Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTezeren, Gunduz
dc.contributor.authorBulut, Okay
dc.contributor.authorTukenmez, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorOzturk, Hayati
dc.contributor.authorOztemur, Zekeriya
dc.contributor.authorOzturk, Ali
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-28T10:14:42Z
dc.date.available2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-07-28T10:14:42Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.issn1053-8127
dc.identifier.issn1878-6324
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.3233/BMR-2009-0224
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/10243
dc.descriptionWOS: 000267573700007en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 20023338en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: The treatment of thoracolumbar burst fracture is a controversial issue. Although spinal fusion has been touchstone of spinal fixation, nonfusion technique have become raising its popularity recently. Some studies suggested that nonfusion had several advantages over fusion. The aim of this prospective study was to compare long segment posterior instrumentation with fusion versus long-segment posterior instrumentation without fusion. Methods: For this purpose, 42 consecutive patients were assigned to two groups. Group 1 included 21 patients treated by long segment instrumentation with fusion (WF), whereas Group 2 included 21 patients treated by long segment instrumentation without fusion (WOF). Long segment instrumentation was hook fixation (claw hooks attached to second upper vertebra and infralaminar hooks attached to first upper vertebra) above and pedicle fixation (pedicle screws attached to first and second lower vertebrae) below the fractured vertebra. Results: Measurements of local kyphosis, sagittal index and anterior vertebral height compression showed that both group had similar outcome at final follow-up. Moreover, there was no difference between the two groups according to low back outcome score. Also, implant failure rate (4.7%) was quite low in both groups. However, WF group had prolonged operative time, increased blood loss and donor site morbidity. Conclusions: Radiological and clinical parameters demonstrated that spinal fusion is not necessary in long segment posterior instrumentation for the management of thoracolumbar burst fractures.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherIOS PRESSen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.3233/BMR-2009-0224en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectSpinal fracturesen_US
dc.subjectfracture fixationen_US
dc.subjectspinal fusionen_US
dc.titleLong segment instrumentation of thoracolumbar burst fracture: Fusion versus nonfusionen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATIONen_US
dc.contributor.department[Tezeren, Gunduz -- Bulut, Okay -- Ozturk, Hayati -- Oztemur, Zekeriya -- Ozturk, Ali] Cumhuriyet Univ, Sch Med, Dept Orthopaed & Traumatol, Sivas, Turkey -- [Tukenmez, Mehmet] Baskent Univ Hosp, Dept Orthopaed & Traumatol, Konya, Turkeyen_US
dc.contributor.authorIDOztemur, Zekeriya -- 0000-0003-2134-8797en_US
dc.identifier.volume22en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.endpage112en_US
dc.identifier.startpage107en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record