4.3 Article

Morphometric analysis of cervical intervertebral disc space to reduce neural complications during anterior approaches to the cervical spine

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SCIENCE
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 348-353

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2020.03.019

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reviewed the safe surgery limits by measuring anatomical parameters at the vertebral levels adjacent to the intervertebral discs, providing guidance for surgeons to choose appropriate implant sizes and reduce perioperative complications during decompression and instrument procedures for cervical vertebrae.
Background: Although neurovascular complications rarely occur during surgical procedures, they have serious consequences. We reviewed the limits of safe surgery to decrease the possibility of neurovascular injuries. Methods: Four measurements were performed for each patient at the vertebral levels adjacent to the intervertebral discs at C3-C4, C4-C5, C5-C6, and C6-C7. These measurements were: 1)midline ante-roposterior diameter of the intervertebral disc, 2)transverse diameter of the intervertebral disc, 3)right and left measurements of the line vertically drawn to the disc anterior from the most lateral point of the dura mater, and 4)measurement of the distance from measurement 3 to the right and left root. Results: Average anteroposterior and transverse vertebral diameters were determined to be 18.11 and 27.15 mm, respectively. Average of the results of the 3rd measurement was 5.51 mm on the right and 5.36 on the left. Average of the 4th measurement was 7.8 mm on the right 7.75 mm on the left. The shortest interval was at the C3-4 level and the longest interval was at the C6-7 level. Conclusion: Determining the safe surgery limits will help surgeons evaluating suitable implant sizes and decreasing the perioperative complications during decompression to cervical vertebrae and instrument procedures. (C) 2020 The Japanese Orthopaedic Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据