Search

Minimally invasive surgery is becoming popular for treating spinal disorders. The advantages of percutaneous endoscopic debridement and drainage (PEDD) for infectious spondylitis include direct observation of the lesion, direct pus drainage, and earlier pain relief. We retrospectively reviewed 37 patients who underwent PEDD and 31 who underwent traditional anterior open debridement and interbody fusion with bone grafting from 2004 to 2012. The causative organisms were isolated from 30 patients (81.1%) following PEDD, and from 25 patients (80.6%) following open surgery (p = 0.48). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen (38.2%). In the PEDD group, blood loss (<50 mL versus 585 ± 428 mL, p < 0.001) was significantly lesser and the duration of hospitalization (24.4 ± 12.5 days versus 31.5 ± 14.6 days, p = 0.03) was shorter than that in the open surgery group. Serologically, there were significantly faster C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) normalization rates in the PEDD group (p < 0.001, p = 0.009, respectively). In the two-year follow-up radiographs, 26 out of 30 (86.7%) open surgery patients showed bony fusions of the infected segments. On the contrary, sclerotic change of the destructive endplates was observed and the motion of infected spinal segments was still preserved in the PEDD group. There was no significant difference in the change of sagittal profile, including primary correction gain, correction loss, and actual correction gain/loss. PEDD is an effective alternative option and should be considered prior to traditional extensive spinal surgery—particularly for patients with early-stage spinal infection or serious complicated medical conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Promising results have been shown in previous studies from direct pars interarticularis repair. These include Scott wiring, Buck repair, pedicle screw repair, and Morscher techniques. In addition, several minimally invasive techniques have been reported to show high union rates, low rates of implant failure and wound complications, shorter length of stay, a lower postoperative pain score with faster recovery, and minimal blood loss., Objectives: To compare the evidence on techniques for direct pars interarticularis repair., Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis., Setting: Review article., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of databases to identify studies assessing outcomes of direct pars interarticularis defect repair. Two authors independently screened electronic search results, performed study selection, and extracted data for meta-analysis. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to assess risk of bias., Results: Forty studies were included in the final analysis. Union rate was higher in the pedicle screw repair group (effect size [ES] 95%; 95% CI, 86% to 100%), followed by the Buck repair group (ES 93%; 95% CI, 86% to 98%), Scott wiring (ES 85%; 95% CI, 63% to 99%), and Morscher method group (ES 63%; 95% CI, 2% to 100%). Positive functional outcome was higher for the Morscher method (ES 91%; 95% CI, 86% to 96%), followed by the Buck repair group (ES 85%; 95% CI, 68% to 97%), pedicle screw repair (ES 84%; 95% CI, 59% to 99%) and Scott repair group (ES 80%; 95% CI, 60% to 95%). Complication rates were highest among the Scott repair group (ES 12%; 95% CI, 4% to 22%) and Morscher method group (ES 12%; 95% CI, 0% to 34%)., Limitations: Heterogeneity of the included studies were noted. However, we performed sensitivity analyses from the available data to address this issue., Conclusion: Our results indicate that pedicle screw repair and Buck repair may be associated with a higher union rate and lower complication rates compared to the Scott repair and Morscher method. Ultimately, the choice of technique should be based on the surgeon's preference and experience.

Background: The traditional treatment for an instrumented vertebral fracture involves removing the loosened pedicle screws and extending the posterior instrumentation cephaladly or caudally. There has been a recent trend of performing minimally invasive fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous vertebroplasty as a salvage procedure., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of surgical interventions for instrumented vertebral fracture., Study Design: Retrospective assessment., Setting: All data came from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients with an instrumented vertebral fracture who underwent fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous vertebroplasty (Group I, n = 16) or extension of the posterior instrumentation (Group II, n = 19). Demographic data were recorded. The operating time, amount of intraoperative blood loss, time to postoperative ambulation, and duration of hospital stay were also evaluated. The visual analog scale (VAS) score, kyphotic angle on radiological images, Kirkaldy-Willis functional score, complications, and revision surgery were evaluated at one week and one, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively., Results: Group I had a shorter operating time (P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), earlier postoperative ambulation (P < 0.001), and a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). The mean VAS score improved significantly after surgery in both groups (P = 0.001). The postoperative kyphotic angle was better in Group II (P < 0.05). There was no significant between-group difference in the Kirkaldy-Willis functional score at the last follow-up (P = 0.91). There was no significant between-group difference in the need for revision surgery (Group I, n = 4; Group II, n = 5; P = 0.93)., Limitation: This study is a retrospective cohort., Conclusions: Minimally invasive fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous vertebroplasty can be used as an alternative to extension of posterior instrumentation for instrumented vertebral fracture. It has several advantages, including a shorter operating time, earlier postoperative ambulation, less blood loss, and a shorter hospital stay. The clinical outcomes of these 2 treatment approaches were similar.

