Impact of implant removal on quality of life and loss of correction in the treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine.

IF 1.9 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Brain & spine Pub Date : 2024-05-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.bas.2024.102845
André El Saman, Simon Lars Meier, Florian Rüger, Jason Alexander Hörauf, Ingo Marzi
{"title":"Impact of implant removal on quality of life and loss of correction in the treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine.","authors":"André El Saman, Simon Lars Meier, Florian Rüger, Jason Alexander Hörauf, Ingo Marzi","doi":"10.1016/j.bas.2024.102845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Benefit of implant removal in spine surgery remains unclear. While there is mostly consensus about necessity of implant removal in posterior-only stabilized patients, the effect of this measure in cases with combined anterior-posterior stabilization is undetermined. With this work we present a retrospective analysis of 87 patients with traumatic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures concerning quality of life (QOL), loss of correction (LOC) and range of motion (ROM). The effect of implant removal on the outcome 18-74 months after surgery was analyzed to determine how implant removal affects radiologic, functional and quality-of life-related parameters.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>87 patients suffering from a traumatic vertebral body fracture (T11 - L2) were included. Quality of life was determined using four different scoring systems (SF 36, VAS, Oswestry, LBOS). Clinical examination included range of motion. Radiologic findings were correlated with QOL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients with removal of the internal fixator had a trend towards better range of motion than patients with posterior instrumentation left in place. Radiologic findings showed no correlation to QOL. Implant removal led to better values in Oswestry and SF-36. 69% of patients after removal reported a reduction of their symptoms.All patients with persistence of severe pain after implant removal belonged to subgroup II.2 (anterior monosegmental fusion with bone graft).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Removal of the internal fixator can lead to a reduction of symptoms. Patient selection is crucial for successful indication. Radiologic findings do not correlate with QOL.</p>","PeriodicalId":72443,"journal":{"name":"Brain & spine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11179537/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain & spine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2024.102845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Benefit of implant removal in spine surgery remains unclear. While there is mostly consensus about necessity of implant removal in posterior-only stabilized patients, the effect of this measure in cases with combined anterior-posterior stabilization is undetermined. With this work we present a retrospective analysis of 87 patients with traumatic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures concerning quality of life (QOL), loss of correction (LOC) and range of motion (ROM). The effect of implant removal on the outcome 18-74 months after surgery was analyzed to determine how implant removal affects radiologic, functional and quality-of life-related parameters.

Patients and methods: 87 patients suffering from a traumatic vertebral body fracture (T11 - L2) were included. Quality of life was determined using four different scoring systems (SF 36, VAS, Oswestry, LBOS). Clinical examination included range of motion. Radiologic findings were correlated with QOL.

Results: Patients with removal of the internal fixator had a trend towards better range of motion than patients with posterior instrumentation left in place. Radiologic findings showed no correlation to QOL. Implant removal led to better values in Oswestry and SF-36. 69% of patients after removal reported a reduction of their symptoms.All patients with persistence of severe pain after implant removal belonged to subgroup II.2 (anterior monosegmental fusion with bone graft).

Conclusion: Removal of the internal fixator can lead to a reduction of symptoms. Patient selection is crucial for successful indication. Radiologic findings do not correlate with QOL.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在治疗胸腰椎创伤性骨折的过程中,移除植入物对生活质量和矫正损失的影响。
背景:脊柱手术中移除假体的益处仍不明确。虽然对于单纯后路稳定的患者来说,移除假体的必要性已基本达成共识,但对于前后路联合稳定的病例来说,这一措施的效果尚不确定。通过这项研究,我们对 87 例创伤性胸腰椎骨折患者进行了回顾性分析,分析内容涉及生活质量(QOL)、矫正丧失(LOC)和活动范围(ROM)。分析了移除植入物对术后 18-74 个月疗效的影响,以确定移除植入物对放射学、功能和生活质量相关参数的影响。患者和方法:共纳入 87 名外伤性椎体骨折(T11 - L2)患者。生活质量采用四种不同的评分系统(SF 36、VAS、Oswestry、LBOS)进行测定。临床检查包括活动范围。放射学检查结果与生活质量相关:结果:与保留后路器械的患者相比,移除内固定器的患者的活动范围有改善的趋势。放射学检查结果与 QOL 无关。移除内固定器后,患者的 Oswestry 和 SF-36 评分均有所提高。69%的患者在移除内固定器后症状有所减轻。所有在移除内固定器后仍有剧烈疼痛的患者都属于II.2亚组(前路单节融合并植骨):结论:取出内固定器可减轻症状。结论:移除内固定器可减轻症状,但患者的选择是成功适应症的关键。放射学结果与 QOL 无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Brain & spine
Brain & spine Surgery
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
71 days
期刊最新文献
Retraction notice to "Decency in neurosurgery" [Brain Spine 4 (2024), 102744]. Impact of implant removal on quality of life and loss of correction in the treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. Under pressure - A historical vignette on surgical timing in traumatic spinal cord injury. Under pressure - A historical vignette on surgical timing in traumatic spinal cord injury Comparing image normalization techniques in an end-to-end model for automated modic changes classification from MRI images
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1