Fracture of a pedicle is a rare complication of spinal instrumentation using pedicular screws, but it can lead to instability and pain and may necessitate extension of the fusion. Osteosynthesis of the fractured pedicle by cerclage-wire fixation and augmentation of the screw fixation by vertebroplasty or temporary elongation of the fixation, allows stabilisation without sacrifice of the adjacent healthy segment. We describe three patients who developed a fracture of the pedicle in the most caudal instrumented vertebra early after lumbar spinal fusion. During revision surgery the pedicles were reduced and secured by a soft cerclage wire bilaterally. Fusion was obtained at the site of the primary instrumentation and healing of the pedicles was achieved. Cerclage wiring of the fractured pedicle seems to be safe and avoids permanent extension of the fusion without the sacrifice of an otherwise healthy segment.
Inflammatory markers such as the C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count and body temperature are easy to measure and are used as indicators of infection. The way in which they change in the early post-operative period after instrumented spinal surgery has not been reported in any depth. We measured these markers pre-operatively and at one, four, seven and 14 days postoperatively in 143 patients who had undergone an instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. The CRP proved to be the only sensitive marker and had returned to its normal level in 48% of patients after 14 days. The CRP on day 7 was never higher than that on day 4. Age, gender, body temperature, operating time and blood loss were not related to the CRP level. A high CRP does not in itself suggest infection, but any increase after four days may presage infection.
Between March 2000 and February 2006, we carried out a prospective study of 100 patients with a low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding grade II or below), who were randomised to receive a single-level and instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with either one or two cages. The minimum follow-up was for two years. At this stage 91 patients were available for review. A total of 47 patients received one cage (group 1) and 44 two cages (group 2). The clinical and radiological outcomes of the two groups were compared. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of post-operative pain, Oswestry Disability Score, clinical results, complication rate, percentage of post-operative slip, anterior fusion rate or posterior fusion rate. On the other hand, the mean operating time was 144 minutes (100 to 240) for patients in group 1 and 167 minutes (110 to 270) for those in group 2 (p = 0.0002). The mean blood loss up to the end of the first post-operative day was 756 ml (510 to 1440) in group 1 and 817 ml (620 to 1730) in group 2 (p <
0.0001). Our results suggest that an instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with either one or two cages in addition to a bone graft around the cage has a low rate of complications and a high fusion rate. The clinical outcomes were good in most cases, regardless of whether one or two cages had been used.
In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p <
0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 ( The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes. Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years.
Cervical spinal disc replacement is used in the management of degenerative cervical disc disease in an attempt to preserve cervical spinal movement and to prevent adjacent disc overload and subsequent degeneration. A large number of patients have undergone cervical spinal disc replacement, but the effectiveness of these implants is still uncertain. In most instances, degenerative change at adjacent levels represents the physiological progression of the natural history of the arthritic disc, and is unrelated to the surgeon. Complications of cervical disc replacement include loss of movement from periprosthetic ankylosis and ossification, neurological deficit, loosening and failure of the device, and worsening of any cervical kyphosis. Strict selection criteria and adherence to scientific evidence are necessary. Only prospective, randomised clinical trials with long-term follow-up will establish any real advantage of cervical spinal disc replacement over fusion.
