Could Intermediate Screw in Thoracolumbar Fracture Fixation Save Motion Levels? Comparative Study between Long-Segment and Short-Segment with Intermediate Screw Fixation

Tarek A. Elhewala, A. Eladawy, M. Hussein
{"title":"Could Intermediate Screw in Thoracolumbar Fracture Fixation Save Motion Levels? Comparative Study between Long-Segment and Short-Segment with Intermediate Screw Fixation","authors":"Tarek A. Elhewala, A. Eladawy, M. Hussein","doi":"10.21608/ESJ.2019.10129.1092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Data: Thoracolumbar fractures are commonly managed by posterior pedicle screw fixation. Controversy about the number of levels involved in the fixation remains as the stability of the short-segment fixation remains questionable. Recently, it has been shown that application of intermediate screw in the fractured vertebra improves the biomechanical stability of the short-segment construct. \nPurpose: To compare the outcome of long-segment fixation (LSF) versus short-segment fixation with intermediate screws (SSFIS) in the management of the thoracolumbar burst fractures. \nStudy Design: A prospective, nonrandomized clinical controlled trial. \nPatients and Methods: Fifty patients with thoracolumbar burst fracture (T11-L2) types A3 and A4 AOSpine classification with a Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity (TLICS) scale of more than 4 were treated between 2009 and 2014 with posterior pedicle screw fixation. Patients were divided into two groups according to the number of instrumented levels. Group 1 included 25 patients treated with LSF (two levels above and two levels below the fractured level) while Group 2 included 25 patients treated by SSFIS (one level above and one level below with 2 intermediate screws in the fractured level). The patients were evaluated for local kyphotic angle (LKA) correction and maintenance, anterior vertebral body height (AVH) compression, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain and treatment related complications. Construct failure was defined as screw pullout or instrument breakage. \nResults: The two groups were similar with regard to age, sex, fractured levels, fracture type, TLICS score, preoperative local kyphotic angle, and anterior vertebral body height compression. Postoperative correction of the local vertebral compression assessed with LKA and AVH significantly improved in both groups compared to the preoperative degree. There was no significant difference in the two groups in early postoperative or follow-up regarding the degree of correction and its maintenance. No construct failure or major treatment related complication was encountered in both groups with significant reduction of VAS and ODI in both groups between early postoperative and late follow-up (13.5±2 months). \nConclusion: Intermediate screw applied in the fractured level in management of thoracolumbar burst fracture improves the correction and maintenance of local kyphosis in short-segment fixation like long-segment construct with saving vertebral motion levels from being fixed. More randomized controlled and multicenter studies are needed to support these findings. (2019ESJ175)","PeriodicalId":11610,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ESJ.2019.10129.1092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background Data: Thoracolumbar fractures are commonly managed by posterior pedicle screw fixation. Controversy about the number of levels involved in the fixation remains as the stability of the short-segment fixation remains questionable. Recently, it has been shown that application of intermediate screw in the fractured vertebra improves the biomechanical stability of the short-segment construct. Purpose: To compare the outcome of long-segment fixation (LSF) versus short-segment fixation with intermediate screws (SSFIS) in the management of the thoracolumbar burst fractures. Study Design: A prospective, nonrandomized clinical controlled trial. Patients and Methods: Fifty patients with thoracolumbar burst fracture (T11-L2) types A3 and A4 AOSpine classification with a Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity (TLICS) scale of more than 4 were treated between 2009 and 2014 with posterior pedicle screw fixation. Patients were divided into two groups according to the number of instrumented levels. Group 1 included 25 patients treated with LSF (two levels above and two levels below the fractured level) while Group 2 included 25 patients treated by SSFIS (one level above and one level below with 2 intermediate screws in the fractured level). The patients were evaluated for local kyphotic angle (LKA) correction and maintenance, anterior vertebral body height (AVH) compression, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back pain and treatment related complications. Construct failure was defined as screw pullout or instrument breakage. Results: The two groups were similar with regard to age, sex, fractured levels, fracture type, TLICS score, preoperative local kyphotic angle, and anterior vertebral body height compression. Postoperative correction of the local vertebral compression assessed with LKA and AVH significantly improved in both groups compared to the preoperative degree. There was no significant difference in the two groups in early postoperative or follow-up regarding the degree of correction and its maintenance. No construct failure or major treatment related complication was encountered in both groups with significant reduction of VAS and ODI in both groups between early postoperative and late follow-up (13.5±2 months). Conclusion: Intermediate screw applied in the fractured level in management of thoracolumbar burst fracture improves the correction and maintenance of local kyphosis in short-segment fixation like long-segment construct with saving vertebral motion levels from being fixed. More randomized controlled and multicenter studies are needed to support these findings. (2019ESJ175)
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
胸腰椎骨折中间螺钉固定能节省运动水平吗?长节段与短节段中间螺钉固定的比较研究
背景资料:胸腰椎骨折通常采用后路椎弓根螺钉内固定。由于短节段固定的稳定性仍然值得怀疑,关于固定所涉及的级别数量的争议仍然存在。最近,研究表明,在骨折椎骨中应用中间螺钉可以提高短节段结构的生物力学稳定性。目的:比较长节段内固定术(LSF)与短节段内钉固定治疗胸腰椎爆裂性骨折的疗效。研究设计:一项前瞻性、非随机临床对照试验。患者和方法:2009年至2014年间,50名胸腰椎爆裂性骨折(T11-L2)A3型和A4型AOSpine分级的患者接受了后路椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗,胸腰椎损伤分级和严重程度(TLICS)评分超过4。根据仪器水平的数量将患者分为两组。第1组包括25名接受LSF治疗的患者(骨折处两级以上两级以下),而第2组包括25例接受SSFIS治疗的患者,骨折处一级以上一级以下有2颗中间螺钉)。评估患者的局部后凸角(LKA)矫正和维持、前椎体高度(AVH)压迫以及背痛和治疗相关并发症的视觉模拟评分(VAS)。结构故障被定义为螺钉拔出或仪器断裂。结果:两组在年龄、性别、骨折程度、骨折类型、TLICS评分、术前局部后凸角和前椎体高度压迫方面相似。与术前相比,LKA和AVH评估的局部椎体压缩的术后矫正在两组中都有显著改善。在术后早期或随访中,两组在矫正程度和维持方面没有显著差异。在术后早期和后期随访(13.5±2个月)期间,两组均未出现结构失败或主要治疗相关并发症,VAS和ODI均显著降低。结论:在胸腰段爆裂性骨折的骨折层面应用中间螺钉,可以改善短节段固定类似长节段结构中局部后凸的矫正和维持,节省了固定时的脊椎运动水平。需要更多的随机对照和多中心研究来支持这些发现。(2019ESJ175)
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 weeks
期刊最新文献
Extremity Peripheral Nerve Injuries: Is There Any Role of Specialized Field Hospital in the Management of Low-Velocity Penetrating Peripheral Nerve Injuries? Short-Segment Posterior Fixation with Index Level Screws versus Long-Segment Posterior Fixation in Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Awake Spine Surgery: Fad or Future? Pedicle Screw/Sublaminar Hook Fixation versus Pedicle Screw/Infraspinous Wire Fixation for Spondylolysis Repair: A Retrospective Comparative Study with MSCT Assessment Absence of the Musculocutaneous Nerve While Performing Nerve Transfer Surgery in a Patient with Brachial Plexus Injury, Rare Variant, and Review of Literature
×
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