Tag: arthrodesis

Posted on

Lateral‑PLIF for spinal arthrodesis

Acta Neurochirurgica (2024) 166:123

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery represents an effective option to treat degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine. To reduce the drawbacks of the classical technique, we developed a variant, so-called Lateral-PLIF, which we then evaluated through a prospective consecutive series of patients.

Methods All adult patients treated at our institute with single or double level Lateral-PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease from January to December 2017 were prospectively collected. Exclusion criteria were patients < 18 years of age, traumatic patients, active infection, or malignancy, as well as unavailability of clinical and/or radiological follow-up data. The technique consists of insert the cages bilaterally through the transition zone between the central canal and the intervertebral foramen, just above the lateral recess. Pre- and postoperative (2 years) questionnaires and phone interviews (4 years) assessed pain and functional outcomes. Data related to the surgical procedure, postoperative complications, and radiological findings (1 year) were collected.

Results One hundred four patients were selected for the final analysis. The median age was 58 years and primary symptoms were mechanical back pain (100, 96.1%) and/or radicular pain (73, 70.2%). We found a high fusion rate (95%). A statistically significant improvement in functional outcome was also noted (ODI p < 0.001, Roland-Morris score p < 0.001). Walking distance increased from 812 m ± 543 m to 3443 m ± 712 m (p < 0.001). Complications included dural tear (6.7%), infection/ wound dehiscence (4.8%), and instrument failure (1.9%) but no neurological deterioration.

Conclusions Lateral-PLIF is a safe and effective technique for lumbar interbody fusion and may be considered for further comparative study validation with other techniques before extensive use to treat lumbar degenerative disease.

Posted on

Need for arthrodesis following facetectomy for spinal peripheral nerve sheath tumors

J Neurosurg Spine 31:112–122, 2019

Spinal peripheral nerve sheath tumors (PNSTs) are a group of rare tumors originating from the nerve and its supporting structures. Standard surgical management typically entails laminectomy with or without facetectomy to gain adequate tumor exposure. Arthrodesis is occasionally performed to maintain spinal stability and mitigate the risk of postoperative deformity, pain, or neurological deficit. However, the factors associated with the need for instrumentation in addition to PNST resection in the same setting remain unclear.

METHODS An institutional tumor registry at a tertiary care center was queried for patients treated surgically for a primary diagnosis of spinal PNST between 2002 and 2016. An analysis focused on patients in whom a facetectomy was performed during the resection. The addition of arthrodesis at the index procedure comprised the primary outcome. The authors also recorded baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, and surgery-related variables. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with increased risk of fusion surgery.

RESULTS A total of 163 patients were identified, of which 56 (32 had facetectomy with fusion, 24 had facetectomy alone) were analyzed. The median age was 48 years, and 50% of the cohort was female. Age, sex, and race, as well as tumor histology and size, were evenly distributed between patients who received facetectomy alone and those who had facetectomy and fusion. On univariate analysis, total versus subtotal facetectomy (OR 9.0, 95% CI 2.01–64.2; p = 0.009) and cervicothoracic versus other spinal region (OR 9.0, 95% CI 1.51–172.9; p = 0.048) were significantly associated with increased odds of performing immediate fusion. On multivariable analysis, only the effect of total facetectomy remained statistically significant (OR 6.75, 95% CI 1.47–48.8; p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS The authors found that total facetectomy and cervicothoracic involvement may be highly associated with the need for concomitant arthrodesis at the time of index surgery. These findings may help surgeons to determine the best surgical planning for patients with PNST.

Posted on

Complications for minimally invasive lateral interbody arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing prepsoas and transpsoas approaches

J Neurosurg Spine 30:446–460, 2019

Minimally invasive anterolateral retroperitoneal approaches for lumbar interbody arthrodesis have distinct advantages attractive to spine surgeons. Prepsoas or transpsoas trajectories can be employed with differing complication profiles because of the inherent anatomical differences encountered in each approach. The evidence comparing them remains limited because of poor quality data. Here, the authors sought to systematically review the available literature and perform a meta-analysis comparing the two techniques.

METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A database search was used to identify eligible studies. Prepsoas and transpsoas studies were compiled, and each study was assessed for inclusion criteria. Complication rates were recorded and compared between approach groups. Studies incorporating an analysis of postoperative subsidence and pseudarthrosis rates were also assessed and compared.

RESULTS For the prepsoas studies, 20 studies for the complications analysis and 8 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the transpsoas studies, 39 studies for the complications analysis and 19 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the complications analysis, 1874 patients treated via the prepsoas approach and 4607 treated with the transpsoas approach were included. In the transpsoas group, there was a higher rate of transient sensory symptoms (21.7% vs 8.7%, p = 0.002), transient hip flexor weakness (19.7% vs 5.7%, p < 0.001), and permanent neurological weakness (2.8% vs 1.0%, p = 0.005). A higher rate of sympathetic nerve injury was seen in the prepsoas group (5.4% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). Of the nonneurological complications, major vascular injury was significantly higher in the prepsoas approach (1.8% vs 0.4%, p = 0.01). There was no difference in urological or peritoneal/bowel injury, postoperative ileus, or hematomas (all p > 0.05). A higher infection rate was noted for the trans-psoas group (3.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.01). With regard to postoperative fusion outcomes, similar rates of subsidence (12.2% prepsoas vs 13.8% transpsoas, p = 0.78) and pseudarthrosis (9.9% vs 7.5%, respectively, p = 0.57) were seen between the groups at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS Complication rates vary for the prepsoas and transpsoas approaches owing to the variable retroperitoneal anatomy encountered during surgical dissection. While the risks of a lasting motor deficit and transient sensory dis- turbances are higher for the transpsoas approach, there is a reciprocal reduction in the risks of major vascular injury and sympathetic nerve injury. These results can facilitate informed decision-making and tailored surgical planning regarding the choice of minimally invasive anterolateral access to the spine.

