库姆梅尔病的手术策略选择和临床疗效分析。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY European Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1007/s00586-024-08469-2
Yazhou Lin, Zhe Chen, Qiang Zhang, Jianru Qiu, Xingkai Zhang, Peng Cao, Wenjian Wu, Yu Liang
{"title":"库姆梅尔病的手术策略选择和临床疗效分析。","authors":"Yazhou Lin, Zhe Chen, Qiang Zhang, Jianru Qiu, Xingkai Zhang, Peng Cao, Wenjian Wu, Yu Liang","doi":"10.1007/s00586-024-08469-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the clinical efficacy of surgery in Kummell's disease (KD) to help us select the optimum surgical strategy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included 67 KD patients who underwent Percutaneous vertebral plasty (PVP), Percutaneous kyphosis plasty (PKP), Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) or Posterior decompression osteotomy fixation (PDOF). The differences in imaging parameters and prognosis changes of pre-operation, post-operative and follow-up endpoint were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence rate of KD was 10.02% (67/668) in vertebral compressibility fracture. 80.60% of patients underwent PVP/PKP, 14.93% underwent PPSF, and 4.47% underwent PDOF. The significant differences between the actual used surgical methods and the classification recommended surgical strategies could be found. In I type, there was no significant difference in total improvement of the radiography data and clinical efficacy between PVP and PKP. In II type, there was a significant correlation between opening and closing sign (OCS) and surgical choice. Compared with PPSF, the positive OCS patients who underwent PVP/PKP suffered a poor prognosis. PDOF is an effective surgical method for type III, but PVP could also achieve a good prognosis for patients with poor condition.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The mainstream KD classification system has shortcomings, and completely following its treatment strategy may lead to poor prognosis. Compared to PKP, PVP is a better choice for type I patients. OCS is one of the important factors in surgical selection for type II patients. The Li's type III is mainly treated with PDOF but the overall condition of the body needs to be evaluated.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The surgical strategy selection and clinical efficacy analysis of Kummell's disease.\",\"authors\":\"Yazhou Lin, Zhe Chen, Qiang Zhang, Jianru Qiu, Xingkai Zhang, Peng Cao, Wenjian Wu, Yu Liang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00586-024-08469-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the clinical efficacy of surgery in Kummell's disease (KD) to help us select the optimum surgical strategy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included 67 KD patients who underwent Percutaneous vertebral plasty (PVP), Percutaneous kyphosis plasty (PKP), Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) or Posterior decompression osteotomy fixation (PDOF). The differences in imaging parameters and prognosis changes of pre-operation, post-operative and follow-up endpoint were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence rate of KD was 10.02% (67/668) in vertebral compressibility fracture. 80.60% of patients underwent PVP/PKP, 14.93% underwent PPSF, and 4.47% underwent PDOF. The significant differences between the actual used surgical methods and the classification recommended surgical strategies could be found. In I type, there was no significant difference in total improvement of the radiography data and clinical efficacy between PVP and PKP. In II type, there was a significant correlation between opening and closing sign (OCS) and surgical choice. Compared with PPSF, the positive OCS patients who underwent PVP/PKP suffered a poor prognosis. PDOF is an effective surgical method for type III, but PVP could also achieve a good prognosis for patients with poor condition.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The mainstream KD classification system has shortcomings, and completely following its treatment strategy may lead to poor prognosis. Compared to PKP, PVP is a better choice for type I patients. OCS is one of the important factors in surgical selection for type II patients. The Li's type III is mainly treated with PDOF but the overall condition of the body needs to be evaluated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08469-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08469-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估库默氏病(KD)手术的临床疗效,以帮助我们选择最佳手术策略:我们纳入了67例接受经皮椎体成形术(PVP)、经皮椎体后凸成形术(PKP)、经皮椎弓根螺钉固定术(PPSF)或后路减压截骨固定术(PDOF)的KD患者。结果显示,KD的发病率为0.5%,而PKP的发病率为0.5%,PPSF的发病率为0.5%,PDOF的发病率为0.5%:在椎体压缩性骨折中,KD的发生率为10.02%(67/668)。80.60%的患者接受了 PVP/PKP,14.93%的患者接受了 PPSF,4.47%的患者接受了 PDOF。实际使用的手术方法与分类推荐的手术策略之间存在明显差异。在 I 型手术中,PVP 和 PKP 在影像学数据总改善率和临床疗效方面没有明显差异。在 II 型患者中,开闭征(OCS)与手术选择之间存在显著相关性。与 PPSF 相比,接受 PVP/PKP 的 OCS 阳性患者预后较差。PDOF是治疗III型的有效手术方法,但对于病情较差的患者,PVP也能获得良好的预后:结论:主流的 KD 分类系统存在缺陷,完全遵循其治疗策略可能会导致预后不良。与 PKP 相比,PVP 是 I 型患者的更好选择。OCS 是 II 型患者手术选择的重要因素之一。李氏 III 型主要采用 PDOF 治疗,但需要对身体的整体状况进行评估。
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
The surgical strategy selection and clinical efficacy analysis of Kummell's disease.

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of surgery in Kummell's disease (KD) to help us select the optimum surgical strategy.

Methods: We included 67 KD patients who underwent Percutaneous vertebral plasty (PVP), Percutaneous kyphosis plasty (PKP), Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) or Posterior decompression osteotomy fixation (PDOF). The differences in imaging parameters and prognosis changes of pre-operation, post-operative and follow-up endpoint were analyzed.

Results: The incidence rate of KD was 10.02% (67/668) in vertebral compressibility fracture. 80.60% of patients underwent PVP/PKP, 14.93% underwent PPSF, and 4.47% underwent PDOF. The significant differences between the actual used surgical methods and the classification recommended surgical strategies could be found. In I type, there was no significant difference in total improvement of the radiography data and clinical efficacy between PVP and PKP. In II type, there was a significant correlation between opening and closing sign (OCS) and surgical choice. Compared with PPSF, the positive OCS patients who underwent PVP/PKP suffered a poor prognosis. PDOF is an effective surgical method for type III, but PVP could also achieve a good prognosis for patients with poor condition.

Conclusion: The mainstream KD classification system has shortcomings, and completely following its treatment strategy may lead to poor prognosis. Compared to PKP, PVP is a better choice for type I patients. OCS is one of the important factors in surgical selection for type II patients. The Li's type III is mainly treated with PDOF but the overall condition of the body needs to be evaluated.

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
European Spine Journal
European Spine Journal 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
373
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: "European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts. Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe
期刊最新文献
Letter to the editor Regarding 'Causal relationship between basal metabolic rate and intervertebral disc degeneration: a Mendelian randomization study' by Liu Z, et al. (Eur Spine J. 2024 Jun 24. Doi: 10.1007/s00586-024-08367-7). Announcements. Answer to the letter to the editor of Z. Feng, et al. concerning "Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of postoperative outcomes" by Levy HA, et al. (Eur Spine J [2024]: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-024-08412-5). The surgical strategy selection and clinical efficacy analysis of Kummell's disease. A multibody simulation of the spine for objectification of biomechanical quantities after VBT: a proof of concept and description of baseline data.
×
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