DBS Revision Surgery: Indications and Nuances

OBJECTIVERadiculopathy from the fractional curve, usually from L3 to S1, can create severe disability. However, treatment methods of the curve vary. The authors evaluated the effect of adding more levels of interbody fusion during treatment of the fractional curve.METHODSA single-institution retrospective review of adult patients treated for scoliosis between 2006 and 2016 was performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: fractional curves from L3 to S1 > 10°, ipsilateral radicular symptoms concordant on the fractional curve concavity side, patients who underwent at least 1 interbody fusion at the level of the fractional curve, and a minimum 1-year follow-up. Primary outcomes included changes in fractional curve correction, lumbar lordosis change, pelvic incidence − lumbar lordosis mismatch change, scoliosis major curve correction, and rates of revision surgery and postoperative complications. Secondary analysis compared the same outcomes among patients undergoing posterior, anterior, and lateral approaches for their interbody fusion.RESULTSA total of 78 patients were included. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, prior surgery, fractional curve degree, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, pelvic incidence − lumbar lordosis mismatch, sagittal vertical axis, coronal balance, scoliotic curve magnitude, proportion of patients undergoing an osteotomy, or average number of levels fused among the groups. The mean follow-up was 35.8 months (range 12–150 months). Patients undergoing more levels of interbody fusion had more fractional curve correction (7.4° vs 12.3° vs 12.1° for 1, 2, and 3 levels; p = 0.009); greater increase in lumbar lordosis (−1.8° vs 6.2° vs 13.7°, p = 0.003); and more scoliosis major curve correction (13.0° vs 13.7° vs 24.4°, p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences among the groups with regard to postoperative complications (overall rate 47.4%, p = 0.85) or need for revision surgery (overall rate 30.7%, p = 0.25). In the secondary analysis, patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) had a greater increase in lumbar lordosis (9.1° vs −0.87° for ALIF vs transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF], p = 0.028), but also higher revision surgery rates unrelated to adjacent-segment pathology (25% vs 4.3%, p = 0.046). Higher ALIF revision surgery rates were driven by rod fracture in the majority (55%) of cases.CONCLUSIONSMore levels of interbody fusion resulted in increased lordosis, scoliosis curve correction, and fractional curve correction. However, additional levels of interbody fusion up to 3 levels did not result in more postoperative complications or morbidity. ALIF resulted in a greater lumbar lordosis increase than TLIF, but ALIF had higher revision surgery rates.

Download Full-text

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in revision surgery for restenosis after posterior decompression

Neurosurgical FOCUS ◽

10.3171/2020.6.focus20361 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 49 (3) ◽

pp. E11 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yoshifumi Kudo ◽

Ichiro Okano ◽

Tomoaki Toyone ◽

Akira Matsuoka ◽

Hiroshi Maruyama ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Revision Surgery ◽

Spinal Canal ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Decompression Surgery ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Posterior Decompression ◽

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Dural Tears

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of revision interbody fusion surgery between lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with propensity score (PS) adjustments and to investigate the efficacy of indirect decompression with LLIF in previously decompressed segments on the basis of radiological assessment.METHODSA retrospective study of patients who underwent revision surgery for recurrence of neurological symptoms after posterior decompression surgery was performed. Postoperative complications and operative factors were evaluated and compared between LLIF and PLIF/TLIF. Moreover, postoperative improvement in cross-sectional areas (CSAs) in the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen was evaluated in LLIF cases.RESULTSA total of 56 patients (21 and 35 cases of LLIF and PLIF/TLIF, respectively) were included. In the univariate analysis, the LLIF group had significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03) and neurological deficits (p = 0.042), whereas the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), surgical site infections (SSIs) (p = 0.02), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p < 0.001). After PS adjustments, the LLIF group still showed significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03), and the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), EBL (p < 0.001), and operating time (p = 0.04). The PLIF/TLIF group showed a trend toward a higher incidence of SSI (p = 0.10). There was no statistically significant difference regarding improvement in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores between the 2 surgical procedures (p = 0.77). The CSAs in the spinal canal and foramen were both significantly improved (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSLLIF is a safe, effective, and less invasive procedure with acceptable complication rates for revision surgery for previously decompressed segments. Therefore, LLIF can be an alternative to PLIF/TLIF for restenosis after posterior decompression surgery.

