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.

Recanalization of the native artery in patients with bypass failure.

Our objective was to evaluate the possible role of endovascular recanalization of occluded native artery after a failed bypass graft in the case of either acute or chronic limb-threatening ischemia otherwise leading to amputation. In a single-center retrospective clinical analysis, from January 2004 to March 2007 we collected 31 consecutive high-surgical-risk patients (32 limbs) with critical limb ischemia following late ([30 days after surgery) failure of open surgery bypass graft reconstruction. All patients deemed unfit for surgery underwent tentative endovascular recanalization of the native occluded arterial tract. The mean follow-up period was 24 (range, 6-42) months. Technical success was achieved in 30 (93.7%) of 32 limbs. The cumulative primary assisted patency calculated by Kaplan-Meyer analysis was 92% and 88%, respectively, at 12 and 24 months. The limb salvage rate approached 90% at 30 months. In conclusion, our experience shows the feasibility of occluded native artery endovascular recanalization after a failed bypass graft, with optimal results in terms of midterm arterial patency and limb salvage. Our opinion is that successful recanalization of the arterial tract previously considered unsuitable for endovascular approach is allowed by improved competency and experience of vascular specialists, as well as the advances made in catheter and guidewire technology. This group of patients would previously have been relegated to repeat bypass grafts, with their inherently inferior patency and recognized added technical demands. We recognize previous surgical native artery disconnection and lack of pedal runoff to be the main cause of technical failure.