4.5 Article

Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Patients With Myelopathy Caused by Thoracic Ossification of the Ligamentum Flavum

期刊

NEUROSPINE
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 269-276

出版社

KOREAN SPINAL NEUROSURGERY SOC
DOI: 10.14245/ns.1836128.064

关键词

Ossification; Ligamentum flavum; Myelopathy; Intensity signal; Thoracic vertebrae; Treatment outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the surgical outcomes and prognostic factors for thoracic ossification of the ligamentum flavum (ULF) after decompressive laminectomy, focusing on the quantitative signal intensity ratio (SIR) of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its prognostic significance. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 24 patients who previously underwent total laminectomy to remove OLF from 2010 to 2015. MRI and computed tomography were performed to detect OLF. The SIR between the regions of interest of high signal intensity lesions and the normal cord at the T1-2 disc levels was calculated. We divided patients into 2 groups based on the extent of the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) recovery rate (RR): good (RR >= 50%) and poor (RR < 50%). Results: The mean preoperative and postoperative modified JOA scores for thoracic myelopathy were 6.67 +/- 1.73 and 8.63 +/- 1.81, respectively (p < 0.001). The preoperative JOA score (7.5 vs. 5.83, p = 0.028), postoperative JOA score (9.83 vs. 7.42, p = 0.000), and SIR (1.16 vs. 1.41, p = 0.009) were significantly different between the good and poor RR groups. A higher preoperative JOA score and lower SIR were associated with a good RR according to the JOA criteria. Conclusion: The clinical outcomes for thoracic OLF after decompressive laminectomy were favorable. A higher RR was correlated with a lower SIR and higher preoperative modified JOA score. Therefore, a relatively low SIR on MRI and a relatively high preoperative JOA score could be positive prognostic indicators for the JOA RR in patients with thoracic OLF.

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

4.5
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