scholarly journals The impact of preoperative epidural injections on postoperative infection in lumbar fusion surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 645-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anuj Singla ◽  
Scott Yang ◽  
Brian C. Werner ◽  
Jourdan M. Cancienne ◽  
Ali Nourbakhsh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Postoperative Infection ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Spinal Fusion ◽  
Infection Risk ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Insurance Database

OBJECTIVELumbar epidural steroid injections (LESIs) are performed for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes for a variety of indications, including low-back pain, the leading cause of disability and expense due to work-related conditions in the US. The steroid agent used in epidural injections is reported to relieve nerve root inflammation, local ischemia, and resultant pain, but the injection may also have an adverse impact on spinal surgery performed thereafter. In particular, the possibility that preoperative epidural injections may increase the risk of surgical site infection after lumbar spinal fusion has been reported but has not been studied in detail. The goal of the present study was to use a large national insurance database to analyze the association of preoperative LESIs with surgical site infection after lumbar spinal fusion.METHODSA nationwide insurance database of patient records was used for this retrospective analysis. Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to query the database for patients who had undergone LESI and 1- or 2-level lumbar posterior spinal fusion procedures. The rate of postoperative infection after 1- or 2-level posterior spinal fusion was analyzed. These study patients were then divided into 3 separate cohorts: 1) lumbar spinal fusion performed within 1 month after LESI, 2) fusion performed between 1 and 3 months after LESI, and 3) fusion performed between 3 and 6 months after LESI. The study patients were compared with a control cohort of patients who underwent lumbar fusion without previous LESI.RESULTSThe overall 3-month infection rate after lumbar spinal fusion procedure was 1.6% (1411 of 88,540 patients). The infection risk increased in patients who received LESI within 1 month (OR 2.6, p < 0.0001) or 1–3 months (OR 1.4, p = 0.0002) prior to surgery compared with controls. The infection risk was not significantly different from controls in patients who underwent lumbar fusion more than 3 months after LESI.CONCLUSIONSLumbar spinal fusion performed within 3 months after LESI may be associated with an increased rate of postoperative infection. This association was not found when lumbar fusion was performed more than 3 months after LESI.

scholarly journals Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: Assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoher Ghogawala ◽  
Daniel K. Resnick ◽  
William C. Watters ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Andrew T. Dailey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Degenerative Disease ◽  
Psychological State ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Assessment of functional patient-reported outcome following lumbar spinal fusion continues to be essential for comparing the effectiveness of different treatments for patients presenting with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. When assessing functional outcome in patients being treated with lumbar spinal fusion, a reliable, valid, and responsive outcomes instrument such as the Oswestry Disability Index should be used. The SF-36 and the SF-12 have emerged as dominant measures of general health-related quality of life. Research has established the minimum clinically important difference for major functional outcomes measures, and this should be considered when assessing clinical outcome. The results of recent studies suggest that a patient's pretreatment psychological state is a major independent variable that affects the ability to detect change in functional outcome.

scholarly journals Nursing care of the patient undergoing lumbar spinal fusion

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen P. Lall
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Cauda Equina ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Spinal Tumors ◽  
Surgical Approaches ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Diagnostic Modalities ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Lumbar spinal fusion is a surgical procedure performed to join—or fuse—2 or more vertebrae in the low back. The procedure is done to stabilize the spine and prevent damage to the cauda equina and emanating nerve roots. Lumbar fusion is commonly indicated for patients with vertebral fractures, infection, or spinal tumors, and it may be appropriate for select patients with degenerative disorders and spinal stenosis. Nurses who care for patients undergoing lumbar fusion require an understanding of lumbar spinal anatomy, spinal pathology, surgical indications, and diagnostic modalities. Knowledge of the distinct surgical approaches and their respective advantages and disadvantages allows nurses to individualize patient care and be alert to postoperative complications. This article reviews clinical and research literature regarding lumbar fusion, with an emphasis on the role of the nurse in promoting a safe perioperative course.

scholarly journals Do Clinical Outcomes and Sagittal Parameters Differ Between Diabetics and Nondiabetics for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Undergoing Lumbar Fusion?

