DOCSLIB.ORG

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Arthroscopy Ju-Eun Kim, MD, Dae-Jung Choi, MD*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Arthroscopy Ju-Eun Kim, MD, Dae-Jung Choi, MD* Technical Note Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2018;10:248-252 • https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2018.10.2.248 Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Arthroscopy Ju-Eun Kim, MD, Dae-Jung Choi, MD* Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Andong Medical Center, Andong, *Department of Spine Surgery, Barun Hospital, Jinju, Korea Lumbar spine fusion has been widely accepted as a treatment for various spinal pathologies, including the degenerative spinal diseases. Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using minimally invasive surgery (MIS-TLIF) is well-known for reducing muscle damage. However, the need to use a tubular retractor during MIS-TLIF may contribute to some limitations of instrument handling, and a great deal of difficulty in confirming contralateral decompression and accurate endplate preparation. Several studies in spi- nal surgery have reported the use of the unilateral biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (technique for decompression or discectomy). The purpose of this study is to describe the process of and technical tips for TLIF using the biportal endoscopic spinal surgery technique. Biportal endoscopic TLIF is similar to MIS-TLIF except that there is no need for a tubular retractor. It is supposed to be another option for alternating open lumbar fusion and MIS fusion in degenerative lumbar disease that needs fusion surgery. Keywords: Lumbar, Stenosis, Spinal fusion, Surgical procedure, Arthroscopic Decompression by lumbar spinal fusion is considered to with in a deep operative field with limited working space. be the gold standard treatment for a variety of lumbar de- Recently, several studies and techniques related to spinal generative diseases.1) The open transforaminal interbody surgery using the unilateral biportal endoscopic technique fusion (TLIF) approach was developed by Harms and have been reported.7,8) Here, we have described a method Jeszenszky.2) Although TLIF has been a safe and proven for TLIF using the biportal endoscopic technique (BE- technique for successful lumbar fusion, it has also been TLIF) to overcome the aforementioned drawbacks of MIS- associated with severe morbidity, due to the extensive TLIF. muscle dissection and retraction required in the surgi- 3) cal approach. In open surgery, degeneration and re- TECHNIQUE generation are closely related to the retraction pressure time, suggesting that muscle degeneration is secondary General Preparation to long-term muscle traction.4) Foley et al.5) developed a The patients were placed in the prone position on the op- TLIF using minimally invasive surgery (MIS-TLIF) that erating table with radiolucent chest frames. All operations counteracts the disadvantages of the open TLIF. The use were performed under general anesthesia. The arthros- of a tubular retractor during MIS-TLIF surely presents a copy system (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) for general ortho- beneficial alternative for preserving the back muscles.6) pedic joints was used. However, long tubular retractors are still difficult to work Surgical Procedure The portal was checked under fluoroscopic guidance and Received November 29, 2017; Accepted May 4, 2018 marked. A spinal needle was used to accurately locate the Correspondence to: Dae-Jung Choi, MD intervertebral space in the lateral view under fluoroscopy. Department of Spine Surgery, Barun Hospital, 7 Dongjin-ro, Jinju 52725, Markings were made at 1 cm above and 1 cm below the Korea needle, and markings were made below the pedicle in the Tel: +82-55-790-3000, Fax: +82-55-790-3030 E-mail: [email protected] anteroposterior view. A transverse incision of about 1 cm Copyright © 2018 by The Korean Orthopaedic Association This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery • pISSN 2005-291X eISSN 2005-4408 249 Kim and Choi. Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery • Vol. 10, No. 2, 2018 • www.ecios.org was made and extended to a size sufficient for the instru- The arthroscope was inserted into the disc space to moni- ment to cross-cut the superficial fascia and allow adequate tor that area, and the cartilaginous endplate was cleanly saline flow. A muscle detacher was used to make room for removed using a curette, to expose the subchondral bone. the water to flow through a portion of the proximal lamina Allogenic bone chips and the autologous bone harvested and the interlaminar space. In the left-sided approach, the from the lamina and facet were impacted under fluo- upper portal was used as the viewing portal and the lower roscopy using a specialized cannula (Fig. 2). A crescent- portal was used as the working portal. An arthroscopic type cage was inserted vertically under fluoroscopic and irrigation system was used in the BE-TLIF, such that the arthroscopic guidance and then transversely positioned saline irrigation fluid would drain from the viewing portal using a cage-specific instrument, with a retractor protect- to the working portal. When the drainage flow was poor, ing the exiting and traversing nerve roots (Fig. 3). Two a small arthroscopic retractor was used to make the fluid ipsilateral percutaneous pedicle screws were inserted using flow more smoothly to ensure adequate visibility and to the two previously used portals. Two percutaneous pedicle reduce the swelling of soft tissues. screws on the contralateral side were inserted into two The surgical technique was performed in much the new incisions on the contralateral side, and in a manner same way as the MIS-TLIF, using a tubular retractor. In similar to that previously described for the ipsilateral side, MIS-TLIF, the surgery is performed using a tubular retrac- the two screws were connected by the percutaneous inser- tor and microscopy. In the case of BE-TLIF, the surgery tion of a rod. A drain catheter was then inserted to drain is performed by making two incisions and using an ar- any possible epidural hematoma or small bony debris, and throscopic irrigation system. The burr, a Kerrison punch, the operation was completed. and an osteotome were used to perform the ipsilateral laminectomy. Subsequently, the contralateral sublaminar Demographic Data of Biportal Endoscopic TLIF decompression was performed. The unilateral facetec- Fourteen consecutive patients (six males and eight fe- tomy was performed using osteotomes to harvest the au- males) with degenerative lumbar diseases who were treat- tologous bone. After the removal of the inferior articular ed with BE-TLIF were enrolled in this study. The average process, the osteotome and the Kerrison punch were used patient age at the time of surgery was 68.7 ± 8.5 years to remove the superior articular process, creating a space (range, 49 to 85 years). The causes of disease included between the exiting nerve root and the traversing nerve eight patients with central spinal stenosis with foraminal root. After completion of the ipsilateral and contralateral stenosis, four patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompressions and facectomies, the ligamentum fla- and two patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. On the vum covering the dura and the nerve root was removed. level of operation, three cases were at L3–4, nine cases An incision was made on the disc using an Indian knife were at L4–5 and two cases were at L5–S1. The mean op- specialized for endoscopy. A pair of pituitary forceps and erative time was 169 ± 10 minutes. The mean estimated a curette were used to perform the discectomy (Fig. 1). blood loss (drainage blood) was recorded at 74 ± 9 mL. Medial Medial Cranial Caudal Cranial Caudal A B Lateral Lateral Fig. 1. Intraoperative arthroscopic images obtained during biportal endoscopic Medial Medial transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. (A) Laminectomy using an osteotome for autologous bone harvest. (B) Ostectomy Cranial Caudal Cranial Caudal of the inferior articular process. (C) Re- moval of the foraminal ligament after facetectomy. (D) Disc incision using a biportal endoscopic specialized knife for Lateral C Lateral D discectomy. 250 Kim and Choi. Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery • Vol. 10, No. 2, 2018 • www.ecios.org A B C Fig. 2. (A) Intraoperative arthroscopic view showing the intervertebral disc space with the cartilaginous endplate completely removed. (B) Intraoperative fluoroscopy. Bone grafting is performed using a specialized funnel in the biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. (C) Intraoperative photograph. Fluoroscopy is used when bone grafting is performed. Fig. 3. (A, B) Intraoperative photographs. 2cm1cm P When the cage is inserted, two semi- A B tubular retractors are used to protect the traversing and exiting roots. (C, D) 2cm In traoperative anteroposterior and lateral views of fluoroscopy. The cage is inserted under the fluoroscopic guidance. (E) The portal locations of three different biportal Portal forIPA endoscopic approaches. P: pedicle, IPA: Portal forTLIF ipsilateral posterior approach, TLIF: C D Portal forFLA E transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, FLA: far lateral approach. VAS scores were improved from a preoperative average of ultimately leading to failed back syndrome.9) The MIS fu- 7.4 to 2.7 at postoperative 2 months. Two complications sion technique was developed by Foley et al.5)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Subchondral Bone Regenerative Effect of Two Different Biomaterials in the Same Patient
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation Case Reports in Orthopedics Volume 2013, Article ID 850502, 5 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/850502 Case Report Subchondral Bone Regenerative Effect of Two Different Biomaterials in the Same Patient Marco Cavallo,1 Roberto Buda,2 Francesca Vannini,1 Francesco Castagnini,1 Alberto Ruffilli,1 and Sandro Giannini2 1 IClinic,RizzoliOrthopaedicInstitute,BolognaUniversity,ViaGiulioCesarePupilli1,40136Bologna,Italy 2 Orthopaedics and Traumatology, I Clinic, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna University, Via Giulio Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136Bologna,Italy Correspondence should be addressed to Marco Cavallo; [email protected] Received 2 May 2013; Accepted 17 June 2013 Academic Editors: E. R. Ahlmann, M. Cadossi, and A. Sakamoto Copyright © 2013 Marco Cavallo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This case report aims at highlighting the different effects on subchondral bone regeneration of two different biomaterials inthe same patient, in addition to bone marrow derived cell transplantation (BMDCT) in ankle. A 15-year-old boy underwent a first BMDCT on a hyaluronate membrane to treat a deep osteochondral lesion (8 mm). The procedure failed: subchondral bone was still present at MRI. Two years after the first operation, the same procedure was performed on a collagen membrane with DBM filling the defect. After one year, AOFAS score was 100 points, and MRI showed a complete filling of the defect. The T2 mapping MRI after one year showed chondral tissue with values in the range of hyaline cartilage.
    [Show full text]
  • Pain Management & Spine Surgery Procedures
    OrthoNet PPA Code List Pain Management and Spine Surgery Procedures AND Effective 01/01/2018 Major Joint and Foot/ Lower Extremity Procedures (Blue Medicare HMO PPO) CATEGORY PROCCODE PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION Pain Management & Spine Surgery Procedures Spinal Fusion 22510 Perq cervicothoracic inject Spinal Fusion 22511 Perq lumbosacral injection Spinal Fusion 22512 Vertebroplasty addl inject Spinal Fusion 22513 Perq vertebral augmentation Spinal Fusion 22514 Perq vertebral augmentation Spinal Fusion 22515 Perq vertebral augmentation Spinal Fusion 22532 LAT THORAX SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22533 LAT LUMBAR SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22534 LAT THOR/LUMB ADDL SEG Spinal Fusion 22548 NECK SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22551 NECK SPINE FUSE&REMOV BEL C2 Spinal Fusion 22552 ADDL NECK SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22554 NECK SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22556 THORAX SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22558 LUMBAR SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22585 ADDITIONAL SPINAL FUSION Spinal Fusion 22590 SPINE & SKULL SPINAL FUSION Spinal Fusion 22595 NECK SPINAL FUSION Spinal Fusion 22600 NECK SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22610 THORAX SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22612 LUMBAR SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22614 SPINE FUSION, EXTRA SEGMENT Spinal Fusion 22630 LUMBAR SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22632 SPINE FUSION, EXTRA SEGMENT Spinal Fusion 22633 LUMBAR SPINE FUSION COMBINED Spinal Fusion 22634 SPINE FUSION EXTRA SEGMENT Spinal Fusion 22800 FUSION OF SPINE Spinal Fusion 22802 FUSION OF SPINE Spinal Fusion 22804 FUSION OF SPINE Spinal Fusion 22808 FUSION OF SPINE Spinal Fusion 22810 FUSION
