header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 103-B, Issue SUPP_11 | Pages 24 - 24
1 Sep 2021
Saravi B Lang G Ülkümen S Südkamp N Hassel F
Full Access

Endoscopic spine surgery is a promising and minimally invasive technique for the treatment of disc herniation and spinal stenosis. However, the literature on the outcome of interlaminar endoscopic decompression (IED) versus conventional microsurgical technique (CMT) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is scarce. We analyzed 88 patients (IED: 36/88, 40.9%; CMT: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis between 2018–2020. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, time to hospital release (THR), ASA score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), side (unilateral/bilateral), patient-reported (ODI, NRS (leg-, back pain), eQ5D, COMI), and radiological (preoperative dural sack cross-sectional area (DSCA), Shizas score (SC), left (LRH) and right (RRH) lateral recess heights, left (LFA) and right (RFA) facet angle) parameters were extracted.

Complication (most often re-stenosis due to hematoma and/or residual sensorimotor deficits) rates were higher in the endoscopic (38.9%) than microsurgical (13.5%) treatment group (p<0.01). Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with 3 weeks and 1 year postoperatively evaluated ODI, COMI, eQ5D, NRS leg, or NRS back values in our cohort. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic versus microsurgical group for the patient-reported outcomes.

Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with patient-centered outcomes and should be considered in future studies. Endoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach, although it was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience. This was probably because of the surgeons' lack of experience with this method and the resulting different learning curve compared with the conventional technique.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 99-B, Issue SUPP_8 | Pages 62 - 62
1 Apr 2017
Inzana J Münch C Varga P Hofmann-Fliri L Südkamp N Windolf M
Full Access

Background

Osteoporotic fracture fixation in the proximal humerus remains a critical challenge. While the biomechanical benefits of screw augmentation with bone cement are established, minimising the cement volume may help control any risk of extravasation and reduce surgical procedure time. Previous experimental studies suggest that it may be sufficient to only augment the screws at the sites of the lowest bone quality. However, adequately testing this hypothesis in vitro is not feasible.

Methods

This study systematically evaluated the 64 possible strategies for augmenting six screws in the humeral head through finite element simulations to determine the relative biomechanical benefits of each augmentation strategy. Two subjects with varying levels of local bone mineral density were each modeled with a 2-part and 3-part fracture that was stabilised with a PHILOS plate. The biomechanical fixation was evaluated under physiological loads (muscle and joint reaction forces) that correspond to three different motions: 45 degrees abduction, 45 degrees abduction with 45 degrees internal rotation, and 45 degrees flexion.