Search

Study Design: Retrospective bicentric Cohort Study. Objective: Posterior (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) have been clinically proven for the surgical treatment of degenerative spinal disorders. Despite many retrospective studies, the superiority of either technique has not been proven to date. In the literature, the complication rate of the conventional PLIF technique is reported to be significantly higher, but with inconsistent complication recording. In this retrospective bicentric study, a less invasive PLIF technique was compared with the conventional TLIF technique and complications were recorded using the validated SAVES V2 classification system. Methods: 1142 patients underwent PLIF (702) or TLIF (n = 440) up to 3 levels in two specialized centers. Epidemiological data, intra- and postoperative complications during hospitalization and after discharge were analyzed according to SAVES V2. Results: The overall complication rate was 13.74%. TLIF-patients had slightly significant more complications than PLIF-patients (TLIF = 16.6%/PLIF = 11.9%, P =.0338). Accordingly, complications during revision surgeries were more frequent in the first cohort (TLIF = 20.9%/PLIF = 12.6%; P =.03252). In primary interventions, the surgical technique did not correlate with the complication rate (TLIF = 12.4%/PLIF = 11.7%). There were no significant differences regarding severity of complications. Conclusions: An important component of this work is the complication recording according to a uniform classification system (SAVES V2). In contrast to previous literature, we could demonstrate that there is not a significant difference between the two surgical techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective We compared open-door laminoplasty via a unilateral approach and additional unilateral lateral mass screw fixation (uLP) with laminectomy and bilateral lateral mass screw fixation (LC) in the surgical treatment of multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (mDCM). Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of 46 prospectively enrolled patients (23 uLP and 23 LC). The minimum follow-up was 1 year. Neck and arm pains were evaluated with visual analog scales and disability with the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Myelopathy was rated with the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score. Cervical sagittal parameters were measured on plain and functional X-ray films with a specific software. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Fusion was defined as <2 degrees of intersegmental motion on flexion/extension radiographs. Results The two groups were similar in age and comorbidities. The mean operation time and the mean hospital stay were shorter in the uLP group (p = 0.015). The intraoperative blood loss did not exceed 200 mL in both groups. At follow-up, the groups showed comparable clinical outcome data. The sagittal profile did not deteriorate in either group. Fusion rates were 67% in the uLP group and 92% in the LC group. No infections occurred in either group. In the LC group, one patient developed a transient C5 palsy. Revision surgery was required for a malpositioned screw (LC) and for one implant failure (uLP). Conclusion Laminoplasty and unilateral fixation via a unilateral approach achieved comparable clinical and radiologic results with laminectomy and bilateral fixation, despite a lower fusion rate. However, the surgical traumatization was less. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Incidental durotomy is one of the most common complications in lumbar spine surgery. There are conflicting reports whether a dural lesion is associated with an inferior outcome after lumbar decompression. This study analyzed the effect of incidental durotomy in this specific group of patients (Dura+) and compared the results with the remaining cohort without dural laceration (Dura-).Methods: This prospective multi-center study included 800 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent exclusive decompression surgery. All procedures were performed as part of a multi-center investigation at three highly specialized spine clinics. Outcome measures (ODI, EQ5D, VASback pain and VASleg pain) were obtained preoperatively as well as 3 and 12 months after surgery. The effect of an incidental durotomy on the clinical outcomes was analyzed statistically between the two cohorts.Results: An intraoperative dura lesion was recorded in 6.5 % (n = 52/800) of all cases. Both cohorts (Dura+ and Dura-) did not reveal any differences regarding patient demographics, risk factors, or co-morbidities at baseline. The length of the hospital stay was significantly longer for the Dura+ cohort (8.0 vs. 6.4 days; p < 0.01). After 12 months, the Dura- cohort demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in VASback pain in comparison to the Dura+ cohort (Δ21.4 vs. Δ7.2 points; p < 0.05). The differences for the remaining outcome measures were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).Conclusions: The results of this study reveal that an incidental durotomy was associated with a significant increase in the patient's length of stay, and risk for re-intervention for the treatment of persisting CSF leakage. In contrast to previous reports which have investigated the effects of incidental durotomies on the clinical outcome after lumbar decompression surgery, our data further suggest a possible inferior outcome in terms of low back pain improvement in the Dura+ cohort, which became clinically apparent at the 12-month follow-up period. Future studies should investigate whether a more pronounced decompression required for adequate exposure and repair of a dural laceration may, ultimately, result in increased segmental instability and in clinically undesirable low back pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]