Simple jQuery Dropdowns
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/51621
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPanya Luksanapruksaen_US
dc.contributor.authorPaul William Millhouseen_US
dc.contributor.authorVictor Carlsonen_US
dc.contributor.authorThanase Ariyawatkulen_US
dc.contributor.authorJoshua Helleren_US
dc.contributor.authorChristopher Keppel Kepleren_US
dc.contributor.otherThomas Jefferson Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-27T09:46:56Z-
dc.date.available2020-01-27T09:46:56Z-
dc.date.issued2019-06-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationAsian Spine Journal. Vol.13, No.3 (2019), 432-440en_US
dc.identifier.issn19767846en_US
dc.identifier.issn19761902en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85067830893en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/51621-
dc.description.abstract© 2019 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Purpose: To evaluate surgical outcomes and complications of cervical spine fractures in ankylosing spondylitis (CAS) patients who were treated using either the posterior (P) or combined approach (C). Overview of Literature: Ankylosing spondylitis typically causes progressive spinal stiffness that makes patients susceptible to spinal fractures. CAS is a highly unstable condition. There is contradictory evidence regarding which treatment option, the posterior or the combined approach, yields superior clinical results. Methods: A single institution database was reviewed for data in the period 1999 to 2015. All CAS patients who underwent posterior or combined instrumented fusion were enrolled. We analyzed demographic data, radiographic results, perioperative complications, and postoperative results. Results: Thirty-three patients were enrolled (23 in the P group, 10 in the C group). All patients presented with neck pain after a fall. In the P group, mean operative time was 161.1 minutes (100-327 minutes), and mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 306.4 mL (50-750 mL). In the C group, 90% of patients underwent a staged procedure, typically with posterior surgery first. Mean EBL was 124 mL (25-337 mL). For posterior surgery, mean EBL was 458.3 mL (400-550 mL). EBL of posterior surgery in the C group was higher but this difference was not significant (p =0.16). Postoperative complication rate was higher in the C group but this difference was not significant (50% vs. 17.4%, p =0.09). In the follow-up period, no late reoperations were performed. Patients who underwent C surgery had a higher rate of neurological improvement but this difference was not significant (p =0.57). Conclusions: Both P and C provided good clinical results. P surgery had lower EBL, lower postoperative complication rate, and shorter length of stay than C surgery; none of these differences were statistically significant.en_US
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85067830893&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleComparison of surgical outcomes of the posterior and combined approaches for repair of cervical fractures in ankylosing spondylitisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.31616/asj.2018.0197en_US
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85067830893&origin=inwarden_US
Appears in Collections:Scopus 2019

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.