Posted on

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-analysis of the Fusion Rates. What is the Optimal Graft Material?

Neurosurgery 81:958–971, 2017

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an increasingly popular procedure with several potential advantages over traditional open TLIF.

OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to compare fusion rates of different graft materials used in MIS-TLIF, via meta-analysis of the published literature.

METHODS: A Medline search was performed and a database was created including patient’s type of graft, clinical outcome, fusion rate, fusion assessment modality, and duration of follow-up. Meta-analysis of the fusion rate was performed using StatsDirect software (StatsDirect Ltd, Cheshire, United Kingdom).

RESULTS: A total of 1533 patients from 40 series were included. Fusion rates were high, ranging from 91.8% to 99%. The imaging modalities used to assess fusion were computed tomography scans (30%) and X-rays (70%). Comparison of all recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP) series with all non-rhBMP series showed fusion rates of 96.6% and 92.5%, respectively. The lowest fusion rate was seen with isolated use of autologous local bone (91.8%). The highest fusion ratewas observed with combination of autologous local bone with bone extender and rhBMP (99.1%). The highest fusion rate without the use ofBMPwas seen with autologous local bone+bone extender (93.1%). The reported complication rate ranged from 0% to 35.71%. Clinical improvement was observed in all studies.

CONCLUSION: Fusion rates are generally high with MIS-TLIF regardless of the graft material used. Given the potential complications of iliac bone harvesting and rhBMP, use of other bone graft options for MIS-TLIF is reasonable. The highest fusion rate without the use of rhBMP was seen with autologous local bone plus bone extender (93.1%).

 

Posted on

Treatment of Basilar Invagination With Klippel-Feil Syndrome

Treatment of Basilar Invagination With Klippel-Feil Syndrome

Neurosurgery 78:492–498, 2016

Klippel-Feil syndrome (KFS) is characterized by congenital vertebral fusion of the cervical spine and a wide spectrum of associated anomalies. In patients with KFS with basilar invagination (BI), compression of the brainstem and upper cervical cord results in neurological deficits, and decompression and occipitocervical reconstruction are required. The highly varied anatomy of KFS makes a posterior occipitocervical fixation strategy challenging. For these patients, the transoral atlantoaxial reduction plate (TARP) operation is an optimal option to perform a direct anterior fixation to achieve stabilization.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of TARP internal fixation for the treatment of BI with KFS. METHODS: Ten consecutive patients with BI and KFS who underwent TARP reduction and fixation from 2010 to 2012 were reviewed. Clinical assessment and image measurements were performed preoperatively and at the most recent follow-up. Nine patients (9/10) were followed for an average of 31.44 months.

RESULTS: Symptoms were alleviated in 9 of 9 patients (100.00%). The odontoid process was ideally corrected with the TARP system. The mean clivus canal angle improved from 124 preoperatively to 152 postoperatively. The average preoperative and postoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association scores were 10.56 (n = 9) and 14.67 (n = 9), respectively, indicating 63.82% improvement. There was bony bridge catenation on the computed tomography scans and no evidence of hardware failure at 6 months.

CONCLUSION: The TARP operation is effective and safe for treating patients with BI with KFS. The midterm clinical results were satisfactory.

Posted on

Total Disc Replacement for Chronic Discogenic Low Back Pain: A Cochrane Review

TDR

 Spine 2013 ; 38 : 24 – 36

Study Design. Systematic literature review.

Objective. To assess the effect of total disc replacement for chronic low back pain due to lumbar degenerative disc disease compared with fusion or other treatment options.

Summary of Background Data. There is an increasing use in disc replacement devices for degenerative disc disease, but their effectiveness compared with other interventions such as fusion of the motion segment or conservative treatment remains unclear.

Methods. A comprehensive search in PubMedCentral, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and FDA trials register was conducted. Randomized controlled trials comparing total disc replacement with any other intervention for degenerative disc disease were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the criteria of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Quality of evidence was graded according to the GRADE approach. Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Results and upper bounds of confidence intervals were compared with predefined clinically relevant differences.

Results. We included 7 randomized controlled trials with a follow-up of 24 months. There is risk of bias in the included studies due to sponsoring and absence of any kind of blinding. One study compared disc replacement with rehabilitation and found a signifi cant advantage in favor of surgery, which, however, did not reach the predefi ned threshold. Six studies compared disc replacement with fusion and found that the mean improvement in visual analogue scale score of back pain was 5.2 mm higher (2 studies; 95% confidence interval 0.2–10.3) with a low quality of evidence. The improvement of Oswestry disability index score at 24 months in the disc replacement group was 4.3 points more than in the fusion group (5 studies; 95% confidence interval 1.85–6.68) with a low quality of evidence. Both upper bounds of the confidence intervals were below the predefined clinically relevant difference.

Conclusion. Although statistically significant, the differences in clinical improvement were not beyond generally accepted boundaries for clinical relevance. Prevention of adjacent level disease and/or facet joint degeneration was not properly assessed. Therefore, because we think that harm and complications may occur after some years, the spine surgery community should be prudent to adopt this technology on a large scale, despite the fact that total disc replacement seems to be effective in treating low back pain in selected patients, and in the short term is at least equivalent to fusion surgery.

Key words: s.

Proudly powered by WordPress