7 Extremely Important Attributes On ARAF

Матеріал з HistoryPedia
Версія від 14:27, 20 червня 2017, створена Knot32gallon (обговореннявнесок) (Створена сторінка: Further fracture characteristics are displayed in Table 2?and?Table 3. There was no statistically significant difference among the demographic characteristics b...)

(різн.) ← Попередня версія • Поточна версія (різн.) • Новіша версія → (різн.)
Перейти до: навігація, пошук

Further fracture characteristics are displayed in Table 2?and?Table 3. There was no statistically significant difference among the demographic characteristics between patients initially included in the study and those available for follow-up, as well as among Group A and Group B patients in terms of patients�� sex, age and type of fracture. All patients were initially treated with posterior stabilization of a mean of 2.3 segments (range 1�C5) at a mean of 2.8 days (range 0�C27) after the accident. Ventral corpectomy was performed Ceritinib supplier at a mean of 14 days (range 5�C32) after accident. In all cases the cage was filled with autologous cancellous autograft harvested from the removed vertebral body that was also applied over the implanted cage. The data of each group are depicted in Table 3. For the overall patient group the results were as followed: Preoperatively, the mean bisegmental kyphosis angle (BKA) was 13.4�� (range 1�C41��). Through surgical treatment a significant correction of the BKA was obtained (mean ARAF 11.2��, range 1�C28��) (p?Pictilisib according to the used type of plate were compared to each other. Overall the fusion progress was evaluated after 12 months postoperatively as complete (Grade 1) (Fig. 4a and b), in 45% of patients, as incomplete (Grade 2) (Fig. 5a and b), in 53% of the cases and as not fused (Grade 3) in 2% of the cases. At the 32 months follow-up, there were 60% of the cases classified as Grade 1 and 40% as Grade 2. Patients from Group A with incomplete fused segments at the 12 months follow-up displayed a significantly higher fusion improvement by the next evaluation, compared to Group B patients (p?