English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Study Design:   Retrospective cohort study.Objectives:   The treatment of giant thoracic disc herniation (gTDH)remains challenging for surgeons worldwide because of its large volume and calcified or ossified nature and the limitations of the prior small-sample-size, single-center studies reporting comparative effectiveness. We aim to compare the anterior decompression and spinal fusion (ASF) and posterior circumspinal decompression and spinal fusion (PCDF) for patients with myelopathy due to gTDH in the largest study to date by sample size.Methods:   Preoperative and postoperative functional status, surgical details, and complication rates were compared between the 2 groups.Results:   A total of 186 patients were included: 63 (33.9%) ASF and 123(66.1%) PCDF. The PCDF group had significantly shorter operation duration (163.06 ± 53.49 min vs. 180.78 ± 52.06 min, P = 0.032) and a significant decrease in intraoperative blood loss(716.83 mL vs. 947.94 mL, P = 0.045), and also a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) and postoperative LOS (6 vs. 7, P = 0.011). The perioperative complication rate (13.8% vs. 28.6%, P = 0.015) and surgery-associated complication rate(13.0% vs. 27.0%, P = 0.018) were significantly higher in the ASF group. A higher rate of complete decompression was achieved in the PCDF group. There were no observed significant differences in changes in functional status between the 2 groups.Conclusion:   PCDF for central or paracentral gTDHs is a highly effective and reliable technique. It can be performed safely with a low complication rate. If either procedure can adequately excise a central or paracentral gTDH, a PCDF approach may be a better option.

Comparison of Anterior Approach and Posterior Circumspinal Decompression in the Treatment of Giant Thoracic Discs