Tag: Lumbar fusion

Posted on

Clinical Assessment of Percutaneous Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement Using the O-Arm Multidimensional Surgical Imaging System

Neurosurgery 70:990–995, 2012 DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e318237a829

Increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery for lumbar fusion has led to dependence upon intraoperative fluoroscopy for pedicle screw placement, because limited muscle dissection does not expose the bony anatomy necessary for traditional, freehand techniques nor for registration steps in image-guidance techniques. This has raised concerns about cumulative radiation exposure for both surgeon and operating room staff. The recent introduction of the O-arm Multidimensional Surgical Imaging System allows for percutaneous placement of pedicle screws, but there is limited clinical experience with the technique and data examining its accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: We present the first large clinical series of percutaneous screw placement using navigation of O-arm imaging and compare the results with the fluoroscopyguided method.

METHODS: A retrospective review of a 24-month period identified patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. The O-arm was introduced in the middle of this period and was used for all subsequent patients. Accuracy of screw placement was assessed by examination of axial computed tomography or O-arm scans.

RESULTS: The fluoroscopy group included 141 screws in 42 patients, and the O-arm group included 205 screws in 52 patients. The perforation rate was 12.8% in the fluoroscopy group and 3% in the O-arm group (P < .001). Single-level O-arm procedures took a mean 200 (153-241) minutes, whereas fluoroscopy took 221 (178-302) minutes (P < .03).

CONCLUSION: Percutaneous pedicle screw placement with the O-arm Multidimensional Intraoperative Imaging System is a safe and effective technique and provided improved overall accuracy and reduced operative time compared with conventional fluoroscopic techniques.

Posted on

Cost effectiveness of disc prosthesis versus lumbar fusion in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up

Eur Spine J (2011) 20:1001–1011. DOI 10.1007/s00586-010-1607-3

This  randomized  controlled  health  economic study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the concept of total disc replacement (TDR) (Charité/Prodisc/Maverick) when compared with the concept of instrumented lumbar fusion (FUS) [posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) /posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)]. Social and healthcare perspectives after 2 years are reported.

In all, 152 patients were randomized  to  either  TDR  (n = 80)  or  lumbar  FUS (n = 72). Cost to society (total mean cost/patient, Swedish kronor = SEK,  standard  deviation)  for  TDR  was  SEK 599,560  (400,272),  and  for  lumbar  FUS  SEK  685,919 (422,903) (ns). The difference was not significant: SEK 86,359 (-45,605  to 214,332). TDR was significantly less costly from a healthcare perspective, SEK 22,996 (1,202 to 43,055). Number of days on sick leave among those who returned to work was 185 (146) in the TDR group, and 252 (189) in the FUS group (ns). Using EQ-5D, the total gain in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years was 0.41 units for TDR and 0.40 units for FUS (ns). Based on EQ- 5D,  the  incremental  cost-effectiveness  ratio  (ICER)  of using TDR instead of FUS was difficult to analyze due to the ‘‘non-difference’’ in treatment outcome, which is why cost/QALY  was  not  meaningful  to  define. Using  cost- effectiveness probabilistic analysis, the net benefit (with CI) was found to be SEK 91,359 (-73,643  to 249,114) (ns). We used the currency of 2006 where 1 EURO = 9.26 SEK and 1 USD = 7.38 SEK.

It was not possible to state whether TDR or FUS is more cost-effective after 2 years. Since  disc replacement and lumbar fusion are based on different conceptual approaches, it is important to follow these results over time.

Posted on

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Older Than 70 Years of Age: Analysis of Peri- and Postoperative Complications

Neurosurgery 68:897–902, 2011 DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182098bfa

The number of spine operations performed in the elderly population is rising.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe perioperative and postoperative complications in patients 70 years and older who have undergone minimally invasive lumbar interbody spine fusion.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 66 consecutive patients aged 70 years or older who underwent a minimally invasive interbody lumbar fusion. Electronic medical records were analyzed for patient demographics, procedures, and perioperative and postoperative complications.

RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2009, 66 patients with an average age of 74.9 years (range, 70-86 years) underwent 68 lumbar interbody fusions procedures. The mean follow-up was 14.7 months (range, 1.5-50 months). The minimally invasive approaches included 41 cases of extreme lateral interbody fusion and 27 minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions. We observed 5 major (7.4%) and 17 minor (25%) complications. The 5 major complications consisted of 4 cases of interbody graft subsidence and 1 adjacent level disease. There were no intraoperative medical complications. There were no myocardial infarctions, pulmonary embolisms, hardware complications requiring removal, wound infections, major visceral, vascular, neural injuries, or death in the study period.

CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive interbody fusions can be performed in the elderly (ages 70 years and older) with an overall low rate of major complications. Graft subsidence in this population when not supplemented with posterior instrumentation is a concern. Age should not be a deterrent to performing complex minimally invasive interbody fusions in the elderly.

Posted on

Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion

Eur Spine J (2009) 18:1637–1643 DOI 10.1007/s00586-009-1060-3

The incidence of adjacent segment problems after lumbar fusion has been found to vary, and risk factors for these problems have not been precisely verified, espe- cially based on structural changes determined by magnetic resonance imaging.

The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to describe the incidence and clinical features of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion and to determine its risk factors.

We assessed the incidence of ASD in patients who underwent lumbar or lumbosacral fusions for degenerative conditions between August 1995 and March 2006 with at least a 1-year follow- up. Patients less than 35 years of age at the index spinal fusion, patients with uninstrumented fusion, and patients who had not achieved successful union were excluded.

Of the 1069 patients who underwent fusions, 28 (2.62%) needed secondary operations because of ASD and were included in this study. In order to identify the risk factors, we matched a disease group and a control group. The disease group consisted of 26 of the 28 patients with ASD, excluding the 2 patients for whom we did not have initial MRI data. Each patient in the disease group was matched by age, sex, fusion level and follow-up period with a control patient. The assumed risk factors included disc and facet degeneration, instability, listhesis, rotational defor- mity, and disc wedging. The mean age of the 28 patients with ASD requiring surgical treatment was 58.4 years, which did not differ significantly from that of the population in which ASD did not develop (58.2years, p = 0.894). Of the 21 patients who underwent floating fusion, only 1 developed distal ASD. Facet degeneration was a significant risk factor (p<0.01) on logistic regression analysis. The incidence of distal ASD was much lower than that of proximal ASD. Pre-existing facet degeneration may be associated with a high risk of adjacent segment problems following lumbar fusion procedures.

Proudly powered by WordPress