可扩展椎弓根螺钉手术患者种植体相关并发症及翻修手术的技术解决方案

A. Bokov, A. Bulkin, S. Mlyavykh, A. Dydykin, A. Aleynik
{"title":"可扩展椎弓根螺钉手术患者种植体相关并发症及翻修手术的技术解决方案","authors":"A. Bokov, A. Bulkin, S. Mlyavykh, A. Dydykin, A. Aleynik","doi":"10.21767/AMJ.2018.3489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background It is reported that expandable pedicle screws are effective and a safer alternative to pedicle screws with cement augmentation application in patients with poor bone quality. Aims To study implant related complications associated with expandable pedicle screws application and to propose revision options in case of implant failure. Methods A retrospective analysis of a heterogeneous cohort of patients operated on because of traumatic injuries and degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine and thoracolumbar junction was performed. 42 patients with osteopeny or osteoporosis were enrolled, the duration of the follow-up accounted for 18 months. Cases with implant failure (loosening and screw breakage) were registered and revision pedicle screws fixation was performed. Results Out of 42 enrolled patients 3 were presented with implant failure (a screw loosening in one case and a screw rupture and loosening in 2 cases). The attempts to remove retained fractured fragments were unsuccessful, therefore, alternative bypass creation and a direct screw placement into a retained fractured fragment were carried out and suggested as an alternative strategy to osteotomy with a fractured screw fragment removal. Conclusion In case of rupture, expandable screws have a poor feasibility for a revision pedicle screw fixation because of fractured fragments strong anchorage in bone. The alternative bypass for a revision screw without fractured fragment removal or tapping and direct screw placement into retained expanded fragment of a screw are less invasive alternatives to osteotomy that can help overcome the discussed issue.","PeriodicalId":46823,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Medical Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implant related complications in patients operated on with expandable pedicle screws and technical solutions for revision surgery\",\"authors\":\"A. Bokov, A. Bulkin, S. Mlyavykh, A. Dydykin, A. Aleynik\",\"doi\":\"10.21767/AMJ.2018.3489\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background It is reported that expandable pedicle screws are effective and a safer alternative to pedicle screws with cement augmentation application in patients with poor bone quality. Aims To study implant related complications associated with expandable pedicle screws application and to propose revision options in case of implant failure. Methods A retrospective analysis of a heterogeneous cohort of patients operated on because of traumatic injuries and degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine and thoracolumbar junction was performed. 42 patients with osteopeny or osteoporosis were enrolled, the duration of the follow-up accounted for 18 months. Cases with implant failure (loosening and screw breakage) were registered and revision pedicle screws fixation was performed. Results Out of 42 enrolled patients 3 were presented with implant failure (a screw loosening in one case and a screw rupture and loosening in 2 cases). The attempts to remove retained fractured fragments were unsuccessful, therefore, alternative bypass creation and a direct screw placement into a retained fractured fragment were carried out and suggested as an alternative strategy to osteotomy with a fractured screw fragment removal. Conclusion In case of rupture, expandable screws have a poor feasibility for a revision pedicle screw fixation because of fractured fragments strong anchorage in bone. The alternative bypass for a revision screw without fractured fragment removal or tapping and direct screw placement into retained expanded fragment of a screw are less invasive alternatives to osteotomy that can help overcome the discussed issue.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46823,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21767/AMJ.2018.3489\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21767/AMJ.2018.3489","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

背景据报道,对于骨质量较差的患者,可扩展椎弓根螺钉是一种有效且安全的替代椎弓根螺钉骨水泥增强应用。目的研究可扩展椎弓根螺钉应用后种植体相关并发症,并在种植体失败时提出修复方案。方法回顾性分析因外伤性损伤和腰椎及胸腰椎交界部退行性疾病而行手术的异质队列患者。纳入42例骨质疏松或骨质疏松患者,随访时间为18个月。对假体失败(松动和螺钉断裂)的病例进行登记,并进行翻修椎弓根螺钉固定。结果42例患者中有3例出现内固定失败(1例螺钉松动,2例螺钉断裂松动)。尝试去除残留的骨折碎片不成功,因此,进行了替代旁路创建和直接将螺钉置入保留的骨折碎片中,并建议作为截骨术和骨折螺钉碎片去除的替代策略。结论在骨折发生时,由于骨折碎片在骨内有较强的锚定作用,可扩展螺钉用于翻修椎弓根螺钉固定的可行性较差。无需拆除骨折碎片或攻丝的翻修螺钉替代旁路术,直接将螺钉置入保留的螺钉扩展碎片中,是比截骨术侵入性更小的替代方法,有助于克服所讨论的问题。
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
Implant related complications in patients operated on with expandable pedicle screws and technical solutions for revision surgery
Background It is reported that expandable pedicle screws are effective and a safer alternative to pedicle screws with cement augmentation application in patients with poor bone quality. Aims To study implant related complications associated with expandable pedicle screws application and to propose revision options in case of implant failure. Methods A retrospective analysis of a heterogeneous cohort of patients operated on because of traumatic injuries and degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine and thoracolumbar junction was performed. 42 patients with osteopeny or osteoporosis were enrolled, the duration of the follow-up accounted for 18 months. Cases with implant failure (loosening and screw breakage) were registered and revision pedicle screws fixation was performed. Results Out of 42 enrolled patients 3 were presented with implant failure (a screw loosening in one case and a screw rupture and loosening in 2 cases). The attempts to remove retained fractured fragments were unsuccessful, therefore, alternative bypass creation and a direct screw placement into a retained fractured fragment were carried out and suggested as an alternative strategy to osteotomy with a fractured screw fragment removal. Conclusion In case of rupture, expandable screws have a poor feasibility for a revision pedicle screw fixation because of fractured fragments strong anchorage in bone. The alternative bypass for a revision screw without fractured fragment removal or tapping and direct screw placement into retained expanded fragment of a screw are less invasive alternatives to osteotomy that can help overcome the discussed issue.
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
Australasian Medical Journal
Australasian Medical Journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Vitamin D supplementation as a fall prevention method: A systematic review Epidemiological study of scarlet fever in Shenyang City, China Local anti-inflammatory effect of vitamin D in acute and chronic gouty arthritis Differentiation of N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) rapid and intermediate acetylator based on genotype and urinary assay Are we facing NOVICHOK nerve agent threat?
×
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