We present a case series of five patients who had revision surgery
following magnetic controlled growing rods (MGCR) for early onset
scoliosis. Metallosis was found during revision in four out of five
patients and we postulated a mechanism for rod failure based on
retrieval analysis. Retrieval analysis was performed on the seven explanted rods.
The mean duration of MCGR from implantation to revision was 35 months
(17 to 46). The mean age at revision was 12 years (7 to 15; four
boys, one girl).Aims
Patients and Methods
Retrospective review of fusion rates using Grafton DBM/allografts only in AIS. Medical records of 30 consecutive patients at an average age of 19(18-24)were reviewed. All patients had segmental fixation with dual rod and pedicle screw construct followed by decortication supplemented with matrix strips/allograft chips. Minimum follow up 1.5 years, average of 2 years (1.5-3). First follow up at 3 months postoperatively and than 6 months subsequently. All patients were evaluated using criteria described by Betz et al for “possible pseudoarthrosis” which included persistent back pain, defects in the fusion mass, loosening of pedicle screws, junctional kyphosis and curve progression of more than 10 degrees from initial standing postoperative PA views. There were no infections. Average time to clinically and radiographically evident fusion was 12 months (range 10-16). Radiographically visible unfused facet joints were encountered in 3 patients towards the end of the construct. One patient had extension of the construct to treat junctional kyphosis. Other two remained asymptomatic. None had Progression of deformity. One patient developed pars defect at level below construct and was treated with extension of fusion.Purpose
Methods
Spinal cord injury following trauma is initially dealt with by acute hospitals. The early management including stabilization is usually performed by these centres. This is followed by onward referral to one of the Regional Spinal Injury Units. There is concern of both sides of the fence regarding mobilization following spinal cord injury. The acute hospitals want to avoid the problems of prolonged recumbency and the Regional Spinal Injury Units wish to avoid the problems of early aggressive mobilization. Therefore, we set out to discover if there was a standard approach to mobilising these patients following surgical stabilization, because of the oversubscribed resources of the spinal injury units and the wish to start mobilizing the injured as soon as possible. A comparative audit of the Regional Spinal Injury Units in the UK and North American Units. Regional Spinal Injury Units in United Kingdom and North America Clear Management Plan Mobilisation Schedule We had replies from all Regional Spinal Injury Units in the UK and from seven in North America. The Regional Spinal Injury Units all had differing approaches. Only a few were able to convey a clear management plan and mobilization schedule. Whereas the North American Units provided a ‘mobilize as able’ plan in all cases. The North American Units had a ‘mobilize as able’ policy, whereas the UK units had a mixed approach. A coherent collaboration between the spinal surgeons stabilizing these injuries and the spinal injury units providing rehabilitation would improve patient management.
39% of patients felt they were inadequately informed or not informed of the nature of scar. However, over 50% of those who had a specialist spinal nurse (SSN) consultation reported the scar to be as they expected. Scar length was the main source of disappointment. 55% reported their scars as being raised (keloid), particularly at the ends. Scar colour and shape was an issue for 23%, whilst 39% experienced prolonged healing. 19 patients had a pre-op consultation with the SSN, 11 did not get this opportunity, 1 declined.
Pre and post procedure pain and physical function scores were noted using the standard SF 36 questionnaire, as well as whether subsequent surgery was required. Mean follow up time was seven months (range 2–13 months).
We have examined the outcome in 19 professional rugby union players who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion between 1998 and 2003. Through a retrospective review of the medical records and telephone interviews of all 19 players, we have attempted to determine the likelihood of improvement, return to professional sport and the long-term consequences. We have also attempted to relate the probability of symptoms in the neck and radicular pain in the arm to the position of play. Neck and radicular pain were improved in 17 patients, with 13 returning to rugby, the majority by six months after operation. Of these, 13 returned to their pre-operative standard of play, one to a lower level and five have not played rugby again. Two of those who returned to the game have subsequently suffered further symptoms in the neck, one of whom was obliged to retire. The majority of the players with problems in the neck were front row forwards. A return to playing rugby union after surgery and fusion of the anterior cervical spine is both likely and safe and need not end a career in the game.
To assess the results of this technique for stabilisation of severe spondylolisthesis, 12 patients with symptomatic severe spondylolisthesis underwent this procedure. The slipped L5 vertebra was stabilized using a hollow medullary screw through the posterior part of the body of S1 into the slipped L5 body, supplemented with pedicle screws into L5 and S1 with posterolateral fusion. At one year follow-up, all but one patient had improved in leg pain. 2 patients were aware of the prominent pedicle screws. 360° fusion was achieved without any progression of spondylolisthesis. Thus 360° fusion for severe L5-S1 spondylo-listhesis can be achieved effectively using this technique.