Our aim was to perform a systematic review of the literature
to assess the incidence of post-operative epidural haematomas and
wound infections after one-, or two-level, non-complex, lumbar surgery
for degenerative disease in patients with, or without post-operative
wound drainage. Studies were identified from PubMed and EMBASE, up to and including
27 August 2015, for papers describing one- or two-level lumbar discectomy
and/or laminectomy for degenerative disease in adults which reported
any form of subcutaneous or subfascial drainage.Aims
Patients and Methods
The continual cycle of bone formation and resorption
is carried out by osteoblasts, osteocytes, and osteoclasts under
the direction of the bone-signaling pathway. In certain situations
the host cycle of bone repair is insufficient and requires the assistance
of bone grafts and their substitutes. The fundamental properties
of a bone graft are osteoconduction, osteoinduction, osteogenesis,
and structural support. Options for bone grafting include autogenous
and allograft bone and the various isolated or combined substitutes
of calcium sulphate, calcium phosphate, tricalcium phosphate, and
coralline hydroxyapatite. Not all bone grafts will have the same
properties. As a result, understanding the requirements of the clinical
situation and specific properties of the various types of bone grafts
is necessary to identify the ideal graft. We present a review of
the bone repair process and properties of bone grafts and their
substitutes to help guide the clinician in the decision making process. Cite this article:
We report our experience with glenohumeral arthrodesis
as a salvage procedure for epilepsy-related recurrent shoulder instability.
A total of six patients with epilepsy underwent shoulder fusion
for recurrent instability and were followed up for a mean of 39 months
(12 to 79). The mean age at the time of surgery was 31 years (22
to 38). Arthrodesis was performed after a mean of four previous
stabilisation attempts (0 to 11) in all but one patient in whom
the procedure was used as a primary treatment. All patients achieved
bony union, with a mean time to fusion of 2.8 months (2 to 7). There
were no cases of re-dislocation. One revision was undertaken for
loosening of the metalwork, and then healed satisfactorily. An increase
was noted in the mean subjective shoulder value, which improved
from 37 (5 to 50) pre-operatively to 42 (20 to 70) post-operatively
although it decreased in two patients. The mean Oxford shoulder
instability score improved from 13 pre-operatively (7 to 21) to
24 post-operatively (13 to 36). In our series, glenohumeral arthrodesis
eliminated recurrent instability and improved functional outcome. Fusion
surgery should therefore be considered in this patient population.
However, since the majority of patients are young and active, they
should be comprehensively counselled pre-operatively given the functional
deficit that results from the procedure. Cite this article:
The effective capture of outcome measures in
the healthcare setting can be traced back to Florence Nightingale’s
investigation of the in-patient mortality of soldiers wounded in
the Crimean war in the 1850s. Only relatively recently has the formalised collection of outcomes
data into Registries been recognised as valuable in itself. With the advent of surgeon league tables and a move towards value
based health care, individuals are being driven to collect, store
and interpret data. Following the success of the National Joint Registry, the British
Association of Spine Surgeons instituted the British Spine Registry.
Since its launch in 2012, over 650 users representing the whole
surgical team have registered and during this time, more than 27 000
patients have been entered onto the database. There has been significant publicity regarding the collection
of outcome measures after surgery, including patient-reported scores.
Over 12 000 forms have been directly entered by patients themselves,
with many more entered by the surgical teams. Questions abound: who should have access to the data produced
by the Registry and how should they use it? How should the results
be reported and in what forum? Cite this article:
The December 2013 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Just how common is lumbar spinal stenosis?; How much will they bleed?; C5 palsy associated with stenosis; Atlanto-axial dislocations revisited; 3D predictors of progression in scoliosis; No difference in outcomes by surgical approach for fusion; Cervical balance changes after thoracolumbar surgery; and spinal surgeons first in space.
