Abstract

Objective. To analyze possibilities and limitations of various stabilization technologies in the surgical treatment of cervical spine pathology. Material and Methods. Study design: retrospective monocentric observational analysis. Level of evidence: 3b (UK Oxford, version 2009). Diagnostic and treatment data are presented for 433 patients operated on using stabilization systems: patients in Group 1 (n = 228) underwent anterior fixation, those in Group 2 (n = 175) – posterior fixation with polyaxial screw systems, and in Group 3 (n = 30) – combined (anterior and posterior) fixation. Results. For anterior fixation, ACDF, ACCF and their combinations were used as stabilization technologies. In 18.0 % of patients, 49 complications were revealed which corresponded to the 1st and 2nd categories according to the recommendations of WHO, and to grades I–IVA of Clavien – Dindo classification. For posterior fixation in Group 2, stabilization was performed using screw instrumentation systems. In 13.7 % of patients, 25 complications of the 1st and 2nd categories according to WHO recommendations and grades I–V according to Clavien-Dindo classification were revealed. Combined fixation involved the use of both anterior and posterior stabilizations. Analysis of anterior and posterior fixation techniques, as well as their comparison, showed a wide range of posterior stabilization options for a surgeon: any age, length, localization and nosology. Moreover, the realization of these advantages is carried out only through the indispensable use of screw fixation. Posterior fixation has several limitations: the impossibility of anterior decompression, limited correction of segmental lordosis, accessibility and greater trauma to soft tissues. Conclusion. Comparative analysis of methods for the cervical spine stabilization showed that posterior fixation is an integral part of the surgical treatment of the cervical spine pathology. The obtained results indicate the complementarity of the technologies for the cervical spine stabilization, without their interchangeability. These data can be useful when choosing stabilization techniques before planning surgical treatment of cervical spine pathology, which will allow changing the existing paradigm.

Highlights

  • In 18.0 % of patients, 49 complications were revealed which corresponded to the 1st and 2nd categories according to the recommendations of WHO, and to grades I– IVA of Clavien – Dindo classification

  • In 13.7 % of patients, 25 complications of the 1st and 2nd categories according to WHO recommendations and grades I–V according to ХИРУРГИЯ ПОЗВОНОЧНИКА 2020

  • Comparative analysis of methods for the cervical spine stabilization showed that posterior fixation is an integral part of the surgical treatment of the cervical spine pathology

Read more

Summary

Objective

To analyze possibilities and limitations of various stabilization technologies in the surgical treatment of cervical spine pathology. Технологии передней и задней стабилизации при оперативных вмешательствах на шейном отделе позвоночника A.V. Burtsev et al Comparative characteristic of anterior and posterior stabilization of the cervical spine during surgical interventions. Combined fixation involved the use of both anterior and posterior stabilizations. Comparative analysis of methods for the cervical spine stabilization showed that posterior fixation is an integral part of the surgical treatment of the cervical spine pathology. The obtained results indicate the complementarity of the technologies for the cervical spine stabilization, without their interchangeability. These data can be useful when choosing stabilization techniques before planning surgical treatment of cervical spine pathology, which will allow changing the existing paradigm. Comparative characteristic of anterior and posterior stabilization of the cervical spine during surgical interventions. Критерии оценки стабилизации: используемая технология, количество фиксированных позвоночно-двигательных сегментов и их локализация, нозологическая принадлежность, возраст, длительность оперативного вмешательства, кровопотеря, длительность госпитализации, осложнения

Материал и методы
Реоперация одна две
Аномалии развития
Вдавленный перелом костей черепа
Findings
Локализация фиксации Характер патологии

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.