Dynamic stabilization versus fusion for treatment of degenerative spine conditions.

Study design Comparative effectiveness review.Study rationale Spinal fusion is believed to accelerate the degeneration of the vertebral segment above or below the fusion site, a condition called adjacent segment disease (ASD). The premise of dynamic stabilization is that motion preservation allows for less loading on the discs and facet joints at the adjacent, non-fused segments. In theory, this should decrease the rate of ASD. However, clinical evidence of this theoretical decrease in ASD is still lacking. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the evidence in the literature comparing dynamic stabilization with fusion.Clinical question In patients 18 years or older with degenerative disease of the cervical or lumbar spine, does dynamic stabilization lead to better outcomes and fewer complications, including ASD, than fusion in the short-term and the long-term?Methods A systematic search and review of the literature was undertaken to identify studies published through March 7, 2011. PubMed, Cochrane, and National Guideline Clearinghouse Databases as well as bibliographies of key articles were searched. Two individuals independently reviewed articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria which were set a priori. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality-rating scheme.Results No significant differences were identified between fusion and dynamic stabilization with regard to VAS, ODI, complications, and reoperations. There are no long-term data available to show whether dynamic stabilization decreases the rate of ASD.Conclusions There are no clinical data from comparative studies supporting the use of dynamic stabilization devices over standard fusion techniques

Misplaced Cervical Screws Requiring Reoperation.

STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: In the past several years, screw fixation of the cervical spine has become commonplace. For the most part, this is a safe, low-risk procedure. While rare, screw backout or misplaced screws can lead to morbidity and increased costs. We report our experiences with this uncommon complication. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective case series was undertaken at 23 institutions in the United States. Patients were included who underwent cervical spine surgery from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2011, and had misplacement of screws requiring reoperation. Institutional review board approval was obtained at all participating institutions, and detailed records were sent to a central data center. RESULTS: A total of 12 903 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. There were 11 instances of screw backout requiring reoperation, for an incidence of 0.085%. There were 7 posterior procedures. Importantly, there were no changes in the health-related quality-of-life metrics due to this complication. There were no new neurologic deficits; a patient most often presented with pain, and misplacement was diagnosed on plain X-ray or computed tomography scan. The most common location for screw backout was C6 (36%). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest series to tabulate the incidence of misplacement of screws following cervical spine surgery, which led to revision procedures. The data suggest this is a rare event, despite the widespread use of cervical fixation. Patients suffering this complication can require revision, but do not usually suffer neurologic sequelae. These patients have increased cost of care. Meticulous technique and thorough knowledge of the relevant anatomy are the best means of preventing this complication

Early and Late Reoperation Rates With Various MIS Techniques for Adult Spinal Deformity Correction.

Study designA multicenter retrospective review of an adult spinal deformity database.ObjectiveWe aimed to characterize reoperation rates and etiologies of adult spinal deformity surgery with circumferential minimally invasive surgery (cMIS) and hybrid (HYB) techniques.MethodsInclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, and one of the following: coronal Cobb >20°, sagittal vertical axis >5 cm, pelvic tilt >20°, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis >10°. Patients with either cMIS or HYB surgery, ≥3 spinal levels treated with 2-year minimum follow-up were included.ResultsA total of 133 patients met inclusion for this study (65 HYB and 68 cMIS). Junctional failure (13.8%) was the most common reason for reoperation in the HYB group, while fixation failure was the most common reason in the cMIS group (14.7%). There was a higher incidence of proximal junctional failure (PJF) than distal junctional failure (DJF) within HYB (12.3% vs 3.1%), but no significant differences in PJF or DJF rates when compared to cMIS. Early (<30 days) reoperations were less common (cMIS = 1.5%; HYB = 6.1%) than late (>30 days) reoperations (cMIS = 26.5%; HYB = 27.7%), but early reoperations were more common in the HYB group after propensity matching, largely due to infection rates (10.8% vs 0%, P = .04).ConclusionsAdult spinal deformity correction with cMIS and HYB techniques result in overall reoperation rates of 27.9% and 33.8%, respectively, at minimum 2-year follow-up. Junctional failures are more common after HYB approaches, while pseudarthrosis/fixation failures happen more often with cMIS techniques. Early reoperations were less common than later returns to the operating room in both groups, but cMIS demonstrated less risk of infection and early reoperation when compared with the HYB group

