| Literature DB >> 25706642 |
Anica Eschler1, Stephan Albrecht Ender1, Katharina Schiml1, Thomas Mittlmeier1, Georg Gradl1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a high incidence of vertebral burst fractures following low velocity trauma in the elderly. Treatment of unstable vertebral burst fractures using the same principles like in stable vertebral burst fractures may show less favourable results in terms of fracture reduction, maintenance of reduction and cement leakage. In order to address these shortcomings this study introduces cementless fixation of unstable vertebral burst fractures using internal fixators and expandable intravertebral titanium mesh cages in a one-stage procedure via minimum-invasive techniques.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25706642 PMCID: PMC4338244 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Pain level rated by VAS during the study period (0 = no pain, 10 = maximum pain).
| Patient No. | Age | Gender | Secondary diagnosis | Fractured vertebra | VAS0 p.o.d. | VAS1 p.o.d. | VAS3 p.o.d | VASfinal follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 94 | ♂ | c, p, e | T12 | 6.5 | 6.2 | 4.5 | 3.0 |
| 2 | 86 | ♀ | c, n, e | L1 | 8.6 | 9.2 | 2.3 | 1.3 |
| 3 | 74 | ♀ | g, e | L4 | 9.3 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 4.9 |
| 4 | 81 | ♀ | c, n, e | L1 | 2.4 | 0 | 2.0 | 3.9 |
| 5 | 60 | ♂ | c, p, g, e | L1 | 7.6 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 4.1 |
| 6 | 69 | ♀ | c, e | L3 | 10.0 | 9.3 | 8.9 | 5.7 |
| 7 | 73 | ♀ | c, g, e | L1 | 4.9 | 1.7 | 5.0 | 0 |
| 8 | 71 | ♀ | c, r, n, e | L2 | 9.7 | 9.1 | 3.0 | 4.4 |
| 9 | 84 | ♂ | c, e | L1 | 10.0 | 9.1 | 7.4 | 1.8 |
| 10 | 76 | ♂ | c, e | L1 | 8.5 | 5.2 | 4.8 | 4.7 |
| 11 | 74 | ♀ | c, h, e | L1 | 7.7 | 6.5 | 4.4 | 3.1 |
| 12 | 58 | ♂ | n, g, e | T12 | 6.5 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 1.5 |
| 13 | 64 | ♂ | - | L1 | 7.6 | 5.2 | 4.0 | 0.7 |
| 14 | 81 | ♂ | c, e | T12 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 3.0 |
| 15 | 89 | ♀ | c, e | T12 | 10.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| ∑ |
|
|
|
|
* p<0.001 0 p.o.d.- 1 p.o.d., p<0.001 1 p.o.d.- 3 p.o.d., p<0.001 0 p.o.d.– 3 p.o.d, p<0.001 0 p.o.d. / 1 p.o.d.—final follow-up.
** Secondary diagnosis: c cardiovascular, p pulmonary, r renal, h haematological, n neurological, g gastrointestinal, e endocrine.
Fig 1Consort 2010 flowchart.
Fig 2Radiographic measurement of vertebral body height in sagittal alignment using 6 defined points: A and B on the most dorsal-superior and—inferior endplate margins, E and F correspond to the most anterior-superior and—inferior margins, C and D are on the midpoint of a perpendicular line drawn from A to E and B to F on the superior and inferior vertebral endplates.
Cobb- and vertebra body kyphotic angle.
Fig 3Radiographs pre- (a-e), post-surgery (f-l) and for final follow-up (m,n) showing a T1 burst fracture and operative treatment by an internal fixateur one level above and below the fractured vertebra body and reduction by transpedicular placement of two titanium mesh cages, all via minimum invasive technique.
Fig 4Radiographic evaluation for vertebral body reduction in sagittal alignment pre-/postoperatively and for final follow-up (Ha = anterior vertebral body height, Hm = middle vertebral body height, Hp = posterior vertebral body height).
* pre-surgery vs. post-surgery p<0.033; # post-surgery vs. follow-up p<0.008.
Fig 5Radiographic evaluation for changes in vertebral body kyphotic angel (KA) and and Cobb angle alignment pre-/postoperatively and for final follow-up.
* pre-surgery vs. post-surgery p<0.001, pre-surgery vs. follow-up p<0.001; # post-surgery vs. follow-up p<0.026;° pre-surgery vs. post-surgery p<0.002.