Impact on Neurological Recovery of Transforaminal Debridement and Interbody Fusion versus Transpedicular Decompression in Combination with Pedicle Screw Instrumentation for Treating Thoracic and Lumbar Spinal Tuberculosis

Study DesignRetrospective study.PurposeTo compare the neurological outcome of transforaminal debridement and interbody fusion with transpedicular decompression for treatment of thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis.Overview of LiteratureFew articles have addressed the impact of neurological recovery in patients with tuberculosis who were treated by two different operative methods via the posterior-only approach.MethodsClinical and radiographic results of one-stage posterior instrumented spinal fusion for treatment of tuberculous spondylodiscitis with neurological deficits were reviewed and analyzed from 2009 to 2013. The extensive (E) group consisted of patients who received transforaminal debridement and interbody fusion, whereas transpedicular decompression was performed on limited (L) group. Rapid recovery was improvement of at least one Frankel grade within 6 weeks after operation. Otherwise, it was slow recovery.ResultsAll 39 patients had improved neurological signs. The median follow-up period was 24 months. Proportionately younger patients (under 65 years of age) received extensive surgery (15 of 18, 83.3% vs. 11 of 21, 52.4%; p=0.04). The mean operative time and blood loss in the group E were higher than in the group L (both p<0.01). With regard to type of procedure, especially at thoracic and thoracolumbar spine, patients who underwent extensive surgery had rapid neurological recovery significantly different from those of limited surgery (p=0.01; Relative Risk, 3.06; 95% Confidence Interval, 1.13 to 8.29).ConclusionsTransforaminal debridement and interbody fusion provides more rapid neurological recovery in patients with thoracic and thoracolumbar spinal tuberculosis compared to transpedicular decompression

Local infiltration analgesia adds no clinical benefit in pain control to peripheral nerve blocks after total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of the local infiltration of analgesics for pain after total knee arthroplasty in patients treated with femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks. The secondary objective was to detect differences in analgesic consumption as well as blood loss after local infiltration of analgesics. METHODS: Prospective randomized double-blinded study in patients who underwent a TKA for knee osteoarthritis under spinal anesthesia and treated with femoral and sciatic nerve blocks. This study compared 50 patients treated with local infiltration with ropivacaine, epinephrine, ketorolac and clonidine and 50 patients treated with a placebo with the same technique. The visual analogic score was registered postoperatively at 2, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 72 h after surgery. Analgesic consumption was also registered. Both groups of patients were treated with the same surgical and rehabilitation protocols. RESULTS: A significant difference of one point was found in the visual analogic pain scores 12 h after surgery (0.6 ± 1.5 vs. 1.7 ± 2.3). There were no significant differences in the visual analogic pain scores evaluated at any other time between 2 and 72 h after surgery. No significant differences were found in the required doses of tramadol or morphine in the postoperative period. Postoperative hemoglobin and blood loss were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Adding local infiltration of analgesics to peripheral nerve blocks after TKA surgery only provides minimal benefit for pain control. This benefit may be considered as non-clinically relevant. Moreover, the need for additional analgesics was the same in both groups. Therefore, the use of local infiltration of analgesics treatment in TKA surgery cannot be recommended if peripheral nerve blocks are used