MedElevator
Войти в исследования Radiology · 2002
Unilateral transpedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty: initial experience.
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.
Kim Ann K, Jensen Mary E, Dion Jacques E, Schweickert Patricia A, Kaufmann Timothy J, Kallmes David F
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of a unipediculate approach with those of standard bipediculate vertebroplasty.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of percutaneous vertebroplasties yielded 18 vertebrae in 17 patients that were treated with a standard bipediculate approach and 57 vertebrae in 32 patients that were treated with a modified unipediculate approach. Anteroposterior radiographs obtained after the procedure were viewed to calculate the percentage of cement opacification in both vertebral halves, and mean values were compared between uni- and bipediculate approaches by using a two-tailed Student t test. Clinical outcomes, including pain relief and change in pain medication requirements, were compared in the two groups by using the chi(2) or Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: With the unipediculate approach, filling across the midline was achieved in 55 (96%) of 57 injections. Mean opacification of vertebral body halves was 83% +/- 19 (SD) and 77% +/- 16 for the bipediculate and unipediculate approaches, respectively (P =.19). Among patients with available follow-up data, 16 (94%) of 17 patients who underwent the bipediculate procedure and 28 (88%) of 32 patients who underwent the unipediculate procedure achieved adequate pain relief (P =.65) with mean decreases in pain severity of 7.3 +/- 3.1 and 6.6 +/- 2.9, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Use of a unipediculate approach in percutaneous vertebroplasty allows filling of both vertebral halves from a single puncture site with no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome from that of bipediculate vertebroplasty.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of percutaneous vertebroplasties yielded 18 vertebrae in 17 patients that were treated with a standard bipediculate approach and 57 vertebrae in 32 patients that were treated with a modified unipediculate approach. Anteroposterior radiographs obtained after the procedure were viewed to calculate the percentage of cement opacification in both vertebral halves, and mean values were compared between uni- and bipediculate approaches by using a two-tailed Student t test. Clinical outcomes, including pain relief and change in pain medication requirements, were compared in the two groups by using the chi(2) or Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: With the unipediculate approach, filling across the midline was achieved in 55 (96%) of 57 injections. Mean opacification of vertebral body halves was 83% +/- 19 (SD) and 77% +/- 16 for the bipediculate and unipediculate approaches, respectively (P =.19). Among patients with available follow-up data, 16 (94%) of 17 patients who underwent the bipediculate procedure and 28 (88%) of 32 patients who underwent the unipediculate procedure achieved adequate pain relief (P =.65) with mean decreases in pain severity of 7.3 +/- 3.1 and 6.6 +/- 2.9, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Use of a unipediculate approach in percutaneous vertebroplasty allows filling of both vertebral halves from a single puncture site with no statistically significant difference in clinical outcome from that of bipediculate vertebroplasty.