header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

OUTCOME OF MULTILEVEL LUMBAR INSTRUMENTED FUSION

The South African Orthopaedic Association (SAAO) 59th Annual Congress



Abstract

Purpose

To review the outcome of multilevel (≥4) instrumented lumbar fusion to sacrum / pelvis performed for degenerative conditions

Methods

Clinical data of 47 consecutive patients from 2002 to 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. Inclusion criteria included fusion from at least L2 to S1 / pelvis, i.e. minimum of 4 levels. Imaging was assessed for restoration of normal sagittal profile as well as subsequent fusion. EQ5D, OSD and VAS scores pre-op and at 6 months post op were analysed. Average age at surgery was 64 years (50–78). Thirteen cases were primary and 34 revisions. Indications were axial back pain either associated with sagittal imbalance (40%) or leg pain (36%) and leg pain alone in 10%.

Results

The intra-operative blood loss averaged 2222 (250–7000) ml with 40% re-infusion from cell-saver. The average surgical duration was 268 minutes.

Proximal extent of instrumentation was T2 (1), T3 (1), T4 (2), T8 (1), T9 (1), T10 (17), T11 (2), T12 (5), L1 (4) and L2 (13). TLIF's were done in 20 cases mostly at the base of the construct. Pedicle subtraction osteotomies were performed in 14 revision cases. Dural tears occurred in 14 cases, all revision cases except one.

Wound infection occurred in 3 cases. Except for transient quadriceps weakness related to osteotomy, no neurological complications occurred. One patient deceased peri-operatively. Subsequent revision was required in 13 cases for instrumentation failure. OSD score improved by 15.3 points on average, which is clinically and statistically significant.

Conclusion

Long lumbar fusions remain technically demanding with a high incidence of adverse events. This is due to the nature of revision surgery and high biomechanical demands on constructs. Surgical intervention can however be justified by the desperation of the cohort in terms of pain and poor function which can be modestly improved with this intervention.

NO DISCLOSURES