| Literature DB >> 28646129 |
Mingxiao Sun1, Lili Kong2, Zhaofu Jiang2, Liming Li1, Bing Lu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND We aimed to compare microscope-assisted anterior cervical surgery with traditional open-base surgery for treating cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients were grouped into microscope-assisted anterior cervical surgery group (case group, n=30) and conventional anterior cervical surgery group (control group, n=30). Baseline characteristics, intraoperative and post-operative indexes including operation time, blood loss amount, duration of hospitalization, visual analogue scale (VAS), and complication rate were recorded. The neurological functions of patients were assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Furthermore, the corresponding rate of improved JOA score (RIS) in each group was also calculated to evaluate surgery outcomes. RESULTS The average blood loss amount and hospital stay duration in the case group were lower than in the control group (p<0.05). The post-operative VAS scores of both groups were decreased significantly. Particularly the post-operative VAS score in the case group was significantly lower than that in the control group (p<0.05). While the improvement rate of JOA scores in the case group was significantly higher than that in control group after cervical spine surgery. A significantly higher RIS rate was observed in the case group (p<0.05). Furthermore, post-operative complications of patients in the case group were lower than those in the control group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Compared to conventional anterior cervical surgery, surgeries operated with microscope exhibit higher efficacy and safety including less bleeding amount, shorter operation time, released pain degree, improved neurological functions, and fewer incidences of complications.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28646129 PMCID: PMC5495047 DOI: 10.12659/msm.901981
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Baseline characteristics of patients included in the case group and control group.
| Case group | Control group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | 30 | 30 | |
| Gender (Male/Female) | 18/12 | 21/9 | 0.417 |
| Age (years) | 55.2±11.1 | 54.8±10.7 | 0.980 |
| Course of disease (month) | 27.9±20.7 | 28.7±18.2 | 0.823 |
| Preoperative JOA score | 9.27±1.81 | 9.12±1.48 | 0.599 |
| OPLL society of Japan | |||
| Localized type | 3 | 4 | 0.697 |
| Continuous type | 11 | 10 | |
| Segmental type | 9 | 12 | |
| Mixed type | 7 | 4 | |
| Spinal stenosis rate (%) | 42.1±10.5 | 42.6±11.3 | 0.968 |
Using the rank sum test (Mann-Whitney test);
using chi square test.
JOA – Japanese Orthopaedic Association; JOA – Japanese Orthopaedic Association; OPLL – ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament; OPLL – ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament.
Comparative operation status between the case group and control group.
| Case group | Control group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Operative time (min) | 133.1±19.0 | 137.8±28.2 | 0.465 |
| Intraoperative blood loss amount (ml) | 94.4±12.6 | 112.8±15.5 | <0.001 |
| Hospitalization days (day) | 6.7±1.2 | 7.5±1.7 | 0.029 |
Using the rank sum test (Mann-Whitney test).
Improvement of pain release in the case group and control group.
| Pre-operative VAS score | Post-operative VAS score | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case group | 7.8±1.5 | 3.1±0.5 | <0.001 |
| Control group | 7.5±1.9 | 4.8±1.1 | <0.001 |
| 0.738 | <0.001 |
Using the rank sum test (Mann-Whitney test);
comparisons of the VAS score in the case group and the control group;
comparisons of the preoperative VAS score and the postoperative VAS score in the two groups.
The improvement of neurological functions in the case group and control group.
| Pre-operative JOA score | Post-operative JOA score | Improvement rate (%) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case group | 9.27±1.81 | 15.77±1.08 | 80.35±12.05 | <0.001 |
| Control group | 9.12±1.48 | 14.37±1.71 | 65.43±22.16 | <0.001 |
| 0.599 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
Use the rank sum test (Mann-Whitney test);
comparisons of the JOA score in the case group and the control group;
comparisons of the preoperative JOA score and the postoperative 12-month JOA score.
Evaluation of curative effectiveness in the case group and control group.
| Evaluation of outcomes | Rate of excellent and good (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent | Good | Moderate | Poor | ||
| Case group | 22 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 96.67 |
| Control group | 10 | 10 | 9 | 1 | 66.67 |
| 0.002 | 0.390 | 0.006 | 0.313 | 0.003 | |
Using chi square test.
Post-operative complications in the case group and control group.
| Cerebrospinal fluid leakage | Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury | Postoperative wound infection | Total complications | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case group | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Control group | 2 | 3 | 8 | 13 |
| 0.150 | 0.301 | 0.038 | 0.004 |
Using chi square test.