Comparative Outcomes of Percutaneous and Conventional Open Pedicle Screw Fixation for Single-level Thoracolumbar Spine Injury: Randomised Controlled Trial.
K Choovongkomol, U Piyapromdee, S Thepjung, T Tanaviriyachai, S Jongkittanakul, W Sudprasert
{"title":"Comparative Outcomes of Percutaneous and Conventional Open Pedicle Screw Fixation for Single-level Thoracolumbar Spine Injury: Randomised Controlled Trial.","authors":"K Choovongkomol, U Piyapromdee, S Thepjung, T Tanaviriyachai, S Jongkittanakul, W Sudprasert","doi":"10.5704/MOJ.2403.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To compare post-operative outcomes of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) vs open pedicle screw fixation (OPSF) in patients with thoracolumbar spine fractures with no neurological deficits.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In a randomised controlled trial, patients received short-segment fixation with intermediate screws. We assessed post-operative back pain (Visual Analog Scale or VAS), blood loss, operative/fluoroscopy times, radiographic parameters, and oswestry disability index (ODI) scores at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between January 2018 and October 2019, 31 patients received PPSF and 30 OPSF. Mean intra-operative blood loss was 66.45 (±44.29) ml for PPSF vs 184.83 (±128.36) ml for OPSF (p<0.001). Fluoroscopy time averaged 2.36 (±0.76) minutes for PPSF vs 0.58 (±0.51) minutes for OPSF (p<0.001). No significant differences existed in operative time or post-operative VAS scores. Radiographic parameters (kyphosis angle and vertebral height ratios) didn't significantly differ post-operatively or at 12 months. However, ODI scores differed significantly at 6 months (p=0.025), with no difference at 12 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this trial, PPSF was comparable to OPSF in improving ODI scores at 12 months but showed earlier improvement at 6 months and reduced blood loss. Radiographic outcomes remained similar between groups over 12 months.</p>","PeriodicalId":45241,"journal":{"name":"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11023354/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.2403.014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: To compare post-operative outcomes of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) vs open pedicle screw fixation (OPSF) in patients with thoracolumbar spine fractures with no neurological deficits.
Materials and methods: In a randomised controlled trial, patients received short-segment fixation with intermediate screws. We assessed post-operative back pain (Visual Analog Scale or VAS), blood loss, operative/fluoroscopy times, radiographic parameters, and oswestry disability index (ODI) scores at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.
Results: Between January 2018 and October 2019, 31 patients received PPSF and 30 OPSF. Mean intra-operative blood loss was 66.45 (±44.29) ml for PPSF vs 184.83 (±128.36) ml for OPSF (p<0.001). Fluoroscopy time averaged 2.36 (±0.76) minutes for PPSF vs 0.58 (±0.51) minutes for OPSF (p<0.001). No significant differences existed in operative time or post-operative VAS scores. Radiographic parameters (kyphosis angle and vertebral height ratios) didn't significantly differ post-operatively or at 12 months. However, ODI scores differed significantly at 6 months (p=0.025), with no difference at 12 months.
Conclusion: In this trial, PPSF was comparable to OPSF in improving ODI scores at 12 months but showed earlier improvement at 6 months and reduced blood loss. Radiographic outcomes remained similar between groups over 12 months.
期刊介绍:
The Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original papers and case reports three times a year in both printed and electronic version. The purpose of MOJ is to disseminate new knowledge and provide updates in Orthopaedics, trauma and musculoskeletal research. It is an Open Access journal that does not require processing fee or article processing charge from the authors. The Malaysian Orthopaedic Journal is the official journal of Malaysian Orthopaedic Association (MOA) and ASEAN Orthopaedic Association (AOA).