULTS: In total, 1024 ASD patients were available for analysis. 29 Combined Approaches patients met inclusion criteria, and only 22 could be matched (1:2 ratio). Preoperative non-matched demographical, clinical, surgical and radiological parameters were comparable between both groups. Combined approaches had longer surgeries (548 mns vs 283) with more blood loss (2850 ml vs 1471) and needed longer ICU stays (74 h vs 27). Despite added morbidity, they had comparable complication rates but with significantly less readmissions (9.1% vs 38.1%) and reoperations (18.2% vs 43.2%) at 2 years. Combined Approaches achieved more individualised and harmonious deformity correction initially. At the 2 years control, Combined Approaches patients reported better outcomes as measured by COMI and SRS scores. This trend was maintained at 3 years.
CONCLUSION: Despite an increased initial surgical invasiveness, combined approaches seem to achieve more harmonious correction with superior sagittal deformity control; they need fewer revisions and have improved long-term functional outcomes when compared to all-posterior approaches for ASD deformity correction.
METHODS: This is a retrospective matched control cohort analysis with substitution using a multicenter prospectively collected ASD data of patients with > 2 year FU. Matching criteria include: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Score, Lumbar Cobb angle, sagittal deformity (Global tilt) and ODI.
RESULTS: In total, 1024 ASD patients were available for analysis. 29 Combined Approaches patients met inclusion criteria, and only 22 could be matched (1:2 ratio). Preoperative non-matched demographical, clinical, surgical and radiological parameters were comparable between both groups. Combined approaches had longer surgeries (548 mns vs 283) with more blood loss (2850 ml vs 1471) and needed longer ICU stays (74 h vs 27). Despite added morbidity, they had comparable complication rates but with significantly less readmissions (9.1% vs 38.1%) and reoperations (18.2% vs 43.2%) at 2 years. Combined Approaches achieved more individualised and harmonious deformity correction initially. At the 2 years control, Combined Approaches patients reported better outcomes as measured by COMI and SRS scores. This trend was maintained at 3 years.
CONCLUSION: Despite an increased initial surgical invasiveness, combined approaches seem to achieve more harmonious correction with superior sagittal deformity control; they need fewer revisions and have improved long-term functional outcomes when compared to all-posterior approaches for ASD deformity correction.