SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2021 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 2

Experience of a single center with 472 vertebral augmentation surgery in 356 patients

Fikret ŞAHİNTÜRK
Erkin SÖNMEZ
Mehmet Nur ALTINORS
Pages
237–242
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Both vertebral augmentation techniques are simple, effective and safe procedures provided that surgical indications are correct and surgical technique is properly carried out.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical series of patients who underwent vertebral augmentation surgery in Neurosurgery department of Baskent University.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The medical data stored in electronic and print files were retrospectively analyzed and patients operated in recent past were called for evaluation of outcome.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Both vertebral augmentation techniques are simple, effective and safe procedures provided that surgical indications are correct and surgical technique is properly carried out.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical series of patients who underwent vertebral augmentation surgery in Neurosurgery department of Baskent University. Materials and Methods: The medical data stored in electronic and print files were retrospectively analyzed and patients operated in recent past were called for evaluation of outcome. Results: One clinical; pain relief and two radiologic, kyphotic angle and vertebral compression, criteria were used to evaluate the final outcome. The statistical analysis revealed that in all three parameters there was significantly important improvement in postoperative values. Procedure related complications were minor. No permanent neurologic deficit or mortality was seen. Conclusion: Both vertebral augmentation techniques are simple, effective and safe procedures provided that surgical indications are correct and surgical technique is properly carried out.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞAHİNTÜRK, F., SÖNMEZ, E., ALTINORS, M. N. (2022). Experience of a single center with 472 vertebral augmentation surgery in 356 patients. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 2, 237–242. https://ajindex.com/articles/445693

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Galibert P, Deramond H, Rosat P, et al. Preliminary note on the treatment of vertebral angioma by percutaneous acrylic vertebroplasty. Neurochirurgie 1987;33:166-8
  2. Cauley JA, Thompson DE, Ensrud KC, et al. Risk of mortality following clinical fractures. Osteoporos Int 2000;11:556-61
  3. Edidin AA, Ong KL, Lau E, et al. Mortality risk for operated and nonoperated vertebral fracture patients in the medicare population. J Bone Miner Res 2011;26: 1617-26
  4. Chen F, Xia YH, Cao WZ, et al. Percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of spinal metastases. Oncol Lett 2016;11:1799-806
  5. Fourney DR, Schomer DF, Nader R, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for painful vertebral body fractures in cancer patients. J Neurosurg 2003;98:21-30
  6. Weitao Y, Qiqing C, Songtao G, et al. Open vertebroplasty in the treatment of spinal metastatic disease. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2012;114: 307-12
  7. Rollinghoff M, Zarghooni K, Schluter-Brust K, et al. Indications and contraindications for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130: 765-74
  8. De la Garza-Ramos R, Benvenutti-Regato M, Caro- Osorio E Vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for cervical spine metastases: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Int J Spine Surg 2016;10:7
  9. Atalay B, Caner H, Yilmaz C,et al. Sacral kyphoplasty for relieving pain caused by sacral hemangioma. Spinal Cord 2006;44:196-9
  10. Deen HG, Nottmeier EW. Balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of sacral insufficiency fractures. Report of three cases. Neurosurg Focus 2005;18:7
  11. Hentschel SJ, Burton AW, Fourney DR, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty performed at a cancer center: refuting proposed contraindications. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;2:436-40
  12. Abdelrahman H, Siam AE, Shawky A, et al. Infection after vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. A series of nine cases and review of literature. Spine J 2013;13:1809- 17
  13. Lin WC, Lee CH, Chen SH, et al. Unusual presentation of infected vertebroplasty with delayed cement dislodgment in an immunocompromised patient: case report and review of literature. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2008;31:231-5
  14. Shin JH, Ha KY, Kim KW, et al. Surgical treatment for delayed pyogenic spondylitis after percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Report of 4 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 2008;9:265-72
  15. Zou MX, Wang XB, Li J, et al. Spinal tuberculosis of the lumbar spine after percutaneous vertebral augmentation (vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty). Spine J 2015;15:1-6