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 286-293
Author(s):  
Jannat M. Khan ◽  
Joseph Michalski ◽  
Bryce A. Basques ◽  
Philip K. Louie ◽  
Oscar Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To assess the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on clinical and radiographic outcomes in patient with degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing posterior lumbar spinal fusion. Methods: Analysis of patients who underwent open posterior lumbar spinal fusion from 2011 to 2018. Patients being medically treated for DM were identified and separated from nondiabetic patients. Visual analogue scale Back/Leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference was evaluated. Lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), and PI-LL difference were measured on radiographs. Rates of postoperative complications were also collected. Results: A total of 850 patients were included; 78 (9.20%) diabetic patients and 772 (90.80%) nondiabetic patients. Final PI-LL difference was significantly larger ( P = .032) for patients with diabetes compared to no diabetes, but there were no other significant differences between radiographic measurements, operative time, or postoperative length of stay. There were no differences in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Diabetic patients were found to have a higher rate of discharge to a facility following surgery ( P = .018). No differences were observed in reoperation or postoperative complication. Conclusions: While diabetic patients had more associated comorbidities compared with nondiabetic patients, they had similar patient-reported and radiographic outcomes. Similarly, there are no differences in rates of reoperation or postoperative complications. This study indicates that diabetic patients who have undergone thorough preoperative screening of related comorbidities and appropriate selection should be considered for lumbar spinal fusion.

scholarly journals PROPHYLAXIS OF SURGICAL SITE INFECTION WITH VANCOMYCIN IN 513 PATIENTS THAT UNDERWENT TO LUMBAR FUSION

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Scheverin ◽  
Alejandro Steverlynck ◽  
Roberto Castelli ◽  
Diego Sobrero ◽  
Nicolas Videla Kopp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Graft ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Spinal Fusion ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Intravenous Antibiotic ◽  
Skin Preparation ◽  
Vancomycin Group

Objective:To assess the prophylactic effects of local vancomycin on an infection of the surgical site in patients undergoing lumbar instrumented fusion.Methods:Retrospective study from January 2011 to June 2014 in patients with symptomatic and refractory lumbar spine stenosis and listhesis who underwent instrumented pedicle screw spinal fusion. Two groups of patient were analyzed, one using vancomycin on the surgical site, vancomycin group (VG) and the control group (CG) without topical vancomycin. The routine prophylactic procedures were performed in both groups: aseptic scrub technique, skin preparation, preoperative intravenous antibiotic therapy. The VG received a dose of 1g of vancomycin mixed with the bone graft every three spinal levels fused and the group consisted of 232 patients.Results:513 patients were analyzed, 232 in the VG and 281 in the CG. There was no statistical difference between the groups when the sex, mean surgery length, and mean bleeding volume were considered. The rate of infection for VG was reduced from 4.98% to 1.29% when compared with CG.Conclusion:The use of vancomycin added to the bone graft in posterior spinal fusion is associated with significantly lower rates of infection.

Predicting postoperative complications in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion by using the modified five-item frailty index and nutritional status

2020 ◽  
Vol 102-B (12) ◽  
pp. 1717-1722
Author(s):  
TaeWook Kang ◽  
Si Young Park ◽  
Joon Suk Lee ◽  
Soon Hyuck Lee ◽  
Jong Hoon Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vitamin D ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Frailty Index ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Nutritional Parameters ◽  
Posterior Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Aims As the population ages and the surgical complexity of lumbar spinal surgery increases, the preoperative stratification of risk becomes increasingly important. Understanding the risks is an important factor in decision-making and optimizing the preoperative condition of the patient. Our aim was to determine whether the modified five-item frailty index (mFI-5) and nutritional parameters could be used to predict postoperative complications in patients undergoing simple or complex lumbar spinal fusion. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 584 patients who had undergone lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal disease. The 'simple' group (SG) consisted of patients who had undergone one- or two-level posterior lumbar fusion. The 'complex' group (CG) consisted of patients who had undergone fusion over three or more levels, or combined anterior and posterior surgery. On admission, the mFI-5 was calculated and nutritional parameters collected. Results Complications occurred in 9.3% (37/396) of patients in the SG, and 10.1% (19/167) of patients in the CG. In the SG, the important predictors of complications were age (odds ratio (OR) 1.036; p = 0.002); mFI-5 (OR 1.026 to 2.411, as score increased to 1 ≥ 2 respectively; p = 0.023); albumin (OR 11.348; p < 0.001); vitamin D (OR 2.185; p = 0.032); and total lymphocyte count (OR 1.433; p = 0.011) . In the CG, the predictors of complications were albumin (OR 9.532; p = 0.002) and vitamin D (OR 3.815; p = 0.022). Conclusion The mFI-5 and nutritional status were effective predictors of postoperative complications in the SG, but only nutritional status was successful in predicting postoperative complications in the CG. The complexity of the surgery, as well as the preoperative frailty and nutritional status of patients, should be considered when determining if it is safe to proceed with lumbar spinal fusion. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1717–1722.

