Prevalence and Clinical Outcome of Sympathetic Chain Injury after Anterior Approach to Upper Lumbar Fractures

Hazem M. Alkosha, Basem I. Awad, H. Elsobky, A. Zidan, Amin Sabry
{"title":"Prevalence and Clinical Outcome of Sympathetic Chain Injury after Anterior Approach to Upper Lumbar Fractures","authors":"Hazem M. Alkosha, Basem I. Awad, H. Elsobky, A. Zidan, Amin Sabry","doi":"10.21608/ESJ.2021.63103.1171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background data: The sympathetic chain is a vulnerable structure in anterior reconstructive surgeries to upper lumbar fractures. \nPurpose: To explore the prevalence of sympathetic chain injuries following the anterior surgical approach to treat upper lumbar fractures and their impact on clinical outcomes. \nStudy design: A nonrandomized prospective cohort study. \nPatients and Methods: Consecutive cases with upper lumbar fractures that undergone surgery by either anterior or posterior approaches were preoperatively and postoperatively evaluated for sympathetic chain injury and followed up six months after surgery to explore outcomes. Two simple, valid, and reliable bedside tests were used to assess sympathetic functions: the skin wrinkling test (SWT) and the skin temperature difference (STD). Outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) at six months in both positive and negative groups with sympathetic injury. \nResults: The 2 approach groups (32 cases each) showed comparable demographic and clinical criteria. The SWT showed high interrater reliability with agreement in 92% of cases. The positive group with confirmed sympathetic injury included 29 cases, all of which belonged to the anterior approach group. The negative group with equivocal or confirmed intact sympathetic function included 35 cases; 3 of them belonged to the anterior group. The ODI and SF-12 scores were found to be comparable between positive and negative groups 6 months after surgery. \nConclusion: Sympathetic chain injury is a frequent complication (90.6% of cases) following the anterior approach to upper lumbar fractures. The cases are unilateral, relatively silent, and related to the side of approach with no clinical impact on quality of life on 6-month outcome assessment. (2020ESJ201)","PeriodicalId":11610,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/ESJ.2021.63103.1171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background data: The sympathetic chain is a vulnerable structure in anterior reconstructive surgeries to upper lumbar fractures. Purpose: To explore the prevalence of sympathetic chain injuries following the anterior surgical approach to treat upper lumbar fractures and their impact on clinical outcomes. Study design: A nonrandomized prospective cohort study. Patients and Methods: Consecutive cases with upper lumbar fractures that undergone surgery by either anterior or posterior approaches were preoperatively and postoperatively evaluated for sympathetic chain injury and followed up six months after surgery to explore outcomes. Two simple, valid, and reliable bedside tests were used to assess sympathetic functions: the skin wrinkling test (SWT) and the skin temperature difference (STD). Outcomes were assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) at six months in both positive and negative groups with sympathetic injury. Results: The 2 approach groups (32 cases each) showed comparable demographic and clinical criteria. The SWT showed high interrater reliability with agreement in 92% of cases. The positive group with confirmed sympathetic injury included 29 cases, all of which belonged to the anterior approach group. The negative group with equivocal or confirmed intact sympathetic function included 35 cases; 3 of them belonged to the anterior group. The ODI and SF-12 scores were found to be comparable between positive and negative groups 6 months after surgery. Conclusion: Sympathetic chain injury is a frequent complication (90.6% of cases) following the anterior approach to upper lumbar fractures. The cases are unilateral, relatively silent, and related to the side of approach with no clinical impact on quality of life on 6-month outcome assessment. (2020ESJ201)
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
上腰椎骨折前路入路后交感神经链损伤的发生率及临床结果
背景资料:在前路腰椎骨折重建手术中,交感神经链是一个脆弱的结构。目的:探讨前路手术治疗上腰椎骨折后交感神经链损伤的发生率及其对临床预后的影响。研究设计:一项非随机前瞻性队列研究。患者和方法:连续采用前路或后路手术的上腰椎骨折患者,术前和术后评估交感神经链损伤,术后随访6个月,探讨结果。两种简单、有效、可靠的床边试验用于评估交感神经功能:皮肤起皱试验(SWT)和皮肤温差试验(STD)。结果评估采用Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和12项简短形式调查(SF-12)在6个月阳性和阴性组的交感神经损伤。结果:两个入路组(各32例)的人口学和临床标准具有可比性。SWT在92%的病例中显示出较高的判读信度。阳性组确认交感神经损伤29例,均属于前入路组。阴性组交感功能不明确或确定完整35例;其中3例属于前组。术后6个月,阳性组和阴性组的ODI和SF-12评分具有可比性。结论:交感神经链损伤是前路入路治疗上腰椎骨折后常见的并发症,占90.6%。这些病例为单侧,相对沉默,与入路一侧有关,对6个月预后评估的生活质量没有临床影响。(2020 esj201)
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