A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparative advantages of activities with lumbosacral preservation for adult spinal deformity surgery: a retrospective Japanese cohort study. | LitMetric

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Purpose: This study aimed to demonstrate the advantages of preservation of the lumbosacral segment (LSS) in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.

Overview Of Literature: Sacroiliac foundation enables sufficient restoration in ASD surgery; however, it could result in poor mobility. Thus, whether LSS provides better activities is still unknown.

Methods: Among 399 patients who underwent ASD surgery, 62 (≥5 levels fused, >2-year follow-up) underwent fusion from T9-10 to L5 (group L, n=21) or to S2-alar-iliac (group S, n=41). Spinal alignments, Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 scores, performance of activities (clipping toenail, wiping buttock, and wearing socks), proximal and distal junctional failure (PJF+DJF), rod fractures (RFs), and overall revision rates (RRs) were compared between the groups.

Results: Group L included younger patients and had longer follow-ups when compared with group S. Although the preoperative pelvic incidence and SRS sagittal modifiers were better in group L, postoperative spinal restorations were nonpathological in both groups. Both groups showed similar deformity progression at the 2-year follow-up; however, group L had lower SRS-22 pain scores. Although "wiping buttocks" did not differ between the groups, the performance of "clipping toenails" and "wearing socks" was poorer in group S at 2 years (possible, group S; 40% vs. group L; 85%-90%). The RRs did not differ between the groups; however, the PJF+DJF rate was higher in group L. DJF was not observed in group S, but occurrence of RFs was noted.

Conclusions: Although poorer SRS-22 pain scores might be related to lumbosacral mobility, sufficient restoration, equivalent deformity progression, and similar RRs with better activity imply that lumbosacral preservation should be considered in younger patients with moderate deformities.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11538815PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2024.0217DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

group
11
lumbosacral preservation
8
adult spinal
8
spinal deformity
8
sufficient restoration
8
asd surgery
8
younger patients
8
deformity progression
8
srs-22 pain
8
pain scores
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!