Purpose of study: There is a controversy in the surgical treatment of unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures scoring high on the Load Sharing Classification (LSC). We have been treating unstable thoracolumbar fractures with postero-lateral fusion using short segment instrumentation and in this study we investigated our complication rate. Methods and results: We retrospectively reviewed notes and radiographs of patients presenting with thoracolumbar burst fractures and stabilised with a short-segment instrumented postero-lateral fusion between 1998 and 2007. We identified 31 patients who had adequate documentation and radiographs. Twenty patients had a high (> =7) LSC score and none of these fixations failed. Overall early and late complication rate was low (one wound infection, one dehiscence and four unrelated infections), the one metalwork failure related to infection. Fifty-five percent of patients returned to full-time work. Approximately 50% of correction of kyphosis was lost but the average kyphosis at final follow-up was 11 degrees that we thought was acceptable. Conclusion: We concluded that treating unstable burst fractures with posterior instrumented fusion alone using a pedicle screw construct does not result in late instrumentation failure, high complication rate or unacceptable final deformity. Ethics approval: None. Interest Statement: None

Study Design: A prospective randomised controlled trial with blind radiological assessment. Objective: To assess the radiological outcome of instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion in a prospective randomised study comparing the use of allograft (fresh frozen human femoral head) to autologous bone (from the posterior iliac crest) using a validated method. Methods: Sixty-nine patients having instrumented postero-lateral fusion using the Steffee plate were randomised to one of two groups, to receive either allograft bone or autologous bone. The same surgeon using the same surgical technique performed or supervised all cases. The radiological results of the two groups were assessed as well as the quality of fusion. Outcome measures: The radiographs were assessed for fusion or non-fusion by three independent observers using the same criteria, and a second time by one of the observers. The Kappa scores for the inter-observer and intra-observer agreement were calculated. Some of these patients had fusion status verified by the gold standard of surgical exploration and the sensitivity and specificity calculated. The clinical outcome is the subject of a different paper. Results: Both the inter-observer and intra-observer kappa scores (k) were 100%. The sensitivity of the method was 87.9% and the specificity was 100%. Thirty-seven patients received allograft and 32 patients received autograft. There was no significant difference in the fusion rate, or the quality and quantity of the graft between the groups. Conclusions: There is no difference in the fusion rates comparing the use of autograft and allograft for postero-lateral instrumented lumbar fusion

The purpose of this study was to determine the significance of pedicular screw and segmental wire fixation for the treatment of spondylolysis. Twenty-five patients of spondylolysis were treated operatively. Seventeen patients of them had isthmic sondylolisthesis with an average displacement of 22% (ranges, 4–55%). Thirteen patients (6 patients had spondylolisthesis) were treated by the direct repair of the pars defect with bone graft with pedicular screw and wire fixation methods (Group A), and 12 patients (11 patients had spondylolisthesis) were treated by posterior lumbar interbody fusion or postero-lateral fusion (Group B). The mean age at the operation was 34 in the former, and 45 in the latter. The average volume of bleeding was 291ml in Group A and 840ml in Group B. Operative results were evaluated as excellent, good, fair and poor by Henderson’s evaluation of functional capacity. Radiographically, bony fusion rate was examined. The average follow-up period was 33 months. At the final follow-up stage, clinical outcome was excellent in 5 patients, good in 7, fair in 1, and poor in zero in Group A, and that was in 8,3,0, and one in Group B. Nerve roots irritation was observed in one patient in Group B postoperatively. Bony fusion rate was 100% in both groups. However, delayed union was observed in 2 cases of the Group A. The range of motion L5/sacrum increased to 10 degree from 9 degree (p=0.1). Spondylolysis with severe low back pain has been treated by major surgery like spondylodesis. This study showed that the direct repair of the pars defects is the acceptable methods for the treatment of spondylolysis either no or minimal spondylolisthesis

Despite progress in surgical methods, the clinical results of spine fusion are still not satisfactory, although success rate is certainly higher than in the past, some patients require multiple surgeries to treat a spinal disorder. There are many reasons for which a revision surgery may be necessary: for failure of spinal previous fusion, as pseudarthrosis, for junctional failure or for decompensation of previous fusion. This is a review of 54 patients who underwent revision spine fusion between ’96 and 2000: they were 20 males (37%) and 34 females (53%), in 9 (17%) cases was interested cervical segment, in 9 (17%) thoracic, in 10 (18%) thoracolumbar, in 26 (48%) lumbar; in 29 (54%) patients, previous fusion was performed for a fracture, in 23 (42%) for degenerative pathology (in 17 (31%) was made a postero-lateral fusion, in 4 (7%) cases postero-lumbar interbody fusion and in 2 (3%) cases anterior fusion), in 1 (2%) case for degenerative scoliosis and in 1 (2%) case for a tumour excision. Revision surgery had to be performed in 28 (52%) patients for a mechanical complication, in 14 (26%) for instability of device, in 7 (13%) for wound infection and in 5 (9%) for pseudoarthrosis. Revision procedures were in 37 (68%) cases a new spinal fusion (17 (31%) postero-lateral, 7 (13%) postero-lumbar interbody, 7 (13%) anterior fusion and in 6 (11%) cases both anterior in 7 (13%) removal of mechanical devices, in 7 (13%) cleaning of wound and in 3 (5%) elongation of devices. We have performed a clinical and radiological evaluation with al least 2 years of follow-up. From our analysis of results of the present study, it appears that the rates of improvement after a second operation is lower than that after an initial operation and the rates of complication are significantly higher. This is probably relates to the greater complexity of revision surgery, the more invasive nature of procedure and the longer duration. and posterior fusion)