Download Full-text

Faculty of 1000 evaluation for The embrace™ Device Significantly Decreases Scarring Following Scar Revision Surgery in a Randomized Control Trial.

F1000 - Post-publication peer review of the biomedical literature ◽

10.3410/f.718136908.793488085 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Yaohui Gloria Xu

Keyword(s):

Revision Surgery ◽

Randomized Control Trial ◽

Scar Revision ◽

Randomized Control

Download Full-text

Evaluation of aseptic loosening of knee prostheses by quantitative bone scintigraphy

Nuklearmedizin ◽

10.3413/nukmed-0123 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 47 (04) ◽

pp. 163-166 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

D. Steiner ◽

S. Laurich ◽

R. Bauer ◽

J. Kordelle ◽

R. Klett

Keyword(s):

Aseptic Loosening ◽

Bone Scintigraphy ◽

Revision Surgery ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Knee Prostheses ◽

Treatment Regimes ◽

Golden Standard ◽

The Difference ◽

Sensitivity Specificity ◽

Asymptomatic Control

SummaryIn not infected knee prostheses bone scintigraphy is a possible method to diagnose mechanical loosening, and therefore, to affect treatment regimes in symptomatic patients. However, hitherto studies showed controversial results for the reliability of bone scintigraphy in diagnosing loosened knee prostheses by using asymptomatic control groups. Therefore, the aim of our study was to optimize the interpretation procedure and to evaluate the accuracy using results from revision surgery as standard. Methods: Retrospectively, we were able to examine the tibial component in 31 cemented prostheses. In this prostheses infection was excluded by histological or bacteriological examination during revision surgery. To quantify bone scintigraphy, we used medial and lateral tibial regions with a reference region from the contralateral femur. Results: To differentiate between loosened and intact prostheses we found a threshold of 5.0 for the maximum tibia to femur ratio of the both tibial regions and a threshold of 18% for the difference of the ratio of both tibial regions. Using these thresholds, values of 0.9, 1, 0.85, 1, and 0.94 were calculated for sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy, respectively. To get a sensitivity of 1, we found a lower threshold of 3.3 for the maximum tibia to femur ratio. Conclusion: Quantitative bone scintigraphy appears to be a reliable diagnostic tool for aseptic loosening of knee prostheses with thresholds evaluated by revision surgery results being the golden standard.

Download Full-text

Extended Routine Follow-up of Primary Uncomplicated Hip and Knee Arthroplasty is not Necessary

The Open Orthopaedics Journal ◽

10.2174/1874325001913010266 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

pp. 266-271

Author(s):

Georgina Kakra Wartemberg ◽

Thomas Goff ◽

Simon Jones ◽

James Newman

Keyword(s):

Aseptic Loosening ◽

Revision Surgery ◽

Revision Arthroplasty ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Face To Face ◽

Primary Surgery ◽

Effective System ◽

Knee Revision Surgery ◽

Knee Revision

Aims: To create a more effective system to identify patients in need of revision surgery. Background: There are over 160,000 total hip and knee replacements performed per year in England and Wales. Currently, most trusts review patients for up to 10 years or more. When we consider the cost of prolonged reviews, we cannot justify the expenditure within a limited budget. Study Design & Methods: We reviewed all patients' notes that underwent primary hip and knee revision surgery at our institution, noting age, gender, symptoms at presentation, referral source, details of the surgery, reason for revision and follow up history from primary surgery. Results: There were 145 revision arthroplasties (60 THR and 85 TKR) that met our inclusion criteria. Within the hip arthroplasty group, indications for revision included aseptic loosening (37), dislocation (10), and infection (3), periprosthetic fracture, acetabular liner wear and implant failure. All thirty-seven patients with aseptic loosening presented with pain. Twenty-five were referred from general practice with new symptoms. The remaining were clinic follow-ups. The most common reason for knee revision was aseptic loosening (37), followed by infection (21) and then progressive osteoarthritis (8). Most were referred from GP as a new referral or were clinic follow-ups. All patients were symptomatic. Conclusion: All the patients that underwent revision arthroplasty were symptomatic. Rather than yearly follow up, we recommend a cost-effective system. We are implementing a 'non face-to-face' system. Patients would be directly sent a questionnaire and x-ray form. The radiographs and forms will be reviewed by an experienced arthroplasty surgeon. The concerning cases will be seen urgently in a face-to-face clinic.

Download Full-text