4.5 Article

Epidemiology of Iatrogenic Vertebral Artery Injury in Cervical Spine Surgery: 21 Multicenter Studies

期刊

WORLD NEUROSURGERY
卷 126, 期 -, 页码 E1050-E1054

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.042

关键词

Cervical spine; Complication; Epidemiology; Iatrogenic; Surgery; Vertebral artery injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The overall incidence of iatrogenic vertebral artery injury (IVAI) in cervical spine surgeries (CSSs) is reported to be 0.07%-1.4%. Although IVAI occurred during C1-2 fusion, there is no accurate information regarding the surgery-specific risk of IVAI. This study aimed to stratify incidence of IVAI by surgical method and evaluate the correlation between IVAI and its sequelae. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter study involved clinical and radiologic evaluations for IVAI. All CSSs performed between 2012 and 2016 were included; neck mass excision and pain intervention were excluded. Patient characteristics, diagnosis, surgical technique, complications, and presence of IVAI were collected. In IVAI cases, technique details, characteristics, and sequelae were investigated. RESULTS: This study included 14,722 patients with 15,582 CSSs in 21 centers. IVAIs were identified in 13 (0.08%) patients. Surgery-specific incidence of IVAI was 1.35% in cases involving C1-2 posterior fixation and 0.20% in cases involving C3-6 posterior fixation. Common injury mechanisms were screw-in (31%) and high-speed drilling (23%). Screw-related IVAI occurred in 9 (69%) patients, and IVAI of the C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screws occurred in 4 and 3 patients, respectively. Of 13 cases of IVAI, 3 (23%) involved cerebellar or stem infarction; the infarction had no substantial correlation with injury grade or dominancy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall incidence of IVAI in CSSs was 0.08%. C1-2 posterior fixation had the highest incidence of IVAI (1.35%). Although clinical results of IVAI can be highly variable, controlling risk factors of IVAI is important.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据