Literature DB >> 32666736

[Comparison of radiological changes after Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy versus simple posterior spinal osteotomy for severe rigid spinal deformity].

Beiping Ouyang1, Chunshan Luo1, Xiangyang Ma2, Xiaobao Zou2, Tingsheng Lu1, Qiling Chen1, Xingwei Pu1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the changes of scoliosis and kyphosis angles after Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy versus simple posterior spinal osteotomy for severe rigid spinal deformity.
METHODS: A clinical data of 28 patients with severe rigid spinal deformity between January 2015 and November 2017 was retrospectively analyzed. Sixteen patients were treated by Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy (group A) and 12 patients were treated with posterior spinal osteotomy only (group B). There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in gender, age, body mass index, and preoperative pulmonary function, coronal and sagittal Cobb angles, and flexibility. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and complications were recorded. The coronal and sagittal Cobb angles were measured on X-ray films before operation (before traction in group A), at 10 days after operation, at last follow-up in the two groups and after traction in group A. The improvement rate of deformity after traction in group A, the correction rate of deformity after operation, and the loss rate of correction at last follow-up were calculated.
RESULTS: All patients were followed up 24-30 months (mean, 26.5 months). The operation time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in group A than in group B ( t=7.629, P=0.000; t=8.773, P=0.000). In group A, 1 patient occurred transient numbness of both legs during continuous traction and 2 patients needed ventilator support for more than 12 hours. In group B, 7 patients needed ventilator support for more than 12 hours, including 1 patient with deep incision infection. The incidence of complications was 18.75% (3/16) in group A and 58.33% (7/12) in group B, and the difference between the two groups was significant ( χ 2=4.680, P=0.031). The coronal and sagittal improvement rates of deformity after traction in group A were 40.47%±3.60% and 40.70%±4.20%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in the coronal and sagittal Cobb angles at 10 days after operation and at last follow-up, in the correction rate of deformity after operation, and in the loss rate of correction at last follow-up.
CONCLUSION: For the severe rigid spinal deformity, Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy and simple posterior spinal osteotomy can obtain the same orthopedic effect and postoperative deformity correction. However, the Halo-pelvic traction can shorten operation time, reduce blood loss and incidence of perioperative complications.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Halo-pelvic traction; Severe rigid spinal deformity; posterior osteotomy

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32666736      PMCID: PMC8180433          DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.201911153

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi        ISSN: 1002-1892


  17 in total

1.  Preoperative halo-gravity traction for treatment of severe adult kyphosis and scoliosis.

Authors:  Takayoshi Shimizu; Lawrence G Lenke; Meghan Cerpa; Ronald A Lehman; Suthipas Pongmanee; J Alex Sielatycki
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-01-24

2.  Posterior Multiple-Level Asymmetrical Ponte Osteotomies for Rigid Adult Idiopathic Scoliosis.

Authors:  Yangpu Zhang; Yong Hai; Luming Tao; Jincai Yang; Lijin Zhou; Peng Yin; Aixing Pan; Yaoshen Zhang; Chang Liu
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2019-03-25       Impact factor: 2.104

3.  Halo-gravity traction combined with assisted ventilation: an effective pre-operative management for severe adult scoliosis complicated with respiratory dysfunction.

Authors:  Hongda Bao; Peng Yan; Mike Bao; Yong Qiu; Zezhang Zhu; Zhen Liu; Jack C Y Cheng; Bobby K W Ng; Feng Zhu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  The impact of halo-gravity traction on curve rigidity and pulmonary function in the treatment of severe and rigid scoliosis and kyphoscoliosis: a clinical study and narrative review of the literature.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Juliane Zenner; Vera Gajic; Oliver Meier; Luis Ferraris; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A single posterior approach for multilevel modified vertebral column resection in adults with severe rigid congenital kyphoscoliosis: a retrospective study of 13 cases.

Authors:  Yan Wang; Yonggang Zhang; Xuesong Zhang; Peng Huang; Songhua Xiao; Zheng Wang; Zhengsheng Liu; Baowei Liu; Ning Lu; Keya Mao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Posterior vertebral column resection for rigid proximal thoracic kyphoscoliosis with broken growing rods in a patient with Desbuquois dysplasia.

Authors:  Yoichiro Takata; Lawrence G Lenke; Michael P Kelly
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-01-16

7.  Vertebral column resection for the treatment of severe spinal deformity.

Authors:  Lawrence G Lenke; Brenda A Sides; Linda A Koester; Marsha Hensley; Kathy M Blanke
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Skull-femoral traction after posterior release for correction of adult severe scoliosis: efficacy and complications.

Authors:  Jun Qiao; Lingyan Xiao; Leilei Xu; Zhen Liu; Xu Sun; Bangping Qian; Zezhang Zhu; Yong Qiu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-08-02       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 9.  Severe Rigid Scoliosis: Review of Management Strategies and Role of Spinal Osteotomies.

Authors:  Pankaj Kandwal; Govindaraja Perumal Vijayaraghavan; Upendra Bidre Nagaraja; Arvind Jayaswal
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2017-06-15

10.  Surgical and radiological outcomes after posterior vertebral column resection according to the surgeon's experience.

Authors:  Byoung Hun Lee; Seung-Jae Hyun; Sanghyun Han; Ki-Jeong Kim; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Yongjung J Kim; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.