Aims. During revision procedures for aseptic reasons, there remains a suspicion that failure may have been the result of an undetected subclinical infection. However, there is little evidence available in the literature about unexpected positive results in presumed aseptic revision spine surgery. The aims of our study were to estimate the prevalence of unexpected positive culture using sonication and to evaluate clinical characteristics of these patients. Patients and Methods. All patients who underwent a revision surgery after instrumented spinal surgery at our institution between July 2014 and August 2016 with spinal implants submitted for sonication were retrospectively analyzed. Only revisions presumed as aseptic are included in the study. During the study period, 204 spinal revisions were performed for diagnoses other than infection. In 38 cases, sonication cultures were not obtained, leaving a study cohort of 166 cases. The mean age of the cohort was 61.5 years (. sd. 20.4) and there were 104 female patients. Results. Sonication cultures were positive in 75 cases (45.2%). Hardware failure was the most common indication for revision surgery and revealed a positive sonication culture in 26/75 cases (35%) followed by
Loss of motion following spine segment fusion results in increased strain in the adjacent motion segments. However, to date, studies on the biomechanics of the cervical spine have not assessed the role of coupled motions in the lumbar spine. Accordingly, we investigated the biomechanics of the cervical spine following cervical fusion and lumbar fusion during simulated whiplash using a whole-human finite element (FE) model to simulate coupled motions of the spine. A previously validated FE model of the human body in the driver-occupant position was used to investigate cervical hyperextension injury. The cervical spine was subjected to simulated whiplash exposure in accordance with Euro NCAP (the European New Car Assessment Programme) testing using the whole human FE model. The coupled motions between the cervical spine and lumbar spine were assessed by evaluating the biomechanical effects of simulated cervical fusion and lumbar fusion.Objectives
Methods
The aims of this study were to evaluate the clinical and radiological
outcomes of instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) performed in
patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A total of 40 patients with RA and 134 patients without RA underwent
instrumented PLF for spinal stenosis between January 2003 and December
2011. The two groups were matched for age, gender, bone mineral
density, the history of smoking and diabetes, and number of fusion
segments. The clinical outcomes measures included the visual analogue scale
(VAS) and the Korean Oswestry Disability Index (KODI), scored before
surgery, one year and two years after surgery. Radiological outcomes
were evaluated for problems of fixation, nonunion, and adjacent
segment disease (ASD). The mean follow-up was 36.4 months in the RA
group and 39.1 months in the non-RA group.Aims
Methods
We evaluated the impact of lumbar instrumented
circumferential fusion on the development of adjacent level vertebral
compression fractures (VCFs). Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody
fusion (PLIF) has become a popular procedure for degenerative lumbar
spine disease. The immediate rigidity produced by PLIF may cause
more stress and lead to greater risk of adjacent VCFs. However,
few studies have investigated the relationship between PLIF and
the development of subsequent adjacent level VCFs. Between January 2005 and December 2009, a total of 1936 patients
were enrolled. Of these 224 patients had a new VCF and the incidence
was statistically analysed with other covariants. In total 150 (11.1%)
of 1348 patients developed new VCFs with PLIF, with 108 (72%) cases
at adjacent segment. Of 588 patients, 74 (12.5%) developed new subsequent
VCFs with conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF), with 37 (50%)
patients at an adjacent level. Short-segment fusion, female and
age older than 65 years also increased the development of new adjacent
VCFs in patients undergoing PLIF. In the osteoporotic patient, more
rigid fusion and a higher stress gradient after PLIF will cause
a higher adjacent VCF rate. Cite this article: