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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objective  To compare the safety and efficacy of posterior internal fixation with open vertebroplasty (VP) and posterior internal fixation with open kyphoplasty (KP) in the treatment of metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) with posterior wall destruction.    Methods  This retrospective study, conducted between January 2016 and May 2019, equally divided 60 patients with MESCC and posterior wall destruction into two groups based on the surgical method: open vertebroplasty with pedicle screw fixation (VP group) and open kyphoplasty with pedicle screw fixation (KP group). Visual analogue scale (VAS), SF‐36 scores, middle vertebral height (MVH), and posterior vertebral height (PVH) were evaluated for the two groups preoperatively, postoperatively, and 1 year after surgery. Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score, Frankel grades and complications were recorded and evaluated.    Results  Five patients were excluded from the analysis, and our study cohort consisted of 55 adult patients who met the inclusion criteria. The VAS and SF‐36 scores of these two groups of patients significantly improved, when compared with those before the surgery ( P <  0.05). There were significant differences in total cost (8835 ± 1468  vs  9540 ± 053 USD) and cement volume (4.51 ± 0.96 ml  vs  6.35 ± 1.09 ml) between two groups ( P <  0.05). The MVH and PVH of these two groups of patients significantly improved, when compared with those before the surgery ( P <  0.05). The MVH was significantly larger in the KP group than in the VP group postoperatively (20.15 ± 4.86  vs  17.70 ± 3.78,  P  < 0.05) and at the final follow‐up (20.42 ± 5.59  vs  17.28 ± 3.23,  P  < 0.05). However, the PVH of the two groups did not significantly differ at the two postoperative follow‐ups ( P  > 0.05). No significant differences were found in surgery time, time from surgery to discharge, blood loss and complications between both groups postoperatively ( P  > 0.05).    Conclusion  In the short term, both approaches are effective and safe in patients with MESCC and posterior wall destruction. The posterior internal fixation with open VP may be a good choice of surgical method in patients with MESCC and posterior wall defects.

Bone Cement and Pedicle Screw for the Treatment of Spinal Tumors with Spinal Cord Compression and Posterior Wall Defects