Cargando…
Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine
The present study examined the necessity of cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic patients with single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis.Fifty-nine cases were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-three cases were in the polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw (PMMA-PS) group, an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9842729/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36646752 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27539-x |
_version_ | 1784870209167818752 |
---|---|
author | Peng, Jian-cheng Guo, Hui-zhi Zhan, Chen-guang Huang, Hua-sheng Ma, Yan-huai Zhang, Shun-cong Xu, Yue-rong Mo, Guo-ye Tang, Yong-chao |
author_facet | Peng, Jian-cheng Guo, Hui-zhi Zhan, Chen-guang Huang, Hua-sheng Ma, Yan-huai Zhang, Shun-cong Xu, Yue-rong Mo, Guo-ye Tang, Yong-chao |
author_sort | Peng, Jian-cheng |
collection | PubMed |
description | The present study examined the necessity of cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic patients with single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis.Fifty-nine cases were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-three cases were in the polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw (PMMA-PS) group, and the other 26 cases were in the conventional pedicle screw (CPS) group. Evaluation data included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization cost, hospitalization days, rates of fusion, screw loosening, bone cement leakage, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT) and sacral slope (SS).The operation time and blood loss in the CPS group decreased significantly compared to those in the PMMA-PS group. The average hospitalization cost of the PMMA-PS group was significantly higher than that of the CPS group. There was no significant difference in the average hospital stay between the 2 groups. The initial and last follow-up postoperative VAS and ODI scores improved significantly in the two groups. There were no significant differences in VAS and ODI between the 2 groups at each time point. The last postoperative spine-pelvic parameters were significantly improved compared with those preoperatively. In the PMMA-PS group, the fusion rate was 100%. The fusion rate was 96.15% in the CPS group. No significant difference was found between the two groups for the fusion rate. Nine patients in the PMMA-PS group had bone cement leakage. There was no screw loosening in the PMMA-PS group. There were 2 cases of screw loosening in the CPS group. There were no significant differences in screw loosening, postoperative adjacent segment fractures, postoperative infection or postoperative revision between the 2 groups. The use of PMMA-PS on a regular basis is not recommended in posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis with osteoporosis. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9842729 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98427292023-01-18 Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine Peng, Jian-cheng Guo, Hui-zhi Zhan, Chen-guang Huang, Hua-sheng Ma, Yan-huai Zhang, Shun-cong Xu, Yue-rong Mo, Guo-ye Tang, Yong-chao Sci Rep Article The present study examined the necessity of cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation in osteoporotic patients with single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis.Fifty-nine cases were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty-three cases were in the polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw (PMMA-PS) group, and the other 26 cases were in the conventional pedicle screw (CPS) group. Evaluation data included operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization cost, hospitalization days, rates of fusion, screw loosening, bone cement leakage, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT) and sacral slope (SS).The operation time and blood loss in the CPS group decreased significantly compared to those in the PMMA-PS group. The average hospitalization cost of the PMMA-PS group was significantly higher than that of the CPS group. There was no significant difference in the average hospital stay between the 2 groups. The initial and last follow-up postoperative VAS and ODI scores improved significantly in the two groups. There were no significant differences in VAS and ODI between the 2 groups at each time point. The last postoperative spine-pelvic parameters were significantly improved compared with those preoperatively. In the PMMA-PS group, the fusion rate was 100%. The fusion rate was 96.15% in the CPS group. No significant difference was found between the two groups for the fusion rate. Nine patients in the PMMA-PS group had bone cement leakage. There was no screw loosening in the PMMA-PS group. There were 2 cases of screw loosening in the CPS group. There were no significant differences in screw loosening, postoperative adjacent segment fractures, postoperative infection or postoperative revision between the 2 groups. The use of PMMA-PS on a regular basis is not recommended in posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis with osteoporosis. Nature Publishing Group UK 2023-01-16 /pmc/articles/PMC9842729/ /pubmed/36646752 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27539-x Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Peng, Jian-cheng Guo, Hui-zhi Zhan, Chen-guang Huang, Hua-sheng Ma, Yan-huai Zhang, Shun-cong Xu, Yue-rong Mo, Guo-ye Tang, Yong-chao Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine |
title | Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine |
title_full | Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine |
title_fullStr | Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine |
title_short | Comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine |
title_sort | comparison of pedicle screw fixation with or without cement augmentation for treating single-segment isthmic spondylolisthesis in the osteoporotic spine |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9842729/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36646752 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-27539-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pengjiancheng comparisonofpediclescrewfixationwithorwithoutcementaugmentationfortreatingsinglesegmentisthmicspondylolisthesisintheosteoporoticspine AT guohuizhi comparisonofpediclescrewfixationwithorwithoutcementaugmentationfortreatingsinglesegmentisthmicspondylolisthesisintheosteoporoticspine AT zhanchenguang comparisonofpediclescrewfixationwithorwithoutcementaugmentationfortreatingsinglesegmentisthmicspondylolisthesisintheosteoporoticspine AT huanghuasheng comparisonofpediclescrewfixationwithorwithoutcementaugmentationfortreatingsinglesegmentisthmicspondylolisthesisintheosteoporoticspine AT mayanhuai comparisonofpediclescrewfixationwithorwithoutcementaugmentationfortreatingsinglesegmentisthmicspondylolisthesisintheosteoporoticspine AT zhangshuncong comparisonofpediclescrewfixationwithorwithoutcementaugmentationfortreatingsinglesegmentisthmicspondylolisthesisintheosteoporoticspine AT xuyuerong comparisonofpediclescrewfixationwithorwithoutcementaugmentationfortreatingsinglesegmentisthmicspondylolisthesisintheosteoporoticspine AT moguoye comparisonofpediclescrewfixationwithorwithoutcementaugmentationfortreatingsinglesegmentisthmicspondylolisthesisintheosteoporoticspine AT tangyongchao comparisonofpediclescrewfixationwithorwithoutcementaugmentationfortreatingsinglesegmentisthmicspondylolisthesisintheosteoporoticspine |