Comparative analysis of surgical treatment results for osteoporotic burst fractures of thoracolumbar vertebral bodies
| Autor: | Vladimir D. Sinyavin, Victor V. Rerikh |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | English<br />Russian |
| Rok vydání: | 2024 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Гений oртопедии, Vol 30, Iss 4, Pp 542-551 (2024) |
| Druh dokumentu: | article |
| ISSN: | 1028-4427 2542-131X |
| DOI: | 10.18019/1028-4427-2024-30-4-542-551 |
| Popis: | Introduction Surgical methods for osteoporotic burst vertebral body fracture repair have their advantages and shortcomings. The use of circumferential stabilization and corrective vertebrotomies in elderly patients is highly invasive and carries great surgical risk. On the other hand, minimally invasive methods lead to recurrence of the deformity. Thus, in the treatment of patients with such pathology, it is necessary to choose a surgical method that allows achieving optimal results. Purpose of the work was to compare the results of surgical treatment for osteoporotic burst fractures in thoracolumbar vertebral bodies using the developed method and methods of circular and hybrid stabilization based on clinical and radiological criteria. Materials and methods The study was retrospective. Three groups of patients were formed according to the type of surgical intervention. Inclusion criteria were patients with primary osteoporosis who did not receive osteotropic therapy before surgery, with osteoporotic fractures (type OF3 and OF4) of the vertebral bodies of the thoracolumbar location (Th10–L2). The follow-up period was 12 months. The following criteria were assessed: the amount of kyphosis correction (according to the Cobb method), the amount of residual postoperative kyphotic deformity, as well as its recurrence in the long-term postoperative period; sagittal balance of the torso (Barrey index), subjective evaluation of the patient’s condition (VAS). Quality of life assessment was not performed. Results There were no statistically significant differences in the dynamics of sagittal balance during the follow‑up period between the groups (p > 0.99). There was no difference between groups in clinical outcomes (VAS) at follow-up (p > 0.05). A statistically significant difference in the magnitude of kyphotic deformity and its correction in the specified postoperative periods was revealed between the hybrid fixation groups and the corrective vertebrotomy group. No difference was found with the circular stabilization group. Discussion Due to the high risks of poor outcomes of anterior spinal fusion, in particular, implant subsidence, to avoid anterior spinal fusion, we used a method of focal kyphosis correction and posterior spinal fusion with autologous bone. The method proposed by the authors for the correction of focal kyphotic deformity in the treatment of patients with osteoporotic burst fractures of the vertebral bodies combines satisfactory correction of focal kyphosis with minimal surgical invasiveness, which reduces the risks of complications and poor outcomes. The proposed method may also be combined with hybrid fixation. Conclusion The developed method for focal kyphotic deformity correction in the treatment of osteoporotic burst fractures of vertebral bodies provides satisfactory correction of focal kyphosis, reduces the risks of complications and poor outcomes in comparison with circular and hybrid stabilization. |
| Databáze: | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|