Direct screw fixation of the spondylolysis without fusion.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Aebi M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7571851 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Direct screw fixation of the spondylolysis without fusion.
European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society 20101001 10
Similar Datasets
Project description:In the presence of bone loss, the Bristow or Latarjet procedure is used to alleviate anterior glenohumeral instability. The techniques have gradually improved under arthroscopy. However, such an arthroscopic procedure has a steep learning curve, lengthy operation time, and considerable risk of complications, inhibiting its rapid development. The current method of modified arthroscopic Bristow procedure with screw fixation without subscapularis split reduces surgical time, reduces the risk of nerve damage consequences, and is simple to apply.
| S-EPMC10466097 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6728843 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis is a meta-analysis to compare the clinical results between unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation in lumbar interbody fusion.MethodsWe included published studies with no language and year restrictions. The criteria which Koes et al. designed in 1995 were used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies. All data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.1. The primary outcomes included fusion rate and screw complications, and the secondary outcomes were operative time, blood loss, and hospital time.ResultsA total of five prospective studies with 407 patients were included in the current meta-analysis, and four of them were randomized controlled trials. There was no significant difference between unilateral PS fixation and bilateral PS fixation group in fusion rate and screw complications (fusion rate: OR 0.54, Z = 1.33, P = 0.18, I (2) = 0 %; screw complications: OR 1.45, Z = 0.71, P = 0.48; I (2) = 44 %). In the secondary outcomes, the operative time (Z = 3.35, P = 0.0008; I (2) = 95 %) and blood loss (Z = 4.35, P < 0.0001; I (2) = 98 %) was significantly higher in bilateral PS fixation group than in unilateral PS fixation group. Besides, no significant difference was found in hospital time (Z = 1.19, P = 0.24; I (2) = 99 %).ConclusionsIn our meta-analysis, we found that unilateral PS fixation in lumbar fusion was as effective as bilateral PS fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases without major instability, no significant difference was found in hospital time, fusion rate and screw complications. In terms of operative time and blood loss, unilateral PS fixation even produced better results.
| S-EPMC3906456 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We report a case of bilateral three-level lumbar spondylolysis that was directly repaired by use of hook-screw technique. The patient complained of low back pain for 2 years that progressively worsened and was exacerbated with standing and walking. He also mentioned bilateral sciatalgia. The neurological examination was normal. Interestingly, we found bilateral lumbar spondylolysis in L3, L4, and L5 levels in imaging studies. After proving that spondylolysis was the source of the low back pain by local anesthetic agent injection, we used a direct technique for correction of spondylolysis by use of a hook-screw device plus decortications of lysis area and iliac crest autograft. We assessed the patient after surgery to evaluate pain recovery and fusion rate. The results were favorable and proved the efficacy of the hook-screw technique for treatment of symptomatic multilevel lumbar spondylolysis.
| S-EPMC3864455 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a novel percutaneous pedicle screw fixation and vertebral reconstruction (PPSR) vs. that of open pedicle screw fixation (OPSF) in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures.MethodsThis retrospective study enrolled 153 patients who underwent PPSR and 176 patients who received OPSF. Periprocedural characteristics, radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe operation duration was 93.843 ± 20.611 in PPSR group and 109.432 ± 11.903 in OPSF group; blood loss was 131.118 ± 23.673 in PPSR group and 442.163 ± 149.701 in OPSF group, incision length was 7.280 ± 1.289 in PPSR group and 14.527 ± 2.893 in OPSF group, postoperative stay was 8.732 ± 1.864 in PPSR group and 15.102 ± 2.117 in OPSF group, and total hospitalization costs were 59027.196 ± 8687.447 in PPSR group and 73144.432 ± 11747.567 in OPSF group. These results indicated that these parameters were significantly lower in PPSR compared with those in OPSF group. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of complications between the two groups. The radiographic parameters including height of the anterior vertebra, Cobb angle, and vertebral wedge angle were better in PPSR group than in OPSF group. Recovery rate of AVH was 0.449 ± 0.079 in PPSR group and 0.279 ± 0.088 in OPSF group. Analysis of clinical results revealed that during postoperative period, the VAS and ODI scores in PPSR group were lower than those in OPSF group.ConclusionsCollectively, these results indicated that PPSR more effectively restored the height of anterior vertebra and alleviated local kyphosis compared with OPSF. Moreover, the VAS and ODI scores in PPSR group were better than those of OPSF group.
