DOI: https://doi.org/10.22141/1608-1706.2.20.2019.168025

Quality of life in patients after anterior subaxial cervical fusion in the late postoperative period

E.I. Slynko, A.S. Nekhlopochin

Abstract


Background. Cervical spine traumatic injury is one of the most severe types of human musculoskeletal system lesion. Despite the significant achievements of modern vertebrology, a number of questions concerning the optimal methods of surgical intervention remain quite controversial. The quality of life, along with patients’ neurological disorders regression level after cervical spine trauma, are the basic criteria to determine the effectiveness of the therapy. The purpose was assessment the quality of life of patients in the late postoperative period after anterior decompression-fusion surgery at the subaxial level of the cervical spine due to traumatic injury using various methods of fixation. Materials and methods. A retrospective analysis of the test results of 53 patients using the SF-36 questionnaire was conducted. All patients were hospitalized in the Spinal Cord Pathology Department of the State Institution “Romodanov Neurosurgery Institute of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine” in the period from 2013 to 2017 due to traumatic injury to the cervical spine. Neurological status at the time of hospitalization corresponded to ASIA D or ASIA E. The testing was carried out at the control examination in the period of 12 months of the postoperative period. A combination of “Mesh + ventral plate” and a telescopic vertebral body replacing implant were used as stabilization systems. We analyzed transformed values that were not normalized to population data. Results. When comparing groups of patients with various systems for subaxial fusion, convincing advantage of usage of single construction was determined on SF-36 scales: “Physical functioning”, “Role-Physical Functioning”, “Bodily pain” and “Role-Emotional Functioning”. The scales “General health”, “Vitality”, “Social functioning”, “Mental health” did not show statistically significant difference. Conclusions. The obtained results demonstrate the advantage of mono-construction as a vertebral body replacing and fusion system, providing the better level of quality of life in the time of 12 months after surgical treatment.

Keywords


quality of life; SF-36; anterior cervical fusion; cervical spine; traumatic injury; stabilization system

References


Hu R, Mustard CA, Burns C. Epidemiology of incident spinal fracture in a complete population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(4):492-499.

Rahimi-Movaghar V, Sayyah MK, Akbari H, et al. Epidemiology of Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review. Neuroepidemiology. 2013;41(2):65-85. doi:10.1159/000350710

Torretti JA, Sengupta DK. Cervical spine trauma. Indian J Orthop. 2007;41(4):255-267. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.36985

Joaquim AF, Patel AA. Subaxial cervical spine trauma: evaluation and surgical decision-making. Glob spine J. 2014;4(1):63-70. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1356764

Sekhon LH, Fehlings MG. Epidemiology, demographics, and pathophysiology of acute spinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(24 Suppl):S2-12.

Herkowitz HN. The Cervical Spine Surgery Atlas. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. 424 p.

Boriani S, Presutti L, Gasbarrini A, Mattioli F, eds. Atlas of Craniocervical Junction and Cervical Spine Surgery. 1st ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. 227 p. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42737-9

Demiral Y, Ergor G, Unal B, et al. Normative data and discriminative properties of short form 36 (SF-36) in Turkish urban population. BMC Public Health. 2006;6(1):247. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-6-247

Burholt V, Nash P. Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire: normative data for Wales. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2011;33(4):587-603. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdr006

Ware JE, Snoww K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, Massachusetts: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993. 264 p.

Amirdzhanova VN, Goriachev DV, Korshunov NI, Rebrov AP, Sorotskaia VN. SF-36 questionnaire population quality of life indices. Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2008;(1):36-48. (in Russian). doi:10.14412/1995-4484-2008-852

Rognoni C, Fizzotti G, Pistarini C, Quaglini S. Quality of life of patients with spinal cord injury in Italy: preliminary evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:935-939. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-432-9-935.

Richard-Denis A, Thompson C, Mac-Thiong J-M. Quality of life in the subacute period following a cervical traumatic spinal cord injury based on the initial severity of the injury: a prospective cohort study. Spinal Cord. 2018;56(11):1042-1050. doi:10.1038/s41393-018-0178-8

Boakye M, Leigh BC, Skelly AC. Quality of life in persons with spinal cord injury: comparisons with other populations. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(Suppl1):29-37. doi:10.3171/2012.6.AOSPINE1252

Slynko II., Nekhlopochin AS. Comparison of dynamics of neurological disorders regression in postoperative period in patients with subaxial cervical spine injury depending on constructive fusion system type. Ukrainian Neurosurgical Journal. 2018;(1):84-91. (in Russian). doi:10.25305/unj.120822




Copyright (c) 2019 TRAUMA

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 

© Publishing House Zaslavsky, 1997-2019

 

   Seo анализ сайта