Home > Journals > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences > Past Issues > Articles online first > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2021 Jun 10

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

 

Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2021 Jun 10

DOI: 10.23736/S0390-5616.21.05332-7

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Efficacy of percutaneous pedicle screws for thoracic and lumbar spine fractures compared with open technique

Irene PANERO 1 , Alfonso LAGARES 1, Jose A. ALÉN 2, Daniel GARCÍA-PEREZ 1, Carla EIRIZ 1, Ana María CASTAÑO-LEON 1, Santiago CEPEDA 3, Luis M. MORENO-GÓMEZ 1, Olga E. SINOVAS 1, Igor PAREDES 1

1 Neurosurgery, XII de Octubre University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; 2 Neurosurgery, La Princesa University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; 3 Neurosurgery, Rio Hortega University Hospital, Valladolid, Spain


PDF


BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to compare percutaneous techniques (MIS) with the open technique in terms of angle correction, long-term maintenance and clinical results.
METHODS: The authors collected a prospective database of thoraco-lumbar fractures treated with posterior stabilization without fusion from 2013 to 2019. The statistical analysis has been carried out retrospectively. The patients were classified into Open and MIS group. To compare the two population, samples, treatments and mitigate the differences between the groups, the propensity score (PS) matching was used.
RESULTS: 108 patients with thoraco-lumbar fractures were included. After performing the PS, 21 patients were obtained in the open group and 28 in the MIS group. For operative and perioperative parameters there were no differences in number of patients with posterior decompression, number of instrumented segments, number of total screws, operative time and complications. Postoperative hemoglobin was similar in both groups. However, in the open group a greater loss of hemoglobin was observed; as well as, higher analgesia requirements and length of stay. No statistically significant differences were observed in neurological status in both groups in the preoperative, postoperative period and at follow-up. The Cobb angle showed no differences at admission comparing both groups. A similar angle correction was observed with both surgeries, but in open surgery there was a statistically significant loss of correction.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed in this study that the MIS technique for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures is as effective as the open technique in terms of angle correction; and demonstrated that is better in its maintenance over time. Clinical results were at least as good as with the open technique.


KEY WORDS: Spine; Thoracolumbar Fracture; Minimally invasive surgery; Open surgery; Cobb angle; Angle correction/loss

top of page