Pedicle screw more efficacious vs lateral mass screw fixation in atlantoaxial instability .
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2016;4(15):26 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Apr 14;17(1):164140 patients with atlantoaxial instability (AAI), with C1 posterior arches greater than 4mm, were randomized to undergo either C1 pedicle or lateral mass screw fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare the feasibility and clinical outcomes of the two treatments of AAI after a mean follow-up period of 24.5 months. Findings indicated that C1 pedicle screw fixation may be less invasive and yield fewer complications compared to C1 lateral mass screw fixation.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Sì = 1
Incerto = 0,5
Non rilevante = 0
No = 0
La valutazione dei criteri di segnalazione valuta la trasparenza con cui gli autori riportano le caratteristiche metodologiche e sperimentali dello studio all'interno della pubblicazione. La valutazione è suddivisa in cinque categorie che vengono presentate di seguito.
3/4
Aleatorización
4/4
Medición de resultados
4/4
Inclusión / exclusión
4/4
Descripción de la terapia
3/4
Estadísticas
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'Indice di Fragilità è uno strumento che aiuta l'interpretazione dei risultati significativi, fornendo una misura della forza di un risultato. L'Indice di Fragilità rappresenta il numero di eventi consecutivi che devono essere aggiunti a un risultato dicotomico per rendere il risultato non più significativo. Un numero piccolo rappresenta un risultato più debole, mentre un numero grande rappresenta un risultato più forte.
Perché questo studio era necessario ora?
Atlantoaxial instability (AAI) is atypical movement at the cervical region, in between the atlas and axis, caused by malformation of bone or alterations of ligament. Atlantoaxial fixation is required to repair the instability, though various approaches that have been previously used, such as sublaminar wiring, Harms and Magerl techniques, have reported many postoperative complications followed by substantial rates of non-union. The Harms method utilizes polyaxial screws that are independently inserted into the C1 posterior arch and C2 pedicles, thereby allowing C1 posterior arch fixation to be split into pedicle and lateral mass screw fixation. The present study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of C1 pedicle and lateral mass screw fixation methods in treatment of AAI.
Qual era la domanda di ricerca principale?
In treatment of atlantoaxial instability, how do C1 pedicle and lateral mass screw fixation compare with regards to feasibility and clinical outcomes, as assessed up to 38 months postoperatively?
- A significantly shorter mean operation time was reported in the Pedicle screw group compared to the Lateral mass group (85 +/- 11 vs. 110 +/- 17 minutes, respectively; p<0.01).
- Significantly less volume of blood was lost in the Pedicle screw group compared to the Lateral mass group (180 +/- 40 vs. 370 +/- 80 ml, respectively; p<0.01)
- Hospitalization time, JOA scores, and VAS scores were similar between groups (p>0.05).
- JOA and VAS scores were significantly improved within both groups from preoperation to final follow-up (both p<0.01).
- No postoperative hardware complications were observed in any patient up to final follow-up; however, 6 cases of inferior wall fracture of the posterior arch, 2 cases of penetration of axis pedicle screws into the vertebroarterial foramen, and 2 cases of medial wall fracture of the axis pedicle were reported.
- 13 cases of burst bleeding from the C1-2 venous plexus during surgery and 9 cases of immediate pain and numbness in the occipitocervical region caused by C2 nerve roots irritation were noted in the Lateral mass group compared to no incidences in the Pedicle screw group (both p<0.01).
Che cosa devo ricordare di più?
In treatment of atlantoaxial instability, an operative procedure using C1 pedicle screw fixation was reported to result in a significantly shorter operation time, lower volume of blood loss, and fewer venous plexus and nerve root injuries compared to the C1 lateral mass screw fixation method. However, hospitalization time, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores, and visual analogue scale scores were comparable between groups.
Come influenzerà l'assistenza ai miei pazienti?
The results of this study suggest that the C1 pedicle screw fixation method may be less invasive and less complicated compared to C1 lateral mass screw fixation for patients with atlantoaxial instability. Further trials with longer follow-up periods are required to evaluate the long-term effects between groups.
DISCLAIMER
Il contenuto di questa pagina è solo a scopo informativo e non intende sostituire la consulenza, la diagnosi o il trattamento medico professionale. Se ha bisogno di cure mediche, si rivolga sempre al suo medico o al pronto soccorso più vicino. Le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista espressi dalle persone sui contenuti presenti in questa pagina non riflettono le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista di OrthoEvidence.
0 di 4 articoli mensili GRATUITI sbloccati
