http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Nolan J. Brown,Brian V. Lien,Shane Shahrestani,Elliot H. Choi,Katelynn Tran,Sandra Gattas,Seth C. Ransom,Ali R. Tafreshi,Ryan Chase Ransom,Ronald Sahyouni,Alvin Chan,Michael Oh 대한척추신경외과학회 2021 Neurospine Vol.18 No.1
Objective: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a degenerative disorder leading to progressive decline in spinal cord function. Cervical laminoplasty (CLP) and cervical laminectomy with fusion (CLF) are standard treatments for multilevel CSM. However, it is still unclear whether one procedure over the other provides better outcomes. Here, we performed a comprehensive review of published articles that compare the clinical outcomes and costs between CLP and CLF for CSM. Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Strict exclusion criteria were applied, and included articles were then assessed for publication year, study design, and significant differences in outcome variables. Results: From 519 studies identified with search terms, 38 studies were included for the qualitative analysis. Statistically significant differences in the clinical outcomes and costs were found in 18 studies. Eleven studies were prospective or retrospective, and 8 studies were meta-analyses. For the outcome variables of interest, results were reported by classifying into prospective studies, retrospective studies, and meta-analyses. Conclusion: CLP and CLF are 2 of the most commonly performed surgical procedures for the treatment of CSM. Although CLP and CLF each provide satisfactory clinical outcomes for patients with CMS, CLP may result in better cervical range of motion and less cost, length of stay, operation time, blood loss, paraspinal muscular atrophy, and rate of nerve palsies as compared to CLF. The major limitation of CLP versus CLF comparison studies includes the heterogeneity in techniques and preoperative criteria. Thus, further validation and investigations in larger cohorts will be required.
Endoscopic Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Brown Nolan J.,Pennington Zach,Kuo Cathleen C.,Lopez Alexander M.,Picton Bryce,Solomon Sean,Nguyen Oanh T.,Yang Chenyi,Tantry Evelyne K.,Shahin Hania,Gendreau Julian,Albano Stephen,Pham Martin H.,Oh M 대한척추외과학회 2023 Asian Spine Journal Vol.17 No.6
Laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion (L-ALIF), which employs laparoscopic cameras to facilitate a less invasive approach, originally gained traction during the 1990s but has subsequently fallen out of favor. As the envelope for endoscopic approaches continues to be pushed, a recurrence of interest in laparoscopic and/or endoscopic anterior approaches seems possible. Therefore, evaluating the current evidence base in regard to this approach is of much clinical relevance. To this end, a systematic literature search was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the following keywords: “(laparoscopic OR endoscopic) AND (anterior AND lumbar).” Out of the 441 articles retrieved, 22 were selected for quantitative analysis. The primary outcome of interest was the radiographic fusion rate. The secondary outcome was the incidence of perioperative complications. Meta-analysis was performed using RStudio’s “metafor” package. Of the 1,079 included patients (mean age, 41.8±2.9 years), 481 were males (44.6%). The most common indication for L-ALIF surgery was degenerative disk disease (reported by 18 studies, 81.8%). The mean follow-up duration was 18.8±11.2 months (range, 6–43 months). The pooled fusion rate was 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.9–90.4). Complications occurred in 19.2% (95% CI, 13.4–27.4) of L-ALIF cases. Additionally, 7.2% (95% CI, 4.6–11.4) of patients required conversion from L-ALIF to open surgery. Although L-ALIF does not appear to be supported by studies available in the literature, it is important to consider the context from which these results have been obtained. Even if these results are taken at face value, the failure of endoscopy to have a role in the ALIF approach does not mean that it should not be incorporated in posterior approaches.
Spinal Robotics in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Systematic Review
Kareem Khalifeh,Nolan J. Brown,Zach Pennington 대한척추신경외과학회 2024 Neurospine Vol.21 No.1
Spinal robotics have the potential to improve the consistency of outcomes in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The objective of this paper is to assess the accuracy of pedicle and S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws placed with robotic guidance in ASD patients. PubMed Central, Google Scholar, and an institutional library database were queried until May 2023. Articles were included if they described ASD correction via robotic guidance and pedicle and/or S2AI screw accuracy. Articles were excluded if they described pediatric/adolescent spinal deformity or included outcomes for both ASD and non-ASD patients without separating the data. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Primary endpoints were pedicle screw accuracy based on the Gertzbein-Robbins Scale and self-reported accuracy percentages for S2AI screws. Data were extracted for patient demographics, operative details, and perioperative outcomes and assessed using descriptive statistics. Five studies comprising 138 patients were included (mean age 66.0 years; 85 females). A total of 1,508 screws were inserted using robotic assistance (51 S2AI screws). Two studies assessing pedicle screws reported clinically acceptable trajectory rates of 98.7% and 96.0%, respectively. Another study reported a pedicle screw accuracy rate of 95.5%. Three studies reported 100% accuracy across 51 total S2AI screws. Eight total complications and 4 reoperations were reported. Current evidence supports the application of robotics in ASD surgery as safe and effective for placement of both screw types. However, due to the paucity of data, a comprehensive assessment of its incremental benefit over other techniques cannot be made. Further work using expanded cohorts is merited.
Omar Al Jammal,Julian Gendreau,Bejan Alvandi,Neal A. Patel,Nolan J. Brown,Shane Shahrestani,Brian V. Lien,Arash Delavar,Katelynn Tran,Ronald Sahyouni,Luis Daniel Diaz-Aguilar,Kevin Gilbert,Martin H. P 대한척추신경외과학회 2021 Neurospine Vol.18 No.4
Objective: To study the impact of demographic factors on management of traumatic injury to the lumbar spine and postoperative complication rates. Methods: Data was obtained from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) between 2010–2014. International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification codes identified patients diagnosed with lumbar fractures or dislocations due to trauma. A series of multivariate regression models determined whether demographic variables predicted rates of complication and revision surgery. Results: A total of 38,249 patients were identified. Female patients were less likely to receive surgery and to receive a fusion when undergoing surgery, had higher complication rates, and more likely to undergo revision surgery. Medicare and Medicaid patients were less likely to receive surgical management for lumbar spine trauma and less likely to receive a fusion when operated on. Additionally, we found significant differences in surgical management and postoperative complication rates based on race, insurance type, hospital teaching status, and geography. Conclusion: Substantial differences in the surgical management of traumatic injury to the lumbar spine, including postoperative complications, among individuals of demographic factors such as age, sex, race, primary insurance, hospital teaching status, and geographic region suggest the need for further studies to understand how patient demographics influence management and complications for traumatic injury to the lumbar spine.