| S-EPMC9852511 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study designMeta-analysis.BackgroundBilateral pedicle screw fixation (PS) after lumbar interbody fusion is a widely accepted method of managing various spinal diseases. Recently, unilateral PS fixation has been reported as effective as bilateral PS fixation. This meta-analysis aimed to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of unilateral PS fixation and bilateral PS fixation in the minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar interbody fusion for one-level degenerative lumbar spine disease.MethodsMEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, and Cochrane Library were searched through March 30, 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion that met the inclusion criteria and the methodological quality standard were retrieved and reviewed. Data on participant characteristics, interventions, follow-up period, and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and analyzed by Review Manager 5.2.ResultsSix studies (5 RCTs and 1 CCT) involving 298 patients were selected. There were no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral PS fixation procedures in fusion rate, complications, visual analogue score (VAS) for leg pain, VAS for back pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI). Both fixation procedures had similar length of hospital stay (MD = 0.38, 95% CI = -0.83 to 1.58; P = 0.54). In contrast, bilateral PS fixation was associated with significantly more intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.002) and significantly longer operation time (P = 0.02) as compared with unilateral PS fixation.ConclusionsUnilateral PS fixation appears as effective and safe as bilateral PS fixation in MIS lumbar interbody fusion but requires less operative time and causes less blood loss, thus offering a simple alternative approach for one-level lumbar degenerative disease.
| S-EPMC4223107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo carry out a systematic review on the basis of overlapping meta-analyses that compare unilateral with bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF) in lumbar fusion to identify which study represents the current best evidence, and to provide recommendations of treatment on this topic.MethodsA comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify meta-analyses that compare unilateral with bilateral PSF in lumbar fusion. Only meta-analyses exclusively covering randomized controlled trials were included. Study quality was evaluated using the Oxford Levels of Evidence and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Then, the Jadad decision algorithm was applied to select the highest-quality study to represent the current best evidence.ResultsA total of 9 studies with Level II of evidence fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included. The scores of AMSTAR criteria for them varied from 5 to 9 (mean 7.78). The current best evidence detected no significant differences between unilateral and bilateral PSF for short-segment lumbar fusion in the functional scores, length of hospital stay, fusion rate, and complication rate. However, unilateral PSF involved a remarkable decrease in operative time and blood loss but increase of cage migration when compared with bilateral PSF.ConclusionsAccording to this systematic review, unilateral PSF is an effective method of fixation for short-segment lumbar fusion, has the advantages of reduced operative time and blood loss over bilateral PSF, but increases the risk of cage migration.
| S-EPMC6924673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe posterior screw fixation in atlas via posterior arch and lateral mass, also called C1 "pedicle" screw, combined with C2 pedicle screw fixiation has shown better biomechanical stability in unstable atlantoaxial fractures. However, its popularization has to fulfill the limitation imposed by anatomical characteristics. The aim of this study was to explore the manipulation, effect, and safety of the atlantoaxial transpedicular screw fixation under "direct vision" for the treatment of unstable atlantoaxial fracture.MethodsAll the patients diagnosed with unstable atlantoaxial fracture, who received surgery treatment of C1,C2 internal fixation from January 2012 to December 2014 were reviewed. Only these patients that were diagnosed with atlantoaxial unstability secondary to trauma and were treated with atlantoaxial transpedicular screw fixation under "direct vision" and iliac autograft were included. The safety of transpedicular screw placement, postoperative outcome, atlantoaxial stability, autograft fusion, and complications was observed and analyzed retrospectively. The pain visual analog scale (VAS) and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score were used as surgical curative effect evaluation standards.ResultsWe reviewed a total of 92 patients diagnosed with unstable atlantoaxial fracture, who received surgery treatment of C1,C2 internal fixation from January 2012 to December 2014, and 87 patients were treated with atlantoaxial transpedicular screw fixation under "direct vision" and were included this analysis. A total of 306 transpedicular screws in atlas and axis were placed successfully. All cases were followed-up >12 months. The overall breach rate was 11.36%. None of the breaches resulted in new-onset neurological sequela. The neurological status in cases with bilateral upper extremities numbness and lower extremities weakness had improved after surgery. At the latest follow-up, the neck VAS and JOA scores were significantly improved (P < .01) than those preoperatively. No cases demonstrated implantation failure and bone graft absorption on the postoperative x-ray films and CT scans.ConclusionAtlantoaxial transpedicular screw fixation under "direct vision" and iliac autograft for the treatment of unstable atlantoaxial fracture has shown simple manipulation and efficient performance. Thus, the technique of C1-C2 fixation is feasible in treating unstable atlantoaxial fracture.
