Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 6 | Pages 807 - 816
1 Jun 2014
Rajaee SS Kanim LEA Bae HW

Using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified national trends in revision spinal fusion along with a comprehensive comparison of comorbidities, inpatient complications and surgical factors of revision spinal fusion compared to primary spinal fusion.

In 2009, there were 410 158 primary spinal fusion discharges and 22 128 revision spinal fusion discharges. Between 2002 and 2009, primary fusion increased at a higher rate compared with revision fusion (56.4% vs 51.0%; p < 0.001). In 2009, the mean length of stay and hospital charges were higher for revision fusion discharges than for primary fusion discharges (4.2 days vs 3.8 days, p < 0.001; USD $91 909 vs. $87 161, p < 0.001). In 2009, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) was used more in revision fusion than in primary fusion (39.6% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001), whereas interbody devices were used less in revision fusion (41.8% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001).

In the multivariable logistic regression model for all spinal fusions, depression (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, p < 0.001), psychotic disorders (OR 1.49, p < 0.001), deficiency anaemias (OR 1.35, p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.10, p = 0.006) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges, adjusting for other variables. In terms of complications, after adjusting for all significant comorbidities, this study found that dural tears (OR 1.41; p < 0.001) and surgical site infections (OR 3.40; p < 0.001) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges (p < 0.001). A p-value < 0.01 was considered significant in all final analyses.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:807–16.


Aims

Treatment of chronic osteomyelitis (COM) for young patients remains a challenge. Large bone deficiencies secondary to COM can be treated using induced membrane technique (IMT). However, it is unclear which type of bone graft is optimal. The goal of the study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of bone marrow concentrator modified allograft (BMCA) versus bone marrow aspirate mixed allograft (BMAA) for children with COM of long bones.

Methods

Between January 2013 and December 2017, 26 young patients with COM were enrolled. Different bone grafts were applied to repair bone defects secondary to IMT procedure for infection eradication. Group BMCA was administered BMCA while Group BMAA was given BMAA. The results of this case-control study were retrospectively analyzed.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 8, Issue 3 | Pages 29 - 31
1 Jun 2019


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 6, Issue 6 | Pages 28 - 31
1 Dec 2017