    [Show full text]
  • Hounsfield Units on Lumbar Computed Tomography For
    Open Med. 2019; 14: 545-551 Research Article Kyung Joon Kim, Dong Hwan Kim, Jae Il Lee, Byung Kwan Choi, In Ho Han, Kyoung Hyup Nam* Hounsfield Units on Lumbar Computed Tomography for Predicting Regional Bone Mineral Density https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2019-0061 Keywords: Hounsfield Unit; Bone Mineral Density (BMD); received March 28, 2019; accepted June 7, 2019 Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA); Quantitative com- puted tomography (QCT); Osteoporosis Abstract: Objective: Bone mineral density (BMD) is a very important factor in spinal fusion surgery using instrumen- tation. Our aim was to investigate the utility of Hounsfield units (HU) obtained from preoperative lumbar computed tomography (CT) to predict osteoporosis coupling with data of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and 1 Introduction dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Bone quality is an important prognostic factor for spinal Methods. We reviewed 180 patients that underwent both fusion with instrumentation. Severe osteoporosis is a sig- QCT and lumbar CT for spine surgery. HU was retrospec- nificant cause of hardware failure such as pedicle screw tively calculated on the lumbar CT of 503 lumbar vertebrae loosening and pull-out after spinal fusion surgery. Thus, from L1 to L3. Femur DEXA was performed in all patients bone mineral density (BMD) is a very important factor in and spine DEXA was tested in 120 patients (331 vertebrae). spinal fusion surgery, and the diagnosis of osteoporosis BMD was grouped as osteoporosis (QCT<80mg/cm3, DEXA before surgery is very important. BMD using dual X-ray T score≤-2.5) and non-osteoporosis (QCT≥80mg/cm3, absorptiometry (DEXA) or quantitative computed tomog- DEXA T score>-2.5) for comparison of HU value.
    [Show full text]
  • Differences Between Subtotal Corpectomy and Laminoplasty for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
    Spinal Cord (2010) 48, 214–220 & 2010 International Spinal Cord Society All rights reserved 1362-4393/10 $32.00 www.nature.com/sc ORIGINAL ARTICLE Differences between subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy S Shibuya1, S Komatsubara1, S Oka2, Y Kanda1, N Arima1 and T Yamamoto1 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan and 2Oka Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Clinic, Kagawa, Japan Objective: This study aimed to obtain guidelines for choosing between subtotal corpectomy (SC) and laminoplasty (LP) by analysing the surgical outcomes, radiological changes and problems associated with each surgical modality. Study Design: A retrospective analysis of two interventional case series. Setting: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kagawa University, Japan. Methods: Subjects comprised 34 patients who underwent SC and 49 patients who underwent LP. SC was performed by high-speed drilling to remove vertebral bodies. Autologous strut bone grafting was used. LP was performed as an expansive open-door LP. The level of decompression was from C3 to C7. Clinical evaluations included recovery rate (RR), frequency of C5 root palsy after surgery, re-operation and axial pain. Radiographic assessments included sagittal cervical alignment and bone union. Results: Comparisons between the two groups showed no significant differences in age at surgery, preoperative factors, RR and frequency of C5 palsy. Progression of kyphotic changes, operation time and volumes of blood loss and blood transfusion were significantly greater in the SC (two- or three- level) group. Six patients in the SC group required additional surgery because of pseudoarthrosis, and four patients underwent re-operation because of adjacent level disc degeneration.
