| Literature DB >> 30402429 |
Jung Hwan Lee1, Chung Kee Chough2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the risk factors for hinge fracture (HF) and non-union during cervical open-door laminoplasty (CODL).Entities:
Keywords: Cervical vertebrae; Fractures, bone; Laminoplasty; Risk factors
Year: 2018 PMID: 30402429 PMCID: PMC6218341 DOI: 10.13004/kjnt.2018.14.2.118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Neurotrauma ISSN: 2234-8999
FIGURE 1(A) Schematic diagram of the lamina angle (LA) and spinous angle (SA). SA (a) was defined as the angle between the parallel line to spinous process and the perpendicular line to virtual line crossing both lateral mass posteriorly. LA (b) was defined as the angle between parallel line to the hinge side lamina and virtual line crossing both lateral mass posteriorly. (B) Radiographic measurements of hinge gutter location. Inner cortex layer (c) was defined as distance from pedicle to inner cortical bone of hinge, and outer cortex layer (d) was defined as distance from pedicle to outer cortical bone of hinge.
Comparison of parameters for hinge status between greenstick deformation group and fragmentation group
OCL: outer cortex location, ICL: inner cortex location, LA: lamina angle, SA: spinous angle, DA: difference of lamina angle
FIGURE 2Receiver-operating characteristics curves of risk factors. (A) Outer cortex location, (B) inner cortex location, (C) lamina angle, (D) spinous angle, and (E) difference of lamina angle. AUC: area under curve.
Risk factor analysis of hinge fragmentation
OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval, OCL: outer cortex location, ICL: inner cortex location, LA: lamina angle, SA: spinous angle, DA: difference of lamina angle
Comparison of parameters for hinge healing status between non-union group and union group
OCL: outer cortex location, ICL: inner cortex location, LA: lamina angle, SA: spinous angle, DA: difference of lamina angle