Objective To investigate the clinical effect of the Wiltse muscle gap approach combined with vertebral screw placement on treating of thoracolumbar fractures. Methods 53 patients with thoracolumbar fractures were admitted to our department from October 2015 to October 2018, which were divided into a Wiltse muscle gap approach group (group A) and a traditional posterior median group (group B) according to the surgical approach. Based on Frankel Graded to grade E, there was no need for the patients to perform the spinal decompression and bone graft fusion. 28 patients in the group A were treated with Wiltse muscle gap approach, and 26 patients in the group B were treated with conventional posterior surgery. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ground time were observed. Visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the pain, and the height of the vertebral body leading edge and Cobb angle were measured and compared. Results All patients were followed up for 6 to 18 months, with an average of 12.5 months. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ground time and other indicators in the group A were better than that of the group B (P<0.05). There was statistical difference in VAS scores between 3 days and 1 month after operation of the two groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the height and Cobb angle between the two groups. Conclusions The Wiltse muscle gap approach combined with the vertebral screw placement for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures is simple to operate and pale the screw, which can reduce the operation time, bleeding volume and the degree of postoperative low back pain, shorten the recovery time, with little effect on the paravertebral muscles and high clinical application value.
Key words
Wiltse muscle interstitial approach /
Thoracolumbar fracture /
Injured vertebrae /
Internal fixation
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] Defino HL, Canto FR. Low thoracic and lumbar bumt fractures: radiographic and functional outcomes[J]. European Spine Journal, 2007, 16(11): 1934-1943.
[2] Schwarz F, Burckhart M, McLean AL, et al. Risk factors for adjacent fractures after cement-augmented thoracolumbar pedicle screw instrumentation[J]. Int J Spine Surg, 2018, 12(5): 565-570.
[3] 张祝秋, 薛荣, 陈余庆, 等. 椎旁肌间隙入路与后正中入路对短节段胸腰椎骨折的疗效比较[J]. 南通大学学报(医学版), 2018, 38(5): 339-341.
[4] 张兆川, 马超, 吴德慧, 等. 椎弓根螺钉椎旁肌间隙与后正中入路内固定修复胸腰椎骨折: 稳定性比较[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2014, 18(40): 6451-6458.
[5] Wiltse LL, Bateman JG, Hutchinson RH, et al. The paraspinal sacrospinalins-spliting approach to the lumbar spine[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1968, 50(5): 919-926.
[6] 朱贤友, 王家胜, 吴威, 等. Wiltse肌问隙人路与后正中人路内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的对比研究[J]. 颈腰痛杂志, 2016, 37(3): 204-206.
[7] Kumar A, Aujla R, Lee C. The management of thoraeolumbar burst fractures: a prospective study between conservative management。Traditional open spinal surgery and minimally interventional spinal surgery[J]. Springerplus, 2015, 157(5): 831-836.
[8] 黎启福, 冼海庭, 黄志锋, 等. 经椎旁肌间隙入路联合伤椎置钉技术椎弓根螺钉内固定治疗胸腰椎骨折的效果分析[J]. 齐齐哈尔医学院学报, 2018, 39(7): 767-770.
[9] 李健, 王鹏, 林森. 椎旁肌间隙入路与传统入路结合伤椎置钉内固定术治疗胸腰椎椎体骨折的比较[J]. 颈腰痛杂志, 2015, 36(3): 246-248.
[10]Dick JC, Jones MP, Zdeblick TA, el a1. A biomechanical comparison evaluating the use of intermediate screws and cross-linkage in lumbar pediele fixation[J]. J Spinal Disord, 1994, 7(5): 402-407.