PURPOSE: Bone cement-reinforced fenestrated pedicle screws (FPSs) have been widely used in the internal fixation and repair of the spine with osteoporosis in recent years and show significant improvement in fixation strength and stability. However, compared with conventional reinforcement methods, the advantages of bone cement-reinforced FPSs remain undetermined. This article compares the effects of fenestrated and conventional pedicle screws (CPSs) combined with bone cement in the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: A clinical control study of FPSs and CPSs combined with bone cement reinforcement in osteoporotic vertebral internal fixation was performed using the database PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, the Wanfang, and the China Biomedical Literature Service System. Two evaluators screened the relevant literature in strict accordance with the inclusion criteria (diagnosis of participants, type of clinical study, treatment with FPS and CPS, and outcome indicators) and exclusion criteria (duplicate literature and missing or incorrect data) and independently conducted data extraction and quality evaluation. Clinical control studies of direct comparison between FPS and CPS combined with bone cement reinforcement in patients who were definitively diagnosed with thoracolumbar fractures or spinal degenerative diseases were included. Quality evaluation was conducted using the Cochrane risk bias evaluation tool for randomized controlled studies and using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for retrospective case-control studies. RevMan software (version 5.3) was used for the meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy, radiological results, and related complications of the 2 methods. RESULTS: A total of 13 articles were included, including 7 randomized controlled studies and 6 retrospective case-control studies. There were 909 patients in these studies, 451 in the FPS and polymethyl methacrylate (FPS & PMMA) group and 458 in the CPS and polymethyl methacrylate (CPS & PMMA) group. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in operation time, hospital stay, visual analogue score, Japanese orthopaedic association score, Oswestry disability index score, Cobb angle, vertebral body deformation index and fusion rate (p > 0.05). The mean difference of intraoperative bleeding volume was -10.45, (95% confidence intervals (CI) (-16.92, -3.98), p = 0.002), the mean difference of loss height of the anterior edge of the vertebral body after surgery was -0.69 (95% CI (-0.93, -0.44), p < 0.001), and the relative risk (RR) of overall complication rate was 0.43 (95% CI (0.27, 0.68), p < 0.001), including the RR of bone cement leakage rate was 0.57 (95% CI (0.39, 0.85), p = 0.005). The screw loosening rate (RR = 0.26, 95% CI (0.13, 0.54), p < 0.001) of the FPS group was significantly lower than that of the CPS group. CONCLUSION The existing clinical evidence shows that compared with the CPS combined with bone cement, the use of FPS repair in the internal fixation of an osteoporotic vertebral body can reduce the amount of intraoperative bleeding, be more conducive to maintaining the height of the vertebral body, and significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative complications such as bone cement leakage and screw loosening.
Humans ; Pedicle Screws ; Bone Cements ; Spinal Fractures/surgery* ; Osteoporotic Fractures/surgery* ; Fracture Fixation, Internal/instrumentation*

Objective:To evaluate the effect of dual-tube epidural segmental injection of lidocaine analgesia on the delivery outcome and maternal and infant complications of persistent posterior occipital position postpartum or lateral occipital position postpartum patients with protracted active phase.Methods:The full and single-term primiparas ( n=216, 37 to 42 weeks gestation, 22 to 35 years) diagnosed as persistent posterior or lateral occipital position during the active period were selected from the Department of Obstetrics of Qingdao Municipal Hospital from January 2015 to October 2019. The subjects were randomly assigned into two groups: double-tube epidural block group ( n=108) and single-tube epidural block group ( n=108), 1% lidocaine was used for epidural analgesia respectively under ultrasound guidance. Senior midwife or obstetricians implement new partogram, and guide women to perform position management, and push or rotate the fetal head in a timely manner. Observation indicators: general condition, the use of non-pharmacological analgesic measures, analgesia related conditions and pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, delivery-related indicator, cesarean section indication, anesthesia-related indicator, maternal and child complications. Results:(1) General condition: the age, weight, height, gestational age, the ratio of persistent lateral or posterior occipital position, cephalic score, and neonatal birth weight between the two groups of women were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). (2) The use of non-pharmacological analgesic measures: the women’s Lamaze breathing method, Doula delivery companionship, percutaneous electrical stimulation, and other measures between two groups were compared, and there were not significant differences (all P>0.05). (3) Analgesia related conditions and VAS scores of women undergoing vaginal delivery: compared with the single-tube epidural block group ( n=40), the second-partum time of the women in the double-tube epidural block group ( n=59) was significantly shortened [(124±44) vs (86±33) minutes, P<0.01]; after 30 minutes of analgesia (4.4±0.5 vs 0.9±0.5, P<0.01), during forced labor in the second stage of labor (5.7±0.6 vs 1.3±0.4, P<0.01), the VAS scores of pain were also significantly reduced ( P<0.01). (4) Labor-related indicators: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the natural delivery rate (21.3% vs 49.1%) and the delivery experience satisfaction rate (51.9% vs 98.1%) of women in the double-tube epidural block group were significantly increased (all P<0.01), cesarean section rate (63.0% vs 45.4%), instrument assisted rate (15.7% vs 5.6%) decreased significantly (all P<0.05). (5) Cesarean section indications: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the cesarean section rate caused by prolonged labor or protracted active phase of women in the double-tube epidural block group was significantly reduced (38.0% vs 22.2%； P<0.05), and the fetal distress, intrauterine infection, and social factors caused by cesarean section between the two groups were compared, while the differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05).(6) Anesthesia related indexes: the block planes of the maternal upper tube administration in the double-tube epidural block group were mostly T7, T8, T9-L2 and L3,While,the block planes in the single-tube epidural block group were mostly T10, T11-S1, S2, S3, and the modified Bromage score were all 0. (7) Maternal and child complications: compared with the single-tube epidural block group, the postpartum hemorrhage rate (18.5% vs 7.4%), the perineal lateral cut rate (20.4% vs 5.6%), the neonatal asphyxia rate (12.0% vs 3.7%), ICU rate of transferred neonates (13.9% vs 4.6%) in the double-tube epidural block group were significantly reduced (all P<0.05). Soft birth canal injury rate, puerperal disease rate and neonatal birth rate between two groups were compared, and there were not statistically significant differences (all P>0.05). Conclusion:Dual-tube epidural segmental injection of lidocaine analgesia could increase the natural delivery rate of women with posterior occipital or lateral occipital position with active stagnation, reduce the rate of cesarean section and the rate of transvaginal instruments, and reduce the complications of mother and child.