    [Show full text]
  • Indications for Fusion Following Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
    Neurosurg Focus 3 (2): Article 2, 1997 Indications for fusion following decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis Mark W. Fox, M.D., and Burton M. Onofrio, M.D. Neurosurgery Associates, Limited, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Department of Neurosurgery, The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a common condition affecting middle-aged and elderly people. Significant controversy exists concerning the appropriate indications for fusion following decompressive surgery. The purpose of this report is to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who were and were not treated with fusion following decompressive laminectomy for spinal stenosis and to identify whether fusion was beneficial. The authors conclude that patients in whom concomitant fusion procedures were performed fared better than patients who were treated by means of decompression alone when evidence of radiological instability existed preoperatively. Key Words * lumbar spinal stenosis * laminectomy * fusion * indication The decision to perform fusion following decompression for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis has been studied by many authors.[14,16,30,52,69] Unfortunately, no clear consensus has been reached to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from a concomitant lumbar fusion. Patient satisfaction following lumbar decompression alone ranges from 59 to 96%, with early surgical failures resulting from inadequate decompression and preoperative lumbar instability.[2,4,8,12,21,22,26,29,31,34,65] Late recurrence of back or leg problems may also result from acquired spinal instability. The goal of this study was to analyze clinical outcomes in patients treated with and without fusion following lumbar decompression to determine which patients benefited most. The ability to identify predictive factors for successful surgery with fusion would improve overall clinical results and decrease both early and late failures caused by persistent or acquired spinal instability.
    [Show full text]
  • Lumbar Spinal Fusion (Posterior)
    FACT SHEET FOR PATIENTS AND FAMILIES Lumbar Spinal Fusion (posterior) What is lumbar spinal fusion? Lumbar spinal fusion is a surgery to join two or more Vertebrae spinal bones — called vertebrae [VUR-tuh-brey] — so that they Normal disc eventually grow into one solid bone. Why do I need spinal fusion? Degenerated disc The surgery is usually done to correct instability of the spine. Arthritis, injuries, or simple wear and tear can cause some of the bones in your spine to slip or shift out of place. This abnormal bone movement can cause back pain. It can Instability also pinch nerves, causing pain, numbness, or weakness in your legs. The leg pain is called sciatica [si-AT-i-kuh] or radiculopathy [ruh-dik-yoo-LAH-puh-thee]. Spinal fusion can treat abnormal The goal of spinal fusion is to stop abnormal movement and movement in the spine. thus eliminate pain in your back and legs. Possible benefits Risks and possible complications Alternatives Spinal fusion may There are risks of complication with any surgery. These Spinal fusion surgery eliminate pain by may include complications of the anesthesia, blood loss, is usually done after stopping abnormal infection, and death. Common complications of spinal non-surgical treatment and painful movement fusion are listed below: options have failed. between diseased • Blood loss. With any surgery, there is the potential for These can include: vertebrae. life-threatening blood loss, but with current techniques, • Medicines this is rare. • Physical therapy • Infection (1 or 2 in 100 patients). Even with antibiotics • Traction and careful sterile techniques, there is still a small risk of Spinal injections developing a wound infection.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Computed Tomography for Assessing Bone Mineral Density
    Neurosurg Focus 37 (1):E4, 2014 ©AANS, 2014 Use of computed tomography for assessing bone mineral density JOSEPH J. SCHREIBER, M.D.,1 PAUL A. ANDERSON, M.D.,2 AND WELLINGTON K. HSU, M.D.3 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York; 2Department of Orthopedics & Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; and 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois Assessing local bone quality on CT scans with Hounsfield unit (HU) quantification is being used with increasing frequency. Correlations between HU and bone mineral density have been established, and normative data have been defined throughout the spine. Recent investigations have explored the utility of HU values in assessing fracture risk, implant stability, and spinal fusion success. The information provided by a simple HU measurement can alert the treating physician to decreased bone quality, which can be useful in both medically and surgically managing these patients. (http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/2014.5.FOCUS1483) KEY WORDS • Hounsfield unit • osteoporosis • bone mineral density ITH an aging population, osteoporosis is increas- calculated from a region of interest (ROI) on CT scans ingly becoming a public health concern. Recent without any additional cost or radiation exposure. Values estimates suggest that more than 10 million peo- are calculated based on the following formula: HU = ([m Wple are affected in the US, with an additional 44 million - mw]/mw) × 1000, where m is defined as the linear x-ray 11 citizens at risk. The disease is typically characterized by attenuation coefficient of the selected voxel and mw the an age-related reduction in bone strength that predisposes attenuation coefficient of distilled water at room tempera- affected individuals to low-energy fractures.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinal Fusion
