4.5 Article

Some complications of common treatment schemes of thoracolumbar spine fractures can be predicted with magnetic resonance imaging - Prospective study of 53 patients with 71 fractures

期刊

SPINE
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 629-636

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200203150-00012

关键词

trauma; fracture; MRI; classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Design. Prospective cohort study. Objectives. To study the predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of thoracolumbar spine fractures concerning the radiologic and clinical outcome. Summary of Background Data. Disagreement about the proper treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures is caused by insufficiency of conventional imaging techniques. Previous studies have shown that MRI is capable of distinguishing injury to all structures of the fractured spine and thus may help develop schemes with higher predictive power. Methods. A total of 53 patients with 71 fractures were studied with MRI in a prospective fashion. A total of 24 patients with 39 fractures were treated conservatively and 29 patients with 32 fractures were treated operatively after a protocol concerning the treatment options. MRI scans were obtained within 1 week of injury and at the 2-year follow-up. Pain scores were obtained at the 2-year follow-up. Previously described MRI schemes concerning the trauma and post-trauma conditions were used. Results and Conclusions. An unfavorable outcome in the conservative group was related to the progression of kyphosis, which in most cases was predictable with the use of trauma MRI findings concerning the endplate comminution and vertebral body involvement. In the operatively treated group, recurrence of the kyphotic deformity was predictable by the lesion of the posterior longitudinal ligamentary complex together with endplate comminution and vertebral body involvement as seen on trauma MRI. The authors recommend the use of MRI to develop reliable prognostic criteria for these injuries.

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