Search

Introduction: It is known that pulmonary hypertension is associated with worse outcome in both cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. The aims of our retrospective analysis were to evaluate the outcomes of our patients with pulmonary hypertension undergoing major orthopedic surgery and to give experience-based recommendations for the perioperative management.Material and methods: From 92 patients with pulmonary hypertension undergoing different kinds of surgical procedures from 2011–2014 in a tertiary academic hospital we evaluated 16 patients with major orthopedic surgery for perioperative morbidity and mortality. Results: Regarding the in-hospital morbidity and mortality, one patient died postoperatively due to pulmonary infection and right heart failure (6.25%) and 6 patients suffered significant postoperative complications (37.5%; bleeding = 1, infection = 1, wound healing deficits = 3; dysrhythmia = 1). Conclusion: Our data show that major orthopedic surgery is feasible with satisfactory outcome even in cases of severe pulmonary hypertension by an individualized, disease-adapted interdisciplinary treatment concept.

Specific and non-specific infections of the spine are rare. Due to their potential for severe instabilities, deformities and the impairment of neurological structures, the treatment is often prolonged and needs an interdisciplinary management. The clinical presentation is uncharacteristic, therefore diagnosis is often delayed. There are no prospective randomized studies for therapy recommendation. The surgical concept includes eradication of the infection and the reliable stabilization of involved segments. This concept is successful in most cases of endogenous vertebral osteomyelitis. The therapy of the exogenous spine infections after macro and micro surgery is more difficult, due to the critical wound situation and the involvement of the posterior parts of the spine. In these cases, infection-associated instability of the anterior part is complicated by critical posterior wound conditions.We present three cases of severe exogenous vertebral infections, where temporary external transpedicular spine fixation was used for salvage procedure, till soft tissue conditions have permitted a definitive internal stabilization.

Substantial inflammatory disturbances following major trauma have been found throughout the posttraumatic course of polytraumatized patients, which was confirmed in experimental models of trauma and in vitro settings. As a consequence, the principle of damage control surgery (DCS) has developed over the last two decades and has been successfully introduced in the treatment of severely injured patients. The aim of damage control surgery and orthopaedics (DCO) is to limit additional iatrogenic trauma in the vulnerable phase following major injury. Considering traumatic brain and acute lung injury, implants for quick stabilization like external fixators as well as decided surgical approaches with minimized potential for additional surgery-related impairment of the patient's immunologic state have been developed and used widely. It is obvious, that a similar approach should be undertaken in the case of spinal trauma in the polytraumatized patient. Yet, few data on damage control spine surgery are published to so far, controlled trials are missing and spinal injury is addressed only secondarily in the broadly used ATLS® polytrauma algorithm. This article reviews the literature on spine trauma assessment and treatment in the polytrauma setting, gives hints on how to assess the spine trauma patient regarding to the ATLS® protocol and recommendations on therapeutic strategies in spinal injury in the polytraumatized patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Polytraumatized patients following a severe trauma suffer from substantial disturbances of the immune system. Secondary organ dysfunction syndromes due to early hyperinflammation and late immunparalysis contribute to adverse outcome. Consequently the principle of damage control surgery / orthopedics developed in the last two decades to limit secondary iatrogenic insult in these patients. New percutaneous internal fixators provide implants for a damage control approach of spinal trauma in polytraumatized patients. The goal of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of minimal-invasive instrumentation in the setting of minor and major trauma and to discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of this procedure. Materials and Methods: The present study is a prospective analysis of 76 consecutive patients (mean age 53.3 years) with thoracolumbar spine fractures following major or minor trauma from August 2003 to January 2007 who were subjected to minimal-invasive dorsal instrumentation using CD Horizon® Sextant™ Rod Insertion System and Longitude™ Rod Insertion System (Medtronic® Sofamor Danek). Perioperative and postoperative outcome measures including e.g. local and systemic complications were assessed and discussed. Results: Forty-nine patients (64.5%) suffered from minor trauma (Injury Severity Score <16). Polytraumatized patients (n=27; 35.5%) had associated chest (n=20) and traumatic brain injuries (n=22). For mono- and bisegmental dorsal instrumentation the Sextant™ was used in 60 patients, whereas in 16 longer ranging instrumentations the (prototype) Longitude™ system was implanted. Operation time was substantially lower than in conventional approach at minimum 22.5 min for Sextant and 36.2 min for Longitude™, respectively. Geriatric patients with high perioperative risk according to ASA classification benefited from the less invasive approach and lack of approach-related complications including no substantial blood loss. Conclusion: Low rate of approach-related complications in association with short operation time and virtually no blood loss is beneficial in the setting of polytraumatized patients regarding damage control orthopedics, as well as in geriatric patients with high perioperative risk. The minimal-invasive instrumentation of the spine is associated with beneficial outcome in a selected patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Considerable variability exists in clinical approaches to thoracolumbar fractures. Controversy in evaluation and nomenclature contribute to this confusion, with significant differences found between physicians, between different specialties, and in different geographic regions. A new classification system for thoracolumbar injuries, the Thoracolumbar Injury Severity Score (TLISS), was recently described by Vaccaro. No assessment of regional differences has been described. We report regional variability in use of the TLISS system between United States and non-US surgeons. Methods: Twenty-eight spine surgeons (8 neurosurgeons and 20 orthopedic surgeons) reviewed 56 clinical thoracolumbar injury case histories, which included pertinent imaging studies. Cases were classified and scored using the TLISS system. After a three month period, the case histories were re-ordered and the physicians repeated the exercise; 22 physicians completed both surveys and were used to assess intra-rater reliability. The reliability and treatment validity of the TLISS was assessed. Surgeons were grouped into US (n = 15) and non-US (n = 13) cohorts. Inter-rater (both within and between different geographic groups) and intra-rater reliability was assessed by percent agreement, Cohen's kappa, kappa with linear weighting, and Spearman's rank-order correlation. Conclusion: Non-US surgeons were found to have greater inter-rater reliability in injury mechanism, while agreement on neurological status and posterior ligamentous complex integrity tended to be higher among US surgeons. Inter-rater agreement on management was moderate, although it tended to be higher in US-surgeons. Inter-rater agreement between US and non-US surgeons was similar to within group inter-rater agreement for all categories. While intra-rater agreement for mechanism tended to be higher among US surgeons, intra-rater reliability for neurological status and PLC was slightly higher among non-US surgeons. Intra-rater reliability for management was substantial in both US and non-US surgeons. The TLISS incorporates generally accepted features of spinal injury assessment into a simple patient evaluation tool. The management recommendation of the treatment algorithm component of the TLISS shows good inter-rater and substantial intra-rater reliability in both non-US and US based spine surgeons. The TLISS may improve communication between health providers and may contribute to more efficient management of thoracolumbar injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]