| S-EPMC5484189 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:It is still unknown whether bioabsorbable magnesium (Mg) screws provide an advantage over titanium screws in the treatment of medial malleolar (MM) fractures. The purpose of this retrospective study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of MM fractures fixed with either bioabsorbable Mg screws or conventional titanium screws. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A cohort of 48 patients with MM fractures who underwent compression screw fixation was retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-three patients (16 male, 7 female; mean age: 37.9?±?17.7 years) were treated with bioabsorbable Mg screws, and 25 patients (14 male, 11 female; mean age: 45.0?±?15.7 years) were treated with conventional titanium screw fixation. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year, with a mean time of 24.6?±?10.5 months (12-53 months). The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale was used to evaluate the clinical results. The Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) osteoarthritis grading was used to evaluate posttraumatic osteoarthritis on final ankle radiographs. Fracture union, rate of implant removal, and complications were recorded. Comparative analysis of two independent groups was performed using the chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS:The two groups were comparable concerning demographic and clinical characteristics. Age (p?=?0.146), sex (p?=?0.252), side (p?=?0.190), MM fracture type (p?=?0.500), associated fractures (p?=?0.470), and follow-up period (p?=?0.903) were similar between the groups. At final follow-up examination, AOFAS score (p?=?0.191) was similar between groups. Fracture union was achieved in all cases. Grade of posttraumatic osteoarthritis, according to KL, was equally distributed in both groups (p?=?0.074). No deep infection or osteomyelitis was seen. Five patients in the titanium screw group underwent implant removal, due to pain in three of them and difficulty in wearing shoes in the other two (p?=?0.031). Implant removal was performed after a mean of 14.2?±?3.1 months (12-19 months). CONCLUSIONS:Bioabsorbable Mg and titanium screws had similar therapeutic efficacy in MM fracture fixation regarding functional and radiological outcomes. However, the rate of implant removal was higher with titanium screws. Bioabsorbable Mg screws may be a favorable fixation option since secondary implant removal procedures can be prevented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level IV, Retrospective case series.
| S-EPMC7248135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become one of the most widely used procedures for lumbar spinal disorders. However, it is still unclear whether TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation is as effective as that with bilateral PS fixation. We performed a meta-analysis of the literatures and aimed to gain a better understanding of whether TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was safe and effective for lumbar diseases.Methodology/principal findingsWe systematically searched Ovid, Springer, and Medline databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in TLIF. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We generated pooled risk ratios or weighted mean differences across studies. According to our predefined inclusion criteria, seven RCTs with a total of 441 patients were included in this study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the unilateral and bilateral groups. Our meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was detected between the two groups in terms of postoperative clinical function, fusion status, reoperation rate, complication rate, and hospital stay (p>0.05). Pooled estimates revealed that the unilateral group was associated with significantly reduced implant cost, operative time and blood loss (p<0.05).Conclusions/significancesOur meta-analysis suggested TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was as safe and effective as that with bilateral PS fixation for lumbar diseases in selected patients. Despite these findings, our meta-analysis was based on studies with small sample size and different study characteristics that might lead to the inconsistent results such as various functional outcomes among the included studies. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample size are also needed to further clarify these issues and to provide the long-term outcomes.
| S-EPMC3906181 | biostudies-literature