成人腰椎畸形融合至L5或S1时近端融合至那一椎体更可靠是T9 T11 还是 L1 ppt课件.pptVIP

Patient Outcomes The SRS instruments (total and the subsets of pain, self-image, function, satisfaction) were used to evaluate patient outcomes at ultimate follow-up. We converted total and the subsets outcomes into a percentage (100-point scale) for comparison. A higher score is a better result and a lower score implies more pathology. Completed questionnaires were available for 110 of 125 patients (88%). Fifteen patients (2 in group 1, 3 in group 2, and 10 in group 3) who had complete radiographic data did not complete the questionnaire because of either leaving the geographic area or subsequent mortality unrelated to the spinal surgery. Statistical Analysis The data were analyzed using SPSS 14.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Statistical analysis was performed. Distribution of variables is given as mean, standard deviation (±), and range. Analysis of variance was used to assess the difference of continuous measures across groups. . Bonferroni test was given in view of the multiple comparisons after analysis of variance to establish P values among the groups. χ2 test was used for di-chotomous data analysis (2-by-2 table) and global test for homogeneity of k proportion (2-by-k table). A P-value of 0.05 was considered significant Results Table 1.?Demographic Comparison (n = 125) Average age at operation (group 3 to group 1, P 0.0001), number of the fused vertebrae (group 1 vs. group 2 vs. group 3, P 0.0001), gender difference (group 3 to group 1, P 0.0001), number of any osteotomies (group 2 to group 3, P = 0.019), and approach differences (group 1 to group 2 and 3, P = 0.042) demonstrated significant differences. Postoperative follow-up, preoperative SVA ≥8 cm, fusion to sacrum, and associated comorbidities did not demonstrate significant differences (P 0.05). Causes and Prevalence of Revision Table 2.?Causes and Prevalence of Revision (n = 125) The prevalence of revision (9 of 37 in group 1 vs. 12 of 49 in group 2 vs. 10 of 39 in group 3)