Comparison between tension band and cerclage with X-Plate and lag screws in treatment of comminuted patellar fractures

BackgroundComminuted patellar fractures are not rare, and the ideal treatment method remains controversial. The present study was conducted to evaluate effects and compare complications of two different methods used to treat comminuted patellar fractures.MethodsFrom March 2010 to August 2016, 102 cases of 34-C2 or 34-C3 comminuted patellar fractures were treated at our hospital, wherein patients received two different treatments: titanium cable tension band with cerclage method (group A) and intrafragmentary screws with X-shaped plating technique (group B). At follow-ups, articular step-off, range of motion (ROM), Lysholm scores, time of union, and complications were recorded and analyzed. Radiographic and clinical data as well as rate of complications were statistically analyzed.ResultsIn total, 87 patients were included in the final analysis (n = 47 in group A and n = 40 in group B). No significant differences were noted in terms of cost of implant, age, gender, rate of 34-C3 fractures, rate of layered inferior pole fractures, postoperative articular step-off and union time. At 2-year follow-up, average Lysholm scores, ROM and rate of complications were (89.0 ± 4.5), (122°±12°) and (27.7%) in group A and (90.2 ± 3.9), (124°±11°) and (17.5%) in group B, respectively, with no significant differences (p > 0.05). The mean time of surgery in group B was shorter than that in group A with significant difference (p < 0.05).ConclusionsTreatment using the intrafragmentary screws and plate method for amenable comminuted patellar fractures achieved similar complication rate and favorable functional outcomes at the 2-year follow-up, which was comparable to the titanium cable tension band with cerclage method. Thus, the intrafragmentary screws and plate method is effective, safe and convenient for 34-C2/C3 comminuted patellar fractures, especially appropriate for patients with layered fragments.     

寰椎Jefferson骨折伴横韧带损伤的诊治

目的 分析总结寰椎Jefferson骨折伴横韧带损伤的诊断和治疗。方法 1995年3月-2005年3月收治26例寰椎Jefferson骨折伴横韧带损伤患者。其中新鲜骨折20例，陈旧性骨折6例。所有患者均伴有不同程度的横韧带损伤，23例有神经损害表现。X线检查显示寰椎弓环及侧块不同部位骨折，寰齿间距（ADI）为4．7mm。5例行非手术治疗，其余21例行颈椎后路枕颈融合术或寰枢椎融合术治疗。结果所有患者术后获6～24个月（平均15个月）随访，21例手术治疗患者术后临床症状缓解；5例非手术治疗患者中，4例成功，另1例失败再行颈后路寰枢椎融合术治疗，术后疗效满意。结论 寰椎Jefferson骨折伴横韧带损伤患者的临床表现主要取决于韧带断裂后寰椎前脱位的程度以及是否造成脊髓压迫，诊断以ADI为主、并结合外伤史及临床表现。对于可能存在寰枢椎不稳或已有横韧带损伤且存在典型神经症状的患者，应早期行寰枢椎融合术或枕颈融合术治疗。     

动脉分支处的红细胞流变学研究与小动脉端侧吻合

为了探讨动脉分支处及小动脉端侧吻合处的血液流动方式，采用微循环电视显微镜成像技术，活体观察大鼠肠系膜微动脉分支区域血液流动方式和红细胞流变行为，研究动脉血流方向的改变对血流方式的影响。实验中观察到，在形态各异的大鼠肠系膜微动脉分支区域血液流态为稳定层流；红细胞通过不规则变形能很好地适应血管腔不同的几何形态，以保持血液流态的稳定。结果表明，微小动脉血流方向的改变未能在分支区域导致湍流发生，小动脉端侧吻合只是人为增加了侧支循环，同样不会导致血流紊乱和增加血栓形成的危险     

颈椎后纵韧带骨化症前路手术的多因素分析

[目的]探讨影响颈椎后纵韧带骨化症前路手术疗效的相关因素。[方法]48例颈椎后纵韧带骨化症患者，行前路手术治疗，随访1～4年，平均2．1年。根据术后神经功能JOA评分改善率，将患者分为预后良好、预后不佳2组。采用多元Logistic回归分析患者年龄、性别、神经功能、症状持续时间、合并糖尿病、Pavlov值、椎管狭窄率、骨化物分型、CT双影征、脊髓高信号、手术范围以及骨化物处理对患者手术疗效的影响。[结果]骨化物的处理方式是影响患者疗效的唯一因素（P=0．0067）。[结论]前路手术彻底切除骨化之后纵韧带，对脊髓充分减压是前路手术治疗颈椎后纵韧带骨化症的关键。     

胸椎黄韧带骨化症的外科治疗

目的探讨胸椎黄韧带骨化症的诊断与手术治疗方法，分析其手术时机、手术技巧、手术效果及并发症处理。方法回顾性总结56例患者的外科治疗过程，采用胸椎管后壁切除减压及侧后方入路，术中体感诱发电位监护。结果术后55例经随访1年以上，1例随访2个月。39例，良8例，可5例，差4例。结论胸椎黄韧带骨化所致的脊髓压迫症须早期手术治疗，可根据不同情况选择胸椎管后壁切除减压及侧后方入路的次环状减压的手术方式。     

