Download PDF
Die Wirbelsäule 2018; 02(01): 63-72
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-120537
Übersicht
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Stabilisierung der verletzten, thorakolumbalen Wirbelsäule. Vorteile des offenen Fixateur interne

Stabilization of the injured, thoracolumbar Spine. Advantages of the open internal fixateur
F. Kandziora
Zentrum für Wirbelsäulenchirurgie und Neurotraumatologie, BG-Unfallklinik Frankfurt gGmbH
,
A. Pingel
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
21 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Der „Goldstandard“ in der operativen Behandlung instabiler thorakolumbaler Verletzungen ist das klassische, offene, chirurgische Vorgehen. Mit dem offenen Vorgehen lassen sich alle Grundprinzipien der Behandlung, wie die Reposition der Verletzung, die Stabilisierung der Wirbelsäule, die Dekompression neurogener Strukturen und die Durchführung einer knöchernen Fusion, um eine langanhaltende Stabilität zu erzielen, umsetzen. Die Vorteile des offenen chirurgischen Vorgehens und im Vergleich dazu die wesentlichen Nachteile der perkutanen Stabilisierung, werden im folgenden Übersichtsartikel zusammengefasst.

Abstract

The „golden standard“ for the surgical treatment of unstable thoracolumbar injuries is the classic, open, surgical approach. With the open approach general surgical principles like the reduction of the lesion, the stabilization of the spine, the decompression of the neurogenic structures and the application of bony fusion to achieve long-term stability can be achieved. The advantages of the open surgical approach and in comparison, the disadvantages of the percutaneous stabilization techniques, are summarized in this review article.

Schlüsselwörter

Wirbelsäule - Trauma - Stabilisierung - Fixateur interne

Keywords

spine - trauma - stabilization - internal fixateur
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K. et al. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 03/2016; 24: 416-27 doi: 10.3171/2015.2.SPINE14973. Epub 2015 Nov 13.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL. et al. Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 12/2015; 77: 847-74 , discussion 874 doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000913.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Karikari IO, Isaacs RE. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of techniques and outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 15.12.2010; 35: S294-301 doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022ddc.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lin Y, Chen W, Chen A. et al. Comparison between Minimally Invasive and Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Results and Safety Outcomes. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 01/2016; 77: 2-10 doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1554809.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Li L, Lu Y, Li M. et al. Repeat Percutaneous Vertebroplasty for Recurrent Pain Arising From Previously Treated Vertebrae in Patients With Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures. Clin Spine Surg 11/2016; 29: 399-404 DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318288a900
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sang-Hyuk M, Myung-Ho K, Joong-Bae S. et al. The Quantitative Analysis of Back Muscle Degeneration after Posterior Lumbar Fusion: Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Conventional Open Surgery. Asian Spine J 12/2009; 3: 89-95 Published online 2009 Dec 31. doi: 10.4184/asj.2009.3.2.89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pourtaheri S, Issa K, Lord E. et al. Paraspinal Muscle Atrophy After Lumbar Spine Surgery. Orthopedics March/April 2016; 39: e209-e214 DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20160129-07
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Chung T, Thien C, Wang YY. A rare cause of postoperative paraplegia in minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39: E228-30 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mamane W, Breitel D, Lenoir T. et al. Spinal migration of a Kirschner wire after surgery for clavicular nonunion. A case report and review of the literature. Chir Main 12/2009; 28: 367-9 doi: 10.1016/j.main.2009.08.007 Epub 2009 Sep 17.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mobbs RJ, Raley DA. Complications with K-wire insertion for percutaneous pedicle screws. J Spinal Disord Tech 10/2014; 27: 390-4 doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182999380.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Verheyden AP, Hölzl A, Ekkerlein H. et al. Therapieempfehlungen zur Versorgung von Verletzungen der Brust- und Lendenwirbelsäule. Unfallchirurg 2011; 114: 9-16 DOI 10.1007/s00113-010-1934-1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Babu R, Park JG, Mehta AI. et al. Comparison of Superior Level Facet Joint Violations During Open and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement. Neurosurgery 2012; 71: 962-970 doi:10.1227/NEU.0b013e31826a88c8)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Haque RM, Mundis Jr. GM, Ahmed Y. et al. , International Spine Study Group Comparison of radiographic results after minimally invasive, hybrid, and open surgery for adult spinal deformity: a multicenter study of 184 patients. Neurosurg Focus 05/2014; 36: E13 doi: 10.3171/2014.3.FOCUS1424.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar