We retrospectively reviewed the results of patients having undergone single or two level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with the use of the Cervios Cage (SYNTHES).

Participants were sent a questionnaire which included generic questions relating to ACDF such as dysphagia, hoarseness of voice and resolution of arm pain in addition to Oswestry Disability scores. Most patients underwent AP/Lateral and flexion/extension radiographs.

Introduction The management of cervical spine facet fractures, dislocations and subluxations in the literature is controversial. Many implants have been tested biomechanically and clinically. The overall biomechanical evidence points to greater stability with posterior constructs, however anterior surgery has practical advantages in terms of less dissection and local trauma than the posterior approach. The aim of this audit was to assess radiological results of facet joint fracture dislocations treated between January 2000 and August 2004. The audit was designed to examine the hypothesis that anterior fixation is inferior to posterior or combined anterior and posterior fixation.

Methods The clinical notes and radiological images of patients who present with a uni- or bifacet fracture dislocation during the study period were retrospectively reviewed. There were 21 patients treated during this period. 4 patients had incomplete radiological follow-up and were excluded. 12 Patients underwent anterior procedures, 3 posterior and 2 combined. Radiological follow-up included analysis of post-operative and final follow up x-rays. Failures were defined as evidence of nonunion, failure of metal ware, persisting kyphosis greater than 11 degrees or change in translation greater than 4 mm. Complications noted were 2 superficial infections, 1 psuedarthrosis 1 aspiration pneumonia, 1 ileus.

Results Overall 1 patient receiving anterior surgery developed a pseudarthrosis. This patient went on to develop fusion with posterior wiring and graft. Two patients developed wound infections following posterior wiring. All patients developed radiological fusion. Statistically there was no difference in radiological failure between anterior, posterior or combined anterior and posterior fusion.

Discussion There is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, anterior plating is inferior to posterior wiring or combined anterior and posterior procedures, and neither can the alternative be accepted. Better biomechanical results have been reported for posterior instrumentations and some authors have reported high rates of radiological failure with anterior fixation. However the anterior approach is associated with fewer complications in the literature6. The complicated nature of the facet fracture and the accompanying ligament injuries require patients to be assessed on an individual basis and treated as such.

The purpose of this study was to highlight uncommon and confusing clinical problem of unilateral prolapsed intervertebral disc (PIVD) producing contralateral symptoms based on case reports and literature review.

Four cases of patients with disc prolapse contralateral to the symptomatic limb are presented. Two patients had cervical disc herniations, and one patient had a lumbar disc prolapse. All three patients had resolution of their contralateral radicular pain following discectomy.

Few reports have been published of patients with unilateral sciatica following contralateral lumbar disc herniation. The authors described the unique features of their patients’ anatomy and related this to their respective pathology. Coexistence of lumbar spondylosis and lateral recess stenosis, as well as the unique features of the attachments of the dural sac and nerve root sleeves to the surrounding osseous structures serve to provide an explanation for contralateral symptoms.

The cervical spine is quite different from the lumbar spine. Here the spinal cord rather than the more flexible cauda equina fills most of the spinal canal. A number of reports can be found describing Brown-Sequard syndrome as a consequence of cervical disc herniation. The two cases presented are in our opinion also the consequence of direct pressure on the spinal cord. We suggest that pressure on the ascending spinothalamic tracts leads to contralateral pain without other neurological symptoms.

Lumbosacral dislocation injuries are rare. Severe trauma disrupts the mechanically stable lumbosacral junction, rendering the injuries particularly unstable. Aggressive surgical management has been recommended. We present a review of our experience with these uncommon injuries defining injury patterns, surgical strategies and outcomes.

Six patients were treated at Auckland Hospital in the last decade. Thorough review and literature search were performed to revise recommendations for management. All injuries were associated with high-energy trauma. In two cases there was evidence of previous spondylolysis, with dramatic progression after injury. All cases were surgically treated with decompression, reduction as indicated, and fusion with instrumentation. The only instrumentation failure occurred when reduction reconstituted disc height without attention to reconstruction of the severely mechanically compromised intervertebral disc. Satisfactory recovery of nerve root injury occurred in all but one case. Major cauda equina damage did not occur. Correlations with previously described classification systems for this injury were poor, and often showed injuries to span grades. These highly unstable injuries require a high index of suspicion, and aggressive surgical management of these highly unstable injuries is warranted, yielding satisfactory outcomes.

Existing classification systems are of little value prognostically, or in planning treatment, and it is better to classify and treat these injuries specifically relating to the anatomical injury patterns. The severe disruption to the intervertebral disc warrants special consideration with attention to a stable reduction position or three-column reconstruction. Spondylolysis may represent a predisposing factor.

PURPOSE: Lumbosacral dislocation injuries are rare. Severe trauma disrupts the mechanically stable lumbosacral junction, rendering the injuries particularly unstable. Aggressive surgical management has been recommended. We present a review of our experience with these uncommon injuries defining injury patterns, surgical strategies and outcomes.

METHODOLOGY: Six patients were treated at Auckland Hospital in the last decade. Thorough review and literature search were performed to revise recommendations for management.

RESULTS: All injuries were associated with high-energy trauma. In two cases there was evidence of previous spondylolysis, with dramatic progression after injury. All cases were surgically treated with decompression, reduction as indicated, and fusion with instrumentation. The only instrumentation failure occurred when reduction reconstituted disc height without attention to reconstruction of the severely mechanically compromised intervertebral disc. Satisfactory recovery of nerve root injury occurred in all but one case. Major cauda equina damage did not occur. Correlations with previously described classification systems for this injury were poor, and often showed injuries to span grades.

