RESUMO
This study was designed to systematically review and meta-analyze the functional and radiological outcomes between lateral and posterior approaches in adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS). Both lateral (lumbar, extreme, and oblique) and posterior interbody fusion (posterior lumbar and transforaminal) are used for deformity correction in patients with ADS with unclear comparison in this cohort of patients in the existing literature. A literature search using three electronic databases was performed to identify studies that reported outcomes of lateral (group L) and posterior interbody fusion (group P) in patients with ADS with curves of 10°–40°. Group P was further subdivided into minimally invasive surgery (MIS-P) and open posterior (Op-P) subgroups. Data on functional, radiological, and operative outcomes, length of hospital stay (LOHS), fusion rates, and complications were extracted and meta-analyzed using the random-effects model. A total of 18 studies (732 patients) met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was found in functional and radiological outcomes between the two groups on data pooling. Total operative time in the MIS-P subgroup was less than that of group L (233.86 minutes vs. 401 minutes, p <0.05). The total blood loss in group L was less than that in the Op-P subgroup(477 mL vs. 1,325.6 mL, p <0.05). Group L had significantly less LOHS than the Op-P subgroup (4.15 days vs. 13.5 days, p <0.05). No significant difference was seen in fusion rates, but complications were seen except for transient sensorimotor weakness (group L: 24.3%, group P: 5.6%; p <0.05). Complications, such as postoperative thigh pain (7.7%), visceral injuries (2%), and retrograde ejaculation (3.7%), were seen only in group L while adjacent segment degeneration was seen only in group P (8.6%). Lateral approach has an advantage in blood loss and LOHS over the Op-P subgroup. The MIS-P subgroup has less operative time than group L, but with comparable blood loss and LOHS. No significant difference was found in functional, radiological, fusion rates, pseudoarthrosis, and complications, except for transient sensorimotor deficits. Few complications were approach-specific in each group.
RESUMO
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>The treatment of subtrochanteric fractures is challenging and treatment modalities and implants are constantly evolving. This study attempts to revisit and compare extramedullary vs. intramedullary devices in relatively young population.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Thirty patients with subtrochanteric fractures were enrolled and treated with extramedullary or intramedullary devices and follow-up continued one year for clinico-radiological assessment.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The mean age of patients was 37.53 years. Most were males between 21-40 years. The dominant mode of injury was traffic accidents (66%). Fractures were classified according to Russell-Taylor classification. Forty percent were Russell-Taylor type IA, 37% type IB and 23% type IIA. Average time to surgery was 3.6 days from the time of admission to hospital. Mean duration of surgery was 45 minutes for intramedullary device (group A) and 105 minutes for extramedullary device (group B). Average blood loss was 100 ml in group A and 200 ml in group B. Mean duration of radiation exposure was 130 seconds and 140 seconds for groups A and B, while average duration of hospital stay was 12 days and 16 days respectively. Excellent results were seen in 47% of cases in group A and 33% of cases in group B.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Intramedullary device is a reliable implant for subtrochanteric fractures. It has high rates of union with minimal soft-tissue damage. Intramedullary fixation has biological and biomechanical advantages, but surgery is technically demanding. Gradual learning and patience is needed to make this method truly rewarding.</p>