4.5 Article

Surgical correction of scoliosis by in situ contouring -: A detorsion analysis

期刊

SPINE
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 193-199

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000107233.99835.A4

关键词

scoliosis; surgical correction; in situ contouring; detorsion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. A detorsion analysis of the scoliosis surgical correction by means of in situ contouring technique (ISC). Objective. To describe the technique of ISC. To measure the vertebral and intervertebral axial rotation in thoracic and lumbar curves and their correction obtained by ISC. Summary and Background Data. The vertebral and intervertebral axial rotation allows to evaluate the severity of the curves. However, the intervertebral axial rotation is barely studied and the vertebral axial rotation is a controversial point of the surgical correction. Methods. Twenty patients with thoracic and lumbar scoliosis were operated on with ISC. Vertebral axial rotation at the apex and the sum of intervertebral axial rotations all along the curve were computed before and after surgery from the three-dimensional stereoradiographic reconstruction of the spine and the pelvis. All the measurements were made in the standing position. Results. Correction of the axial rotation was obtained at the apex of both thoracic and lumbar curves of idiopathic and degenerative scoliosis. The mean values of correction ( in terms of axial rotation) were 8degrees to 19degrees (62% - 67%). The percentage of correction of the sum of intervertebral axial rotations all along the curve, proposed as a detorsion index (preoperative - postoperative/preoperative), was found at 57% to 92%. No significant differences were found for the correction ( in terms of axial rotation and detorsion) between idiopathic and degenerative curves. Conclusions. The axial rotation was measured in clinics on standing patients with scoliosis from three-dimensional stereoradiographic reconstruction and demonstrated a reliable detorsion obtained by ISC.

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