4.6

CiteScore

2.2

Impact Factor
  • ISSN 1674-8301
  • CN 32-1810/R
Volume 29 Issue 1
Dec.  2014
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Haijun Li, Lei Yang, Hao Xie, Lipeng Yu, Haifeng Wei, Xiaojian Cao. Surgical outcomes of mini-open Wiltse approach and conventional open approach in patients with single-segment thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury[J]. The Journal of Biomedical Research, 2015, 29(1): 76-82. DOI: 10.7555/JBR.29.20140083
Citation: Haijun Li, Lei Yang, Hao Xie, Lipeng Yu, Haifeng Wei, Xiaojian Cao. Surgical outcomes of mini-open Wiltse approach and conventional open approach in patients with single-segment thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury[J]. The Journal of Biomedical Research, 2015, 29(1): 76-82. DOI: 10.7555/JBR.29.20140083

Surgical outcomes of mini-open Wiltse approach and conventional open approach in patients with single-segment thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury

More Information
  • Received Date: May 31, 2014
  • Revised Date: October 26, 2014
  • This study aimed to introduce a novel mini-open pedicle screw fixation technique via Wiltse approach, and compared it with the traditional posterior open method. A total of 72 cases of single-segment thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic injury underwent pedicle screw fixation via two different approaches. Among them, 37 patients were treated using posterior open surgery, and 35 patients received mini-open operation via Wiltse approach. Crew placement accuracy rate, operative time, blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospitalization time, radiation exposure time, postoperative improvement in R value, Cobb9 s angle and visual analog scale (VAS) scores of the two methods were compared. There were no significant differences in the accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement, radiation exposure and postoperative R value and Cobb9 s angle improvement between the two groups. However, the mini-open method had obvious advantages over the conventional open method in operative time, blood loss, postoperative drainage, postoperative hospitalization time, and postoperative improvement in VAS. The mini-open pedicle screw technique could be applied in treatment of single-segment thoracolumbar fracture without neurologic injury and had advantages of less tissue trauma, short operative and rehabilitative time on the premise of guaranteed accuracy rate and no increased radiation exposure.
  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(13)

    1. Bhattarai S, Rupji M, Chao HP, et al. Cell cycle traverse rate predicts long-term outcomes in a multi-institutional cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer. BJC Rep, 2024, 2(1): 87. DOI:10.1038/s44276-024-00097-z
    2. Wang M, Wei Z, Kong J, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of the relationship between biomarker profiles and neoadjuvant chemotherapy outcomes for breast cancer patients. Diagn Pathol, 2024, 19(1): 53. DOI:10.1186/s13000-024-01451-y
    3. Xu LY, Zhao J, Wang X, et al. Non-sentinel lymph node metastases risk factors in patients with breast cancer with one or two sentinel lymph node macro-metastases. Heliyon, 2023, 9(11): e21254. DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21254
    4. Vemuru S, Huang J, Colborn K, et al. Clinical implications of receptor conversions in breast cancer patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2023, 200(2): 247-256. DOI:10.1007/s10549-023-06978-0
    5. He Y, Zhang J, Chen H, et al. Clinical significance and prognostic value of receptor conversion after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Front Surg, 2023, 9: 1037215. DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2022.1037215
    6. Vuhahula EA, Jumanne S, Yahaya J. Expression of Ki67 as detected by MIB-1 and its association with histopathological high-risk factors among patients with retinoblastoma tumour: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open Ophthalmol, 2022, 7(1): e000984. DOI:10.1136/bmjophth-2022-000984
    7. Zhao F, Cai C, Liu M, et al. Identification of the lymph node metastasis-related automated breast volume scanning features for predicting axillary lymph node tumor burden of invasive breast cancer via a clinical prediction model. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2022, 13: 881761. DOI:10.3389/fendo.2022.881761
    8. Candás G, García A, Ocampo MD, et al. Impact of immunohistochemical profile changes following neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Ecancermedicalscience, 2021, 15: 1162. DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2021.1162
    9. Zattarin E, Leporati R, Ligorio F, et al. Hormone Receptor Loss in Breast Cancer: Molecular Mechanisms, Clinical Settings, and Therapeutic Implications. Cells, 2020, 9(12): 2644. DOI:10.3390/cells9122644
    10. Rey-Vargas L, Mejía-Henao JC, Sanabria-Salas MC, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant therapy on breast cancer biomarker profile. BMC Cancer, 2020, 20(1): 675. DOI:10.1186/s12885-020-07179-4
    11. Xu W, Chen X, Deng F, et al. Predictors of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Breast Cancer: A Review. Onco Targets Ther, 2020, 13: 5887-5899. DOI:10.2147/OTT.S253056
    12. Ding Y, Ding K, Qian H, et al. Impact on survival of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and Ki-67 expression discordance pre- and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. PLoS One, 2020, 15(4): e0231895. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0231895
    13. Ma H, Li L, Jia L, et al. POM121 is identified as a novel prognostic marker of oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Cancer, 2019, 10(19): 4473-4480. DOI:10.7150/jca.33368

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Article Metrics

    Article views (3505) PDF downloads (636) Cited by(13)
    Related

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return