Short-segment pedicle instrumentation with transpedicular bone grafting for nonunion of osteoporotic vertebral fractures involving the posterior edge

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dapeng Li ◽  
Yonghui Huang ◽  
Huilin Yang ◽  
Taicun Sun ◽  
Yan Wu ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 3910
Author(s):  
Thomas Vordemvenne ◽  
Dirk Wähnert ◽  
Sebastian Klingebiel ◽  
Jens Lohmaier ◽  
René Hartensuer ◽  
...  

Background: Differentiation between traumatic osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic vertebral fractures is crucial for optimal therapy planning. We postulated that the morphology of the posterior edge of the cranial fragment of A3 vertebral fractures is different in these entities. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to develop and validate a simple method to differentiate between osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic A3 vertebral fractures by morphological analysis. Methods: A total of 86 computer tomography scans of AO Type A3 (cranial burst) vertebral body fractures (52 non-osteoporotic, 34 osteoporotic) were included in this retrospective study. Posterior edge morphology was analyzed using the sagittal paramedian slice with the most prominent shaped bulging. Later, the degree of bulging of the posterior edge fragment was quantified using a geometric approach. Additionally, the Hounsfield units of the broken vertebral body, the vertebra above, and the vertebra below the fracture were measured. Results: We found significant differences in the extent of bulging comparing osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic fractures in our cohort. Using the presented method, sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 96%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 94%. In contrast, by evaluating the Hounsfield units, sensitivity was 94%, specificity 94% and the PPV was 91%. Conclusions: Our method of analysis of the bulging of the dorsal edge fragment in traumatic cranial burst fractures cases allows, in our cases, a simple and valid differentiation between osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic fractures. Further validation in a larger sample, including dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements, is necessary.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larisa Marchenkova ◽  
Ekaterina Makarova ◽  
Mikhail Eryomushkin ◽  
Lilia Shakurova

Author(s):  
Marcus Christian Müller ◽  
Michael Windemuth ◽  
Sophie Frege ◽  
Eva Nadine Striepens

Background: Chronic exposure to occupational ionising radiation is seen as one reason for elevated cancer prevalence. </P><P> Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate radiation exposure of anaesthetists by real-time dosimetry. Methods: Data of 296 patients were analyzed. Ten types of trauma operation procedures including osteosynthesis of upper and lower extremity fractures and minimally invasive stabilisation of traumatic and osteoporotic vertebral fractures were accomplished. Evaluation was performed by an occupational dosimetry system, which visualises anaesthetists radiation exposure feedback compared to surgeons in real-time. Results: A significantly lower radiation exposure to anaesthetists compared to surgeons was observed in four types of operative procedures: Plate fixation of proximal humerus fractures, osteosynthesis of proximal femoral fractures, stabilisation of traumatic and osteoporotic vertebral fractures. In four types of operations (plate osteosynthesis of proximal humeral, distal radial and tibial fractures and intramedullary nailing of the clavicle), anaesthetists` amount of radiation exceeded one-third of the surgeons' exposure, especially if the C-arm tube was positioned close to the anaesthetists work station at the patients' head. Conclusion: By using the occupational radiation dose monitoring system, radiation exposure to anaesthetists was visualised in real-time during trauma operations. Radiation exposure of anaesthetists depends on the type of operation and the position of the C-arm. The system may help to increase anaesthetists` awareness concerning radiation exposure and to enhance compliance in using radiation protection techniques.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 209.2-210
Author(s):  
L. Marchenkova ◽  
V. Vasileva ◽  
M. Eryomushkin

Background:Due to the demand for special rehabilitation programs for patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures (VFs), it is of interest to study the functional abilities of those patients. The scientific hypothesis suggests that osteoporotic VFs would cause muscle weakness, muscle dysfunction and conditional disturbances.Objectives:to estimate muscle strength, motor function and coordination disorders in patients with VFs in the setting of systemic osteoporosis as a basis for rehabilitation programs developing.Methods:120 patients aged 43−80 with primary osteoporosis were enrolled. Study group comprised of 60 subjects (56 women, 4 men) with at least 1 VF confirmed by X-rays. Control group included 60 subjects (56 women, 4 men) with osteoporosis but without any osteoporotic fracture. The examination program included back muscles tenzodynamometry, balance tests and stabilometry.Results:Muscle strength deficiency was estimated in study group in trunk flexors (TF) — 40.9% and in trunk extensors (TE) — 18.1% with an adequate function of the left lateral flexors (LLF) and in right lateral flexors (RLF). Patients with VFs had the lower muscle strength vs controls of TE (15.64±9.8 vs 27.73±9.9 kg, p=0.00002), TF (14.61±8.98 vs 21.28±8.38 kg, p=0.0006), LLF (13.10±7.2 vs 24.06±8.9 kg, p=0.005) and RLF 13.44±7.43 vs 24.26±7.65 kg, p=0.0003). Patients with VFs lose their balance faster during one-leg-standing test with open eyes (5.0 [1.0; 10.0] vs 7.5 [5.0; 10.5] sec in control group, p=0.03) and with closed eyes (2.0 [0; 3.0] vs 3.5 [3.0; 5.0] sec, p=0.04). Fukuda-Unterberger test showed greater side dislocation in study group — 40° [25; 45] vs controls 30° [10; 45], (p=0.02). According to stabilometry study group was characterized vs control group by lower balance coefficient with open eyes (77.2±7.6 vs 85.7±9.4%, p=0.002) and with closed eyes (67.1±9.8 vs 73.4±9.9%, p=0.03), greater sagittal displacement (6.8 [2.1; 37.7] vs 4.8 [1.8; 10.7] mm, p=0.025) and deviation in the saggital plane (1.2 [-1.07; 1.5] vs -1.2 [-1.5; 1.2] mm, p=0.01), and also less pressure center velocity (9.51±4.4 vs 7.1±2.7 mm/sec, р=0.009).Conclusion:Osteoporotic VFs are associated with reduction of trunk muscles strength and negatively affect static and dynamic balance function that should be taken into account when developing rehabilitation programs for these patients.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.


Author(s):  
Daniel López Zúñiga ◽  
Antonio Jesús Láinez-Ramos-Bossini ◽  
Fernando Ruiz Santiago

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document