-
- Halil Ibrahim Süner, PérezRafael LuqueRLDepartment of Surgery, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain; Department of Traumatology and Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain., Daniel Garríguez-Pérez, MarínMarta EchevarríaMEDepartment of Traumatology and Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain., Jose Luis Pérez, and Ignacio Domínguez.
- Department of Neurosurgery, Baskent University School of Medicine, Adana Dr. Turgut Noyan Application and Research Center, Adana, Turkey. Electronic address: h.ibrahimsuner@hotmail.com.
- World Neurosurg. 2022 Oct 1; 166: e419e426e419-e426.
BackgroundWe compared the clinical and radiological outcomes and complications of patients treated for thoracolumbar burst fractures via temporary percutaneous osteosynthesis or open definitive arthrodesis.MethodsA retrospective case-control study was performed including patients treated between 2017 and 2019 for a burst fracture of the thoracolumbar junction, either with percutaneous osteosynthesis (case group) or open arthrodesis (control group). Clinical, functional, and radiographic results were analyzed and compared between treatment groups.ResultsWe included 112 patients (56 osteosynthesis/56 arthrodesis, P = 1) in our study. The mean follow-up and mean age were 20 ± 3 months (20 ± 2/20 ± 3, P = 1), and 41 ± 10 years (40 ± 11/42 ± 10, P = 0.3), respectively. Fracture level was L1/L2 in 75% and T11/T12 in 25% of patients. The osteosynthesis group showed significantly shorter operative times (104 ± 20 minutes/176 ± 18 minutes, P < 0.01) and inpatient stays (11.6 ± 1.5 days/15.6 ± 3.8 days, P < 0.01). Both groups showed similar correction over kyphosis angle at final follow-up (5.8° ± 2.8°/6° ± 0.2°, P = 0.57), but the osteosynthesis group showed increased segment mobility after hardware removal (3.8° ± 1.2°/0.9° ± 0.3°, P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in complications, although the osteosynthesis group showed a significantly lower need for blood transfusion (21%/43%, P = 0.02).ConclusionsBoth methods of treatment yielded good clinical and radiological results with similar complication rates. Temporary osteosynthesis seems to be more beneficial than open arthrodesis because it requires shorter operative time and hospitalization, causes less bleeding, and facilitates spinal movement.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.