CONCLUSIONS: These highly unstable injuries require a high index of suspicion, and aggressive surgical management of these highly unstable injuries is warranted, yielding satisfactory outcomes. Existing classification systems are of little value prognostically, or in planning treatment, and it is better to classify and treat these injuries specifically relating to the anatomical injury patterns. The severe disruption to the intervertebral disc warrants special consideration with attention to a stable reduction position or three-column reconstruction. Spondylolysis may represent a predisposing factor.

In the first half of 2000, the Auckland District Health Board was not effectively meeting the Government’s Elective Waiting Times. The Auckland Hospital Orthopaedic Department was initially targeted as it had one of the worst high profile examples given by the Ministry of Health of non-actively managed waiting list and FSA (First Specialist Assessment) process. In September of that year at Auckland Hospital 224 patients were waiting longer than six months to be seen and a number of spinal referrals were waiting up to two years.

An Elective Service Project Team was established to place proactive resources to meet the governments’ objectives. A prospective study enlisting all referred patients seen at the spinal clinic was undertaken to determine those patients who subsequently became surgical candidates. The nature of the GP referral in terms of accuracy of urgency, status of the patient at clinic, diagnosis, need for surgery, need for investigation, and finally the patients decision about surgical options were recorded. Concurrently a working party composed of spinal surgeon, clinic staff, hospital GP liaison staff, GP’s, and management was co-ordinated, to develop guidelines for the local GP’s, with the intention of allowing GP’s to better identify those patients who would benefit from referral. Subsequently we liased with the pain clinic to develop a treatment program for those patients who would not be seen by an orthopaedic surgeon, so that their individual problems would be addressed to their satisfaction, and that of the referring GP. A Primary Care Management Guide was also produced for the GP’s.

The FSA time has been significantly reduced. Patients have responded positively. We are now able to safely screen patients from referral letters to a back pain management programme and review those at the orthopaedic spinal clinics who are most likely to require surgery so as to maximise the utilisation of resources and to provide better care.

The purpose was to present a case of cauda equina entrapment in a lumbar burst fracture with associated lamina fracture and to review the literature and assess the appropriateness of current practices for cauda equina decompression. Reported incidence of cauda equina entrapment in the lamina fracture of lumbar burst fractures is 13–17%. Anterior surgery alone for decompressing the cauda equina in patients with lumbar burst fractures and associated lamina fractures will not always address the problem. We therefore suggest that posterior exploration may be the preferred approach if the aim of surgery is to decompress the neural elements.

Introduction: Large anterior column defects of the thoracolumbar spine, after fracture decompression, tumour or other pathological resection, or spinal osteotomy present significant difficulties in respect to autograft procurement, donor site morbidity, graft instability and residual spinal instability. Titanium Mesh Cages for reconstruction thoracolumbar vertebral body defects (after corpectomy) offer an alternative to structural iliac crest autograft or allograft. The use of TMCs for inter-body reconstruction has been addressed yet the use of larger cages for corpectomy reconstruction has not. This study examines implant stability and deformity correction of TMCs following corpectomy reconstruction in the thoracolumbar spine.

Methods: Independent radiological review before, after and at follow-up (one year) was performed for 27 patients having implantation of TMCs. Measurement of thoracolumbar kyphosis was performed before surgery, immediately post operatively, and at one year follow-up. Correction of kyphosis was expressed both as angular improvement and percentage improvement. Cage settling into adjacent vertebral bodies, translational deformities and any evidence of implant failure was sought.

Results: Indications for reconstruction with TMC included burst fracture (13), post traumatic kyphosis (8), primary tumour resection (3), debridement of infection (1), and stabilisation of severe kyphotic deformity in achodroplasia with associated spinal stenosis requiring decompression (2). Desired resection and decompression was achieved as indicated. Correction of kyphosis was a mean of 12 deg / 61% (range 0 – 38 deg, 0–85%). No cage moved. One patient had kyphosis recurrence of > 5 deg (12 deg). Five patients demonstrated some settling of the cage within adjacent vertebral bodies (1–8%, mean 3.4% of height loss over construct length – the vertebral body above to the body below). Translational malposition of three cages occurred. One of these cases demonstrated the maximum settling and another was associated with the only case of instrumentation failure. Clinically significant spinal canal intrusion did not occur. One cage demonstrated buckling of the wall without evidence of other problem and the clinical result was excellent.

Discussion: Use of TMCs is safe when managing vertebral body reconstruction. Significant kyphosis or translational deformity has not occurred, however minor cage settling within adjacent vertebra may occur. Fusion rate is unknown as the cage mesh obscures graft maturation. Construct failure has only occurred after pre operative translational malalignment could not be corrected. This demanding procedure offers a reconstructive option with superior structural stability and reduced bone grafting morbidity.

Aim: To effect a retrospective review of all patients who presented with discitis at Auckland Hospital between 1990 and 1998 for the purpose of delineating the indications for surgery and to establish guidelines for treatment of those patients where a pathogen was not isolated.

Method: The clinical, laboratory and radiological findings were reviewed. Where possible, patients underwent telephone interviews.

Results: Thirty-one patients were reviewed. Two patients had died. The clinical picture was characterised by back pain, point tenderness, spasm, radiculopathy, fevers and chills. The average time between clinical presentation and diagnosis was 11 weeks. The ESR was consistently elevated at the time of presentation and it was indicative of disease activity. A causative pathogen was isolated in 28 patients. Mixed pathogens were uncommon. Seven patients required operative debridement and five needed orthotic supports. A spectrum of imaging modalities was used. Particular attention to MRI in support of the diagnosis was critically reviewed.

Conclusions: Non operative management along with chemotherapy specific to the pathogen remains the main stay of treatment for patients with discitis. An algorithm for treatment is recommended including indications for surgery and guidelines for empirical treatment where a causative pathogen is not isolated.