Reduction and retention of thoracolumbar XXXX by minimally invasive stabilisation versus open posterior instrumentation.

@entity1 @entity248 @entity174 @entity1513 @entity51
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was in thoracolumbar @entity174 to assess the effectiveness of minimal invasive stabilisation compared to the open technique with regards to the change in kyphosis angle, the loss of reduction and length of hospital stay. METHODS: The retrospective study consisted of 104 @entity1 who received minimally invasive stabilisation or open stabilisation. @entity1 were between 15 and 86 years of age, had a thoracolumbar @entity174 and no @entity51 . Kyphotic angle (Cobb angle) and loss of reduction was compared after minimal invasive and open stabilisation. The Cobb angle was evaluated directly post operatively, at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Evaluated @entity1 who received the minimally invasive technique had a shorter surgical intervention time and a shorter hospital stay compared to @entity1 who received the open technique. @entity1513 angle and loss of reduction showed no significant difference compared to open technique. There was also no significant difference between minimally invasive poly-axial and mono-axial stabilisation. CONCLUSION: In this study we provide evidence that @entity248 instrumentation in selected thoracolumbar @entity174 can effectively be used without significant differences in loss of reduction compared to open stabilisation. @entity248 can also sufficiently retain reduction as compared to traditional open techniques. The main advantages are reduced operation time and shorter hospital stay.