scholarly journals Biomechanics of coupled motion in the cervical spine during simulated whiplash in patients with pre-existing cervical or lumbar spinal fusion

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Huang ◽  
R. W. Nightingale ◽  
A. B. C. Dang
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element ◽  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Fe Model ◽  
Cervical Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Coupled Motion ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Objectives Loss of motion following spine segment fusion results in increased strain in the adjacent motion segments. However, to date, studies on the biomechanics of the cervical spine have not assessed the role of coupled motions in the lumbar spine. Accordingly, we investigated the biomechanics of the cervical spine following cervical fusion and lumbar fusion during simulated whiplash using a whole-human finite element (FE) model to simulate coupled motions of the spine. Methods A previously validated FE model of the human body in the driver-occupant position was used to investigate cervical hyperextension injury. The cervical spine was subjected to simulated whiplash exposure in accordance with Euro NCAP (the European New Car Assessment Programme) testing using the whole human FE model. The coupled motions between the cervical spine and lumbar spine were assessed by evaluating the biomechanical effects of simulated cervical fusion and lumbar fusion. Results Peak anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) strain ranged from 0.106 to 0.382 in a normal spine, and from 0.116 to 0.399 in a fused cervical spine. Strain increased from cranial to caudal levels. The mean strain increase in the motion segment immediately adjacent to the site of fusion from C2-C3 through C5-C6 was 26.1% and 50.8% following single- and two-level cervical fusion, respectively (p = 0.03, unpaired two-way t-test). Peak cervical strains following various lumbar-fusion procedures were 1.0% less than those seen in a healthy spine (p = 0.61, two-way ANOVA). Conclusion Cervical arthrodesis increases peak ALL strain in the adjacent motion segments. C3-4 experiences greater changes in strain than C6-7. Lumbar fusion did not have a significant effect on cervical spine strain. Cite this article: H. Huang, R. W. Nightingale, A. B. C. Dang. Biomechanics of coupled motion in the cervical spine during simulated whiplash in patients with pre-existing cervical or lumbar spinal fusion: A Finite Element Study. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:28–35. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0100.R1.

Augmentation of intertransverse process lumbar fusion

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (02) ◽  
pp. 72-80
Author(s):  
Steven A. Martinez ◽  
Joanne Hughes ◽  
James D. Lincoln ◽  
Mei-Shu Shih ◽  
Hellen Zheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Vertebrae ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
External Source ◽  
Histological Evaluation ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

SummarySpinal fusion surgery for alleviation of intractable lower back pain in humans is currently a primary therapeutic technique, with failure rates averaging between 5 to 35%. Implanted and external source-based electrical stimulation devices have been investigated in an attempt to increase osteogenesis at the fusion site in an attempt to reduce spinal fusion failure rates. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of two co-processor systems and an additional system with an SIS generation field at 15.8 mA (rms) using biomechanical, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and histomorphometric analyses, in rabbits following dorsolateral (= posteriolateral [in humans]) spinal fusion. Fifty-six male New Zealand White underwent bilateral lumbar spinal fusion by performing decortication of the transverse processes of lumbar vertebrae four and five with placement of autogenic cancellous bone graft harvested from the ilial wings. Four study groups were designated based on the type of IES device used for stimulation or as a control. Eight weeks after surgery all subjects were sacrificed and the quality and strength of the fusion masses were compared using radiographic, biomechanical, histomorphometry, and qualitative histological evaluation. While some variation existed within and between groups, Group 2 showed a significant improvement in all parameters measured as compared to the control group (P<0.05). The use of adjunct non-invasive surface IES for improving bony fusion rates for patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion is supported by this study.