    Spinal Fusion North American Spine Society Public Education Series What Is Spinal Fusion? The spine is made up of a series of bones called “vertebrae”; between each vertebra are strong connective tissues called discs which hold one vertebra to the next and act as cushions. The disc allows for movements of the vertebrae and lets people bend and rotate their neck and back. The type and degree of motion varies between the different levels of the spine: cervical (neck), thoracic (chest) or lumbar (low back). The cervical spine is a highly mobile region that permits movement in all directions. The thoracic spine is much more rigid because of the presence of ribs and is designed to protect the heart and lungs. The lumbar spine allows mostly forward and backward bending movements (flexion and extension). Fusion is a surgical technique in which one or more of the vertebrae of the spine are united together (“fused”) so that motion no longer occurs between them. The concept of fusion is similar to that of welding in industry. Spinal fusion surgery, however, does not weld the vertebrae during surgery. Rather, bone grafts are placed around the spine during surgery. The body then heals the grafts over several months —similar to healing a fracture—which joins, or “welds,” the vertebrae together. When Is Fusion Needed? Fusing the vertebrae may be considered for several reasons. These include: treatment of a fractured (broken) vertebra; correction of deformity (spinal curves or slippages); elimination of pain from painful motion; treatment of instability; and treatment of some cervical disc herniations.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyphoplasty/Vertebroplasty, Thoracic Spine
    Musculoskeletal Surgical Services: Spine Fusion/Stabilization Surgery; Kyphoplasty/Vertebroplasty, Thoracic Spine POLICY INITIATED: 06/30/2019 MOST RECENT REVIEW: 06/30/2019 POLICY # HH-5641 Overview Statement The purpose of these clinical guidelines is to assist healthcare professionals in selecting the medical service that may be appropriate and supported by evidence to improve patient outcomes. These clinical guidelines neither preempt clinical judgment of trained professionals nor advise anyone on how to practice medicine. The healthcare professionals are responsible for all clinical decisions based on their assessment. These clinical guidelines do not provide authorization, certification, explanation of benefits, or guarantee of payment, nor do they substitute for, or constitute, medical advice. Federal and State law, as well as member benefit contract language, including definitions and specific contract provisions/exclusions, take precedence over clinical guidelines and must be considered first when determining eligibility for coverage. All final determinations on coverage and payment are the responsibility of the health plan. Nothing contained within this document can be interpreted to mean otherwise. Medical information is constantly evolving, and HealthHelp reserves the right to review and update these clinical guidelines periodically. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission
    [Show full text]
  • Spinal Instrumentation Rescue with Cement Augmentation
    Published September 13, 2018 as 10.3174/ajnr.A5795 ORIGINAL RESEARCH SPINE Spinal Instrumentation Rescue with Cement Augmentation X A. Cianfoni, X M. Giamundo, X M. Pileggi, X K. Huscher, X M. Shapiro, X M. Isalberti, X D. Kuhlen, and X P. Scarone ABSTRACT BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Altered biomechanics or bone fragility or both contribute to spine instrumentation failure. Although revision surgery is frequently required, minimally invasive alternatives may be feasible. We report the largest to-date series of percuta- neous fluoroscopically guided vertebral cement augmentation procedures to address feasibility, safety, results and a variety of spinal instrumentation failure conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 31 fluoroscopically guided vertebral augmentation procedures in 29 patients were performed to address screw loosening (42 screws), cage subsidence (7 cages), and fracture within (12 cases) or adjacent to (11 cases) the instru- mented segment. Instrumentation failure was deemed clinically relevant when resulting in pain or jeopardizing spinal biomechanical stability. The main study end point was the rate of revision surgery avoidance; feasibility and safety were assessed by prospective recording of periprocedural technical and clinical complications; and clinical effect was measured at 1 month with the Patient Global Impression of Change score. RESULTS: All except 1 procedure was technically feasible. No periprocedural complications occurred. Clinical and radiologic follow-up was available in 28 patients (median, 16 months) and 30 procedures. Revision surgery was avoided in 23/28 (82%) patients, and a global clinical benefit (Patient Global Impression of Change, 5–7) was reported in 26/30 (87%) cases at 1-month follow-up, while no substantial change (Patient Global Impression of Change, 4) was reported in 3/30 (10%), and worsening status (Patient Global Impression of Change, 3), in 1/30 (3%).
