ObjectiveTo compare the changes of scoliosis and kyphosis angles after Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy versus simple posterior spinal osteotomy for severe rigid spinal deformity.MethodsA clinical data of 28 patients with severe rigid spinal deformity between January 2015 and November 2017 was retrospectively analyzed. Sixteen patients were treated by Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy (group A) and 12 patients were treated with posterior spinal osteotomy only (group B). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in gender, age, body mass index, and preoperative pulmonary function, coronal and sagittal Cobb angles, and flexibility. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and complications were recorded. The coronal and sagittal Cobb angles were measured on X-ray films before operation (before traction in group A), at 10 days after operation, at last follow-up in the two groups and after traction in group A. The improvement rate of deformity after traction in group A, the correction rate of deformity after operation, and the loss rate of correction at last follow-up were calculated.ResultsAll patients were followed up 24-30 months (mean, 26.5 months). The operation time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly less in group A than in group B (t=7.629, P=0.000; t=8.773, P=0.000). In group A, 1 patient occurred transient numbness of both legs during continuous traction and 2 patients needed ventilator support for more than 12 hours. In group B, 7 patients needed ventilator support for more than 12 hours, including 1 patient with deep incision infection. The incidence of complications was 18.75% (3/16) in group A and 58.33% (7/12) in group B, and the difference between the two groups was significant (χ2=4.680, P=0.031). The coronal and sagittal improvement rates of deformity after traction in group A were 40.47%±3.60% and 40.70%±4.20%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05) in the coronal and sagittal Cobb angles at 10 days after operation and at last follow-up, in the correction rate of deformity after operation, and in the loss rate of correction at last follow-up.ConclusionFor the severe rigid spinal deformity, Halo-pelvic traction with posterior spinal osteotomy and simple posterior spinal osteotomy can obtain the same orthopedic effect and postoperative deformity correction. However, the Halo-pelvic traction can shorten operation time, reduce blood loss and incidence of perioperative complications.
ObjectiveTo summarize the progress in treatment of unstable atlas fracture, the existing problems, and the research direction.MethodsRelated literature at home and abroad was reviewed. The stability evaluation of atlas fracture and treatment methods were introduced, and the selection of surgical approach and fixation instruments in treatment of unstable atlas fracture were summarized and analyzed.ResultsAt present, atlas fractures are considered as unstable fractures except single anterior arch fractures with complete transverse ligament or simple posterior arch fractures. The treatment of unstable atlas fracture has been developed from nonsurgical treatment and traditional fusion surgery to single-segment fixation. Nonsurgical treatment is less effective, while traditional fusion surgery has a disadvantage of limited the motion of the upper cervical spine. Single-segment fixation can not only restore and fix the fracture, but also preserve the upper cervical motion function. Single-segment fixation approaches include posterior and transoral approaches, and the fixation instruments are being constantly improved, mainly including screw-rod system, screw-plate system, and plate system.ConclusionFor unstable atlas fracture, single-segment fixation is an ideal surgical method, and has more advantages when compared with nonsurgical treatment and traditional fusion surgery. Single-segment fixation via transoral approach is more direct for atlas anterior arch fracture reduction, but there is a high risk of infection; and single-segment fixation via posterior approach is less effective for the reduction of atlas anterior arch fracture. Therefore, a better reduction method should be explored.