Dergiler / Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery / 2021 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4

WHICH IMAGING METHOD IS MORE EFFECTIVE IN LATERAL MASS SCREW PLACEMENT: O-ARM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY OR X-RAY?

Sayfa
165–169
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Intraoperative screw revision rates were compared between the two groups using the chi-square test using SPSS 15.0 and no significant difference was found (p

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: Although various surgical techniques have been described in the posterior cervical fixation, the lateral mass fixation method is the most preferred method.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: Age, gender, etiological factors, intraoperative imaging method, number of fixed segments, and intraoperativepostoperative complications related to the surgical method of 41 patients were collected from the registered documents.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Intraoperative screw revision rates were compared between the two groups using the chi-square test using SPSS 15.0 and no significant difference was found (p
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: Although various surgical techniques have been described in the posterior cervical fixation, the lateral mass fixation method is the most preferred method. This study was conducted to examine the difference of imaging methods in order to detect and minimize important problems such as lateral mass fracture, vertebral artery foramen violation, and screw malposition intraoperatively during lateral mass fixation. Materials and Methods: Age, gender, etiological factors, intraoperative imaging method, number of fixed segments, and intraoperativepostoperative complications related to the surgical method of 41 patients were collected from the registered documents. Results: Lateral mass fixation was performed in 41 patients. Of the patients 29.3% (n=12) were female and 70.7% (n=29) were male. When the etiological factors were examined, the most common cause was cervical spinal stenosis (68.3%, n=28). The patients were evaluated in two groups (A, B). A total of 280 lateral mass screws were placed in the patients in both groups. One hundred and twenty-nine (46.1%) lateral mass screws were used in group A. One hundred and fifty-one (53.9%) lateral mass screws were performed to 22 (53.7%) patients in group B. Intraoperative screw revision rates were compared between the two groups using the chi-square test using SPSS 15.0 and no significant difference was found (p

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

DURMAZ, M. O., DOĞAN, A., EZGÜ, M. C., KARIMZADA, G. (2022). WHICH IMAGING METHOD IS MORE EFFECTIVE IN LATERAL MASS SCREW PLACEMENT: O-ARM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY OR X-RAY?. Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4, 165–169. https://ajindex.com/articles/568578

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Joaquim AF, Tan L, Riew KD. Posterior screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine: a technique and literature review. J Spine Surg. 2020;6:252-61
  2. Klekamp JW, Ugbo JL, Heller JG, Hutton WC. Cervical transfacet versus lateral mass screws: a biomechanical comparison. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13:515-8
  3. Joaquim AF, Mudo ML, Tan LA, Riew KD. Posterior subaxial cervical spine screw fixation: a review of techniques. Global Spine J. 2018;8:751-60
  4. Inoue S, Moriyama T, Tachibana T, Okada F, Maruo K, Horinouchi Y, et al. Risk factors for intraoperative lateral mass fracture of lateral mass screw fixation in the subaxial cervical spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20:11-7
  5. Hamdan ARK, Mahmoud RN, Al Mamoun MM, El Khateeb EES. Effect of sub-axial cervical lateral mass screw fixation on functional outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Asian J Neurosurg. 2019;14:140-1
  6. An HS, Gordin R, Renner K. Anatomic considerations for plate-screw fixation of the cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(Suppl 10):S548-51
  7. Aydogan M, Enercan M, Hamzaoglu A, Alanay A. Reconstruction of the subaxial cervical spine using lateral mass and facet screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:E335-41
  8. Inoue S, Moriyama T, Tachibana T, Okada F, Maruo K, Horinouchi Y, et al. Cervical lateral mass screw fixation without fluoroscopic control: analysis of risk factors for complications associated with screw insertion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:947-53
  9. Jeanneret B, Magerl F, Ward EH, Ward JC. Posterior stabilization of the cervical spine with hook plates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991;16(Suppl 3):S56-63
  10. Rathinavelu S, Islam A, Shivhare P, Chatterjee S. Lateral mass screw fixation in the cervical spine: introducing a new technique. Asian Spine J. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0143. Epub ahead of print
  11. Chin KR, Eiszner JR, Roh JS, Bohlman HH. Use of spinous processes to determine drill trajectory during placement of lateral mass screws: a cadaveric analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19:18-21
  12. Barrey C, Mertens P, Jund J, Cotton F, Perrin G. Quantitative anatomic evaluation of cervical lateral mass fixation with a comparison of the Roy-Camille and the Magerl screw techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:E140-7. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000155416.35234.a3
  13. Xu R, Ebraheim NA, Klausner T, Yeasting RA. Modified Magerl technique of lateral mass screw placement in the lower cervical spine: an anatomic study. J Spinal Di