Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of the uni-extrapedicular percutaneous kyphoplasty (PKP) versus the unipedicular PKP in the treatment of lower osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF).Methods From January 2011 to January 2013,47 patients with lower OVCF were treated at our department.The uni-extrapedicular PKP was conducted for 25 of them (28 compressed vertebrae,group A) while the unipedicular PKP for the other 22 (24 compressed vertebrae,group B).The 2 groups were compatible,showing no significant differences in preoperative clinical data (P ＞ 0.05).The 2 groups were compared in terms of operation time,fluoroscopy frequency,volune of injected cement,cement leakage,and cobb angle,anterior vertebral height,visual analogue scale (VAS) score,Oswestry disability index (ODI),SF-36 score,and cement filling preoperatively,3 days and one year postoperatively.Results All the patients had an uneventful operation and were followed up for at least one year.Compared with group B,group A reported significantly shorter operation time,lower fluoroscopy frequency,less cement leakage,better cement filling,and a lower rate of fracture of adjacent vertebra (all P ＜ 0.05).Compared with preoperation,all the patients obtained significant improvements in cobb angle,anterior vertebral height,VAS score,ODI,and SF-36 score after operation (all P ＜ 0.05),but there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the above items postoperatively (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion Both of the 2 methods are safe and effective treatments of OVCF,but the uni-extrapedicular PKP may be more advantageous because it leads to shorter operation time and lower fluoroscopy frequency.

Objective To investigate implementation of surgical site marking in a certain general hospital in Xuzhou, and to explore factors affecting accuracy of surgical site marking. Methods 110 medical workers were surveyed by self-made “Questionnaire of awareness of surgical site marking of medical workers”and “Evaluation form of implementation of surgical site marking”. Evaluation was also conducted to 1 762 surgical patients with 2 428 cases of marking. Results Among the 2 428 surgical sites, marking rate was 70. 55%, with rate of accurate marking 81. 10% and a total score of ( 14. 64 ± 1. 50) points; 677 cases were without markings, accounting for 27.88%;188 cases (7.42%) were with errors of integrity, 75 cases (3.09%) with errors of effectiveness, 32 cases (1.32%) with errors of accuracy, and 36 cases (1.48%) with errors of implementation;84. 54% of the medical workers believed surgical markings were helpful to surgery safety, 51. 82% found surgical makings could not meet the needs of clinical surgery, and 88.18% thought it necessary to improve surgical marking system; evaluations by medical workers of different ages, working years and professional titles were statistically significant (t/F=3.260, 16.348, 2.951; P<0.05). Conclusions Due to lack of a unified standard marking system, low implementation rate and effectiveness of the standard, implementation of surgical site marking still needs to be improved.