Sacral dome resection and single-stage posterior reduction in the treatment of high-grade high dysplastic spondylolisthesis in adolescents and young adults

OBJECTIVE: The description of the operation technique and retrospective review of 15 consecutive patients who were treated by posterior sacral dome resection and single-stage reduction with pedicle screw fixation for high-grade, high-dysplastic spondylolisthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All the patients had high-grade, high-dysplastic spondylolisthesis L5 and were treated by posterior sacral dome resection and posterior single-stage reduction from L4-S1. The average age at the time of surgery was 17.3 (11-28) years. The average follow-up time is 5.5 (2-11.6) years. Clinical and radiological data were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Spondylolisthesis was reduced from average 99% preoperative to 29% at the last follow-up. L5 incidence improved from 74° to 56°, the lumbosacral angle improved from 15° kyphosis to 6° lordosis, lumbar lordosis decreased from 69° to 53° from preoperative to the last follow-up. While pelvic incidence of 77° remained unchanged, sacral slope decreased from 51° to 46° and pelvic tilt increased from 25° to 30°. Clinical outcome was subjectively rated to be much better than before surgery by 14 out of 15 patients. Four out of 15 patients had temporary sensory impairment of the L5 nerve root which resolved completely within 12 weeks. There were no permanent neurological complications or no pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSION: The sacral dome resection is a shortening osteotomy of the lumbosacral spine which allows a single-stage reduction of L5 without lengthening of lumbosacral region in high-grade spondylolisthesis, which helps to avoid neurological complications. This is a safe surgical technique resulting in a good multidimensional deformity correction and restoration of spino-pelvic alignment towards normal values with a satisfactory clinical outcome

A Detailed Comparative Analysis of Anterior Versus Posterior Approach to Lenke 5C Curves

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare radiographic, perioperative, and functional outcomes between anterior spinal instrumentation and fusion (ASIF) and posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion (PSIF) in Lenke 5C curves. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Historically, ASIF has been the treatment of choice for treatment of thoracolumbar adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. More recently, PSIF has gained popularity for its ease, versatility, and amount of correction achieved. Current literature lacks a prospective comparative analysis between these two approaches to better aid treating surgeons in decision making when treating Lenke 5C curves. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal multicenter adolescent idiopathic scoliosis database was used to identify 161 consecutive patients with Lenke 5C curves treated by ASIF with a dual rod system, or PSIF with a pedicle screw-rod construct. Pre- and 2-year postoperative radiographic data, Scoliosis Research Society outcome scores, and perioperative comparisons were made between the two approaches. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients were treated with ASIF and 92 patients with PSIF. Curve extent, magnitude, stable, and end vertebrae distribution before surgery were similar between the two groups. At 2-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in percentage correction of the main curve (ASIF: 59.1%, PSIF: 59.6%), C7 decompensation (ASIF: -0.6 ± 1.2, PSIF: -0.3 ± 1.4 cm), length of hospital stay (ASIF: 5.6 days, PSIF: 5.7 days), postoperative day conversion to oral pain medication (ASIF: 3.2 days, PSIF: 3.2 days), and SRS outcome scores (P = 0.560) between the two groups. The number of levels fused was significantly lower in ASIF group (ASIF: 4.7, PSIF: 6.3; P < 0.001), but PSIF resulted in significantly less disc angulation below lowest instrumented vertebrae (ASIF: 3.4°, PSIF: 1.7°; P = 0.011), greater lumbar lordosis (P < 0.001), and greater % correction of lumbar prominence (P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: The amount of correction achieved was similar between ASIF and PSIF. ASIF resulted in shorter fusions (average 1.6 levels) compared with PSIF. This was at the expense of increased disc angulation below the lowest instrumented vertebrae, less lumbar lordosis, and a lower % correction of the lumbar prominence than PSIF

Simultaneous versus sequential one-stage combined anterior and posterior spinal surgery for spinal infections (outcomes and complications)

To compare simultaneous with sequential one-stage (same anaesthesia) combined anterior and posterior spinal surgery in the treatment of spinal infections in terms of the operation time, blood loss and complication rate. Fifty-six patients who underwent one-stage (same anaesthesia) simultaneous or sequential anterior decompression and posterior stabilisation of the involved vertebrae for spinal infection from January 1994 to December 2002 were reviewed. In group I (n=29), sequential anterior and posterior surgery was performed. In group II (n=27), simultaneous anterior and posterior spinal surgery was performed. With regard to age and gender, there was no statistical difference between both groups (P=0.05). The analysed and compared data between the two groups included the age, gender, blood loss, operation time and postoperative complications. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of the duration of surgery, amount of blood transfusion needed and occurrence of major postoperative complications (P<0.05). The mean correction of the kyphotic deformity was similar in both groups (P>0.05) without a subsequent loss of correction on follow-up radiographic films at a mean follow-up of 6.5 years (range, 3 to 11 years). Simultaneous anterior and posterior surgery is a good alternative procedure. It provides the ability to manipulate both anterior and posterior aspects of the spine at the same time and appears to result in less blood loss, a shorter operative time and fewer complications. However, gaining experience and the availability of two surgical teams are important factors in the success of the procedure