Objective To investigate the efficacy and pregnancy outcomes of women receiving double-catheter epidural block in labor analgesia, and compare the results with single-catheter epidural block.Methods A double-blind clinical trial was conducted on 206 full-term singleton primiparas, aged 25-35 and at the 37 -42 weeks of gestation who delivered at the Department of Obstetrics, Qingdao Municipal Hospital from August 2006 to December 2008, which were randomly divided into two groups:double-catheter epidural block ( group D, n = 103) and single-catheter epidural-block ( group S, n = 103 ).Women in group D were given mixture of 0.1% repivacaine hydrochloride and 0.5 mg/L sufentinil 4 -6 ml as initial dose.Patient control epidural analgesia pump (PCEA) was connected with the upper catheter after 45 minutes.A bolus dose of 4 -6 ml analgesia mixture was infused according to the condition through the lower catheter.Women in group S received analgesia mixture 10 - 15 ml as initial dose and PCEA pump was connected after 45 minutes.Oxytocin was infused in both groups according to uterine contraction after 30 minutes.The following indexes was observed: ( 1 ) visual analogue scales (VAS); (2) modified Bromage Scores;(3) the total dose of analgesia mixture, the percentage of oxytocin infusion, duration of labor and duration of the second stage of labor; (4) fetal birth weight and Apgar scores( 1,5 minutes); (5) mode of delivery; (6) the concentration of plasma cortisol and angiotension Ⅱ at the beginning of regular uterine contraction and at the time when cervical dilated to 4 cm and 10 cm and fetal disengagement; (7)anesthesia-related complications.Results ( 1 )The neonatal birth weight and Apgar scores ( 1,5 minutes)of group D were (3456 ±468)g, 9.8 ±0.6 and 9.9 ±0.7, respectively, while(3399 ±569) g, 9.8 ±0.5 and 9.9 ±0.7 in group S( P ＞0.05).No motor function block was reported in any group and the modified Bromage score was zero.(2) The total dose of analgesia mixture in group D was similar to that in group S [(57 ±9) ml vs.(58 ±11) ml, P＞0.05].However, the percentage of women received oxytocin in group D was smaller [59.2% (61/103) vs.81.6% (84/103), P ＜ 0.01], and the total time of labor and the duration of second stage of labor in group D were shorter[(532 ± 140) minutes vs.(608 ± 150) minutes;(46 ± 31 ) minutes vs.(60 ± 34) minutes, P ＜ 0.05].(3) There were no significant differences in VAS at 30 minutes after initial dose and in the first stage of labor between group D and S ( 1.2 ± 1.1 vs 1.2 ± 1.1,1.1 ± 1.1 vs.1.2 ± 1.0, P＞0.05).VAS at the second stage of labor stage was lower in group D than in group S ( 1.2 ± 1.1 vs.4.5 ± 2.2, P ＜ 0.01 ).(4) The rate of cesarean section, instrumental delivery and episiotomy in group D were lower than in group S (7.8% vs.17.5%, 7.8% vs.15.5%, 10.7% vs.18.4%, P ＜ 0.05).The incidence of fetal distress and meconium-stained amniotic fluid as the indication of cesarean section were similar between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05 ).Lower incidence of fetal malpresentation and arrested second stage of labor were shown in group D than in group S (2.9% vs.9.7%, 1.0% vs.5.8%, P ＜ 0.05 ).(5) The concentration of plasma cortisol and angiotension Ⅱ were lower in group D than in group S [(86 ±25) ng/L vs.( 100 ±20) ng/L, (278 ±53) nmol/L vs.(311 ±53)nmol/L, P＜0.05] only at the end of second stage of labor, but not at any other times(P ＞0.05).(6) No serious anesthesia-related complications were reported in any groups.Some light backache around the puncture point were complained by 29.1% (30/103) of the women in group D and 31.1% (32/103) in group S(P ＞0.05).Conclusion Double-catheter epidural block can provide better analgesia effect during labor than single-catheter epidural block, without any adverse influence on delivery outcomes.