Clinical spine surgery · 2020
Reduction in Traumatic Spine Injuries in the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine With Percutaneous Versus Open Dorsal Stabilization.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Rillig Jan, Keil Holger, Jung Matthias, Grützner Paul A, Matschke Stefan, Kreinest Michael
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVES: Doubts still remain whether a sufficient reduction of vertebral body fractures can be achieved if a percutaneous surgical approach is adopted. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to analyze the reduction and perioperative complications using a percutaneous versus open surgical approach for dorsal stabilization.
METHODS: Patients suffering from a traumatic injury of the thoracic or lumbar spine who were treated with dorsal stabilization at our level 1 trauma center were included. From January 2007 through June 2009, only the open approach was used; from June 2009 through March 2014, only the percutaneous approach with a special reduction technique was used. Retrospectively, total reduction, perioperative and intraoperative data, and postoperative complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Using the percutaneous (n=185) versus open surgical approach (n=91), the mean reduction over all spinal injuries was 7.7±6.6 versus 8.3±5.5 degrees, respectively. The mean operation time was 75.5±50.2 versus 71.5±41.9 minutes, respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 treatment groups in terms of the total reduction (P=0.753) or operation time (P=0.814).After the percutaneous and open surgical approach, 7 (3.8%) and 22 (24.2%) complications were documented. Complications requiring interventions were more frequent in the open treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous dorsal stabilization seems to be a good alternative to the traditional open surgical approach. The fracture's reduction is similar, whereas severe complications are reduced and the operation time is not prolonged.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVES: Doubts still remain whether a sufficient reduction of vertebral body fractures can be achieved if a percutaneous surgical approach is adopted. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to analyze the reduction and perioperative complications using a percutaneous versus open surgical approach for dorsal stabilization.
METHODS: Patients suffering from a traumatic injury of the thoracic or lumbar spine who were treated with dorsal stabilization at our level 1 trauma center were included. From January 2007 through June 2009, only the open approach was used; from June 2009 through March 2014, only the percutaneous approach with a special reduction technique was used. Retrospectively, total reduction, perioperative and intraoperative data, and postoperative complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Using the percutaneous (n=185) versus open surgical approach (n=91), the mean reduction over all spinal injuries was 7.7±6.6 versus 8.3±5.5 degrees, respectively. The mean operation time was 75.5±50.2 versus 71.5±41.9 minutes, respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 treatment groups in terms of the total reduction (P=0.753) or operation time (P=0.814).After the percutaneous and open surgical approach, 7 (3.8%) and 22 (24.2%) complications were documented. Complications requiring interventions were more frequent in the open treatment group.
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous dorsal stabilization seems to be a good alternative to the traditional open surgical approach. The fracture's reduction is similar, whereas severe complications are reduced and the operation time is not prolonged.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective cohort study.