Explant Analysis of Total Disc Replacement

Explant analysis of human disc prostheses allow early evaluation of the host response to the prosthesis and the response of the prosthesis from the host. Furthermore, early predictions of failure and wear can be obtained. Thus far, about 2-3% of disc prostheses have been removed. Observed wear patterns are similar to that of appendicular prostheses including abrasions/scratching, burnishing, surface deformation, fatigue, and embedded debris. Chemically the polymeric components have shown little degradation in short-term implantation. In metal on metal prostheses the histologic responses consist of large numbers of metallic particles with occasional macrophages and giant cells. Only rare cases of significant inflammatory response from polymeric debris have been seen

Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of the Posterior and Combined Approaches for Repair of Cervical Fractures in Ankylosing Spondylitis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To evaluate surgical outcomes and complications of cervical spine fractures in ankylosing spondylitis (CAS) patients who were treated using either the posterior (P) or combined approach (C). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Ankylosing spondylitis typically causes progressive spinal stiffness that makes patients susceptible to spinal fractures. CAS is a highly unstable condition. There is contradictory evidence regarding which treatment option, the posterior or the combined approach, yields superior clinical results. METHODS: A single institution database was reviewed for data in the period 1999 to 2015. All CAS patients who underwent posterior or combined instrumented fusion were enrolled. We analyzed demographic data, radiographic results, perioperative complications, and postoperative results. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were enrolled (23 in the P group, 10 in the C group). All patients presented with neck pain after a fall. In the P group, mean operative time was 161.1 minutes (100-327 minutes), and mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 306.4 mL (50-750 mL). In the C group, 90% of patients underwent a staged procedure, typically with posterior surgery first. Mean EBL was 124 mL (25-337 mL). For posterior surgery, mean EBL was 458.3 mL (400-550 mL). EBL of posterior surgery in the C group was higher but this difference was not significant (p=0.16). Postoperative complication rate was higher in the C group but this difference was not significant (50% vs. 17.4%, p=0.09). In the follow-up period, no late reoperations were performed. Patients who underwent C surgery had a higher rate of neurological improvement but this difference was not significant (p=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Both P and C provided good clinical results. P surgery had lower EBL, lower postoperative complication rate, and shorter length of stay than C surgery; none of these differences were statistically significant

Physical Function and Quality of Life After Resection of Mobile Spine Chondrosarcoma.

Study Design:Retrospective cohort study. Objectives:(1) To assess patient-reported outcomes-physical function, pain, and quality of life-in patients who underwent resection of a mobile spine chondrosarcoma. (2) To assess complications (90 days), readmissions, reoperations, oncological outcomes, and neurologic status. Methods:Thirty-three patients with spinal conventional chondrosarcoma resection between 1984 and 2014 at one hospital were included. The primary outcome measures were-minimally 6 months after surgery-the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ5D), PROMIS-Physical Function, PROMIS-Pain Intensity, and Oswestry (ODI) Disability Index, or Neck (NDI) Disability established in 14 out of 20 alive (70.0%) patients. Complications, readmission, reoperations, oncological outcomes, and neurological status were reported for the complete cohort of 33 patients. Results:After spine chondrosarcoma resection, patients (n = 14) reported worse physical function (median 43, range 22-61, P = .026), worse quality of life (median EQ5D 0.70, range 0.04-1, P = .022), and comparable pain intensity (median 47, range 31-56, P = .362) when compared with US general population values. The median NDI/ODI was 25 (range 0-72) indicating mild to moderate disability. Patients undergoing reoperation had worse patient-reported outcomes than those who did not. Eighteen (55.5%) out of 33 patients suffered complications (90 days), 14 (42.4%) had unplanned readmission, and 13 (39.4%) underwent reoperation. Intralesional resection was associated with increased readmission, reoperation, and recurrence rate. Conclusions:Chondrosarcoma affects quality of life and physical function and its treatment frequently results in complications and reoperations. Our findings can be used to inform future patients about expected outcomes

Change-of-direction speed and aerobic fitness could influence academy graduation in law enforcement recruit

