Ga-On Park, U. Choi, K. Kim, Jeong-Yoon Park, D. Chin, Keun-Su Kim, Yong-Eun Cho
{"title":"成人脊柱畸形患者骶翼髂螺钉内固定与传统髂螺钉内固定的并发症比较分析","authors":"Ga-On Park, U. Choi, K. Kim, Jeong-Yoon Park, D. Chin, Keun-Su Kim, Yong-Eun Cho","doi":"10.21129/nerve.2021.7.2.71","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between sacral alar iliac (SAI) screw fixation and conventional iliac (CI) screw fixation with a particular focus on the rate of reoperation, surgical site infection (SSI), sacroiliac joint pain, instrument failure, and screw prominence.Methods: Patients who underwent sacropelvic fixation in the authors’ institution from June 2011 to May 2017 were retrospectively investigated. Forty-three patients with SAI screw fixation and 25 with CI screw fixation were included. Preoperative patient and surgical characteristics and postoperative outcomes and complications were analyzed between the SAI and CI groups. Radiographic parameters were analyzed before and after surgery.Results: Lumbosacral fusion rates showed no statistically significant difference between the SAI group and CI groups (90.7% vs. 92.0%, p=0.878). The SAI group showed a significantly good result with regard to SSI compared to the CI group (0% vs. 16%, p=0.016), but had a significantly higher rate of distal screw fracture than the CI group (16.3% vs. 0%, p=0.042).Conclusion: The SAI screw fixation technique could achieve good outcomes of pain relief, deformity correction, and lumbosacral fusion rate with relatively lower complications such as the rates of reoperation, SSI, and screw prominence as compared to the CI screw fixation technique. However, distal instrument failure was observed more frequently in the SAI group, requiring further biomechanical studies.","PeriodicalId":229172,"journal":{"name":"The Nerve","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complication Profiles Associated with Sacral Alar Iliac Screw Fixation in Patients with Adult Spinal Deformity: A Comparative Analysis to the Conventional Iliac Screw Fixation\",\"authors\":\"Ga-On Park, U. Choi, K. Kim, Jeong-Yoon Park, D. Chin, Keun-Su Kim, Yong-Eun Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.21129/nerve.2021.7.2.71\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: This study aimed to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between sacral alar iliac (SAI) screw fixation and conventional iliac (CI) screw fixation with a particular focus on the rate of reoperation, surgical site infection (SSI), sacroiliac joint pain, instrument failure, and screw prominence.Methods: Patients who underwent sacropelvic fixation in the authors’ institution from June 2011 to May 2017 were retrospectively investigated. Forty-three patients with SAI screw fixation and 25 with CI screw fixation were included. Preoperative patient and surgical characteristics and postoperative outcomes and complications were analyzed between the SAI and CI groups. Radiographic parameters were analyzed before and after surgery.Results: Lumbosacral fusion rates showed no statistically significant difference between the SAI group and CI groups (90.7% vs. 92.0%, p=0.878). The SAI group showed a significantly good result with regard to SSI compared to the CI group (0% vs. 16%, p=0.016), but had a significantly higher rate of distal screw fracture than the CI group (16.3% vs. 0%, p=0.042).Conclusion: The SAI screw fixation technique could achieve good outcomes of pain relief, deformity correction, and lumbosacral fusion rate with relatively lower complications such as the rates of reoperation, SSI, and screw prominence as compared to the CI screw fixation technique. However, distal instrument failure was observed more frequently in the SAI group, requiring further biomechanical studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":229172,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Nerve\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Nerve\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21129/nerve.2021.7.2.71\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Nerve","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21129/nerve.2021.7.2.71","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究旨在比较骶髂翼(SAI)螺钉固定与传统髂(CI)螺钉固定的影像学和临床结果,特别关注再手术率、手术部位感染(SSI)、骶髂关节疼痛、器械失效和螺钉突出。方法:回顾性调查2011年6月至2017年5月在笔者所在机构行骶盆腔固定手术的患者。43例采用SAI螺钉固定,25例采用CI螺钉固定。分析SAI组和CI组的术前和手术特点、术后结局和并发症。分析手术前后影像学参数。结果:腰骶融合率SAI组与CI组比较差异无统计学意义(90.7% vs 92.0%, p=0.878)。与CI组相比,SAI组在SSI方面表现出明显良好的结果(0%比16%,p=0.016),但远端螺钉骨折率明显高于CI组(16.3%比0%,p=0.042)。结论:与CI螺钉固定技术相比,SAI螺钉固定技术在疼痛缓解、畸形矫正、腰骶融合率等方面具有较好的效果,且并发症如再手术率、SSI、螺钉突出率等相对较低。然而,在SAI组中观察到的远端器械失效更为频繁,需要进一步的生物力学研究。
Complication Profiles Associated with Sacral Alar Iliac Screw Fixation in Patients with Adult Spinal Deformity: A Comparative Analysis to the Conventional Iliac Screw Fixation
Objective: This study aimed to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between sacral alar iliac (SAI) screw fixation and conventional iliac (CI) screw fixation with a particular focus on the rate of reoperation, surgical site infection (SSI), sacroiliac joint pain, instrument failure, and screw prominence.Methods: Patients who underwent sacropelvic fixation in the authors’ institution from June 2011 to May 2017 were retrospectively investigated. Forty-three patients with SAI screw fixation and 25 with CI screw fixation were included. Preoperative patient and surgical characteristics and postoperative outcomes and complications were analyzed between the SAI and CI groups. Radiographic parameters were analyzed before and after surgery.Results: Lumbosacral fusion rates showed no statistically significant difference between the SAI group and CI groups (90.7% vs. 92.0%, p=0.878). The SAI group showed a significantly good result with regard to SSI compared to the CI group (0% vs. 16%, p=0.016), but had a significantly higher rate of distal screw fracture than the CI group (16.3% vs. 0%, p=0.042).Conclusion: The SAI screw fixation technique could achieve good outcomes of pain relief, deformity correction, and lumbosacral fusion rate with relatively lower complications such as the rates of reoperation, SSI, and screw prominence as compared to the CI screw fixation technique. However, distal instrument failure was observed more frequently in the SAI group, requiring further biomechanical studies.