后纵韧带钩辅助下颈椎后纵韧带骨化物切除减压术

目的探讨后纵韧带钩辅助下颈椎后纵韧带骨化物前路切除的适应证、方法及其临床效果。方法患者19例，男14例，女5例；年龄51-71岁，平均59岁。术前影像学检查结果示后纵韧带骨化物局限型6例，分节型13例；椎管狭窄率32％-75％，平均54％。术前神经功能JOA评分4-14分，平均9．6分。行颈前路常规手术入路，椎体开槽切骨达椎体后壁，范围超过后纵韧带骨化灶。利用后纵韧带钩插入后纵韧带下，钩起后纵韧带及骨化物，在后纵韧带与硬膜间形成一间隙，直视下用超薄型枪状咬骨钳切除后纵韧带及骨化物，而后植骨固定，恢复颈椎稳定性。结果随访6-36个月，平均16个月。术后JOA评分8～16分，平均12．8分，恢复率42％＇-92％，其中疗效优9例，良7例，可3例，优良率84．2％。4例患者术后并发脑脊液漏，保守治疗后均获得痊愈。术后CT和MR检查显示骨化后纵韧带切除完全，脊髓和硬膜囊形态恢复良好。结论后纵韧带钩可提高颈椎前路手术切除后纵韧带骨化物的安全性和有效性，适用于局限型和分节型、切除范围在两个椎节之间的颈椎后纵韧带骨化症患者。     

Risk factors for postoperative ileus after oblique lateral interbody fusion: a multivariate analysis

Background ContextOblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF)–has become a widely used, efficient surgical tool for various degenerative lumbar conditions. Postoperative ileus (POI) is a relatively common complication after anterior lumbar interbody fusion due to the manipulation of the intestine during the surgical approach. However, to our knowledge, little is known about POI following OLIF even though it also involves bowel manipulation during a surgical procedure.PurposeTo assess the incidence of POI and identify independent risk factors for POI development after OLIF.Study Design/SettingRetrospective cohort study.Patient SampleAll consecutive patients who underwent OLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation from August 2012 until October 2019 at a single institutionOutcome MeasuresPatient demographics (sex, age, body weight, height, and body mass index), comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux disease, antithrombotic medication, previous abdominal surgery, and previous lumbar surgery), and perioperative details (preoperative diagnosis, number of levels fused, inadvertent endplate fracture during cage insertion, type of interbody graft, intraoperative estimated blood loss, duration of surgery and anesthesia, the amount of intraoperative remifentanil and propofol used as anesthetic agents, the total postoperative retroperitoneal closed-suction drainage output, and the cumulative opioid dosage administered in the first 72 hours postoperatively).MethodsPOI was defined as 2 or more of the following at 72 hours postoperatively: (1) ongoing nausea or vomiting postoperatively, (2) the absence of flatus over last 24-hour period, (3) inability to tolerate an oral diet over last 24-hour period, (4) ongoing abdominal distention postoperatively, and (5) radiological confirmation. The subjects were divided into 2 groups: patients with POI and those without POI. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed on demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative factors to identify independent risk factors for POI.ResultsEighteen (3.9%) of 460 patients experienced POI after OLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation. Patients with POI had a significantly longer postoperative length of hospital stay than those without POI (8.61 ± 2.66 vs 6.48 ± 2.64, p = .001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified inadvertent endplate fracture (adjusted odds ratio = 6.017, p = .001) and the amount of intraoperative remifentanil (adjusted odds ratio = 1.057, p = .024) as independent risk factors for the occurrence of POI following OLIF.ConclusionThis study identified inadvertent endplate fracture and the amount of intraoperative remifentanil as independent risk factors for the development of POI after OLIF.     

A clinical calculator for predicting intraoperative blood loss and transfusion risk in spine tumor patients

BACKGROUND CONTEXTSurgery for vertebral column tumors is commonly associated with intraoperative blood loss (IOBL) exceeding 2 liters and the need for transfusion of allogeneic blood products. Transfusion of allogeneic blood, while necessary, is not benign, and has been associated with increased rates of wound complication, venous thromboembolism, delirium, and death.PURPOSETo develop a prediction tool capable of predicting IOBL and risk of requiring allogeneic transfusion in patients undergoing surgery for vertebral column tumors.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective, single-center study.PATIENT SAMPLEConsecutive series of 274 patients undergoing 350 unique operations for primary or metastatic spinal column tumors over a 46-month period at a comprehensive cancer centerOUTCOME MEASURESIOBL (in mL), use of intraoperative blood products, and intraoperative blood products transfused.METHODSWe identified IOBL and transfusions, along with demographic data, preoperative laboratory data, and surgical procedures performed. Independent predictors of IOBL and transfusion risk were identified using multivariable regression.RESULTSMean age at surgery was 57.0±13.6 years, 53.1% were male, and 67.1% were treated for metastatic lesions. Independent predictors of IOBL included en bloc resection (p<.001), surgical invasiveness (β=25.43 per point; p<0.001), and preoperative albumin (β=?244.86 per g/dL; p=0.011). Predictors of transfusion risk included preoperative hematocrit (odds ratio [OR]=0.88 per %; 95% confidence interval [CI, 0.84, 0.93]; p<0.001), preoperative MCHgb (OR=0.88 per pg; 95% CI [0.78, 1.00]; p=0.048), preoperative red cell distribution width (OR=1.32 per %; 95% CI [1.13, 1.55]; p<0.001), en bloc resection (OR=3.17; 95%CI [1.33, 7.54]; p=0.009), and surgical invasiveness (OR=1.08 per point; [1.06; 1.11]; p<0.001). The transfusion model showed a good fit of the data with an optimism-corrected area under the curve of 0.819. A freely available, web-based calculator was developed for the transfusion risk model (https://jhuspine3.shinyapps.io/TRUST/).CONCLUSIONSHere we present the first clinical calculator for intraoperative blood loss and transfusion risk in patients being treated for primary or metastatic vertebral column tumors. Surgical invasiveness and preoperative microcytic anemia most strongly predict transfusion risk. The resultant calculators may prove clinically useful for surgeons counseling patients about their individual risk of requiring allogeneic transfusion.