ACE Report Cover
Pedicle screw more efficacious vs lateral mass screw fixation in atlantoaxial instability
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り

SPINE

A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of treatment of atlantoaxial instability with C1 posterior arches >4 mm by comparing C1 pedicle with lateral mass screws fixation

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2016;4(15):26 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Apr 14;17(1):164

140 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.


出版資金提供の詳細 +
資金提供:
Non-Industry funded
スポンサー:
National Natural Science Foundation of China
コンフリクト:
None disclosed

バイアスのリスク

7/10

報告基準

18/20

脆弱性指数

N/A

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)?

はい = 1

不確実=0.5

無関係 = 0

いいえ = 0

報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。

3/4

Randomization

4/4

Outcome Measurements

4/4

Inclusion / Exclusion

4/4

Therapy Description

3/4

Statistics

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。

なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか?

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.

主な研究課題は何ですか?

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?

研究の特徴 +
人口:
140 patients, between the ages of 14 and 59, with AAI or reducible dislocation due to trauma, inflammation, or congenital malformation were included. Eligible patients had C1 posterior arches greater than 4mm, as well as differing severity in neck and occipital pain, activity limitation, numbness of limbs, or movement disorders. The study included 36 cases of type II and 43 cases of type III Anderson chronic odontoid fractures, 34 cases of congenital isolated odontoid abnormalities, 19 cases of transverse atlas ligament ruptures, and 8 cases of atlantoaxial dislocation caused by rheumatoid arthritis. All patients were placed in the prone position with the neck in a neutral and immobilized position.
介入:
C1 pedicle group: Patients were treated with a C1 pedicle screw inserted from 18-20mm lateral to the posterior tubercle and 3mm inferior to the superior border of the posterior arch. (n=67; Mean age: 43.9 +/- 8.2; 43M/24F)
比較:
C1 lateral mass group: Patients were treated with a C1 lateral mass screw inserted where the inferior border of the C1 posterior arch and the midpoint of the C1 lateral mass meet. (n=73; Mean age: 45.2 +/- 8.7; 45M/28F)
アウトカム:
Intraoperative outcomes included operation time, volume of blood loss, and intraoperative complications such as venous plexus injury, vertebral artery injury, and spinal cord injury. Clinical outcomes consisted of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain, and bone fusion rate.
方法:
RCT; prospective, assessor- and patient-blind, single-center
時間:
Patients were followed-up at 3 months, 6 postoperative months, and every 6 months thereafter for a total of 12 to 38 months (Mean: 24.5 +/- 13.0 months).

重要な知見は?

  • 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).
最も覚えておくべきことは?

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.

それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか?

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.

免責事項

このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。

0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
今月の無料記事閲覧数が4件に達しました。

週1.99ドルからOrthoEvidenceにアクセスできます。

最新のエビデンスにアクセスしてください。いつでもキャンセルできます。
  • 整形外科における最新のインパクトのあるランダム化比較試験とシステマティックレビューの批判的評価
  • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgeryとのコラボレーション、国際的に著名な外科医へのインタビュー、整形外科ニュースやトピックに関する座談会など、OrthoEvidenceポッドキャストコンテンツへのアクセス
  • 週2回発行されるエビデンスに基づくニュースレター、The Pulseの購読。
Upgrade
Close Dialog
おかえりなさい
パスワードをお忘れですか?
今すぐ無料トライアルを開始

あなたのアカウントは
OrthoEvidenceへの無料アクセスが含まれます。


または
パスワードをお忘れですか?

または
Eメールをご確認ください

入力されたメールアドレスにアカウントが存在する場合、パスワードリセットのメールが送信されます。メールが届かない場合は、迷惑メールフォルダをご確認ください。

その他のサポート サポートチームまでご連絡ください。.

この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

ACEレポートを翻訳

OrthoEvidenceは、多言語でコンテンツにアクセスできるようにするため、第三者の翻訳サービスを利用しています。正確性を確保するためにあらゆる努力をしていますが、翻訳が必ずしも完璧ではない可能性があることにご注意ください。

引用方法 ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Pedicle screw more efficacious vs lateral mass screw fixation in atlantoaxial instability. OE Journal. 2016;4(15):26. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/pedicle-screw-more-efficacious-vs-lateral-mass-screw-fixation-in-atlantoaxial-instability

引用のコピー
この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

プレミアム会員機能

この機能にアクセスするには、OrthoEvidenceのプレミアムアカウントにログインする必要があります。

共有 ACE Report