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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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