Clinical spine surgery · 2021
Clinical Comparison of Combined Cortical Bone Trajectory and Transarticular Surface Screw Versus Standard Pedicle Screw Insertion by Wiltse Approach for L5 Isthmic Spondylolisthesis.
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.
Terai Hidetomi, Tamai Koji, Takahashi Shinji, Umano Masayuki, Iwamae Masayoshi, Toyoda Hiromitsu, Suzuki Akinobu, Hoshino Masatoshi, Nakamura Hiroaki
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and invasiveness of a combined screw insertion technique [using cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw and transarticular surface screw (TASS)] for patients with L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbosacral posterior fixation using TASS is safe, with high biomechanical strength. However, data regarding its clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and invasiveness, are lacking.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 111 patients who underwent single-level L5-S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis. The cohort was stratified into 2 groups: the Wiltse group included patients who underwent PLIF between 2008 and 2013 with standard pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach and the CBT/TASS group included those who underwent PLIF from 2014 onward with CBT/TASS fixation. After propensity score matching of the CBT/TASS and Wiltse groups, the surgical times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of in-hospital stays, clinical scores, serum creatine kinase concentration, radiographic parameters, and bone union rate were compared using the χ2 test or Mann-Whitney U test. In addition, multivariate linear regression analyses, with surgical time and EBL as objective variables applied after Box-Cox transformation, were performed.
RESULTS: The matched CBT/TASS group showed significantly shorter surgical times (P<0.001), lower EBL (P=0.032), shorter in-hospital stays (P=0.005), and lower 3-day postoperative serum creatine kinase concentrations (P=0.014) than the matched Wiltse group. However, neither the postoperative grade of spondylolisthesis, the L5-S1 lordotic angle, nor the clinical scores were significantly different between matched groups. The bone union rates were 94.7% and 96.2% in the matched CBT/TASS and Wiltse groups, respectively (P=1.000). Regression analysis showed that CBT/TASS was an independent factor significantly related to shorter surgical times and lower EBL (P<0.001 and P=0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Compared with Wiltse approach, CBT/TASS is a less invasive technique, with a shorter surgical time and sufficient clinical outcomes for patients with L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-treatment benefits.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and invasiveness of a combined screw insertion technique [using cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw and transarticular surface screw (TASS)] for patients with L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbosacral posterior fixation using TASS is safe, with high biomechanical strength. However, data regarding its clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and invasiveness, are lacking.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 111 patients who underwent single-level L5-S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis. The cohort was stratified into 2 groups: the Wiltse group included patients who underwent PLIF between 2008 and 2013 with standard pedicle screw fixation via Wiltse approach and the CBT/TASS group included those who underwent PLIF from 2014 onward with CBT/TASS fixation. After propensity score matching of the CBT/TASS and Wiltse groups, the surgical times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of in-hospital stays, clinical scores, serum creatine kinase concentration, radiographic parameters, and bone union rate were compared using the χ2 test or Mann-Whitney U test. In addition, multivariate linear regression analyses, with surgical time and EBL as objective variables applied after Box-Cox transformation, were performed.
RESULTS: The matched CBT/TASS group showed significantly shorter surgical times (P<0.001), lower EBL (P=0.032), shorter in-hospital stays (P=0.005), and lower 3-day postoperative serum creatine kinase concentrations (P=0.014) than the matched Wiltse group. However, neither the postoperative grade of spondylolisthesis, the L5-S1 lordotic angle, nor the clinical scores were significantly different between matched groups. The bone union rates were 94.7% and 96.2% in the matched CBT/TASS and Wiltse groups, respectively (P=1.000). Regression analysis showed that CBT/TASS was an independent factor significantly related to shorter surgical times and lower EBL (P<0.001 and P=0.001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Compared with Wiltse approach, CBT/TASS is a less invasive technique, with a shorter surgical time and sufficient clinical outcomes for patients with L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-treatment benefits.