565 Predictors of Single Versus Multi-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Wong ◽  
S Baliga
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Progressive Deterioration ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Abstract Aim Degenerative spine disease (DSD) of the lumbar spine is a common disorder among the aging population in the world, with a substantial humanistic and economic burden. Although lumbar spinal fusion is currently the mainstay surgical management of DSD, surgery is also associated with adjacent segment disease due to the modification of spinal biomechanics. Therefore, it is important to identify potential risk factors of DSD in order to prevent progressive deterioration and provide early intervention before the surgical option is absolutely necessary. Method Adult patients who underwent posterior lumbar spinal fusion from 2006-2016 were identified via OPCS-4codes. Smoking status, weight, age of operation, gender, diagnosis of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) were obtained via TrakCare®. The degree of deprivation was extrapolated using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) 2020 quintile score. Data were analysed using logistic regression. Results In total, 313 met inclusion criteria and had data available, of which 205 and 108 patients underwent single and multi-level lumbar fusion respectively. Within the study population, 66.8% (206) and 33.2% (104) were female and male. Adjusted for all outcome measures, age of operation achieved statistical significance (p = 0.040). There was a 1.021-fold increase in risk of multi-level spinal fusion with each additional year of age. Weight was approaching statistical significance (p = 0.068). Conclusions Lumbar spinal health declines over time, but some patients experience more progressive deterioration. While some components of the spine are irreparable, early prescription of regimented exercise programs may strengthen spinal musculature to maintain a healthy sagittal balance, particularly in older, overweight, female patients.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive versus open lumbar spinal fusion: a matched study investigating patient-reported and surgical outcomes

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
James Mooney ◽  
Giorgos D. Michalopoulos ◽  
Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽  
Daniel Zeitouni ◽  
Andrew K. Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Fusion ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Lumbar Spinal ◽  
Incidental Durotomy

OBJECTIVE With the expanding indications for and increasing popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar spinal fusion, large-scale outcomes analysis to compare MIS approaches with open procedures is warranted. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion for degenerative spine disease. They performed optimal matching, at a 1:2 ratio between patients who underwent MIS and those who underwent open lumbar fusion, to create two highly homogeneous groups in terms of 33 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, indications, and operative details). The outcomes of interest were overall satisfaction, decrease in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg pain, as well as hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, reoperations, and incidental durotomy rate. Satisfaction was defined as a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society scale. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI was defined as ≥ 30% decrease from baseline. Outcomes were assessed at the 3- and 12-month follow-up evaluations. RESULTS After the groups were matched, the MIS and open groups consisted of 1483 and 2966 patients, respectively. Patients who underwent MIS fusion had higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months (OR 1.4, p = 0.004); no difference was demonstrated at 12 months (OR 1.04, p = 0.67). Lumbar stenosis, single-level fusion, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System grade, and absence of spondylolisthesis were most prominently associated with higher odds of satisfaction with MIS compared with open surgery. Patients in the MIS group had slightly lower ODI scores at 3 months (mean difference 1.61, p = 0.006; MCID OR 1.14, p = 0.0495) and 12 months (mean difference 2.35, p < 0.001; MCID OR 1.29, p < 0.001). MIS was also associated with a greater decrease in leg and back pain at both follow-up time points. The two groups did not differ in operative time and incidental durotomy rate; however, LOS was shorter for the MIS group. Revision surgery at 12 months was less likely for patients who underwent MIS (4.1% vs 5.6%, p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS In patients who underwent lumbar fusion for degenerative spinal disease, MIS was associated with higher odds of satisfaction at 3 months postoperatively. No difference was demonstrated at the 12-month follow-up. MIS maintained a small, yet consistent, superiority in decreasing ODI and back and leg pain, and MIS was associated with a lower reoperation rate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document