Purpose: In this case-series outcome study, we present our surgical technique for single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with periosteum-enveloping hamstring tendon graft at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up., Methods: From 2000 to 2005, ACL reconstruction with a periosteum-enveloping hamstring tendon graft was performed in 368 patients (372 knees). Of those patients, 312 who completed at least 2 years of follow-up were included for analysis. Four-strand periosteum-enveloping hamstring tendon grafts were used for single-bundle reconstruction. Clinical assessments included the Lysholm knee score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, KT-1000 instrumented testing (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA), thigh muscle assessment, and radiographic evaluation. Radiographs were used to assess femoral and tibial tunnel widening., Results: The 312 study patients were followed up for a mean of 4.6 years (range, 2 to 7 years). The median Lysholm knee scores were 56 points (range, 40 to 70 points) and 95 points (range, 60 to 100 points) before and after surgery, respectively. After reconstruction, 85% of patients could return to moderate or strenuous activity, 5.1% exhibited grade 2 or higher ligament laxity with the anterior drawer test, and 6.1% had a positive pivot shift. Complete range of motion was achieved in 88% of patients. On the basis of International Knee Documentation Committee assessment, 93% of patients had a normal or nearly normal rating., Conclusions: Satisfactory results can be achieved with the periosteum-enveloping hamstring tendon graft in single-bundle ACL reconstruction with minimal tunnel widening. Bone tunnel enlargement of more than 1 mm was identified in 5.4% of femoral tunnels and 6.1% of tibial tunnels, which was less than in other studies using comparable fixation., Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series., (Copyright (c) 2010 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical results of posterior decompression and stabilization for metastatic diseases of the thoracolumbar spine., Methods: From 1980 to 2001, 70 consecutive patients with spinal metastases underwent palliative surgery by posterior decompression of spinal cord and subsequent stabilization with instrumentation. There were 38 women and 32 men. Their ages ranged from 24 to 75 years (mean 58 years). We retrospectively reviewed medical records to analyze their survival, clinical presentations, image findings and surgical outcomes., Results: Sixty-one patients (87%) survived longer than 3 months. Forty-nine patients (70%) survived longer than 6 months, of whom 35 patients were still alive at an average of 24 months (range 13-40 months) after surgery. All maintained spinal stability postoperatively. Forty-seven of 60 patients (78.3%) with severe pain obtained significant symptomatic relief for 3 months or more, and 38 of 54 (70.1%) paralyzed patients gained neural improvement. Of the 60 patients bedridden before surgery due to pain or paresis, 36 patients (60%) experienced an increase in activity tolerance., Conclusions: The results of this study shows that neurological recovery, pain relief and mobility can be enhanced by posterior decompression and stabilization in highly selective patients with spinal metastases.

Background: Pertinent literature on revision lumbar spinal surgery has revealed a wide variation in success rates, ranging from 12% to 82%. In addition, a solid consensus has not yet been reached on its positive factors. We retrospectively reviewed 124 consecutive patients who underwent revision lumbar spinal surgery and investigated the factors that affected the outcomes of their surgery., Methods: Revision lumbar spinal surgery was performed in 124 patients from January 1992 to December 1996, with an average follow-up of 37.6 months (range, 24-89 months). The various factors analyzed included age, gender, previous diagnosis, number of previous operations, period of pain-free interval, neurologic deficit, operative procedure, and fusion status. This analysis revealed the effect of each factor on the overall results. Radiographs were obtained, and patients were assessed during the final follow-up or by questionnaire., Results: The success rate of revision lumbar spine surgery in this study was 83.9%. Successful outcomes were significantly associated with the spinal procedure with fusion and with union of the spinal fusion. Patients with defined mechanical instability had better results than did those with stenosis only. In addition, the complication rate for repeated lumbar spinal surgery was 9.6% and major complications attributed to poor results., Conclusion: This study reveals a high success rate of revision spinal surgery. We recommend performing spinal fusion, and achievement of solid fusion in repeated low back surgery is invaluable for patients with spinal instability. Targeting the specific pathology of failed back surgery syndrome is crucial in attaining satisfactory results with revision lumbar spinal surgery.