Utility of a fulcrum for positioning support during flexion-extension radiographs for assessment of lumbar instability in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Botanical Gazette Pub Date : 2022-05-06 Print Date: 2022-10-01 DOI:10.3171/2022.3.SPINE22192
Fanguo Lin, Zhiqiang Zhou, Zhiwei Li, Bingchen Shan, Zhentao Zhou, Yongming Sun, Xiaozhong Zhou
{"title":"Utility of a fulcrum for positioning support during flexion-extension radiographs for assessment of lumbar instability in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.","authors":"Fanguo Lin, Zhiqiang Zhou, Zhiwei Li, Bingchen Shan, Zhentao Zhou, Yongming Sun, Xiaozhong Zhou","doi":"10.3171/2022.3.SPINE22192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The authors investigated a new standardized technique for evaluating lumbar stability in lumbar lateral flexion-extension (LFE) radiographs. For patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis, a three-part fulcrum with a support platform that included a semiarc leaning tool with armrests, a lifting platform for height adjustment, and a base for stability were used. Standard functional radiographs were used for comparison to determine whether adequate flexion-extension was acquired through use of the fulcrum method.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 67 consecutive patients diagnosed with L4-5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. The authors analyzed LFE radiographs taken with the patient supported by a fulcrum (LFEF) and without a fulcrum. Sagittal translation (ST), segmental angulation (SA), posterior opening (PO), change in lumbar lordosis (CLL), and lumbar instability (LI) were measured for comparison using functional radiographs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average value of SA was 5.76° ± 3.72° in LFE and 9.96° ± 4.00° in LFEF radiographs, with a significant difference between them (p < 0.05). ST and PO were also significantly greater in LFEF than in LFE. The detection rate of instability was 10.4% in LFE and 31.3% in LFEF, and the difference was significant. The CLL was 27.31° ± 11.96° in LFE and 37.07° ± 12.963.16° in LFEF, with a significant difference between these values (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with traditional LFE radiographs, the LFEF radiographs significantly improved the detection rate of LI. In addition, this method may reduce patient discomfort during the process of obtaining radiographs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9213,"journal":{"name":"Botanical Gazette","volume":"62 1","pages":"535-540"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Botanical Gazette","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2022.3.SPINE22192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The authors investigated a new standardized technique for evaluating lumbar stability in lumbar lateral flexion-extension (LFE) radiographs. For patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis, a three-part fulcrum with a support platform that included a semiarc leaning tool with armrests, a lifting platform for height adjustment, and a base for stability were used. Standard functional radiographs were used for comparison to determine whether adequate flexion-extension was acquired through use of the fulcrum method.

Methods: A total of 67 consecutive patients diagnosed with L4-5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were enrolled in the study. The authors analyzed LFE radiographs taken with the patient supported by a fulcrum (LFEF) and without a fulcrum. Sagittal translation (ST), segmental angulation (SA), posterior opening (PO), change in lumbar lordosis (CLL), and lumbar instability (LI) were measured for comparison using functional radiographs.

Results: The average value of SA was 5.76° ± 3.72° in LFE and 9.96° ± 4.00° in LFEF radiographs, with a significant difference between them (p < 0.05). ST and PO were also significantly greater in LFEF than in LFE. The detection rate of instability was 10.4% in LFE and 31.3% in LFEF, and the difference was significant. The CLL was 27.31° ± 11.96° in LFE and 37.07° ± 12.963.16° in LFEF, with a significant difference between these values (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Compared with traditional LFE radiographs, the LFEF radiographs significantly improved the detection rate of LI. In addition, this method may reduce patient discomfort during the process of obtaining radiographs.

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
在对退行性腰椎骨质增生患者进行腰椎不稳定性评估的屈伸X光片检查中,支点定位支撑的实用性。
目的:作者研究了一种新的标准化技术,用于评估腰椎侧屈伸(LFE)X 光片中的腰椎稳定性。对于腰椎滑脱症患者,使用了一个由三部分组成的支点和一个支撑平台,其中包括一个带扶手的半弧形倾斜工具、一个用于调节高度的升降平台和一个用于保持稳定的底座。使用标准功能X光片进行对比,以确定使用支点法是否能获得足够的屈伸:方法:共有 67 名连续确诊为 L4-5 退行性腰椎滑脱症的患者参与了研究。作者分析了患者在支点支撑(LFEF)和无支点支撑的情况下拍摄的 LFE X 光片。测量了矢状位移(ST)、节段成角(SA)、后开度(PO)、腰椎前凸变化(CLL)和腰椎不稳定性(LI),以便使用功能性 X 光片进行比较:LFE和LFEF的SA平均值分别为5.76° ± 3.72°和9.96° ± 4.00°,两者之间差异显著(P < 0.05)。LFEF的ST和PO也明显大于LFE。LFE和LFEF的不稳定性检出率分别为10.4%和31.3%,差异显著。LFE的CLL为27.31°±11.96°,LFEF为37.07°±12.963.16°,两组数值差异显著(P < 0.05):结论:与传统的 LFE X 光片相比,LFEF X 光片可显著提高 LI 的检出率。结论:与传统的 LFE 射线照相术相比,LFEF 射线照相术明显提高了 LI 的检出率,此外,这种方法还可减少患者在照相过程中的不适感。
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
期刊最新文献
FoxP3 recognizes microsatellites and bridges DNA through multimerization. Understanding the Link between COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS Stigmas. National epidemiological analysis of the association of COVID-19 vaccination and incidence of COVID-19 cases in Canada, January to August 2021. Utility of a fulcrum for positioning support during flexion-extension radiographs for assessment of lumbar instability in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eucalyptus
×
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