BACKGROUND: Technical advancements have produced many challenges to intramedullary implants for unstable pertrochanteric fractures. Helical blade fixation of the femoral head has the theoretical advantages of higher rotational stability and cutout resistance and should have a lower rate of reoperation than a locked plating technique. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether (1) helical blade nailing reduces the rate of reoperation within 24 months compared with locked plating and (2) any of various preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative factors predicted failure in these two groups. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 108 patients with unstable pertrochanteric fractures in a surgeon-allocated study between November 2005 and November 2008: 54 with percutaneous compression plates (PCCP) and 54 with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA). We evaluated patients regarding reoperation, mortality, and function. Seventy-four patients had a minimum followup of 24 months (mean, 26 months; range, 24–30 months). RESULTS: We found no differences in the number of reoperations attributable to mechanical problems in the two groups: PCCP = six and PFNA = five. Despite a greater incidence of postoperative lateral wall fractures with helical blade nailing, only postoperative varisation of the neck-shaft angle and tip-apex distance (33 mm versus 28 mm) predicted reoperation. Mortality and function were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest unstable pertrochanteric fractures may be fixed either with locked extramedullary small-diameter screw systems to avoid lateral wall fractures or with the new intramedullary systems to avoid potential mechanical complications of a broken lateral wall. Tip-apex distance and preservation of the preoperative femoral neck-shaft angle are the key technical factors for prevention of reoperation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Meta‐analysis of oral antibiotics, in combination with preoperative intravenous antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery, compared with intravenous antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation alone to reduce surgical‐site infections in elective colorectal surgery

Background: Surgical‐site infection (SSI) is a potentially serious complication following colorectal surgery. The present systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) on SSI rates. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed using appropriate keywords. Included were RCTs and observational studies reporting rates of SSI following elective colorectal surgery, in patients given preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis, in combination with intravenous (i.v.) antibiotic prophylaxis and MBP, compared with patients given only i.v. antibiotic prophylaxis with MBP. A meta‐analysis was undertaken. Results: Twenty‐two studies (57 207 patients) were included, of which 14 were RCTs and eight observational studies. Preoperative oral antibiotics, in combination with i.v. antibiotics and MBP, were associated with significantly lower rates of SSI than combined i.v. antibiotics and MBP in RCTs (odds ratio (OR) 0·45, 95 per cent c.i. 0·34 to 0·59; P < 0·001) and cohort studies (OR 0·47, 0·44 to 0·50; P < 0·001). There was a similarly significant effect on SSI with use of a combination of preoperative oral aminoglycoside and erythromycin (OR 0·40, 0·25 to 0·64; P < 0·001), or preoperative oral aminoglycoside and metronidazole (OR 0·51, 0·39 to 0·68; P < 0·001). Preoperative oral antibiotics were significantly associated with reduced postoperative rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, reoperation, readmission and mortality in the cohort studies. Conclusion: Oral antibiotic prophylaxis, in combination with MBP and i.v. antibiotics, is superior to MBP and i.v. antibiotic prophylaxis alone in reducing SSI in elective colorectal surgery

Treatment of failed articular cartilage reconstructive procedures of the knee: A systematic review

Background: Symptomatic articular cartilage lesions of the knee are common and are being treated surgically with increasing frequency. While many studies have reported outcomes following a variety of cartilage restoration procedures, few have investigated outcomes of revision surgery after a failed attempt at cartilage repair or reconstruction. Purpose: To investigate outcomes of revision cartilage restoration procedures for symptomatic articular cartilage lesions of the knee following a previously failed cartilage reconstructive procedure. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A literature search was performed by use of the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE/Ovid databases for relevant articles published between 1975 and 2017 that evaluated patients undergoing revision cartilage restoration procedure(s) and reported outcomes using validated outcome measures. For studies meeting inclusion criteria, relevant information was extracted. Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Lesions most commonly occurred in the medial femoral condyle (MFC) (52.8%), with marrow stimulation techniques (MST) the index procedure most frequently performed (70.7%). Three studies demonstrated inferior outcomes of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) following a previous failed cartilage procedure compared with primary ACI. One study comparing osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplant following failed microfracture (MFX) with primary OCA transplant demonstrated similar clinical outcomes and graft survival at midterm follow-up. No studies reported outcomes following osteochondral autograft transfer (OAT) or newer techniques. Conclusion: This systematic review of the literature reporting outcomes following revision articular cartilage restoration procedures (most commonly involving the MFC) demonstrated a high proportion of patients who underwent prior MST. Evidence is sufficient to suggest that caution should be taken in performing ACI in the setting of prior MST, likely secondary to subchondral bone compromise. OCA appears to be a good revision treatment option even if the subchondral bone has been violated from prior surgery or fracture. </jats:sec