应用生物活性玻璃陶瓷垫片进行后路腰椎椎体间融合临床疗效的回顾性比较研究

Chan Hee Shin, S. Hwang, J. Kim, S. Yoon, B. Cho
{"title":"应用生物活性玻璃陶瓷垫片进行后路腰椎椎体间融合临床疗效的回顾性比较研究","authors":"Chan Hee Shin, S. Hwang, J. Kim, S. Yoon, B. Cho","doi":"10.32587/jnic.2021.00367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Considering the advancement of bone graft substitution, the authors aimed to achieve clinical safety by simultaneously using one bioactive ceramic spacer (NovoMax) and a conventional polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage at first use. We compared the results between different cages, even in the same disc space and to the control group using only conventional PEEK cages. Methods This retrospective analysis included data from patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery between 2015 and 2017. The hybrid group (H group) included 19 patients with 21 lumbar disc levels, and the control group was defined as the PEEK group (P group), which included 16 patients with 18 disc levels. The degree of fusion was confirmed on computed tomography based on the fusion grade system and dynamic X-rays. We analyzed the fusion rate between the two groups using Cox proportional hazard model. Results There were 14 cases (72.2%) in Group P and 15 cases (71.4%) in Group H with confirmed complete union during the observation period (p=0.62). The relative hazard of incomplete fusion with osteolysis in both the P and H groups was increased by 5.41 times (p=0.004, confidence interval 1.704–17.204). In the H group, significant instrument-related complications, such as fragmentation, slippage, subsidence, and osteolysis were observed in the Novomax cage. Conclusions Using NovoMax could result in osteolysis, cage migration, fragmentation, or subsidence. The use of NovoMax is expected to be compatible for bone fusion surgery, but close attention should be paid to some problems that may accompany it.","PeriodicalId":356321,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurointensive Care","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Retrospective Comparative Study to Evaluate the Clinical Efficacy Using a Bioactive Glass Ceramic Spacer in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion\",\"authors\":\"Chan Hee Shin, S. Hwang, J. Kim, S. Yoon, B. Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.32587/jnic.2021.00367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Considering the advancement of bone graft substitution, the authors aimed to achieve clinical safety by simultaneously using one bioactive ceramic spacer (NovoMax) and a conventional polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage at first use. We compared the results between different cages, even in the same disc space and to the control group using only conventional PEEK cages. Methods This retrospective analysis included data from patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery between 2015 and 2017. The hybrid group (H group) included 19 patients with 21 lumbar disc levels, and the control group was defined as the PEEK group (P group), which included 16 patients with 18 disc levels. The degree of fusion was confirmed on computed tomography based on the fusion grade system and dynamic X-rays. We analyzed the fusion rate between the two groups using Cox proportional hazard model. Results There were 14 cases (72.2%) in Group P and 15 cases (71.4%) in Group H with confirmed complete union during the observation period (p=0.62). The relative hazard of incomplete fusion with osteolysis in both the P and H groups was increased by 5.41 times (p=0.004, confidence interval 1.704–17.204). In the H group, significant instrument-related complications, such as fragmentation, slippage, subsidence, and osteolysis were observed in the Novomax cage. Conclusions Using NovoMax could result in osteolysis, cage migration, fragmentation, or subsidence. The use of NovoMax is expected to be compatible for bone fusion surgery, but close attention should be paid to some problems that may accompany it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":356321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neurointensive Care\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neurointensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32587/jnic.2021.00367\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurointensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32587/jnic.2021.00367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

考虑到骨移植替代技术的进步,作者的目标是通过首次使用一个生物活性陶瓷间隔器(NovoMax)和一个传统的聚醚醚酮(PEEK)笼同时使用来达到临床安全性。我们比较了不同笼之间的结果,即使在相同的椎间盘空间和对照组只使用传统的PEEK笼。方法回顾性分析2015年至2017年接受后路腰椎椎体间融合术患者的数据。混合组(H组)包括19例患者,共21个腰椎间盘节段;对照组定义为PEEK组(P组),共16例患者,共18个腰椎间盘节段。基于融合等级系统和动态x射线在计算机断层扫描上确认融合程度。采用Cox比例风险模型分析两组融合率。结果观察期内,P组有14例(72.2%),H组有15例(71.4%)完全愈合(P =0.62)。P组和H组不完全融合合并骨溶解的相对危险度增加了5.41倍(P =0.004,可信区间为1.704 ~ 17.204)。在H组中,在Novomax笼中观察到明显的器械相关并发症,如碎裂、滑移、下沉和骨溶解。结论:使用NovoMax可能导致骨溶解、骨笼移动、碎裂或下沉。使用NovoMax有望兼容骨融合手术,但应密切关注可能伴随的一些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Retrospective Comparative Study to Evaluate the Clinical Efficacy Using a Bioactive Glass Ceramic Spacer in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Considering the advancement of bone graft substitution, the authors aimed to achieve clinical safety by simultaneously using one bioactive ceramic spacer (NovoMax) and a conventional polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage at first use. We compared the results between different cages, even in the same disc space and to the control group using only conventional PEEK cages. Methods This retrospective analysis included data from patients who underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery between 2015 and 2017. The hybrid group (H group) included 19 patients with 21 lumbar disc levels, and the control group was defined as the PEEK group (P group), which included 16 patients with 18 disc levels. The degree of fusion was confirmed on computed tomography based on the fusion grade system and dynamic X-rays. We analyzed the fusion rate between the two groups using Cox proportional hazard model. Results There were 14 cases (72.2%) in Group P and 15 cases (71.4%) in Group H with confirmed complete union during the observation period (p=0.62). The relative hazard of incomplete fusion with osteolysis in both the P and H groups was increased by 5.41 times (p=0.004, confidence interval 1.704–17.204). In the H group, significant instrument-related complications, such as fragmentation, slippage, subsidence, and osteolysis were observed in the Novomax cage. Conclusions Using NovoMax could result in osteolysis, cage migration, fragmentation, or subsidence. The use of NovoMax is expected to be compatible for bone fusion surgery, but close attention should be paid to some problems that may accompany it.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Decompressive Laparotomy as a Treatment Option for Refractory Intracranial Hypertension in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review Clinical Application and Significance of Indirect Calorimetry in Neurocritical Care Cooperative Sedation in Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury: A Tool for Neurocritical Care Management Large-Vessel Occlusion Stroke Associated with Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes Analysis of Nitrogen Balance Test in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury
×
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