Clinical neurology and neurosurgery · 2021
Fenestrated pedicle screws for thoracolumbar instrumentation in patients with poor bone quality: Case series and systematic review of the literature.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Ehresman Jeff, Pennington Zach, Elsamadicy Aladine A, Hersh Andrew, Lubelski Daniel, Lehner Kurt, Cottrill Ethan, Schilling Andrew, Lakomkin Nikita, Ahmed A Karim, Lo Sheng-Fu, Sciubba Daniel M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To describe the results of a single-surgeon series and systematically review the literature on cement-augmented instrumented fusion with fenestrated pedicle screws.
METHODS: All patients treated by the senior surgeon using fenestrated screws between 2017 and 2019 with a minimum of 6-months of clinical and radiographic follow-up were included. For the systematic review, we used PRISMA guidelines to identify all prior descriptions of cement-augmented instrumented fusion with fenestrated pedicle screws in the English literature. Endpoints of interest included hardware loosening, cement leakage, and pulmonary cement embolism (PCE).
RESULTS: Our series included 38 patients (mean follow-up 14.8 months) who underwent cement-augmented instrumentation for tumor (47.3%), deformity/degenerative disease (39.5%), or osteoporotic fracture (13.2%). Asymptomatic screw lucency was seen in 2.6%, cement leakage in 445, and pulmonary cement embolism (PCE) in 5.2%. Our literature review identified 23 studies (n = 1526 patients), with low reported rates of hardware loosening (0.2%) and symptomatic PCE (1.0%). Cement leakage, while common (55.6%), produced symptoms in fewer than 1% of patients. Indications for cement-augmentation in this cohort included: spine metastasis with or without pathologic fracture (n = 18; 47.3%), degenerative spine disease or fixed deformity with poor underlying bone quality (n = 15; 39.5%), and osteoporotic fracture (n = 5; 13.2%).
CONCLUSION: Cement-augmented fusion with fenestrated screws appears to be a safe, effective means of treating patients with poor underlying bone quality secondary to tumor or osteoporosis. High-quality evidence with direct comparisons to non-augmented patients is needed.
METHODS: All patients treated by the senior surgeon using fenestrated screws between 2017 and 2019 with a minimum of 6-months of clinical and radiographic follow-up were included. For the systematic review, we used PRISMA guidelines to identify all prior descriptions of cement-augmented instrumented fusion with fenestrated pedicle screws in the English literature. Endpoints of interest included hardware loosening, cement leakage, and pulmonary cement embolism (PCE).
RESULTS: Our series included 38 patients (mean follow-up 14.8 months) who underwent cement-augmented instrumentation for tumor (47.3%), deformity/degenerative disease (39.5%), or osteoporotic fracture (13.2%). Asymptomatic screw lucency was seen in 2.6%, cement leakage in 445, and pulmonary cement embolism (PCE) in 5.2%. Our literature review identified 23 studies (n = 1526 patients), with low reported rates of hardware loosening (0.2%) and symptomatic PCE (1.0%). Cement leakage, while common (55.6%), produced symptoms in fewer than 1% of patients. Indications for cement-augmentation in this cohort included: spine metastasis with or without pathologic fracture (n = 18; 47.3%), degenerative spine disease or fixed deformity with poor underlying bone quality (n = 15; 39.5%), and osteoporotic fracture (n = 5; 13.2%).
CONCLUSION: Cement-augmented fusion with fenestrated screws appears to be a safe, effective means of treating patients with poor underlying bone quality secondary to tumor or osteoporosis. High-quality evidence with direct comparisons to non-augmented patients is needed.