Long Versus Short-segment Stabilization in Patients with Traumatic Thoracolumbar Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Posterior stabilization surgery is considered the gold standard for restoring spine stability in patients with traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. However, whether long-segment (LS) stabilization or short-segment (SS) stabilization is an optimal approach for achieving more effective restoration of spinal stability remains unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent posterior stabilization surgery for traumatic thoracolumbar fractures were included in the study. Radiological parameters were measured using pre- and post-surgical thoracolumbar computed tomography (CT) scans and compared between patients who received LS and SS stabilization. RESULTS: Ninety-eight consecutive patients (mean age 4414, 50% male) who underwent posterior stabilization surgery for traumatic thoracolumbar fractures were included. LS stabilization was performed in 52 patients, while SS stabilization was performed in 46 patients. Among spinal stability parameters measured on pre-surgical thoracolumbar CT scans, the anterior vertebral height (AVH) was significantly lower in the LS stabilization group compared to the SS stabilization group (14.44.0 mm vs. 16.44.0 mm, p=0.017), indicating a more severe compression fracture in the LS stabilization group. However, all parameters improved on post-surgical thoracolumbar CT scans, and there were no significant differences between LS stabilization and SS stabilization groups in terms of the restoration of spinal stability parameters. The type of stabilization (LS vs. SS stabilization) did not show an association with post-surgical measurements of spinal stability parameters (B=0.27, 95% CI -1.87 to 2.42, p=0.800 for superior inferior end plate angle (SIEA), B=0.20, 95% CI -1.33 to 1.74, p=0.796 for AVH, and B=0.39, 95% CI -1.72 to 2.50, p=0.714 for Cobb angle). CONCLUSIONS: Both LS and SS stabilization approaches yield similar results in terms of restoring spine stability parameters in patients with traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. The choice of surgical approach should be individualized based on the patient's overall status and the surgeon's experience.

Asia-Pacific survey of physicians' perceptions and managements of chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) may vary between otolaryngologists and allergists. Moreover, the adherence of different practitioners to European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) 2020 guideline recommendations has not been previously ascertained in Asia-Pacific regions. OBJECTIVE: Different specialists' perceptions and managements of CRS in Asia-Pacific regions were assessed in an attempt to gauge these practices against EPOS 2020 guidelines. METHODS: A transregional, cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess otolaryngologists' and allergists' perceptions and managements of CRS with regard to diagnosis, management and adherence to EPOS 2020 guidelines. RESULTS: Sixteen physicians in Asia-Pacific regions responded to the questionnaire. A total of 71.4% of otolaryngologists preferred to diagnose CRS with a combination of positive nasal symptoms and nasal endoscopy plus sinus CT, whereas 22.2% of allergists took such criterion to diagnose CRS. Compared to allergists, otolaryngologists more often considered the endotype classification (85.8% versus 55.5%). For the preferred first-line treatment, in addition to intranasal corticosteroids recommended by all respondents, 66.7% of allergists preferred antihistamines, whereas 71.4% of otolaryngologists preferred nasal saline irrigation. Regarding the proper timing of surgery, 71.5% of otolaryngologists reported 8-12 weeks of treatment after the initiation of medication, while more than half of the allergists recommended 4-6 weeks of medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This survey shows that variable perceptions and practices for CRS may exist between physicians with different specialties and highlights the need for increased communication and awareness between otolaryngologists and allergists to improve the diagnosis and treatment of CRS.