    [Show full text]
  • Spinal Fusion Surgery Guide
    Spinal Fusion Surgery Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3: The Spine Page 4: Spine Surgery Page 7: Before Surgery Page 9: Pre-operative Medications Page 10: Day of Surgery Page 11: After Surgery Page 13: Post-Operative Instructions Page 16: Home After Surgery Page 17: Post-operative Medications Page 18: Glossary 2 THE SPINE Your spine is made of 26 bones known as vertebrae (7 cervical, 12 thoracic, 5 lumbar, the sacrum and coccyx). Each vertebra is separated by a disc (except the top two neck vertebrae). Each disc has a soft, jelly-like center surrounded by a tough outer layer of fibers known as the annulus. Discs, bony structures, ligaments and strong muscles stabilize the spine. The spinal cord, which is the nerve center of the body, connects the brain to the rest of the body, and passes through the bony spine and usually ends at approximately L1 or L2. Beyond that, nerve roots are present in a fluid-filled tube. The outer layer of this tube is called the dura. At each segment, nerve roots exit/enter the spinal canal on each side (left and right). Nerve roots come from the spinal cord and carry electrical impulses to and from muscles, organs and other structures. Compression or squeezing on the nerves in the spinal cord or nerve roots may be causing many of the different types of symptoms that you may be experiencing. These symptoms may include back pain, leg pain, weakness in the legs, numbness in the legs. Other more serious symptoms include problems with bowel or bladder function.
    [Show full text]
  • Anterior Cervical Fusion Surgery a Guide for Patients and Their Caregivers Contents
    Anterior Cervical Fusion Surgery A guide for patients and their caregivers Contents About the Spine . .1 . About This Surgery . 5. Getting Ready for Surgery . .10 . At the Hospital . 16 After the Hospital: Your Recovery . 22 Six Weeks after Surgery: What to Expect . .28 . Common Questions . .29 . www.VanderbiltHealth.com 615.322.5000 For information only. Not to replace the advice of your health care provider. Copyright © 2016 Vanderbilt University Medical Center. All rights reserved. HC1693 (01/2019) About the Spine The spine is a stack of bones that runs down the The spine has 26 bones middle of your back. It starts at the bottom of • There are 24 bones (vertebrae) that start at the your skull and goes all the way down to the end top of your spine. These are the separate bones your tailbone. The spine: that connect like puzzle pieces. There are: • supports your body – 7 vertebrae in the neck area (cervical) • allows you to move freely – 12 vertebrae in the chest area (thoracic) • houses and protects the spinal cord—the – 5 vertebrae in the lower back (lumbar) nerve center of your body. • The next to the last bone of your spine is the sacrum. The sacrum is actually 1 large bone View of the spine from the front made of 5 fused bones. • The bone at the very end of the spine is the 7 cervical vertebrae tailbone (the coccyx). 12 thoracic vertebrae 5 lumbar vertebrae sacrum coccyx - 1 - There are discs between most of the bones Details about the discs in the spine • Each disc has a spongy center (nucleus) and There are soft pads of tissue between most of a tougher outer ring (annulus).
    [Show full text]