Boyuan Nie1, Qingling Wang1, Beilei Li1, Ning Ou2, Zhaohui Yang3. 1. Department of Day Surgery, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, NO.382 Wuyi Road, Taiyuan, 030001, Shanxi, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Interventional Surgery, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, NO.382 Wuyi Road, Taiyuan, 030001, Shanxi, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Day Surgery, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, NO.382 Wuyi Road, Taiyuan, 030001, Shanxi, People's Republic of China. yangzh101@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of patients underwent PVP for OVCF as day surgery with the outcomes of patients managed as traditional inpatients. METHODS: According to the selection criteria, patients who underwent PVP for single-segment thoracolumbar OVCF were included retrospectively in the day surgery procedure (DSP) group and the traditional inpatient procedure (TIP) group between April 2018 and September 2019. The visual analog scale score (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score were recorded preoperatively and 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. Duration of hospital stay, preoperative waiting time, hospital cost, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 335 patients (53 in DSP group; 282 in TIP group) were enrolled and completed 12-month follow-up. The mean duration of hospital stay, the mean preoperative waiting time, and the mean hospital costs were significant lower in the DSP group. The postoperative VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved after surgery. Moreover, both VAS and ODI scores at each follow-up stage were also significantly lower than the previous follow-up stage. However, the ODI score in the DSP group was significantly lower at 1-day, 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up, respectively. For cement leakage and secondary vertebral compression fractures, there was no statistical difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that PVP for OVCFs in day surgery procedure is worthy of wide application.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of patients underwent PVP for OVCF as day surgery with the outcomes of patients managed as traditional inpatients. METHODS: According to the selection criteria, patients who underwent PVP for single-segment thoracolumbar OVCF were included retrospectively in the day surgery procedure (DSP) group and the traditional inpatient procedure (TIP) group between April 2018 and September 2019. The visual analog scale score (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score were recorded preoperatively and 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. Duration of hospital stay, preoperative waiting time, hospital cost, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 335 patients (53 in DSP group; 282 in TIP group) were enrolled and completed 12-month follow-up. The mean duration of hospital stay, the mean preoperative waiting time, and the mean hospital costs were significant lower in the DSP group. The postoperative VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly improved after surgery. Moreover, both VAS and ODI scores at each follow-up stage were also significantly lower than the previous follow-up stage. However, the ODI score in the DSP group was significantly lower at 1-day, 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up, respectively. For cement leakage and secondary vertebral compression fractures, there was no statistical difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that PVP for OVCFs in day surgery procedure is worthy of wide application.
Entities:
Keywords:
Day surgery; Osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture; Percutaneous vertebroplasty; Traditional inpatient
Authors: Lubdha M Shah; Jack W Jennings; Claudia F E Kirsch; Eric J Hohenwalter; Francesca D Beaman; R Carter Cassidy; Michele M Johnson; A Tuba Kendi; Simon Shek-Man Lo; Charles Reitman; Arjun Sahgal; Matthew J Scheidt; Kristofer Schramm; Daniel E Wessell; Mark J Kransdorf; Jonathan M Lorenz; Julie Bykowski Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: A K Mehio; J H Lerner; L M Engelhart; C M Kozma; T L Slaton; N C Edwards; G J Lawler Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Douglas P Beall; M R Chambers; Sam Thomas; John Amburgy; James R Webb; Bradly S Goodman; Devin K Datta; Richard W Easton; Douglas Linville; Sanjay Talati; John B Tillman Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 4.654