We examined the differences in post-operative
functional disability and patient satisfaction between 56 patients who
underwent a lumbar fusion at three or more levels for degenerative
disease (group I) and 69 patients, matched by age and gender, who
had undergone a one or two level fusion (group II). Their mean age
was 66 years (49 to 84) and the mean follow-up was 43 months (24
to 65). The mean pre-operative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual
analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the mean post-operative
VAS were similar in both groups (p >
0.05), but post-operatively
the improvement in ODI was significantly less in group I (40.6%)
than in group II (49.5%) (p <
0.001). Of the ten ODI items, patients
in group I showed significant problems with lifting, sitting, standing,
and travelling (p <
0.05). The most significant differences in
the post-operative ODI were observed between patients who had undergone
fusion at four or more levels and those who had undergone fusion
at less than four levels (p = 0.005). The proportion of patients
who were satisfied with their operations was similar in groups I
and II (72.7% and 77.0%, respectively) (p = 0.668). The mean number
of fused levels was associated with the post-operative ODI (r =
0.266, p = 0.003), but not with the post-operative VAS or satisfaction
grade (p >
0.05). Post-operative functional disability was more
severe in those with a long-level lumbar fusion, particularly at
four or more levels, but patient satisfaction remained similar for
those with both long- and short-level fusions.
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% 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:
Transarticular screw fixation with autograft
is an established procedure for the surgical treatment of atlantoaxial instability.
Removal of the posterior arch of C1 may affect the rate of fusion.
This study assessed the rate of atlantoaxial fusion using transarticular
screws with or without removal of the posterior arch of C1. We reviewed
30 consecutive patients who underwent atlantoaxial fusion with a
minimum follow-up of two years. In 25 patients (group A) the posterior
arch of C1 was not excised (group A) and in five it was (group B).
Fusion was assessed on static and dynamic radiographs. In selected
patients CT imaging was also used to assess fusion and the position
of the screws. There were 15 men and 15 women with a mean age of
51.2 years (23 to 77) and a mean follow-up of 7.7 years (2 to 11.6).
Stable union with a solid fusion or a stable fibrous union was achieved
in 29 patients (97%). In Group A, 20 patients (80%) achieved a solid
fusion, four (16%) a stable fibrous union and one (4%) a nonunion.
In Group B, stable union was achieved in all patients, three having
a solid fusion and two a stable fibrous union. There was no statistically
significant difference between the status of fusion in the two groups.
Complications were noted in 12 patients (40%); these were mainly
related to the screws, and included malpositioning and breakage.
The presence of an intact or removed posterior arch of C1 did not
affect the rate of fusion in patients with atlantoaxial instability
undergoing C1/C2 fusion using transarticular screws and autograft. Cite this article:
We evaluated the efficacy of Cite this article:
Wrong-level surgery is a unique pitfall in spinal
surgery and is part of the wider field of wrong-site surgery. Wrong-site
surgery affects both patients and surgeons and has received much
media attention. We performed this systematic review to determine
the incidence and prevalence of wrong-level procedures in spinal
surgery and to identify effective prevention strategies. We retrieved
12 studies reporting the incidence or prevalence of wrong-site surgery
and that provided information about prevention strategies. Of these,
ten studies were performed on patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery
and two on patients undergoing lumbar, thoracic or cervical spine procedures.
A higher frequency of wrong-level surgery in lumbar procedures than
in cervical procedures was found. Only one study assessed preventative
strategies for wrong-site surgery, demonstrating that current site-verification protocols
did not prevent about one-third of the cases. The current literature
does not provide a definitive estimate of the occurrence of wrong-site
spinal surgery, and there is no published evidence to support the
effectiveness of site-verification protocols. Further prevention
strategies need to be developed to reduce the risk of wrong-site surgery.
The June 2012 Spine Roundup360 looks at: back pain; spinal fusion for tuberculosis; anatomical course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve; groin pain with normal imaging; the herniated intervertebral disc; obesity’s effect on the spine; the medicolegal risks of cauda equina syndrome; and intravenous lidocaine use and failed back surgery syndrome.
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.