Journals / Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery / 2013 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1

Clinical outcomes of the aseptic thoracolumbar pseudoarthrosis occured after posterior spinal instrumentation

Posterior spinal enstrumantasyon sonrası oluşan aseptik torakolomber psödoartrozda klinik sonuçlarımız

Pages
47–60
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this study, co-morbidities were not found out as significantly correlated with pseudoarthrosis.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Based on our operations in the Department of The Orthopaedic Surgery of Istanbul Education and Research Hospital from February 1999 to February 2010, in this study, we aimed to evaluate retrospectively clinical and radiological findings and mid-long term results of aseptic pseudoarthrosis which had emerged after posterior thoracolumbar segmental instrumentation surgery for spinal deformities and vertebral fractures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: 32 patients of spinal pseudoarthrosis form the subject of this study divided into two groups (Group1 comprising of 11 vertebral fractures and Group2 of 21 spinal deformities).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this study, co-morbidities were not found out as significantly correlated with pseudoarthrosis.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Based on our operations in the Department of The Orthopaedic Surgery of Istanbul Education and Research Hospital from February 1999 to February 2010, in this study, we aimed to evaluate retrospectively clinical and radiological findings and mid-long term results of aseptic pseudoarthrosis which had emerged after posterior thoracolumbar segmental instrumentation surgery for spinal deformities and vertebral fractures. Material and Method: 32 patients of spinal pseudoarthrosis form the subject of this study divided into two groups (Group1 comprising of 11 vertebral fractures and Group2 of 21 spinal deformities). The mean follow up period was 36 (range 6-110) months. The records of our patients were reviewed retrospectively and the final follow up results of the patients were taken into account in the data preparing process. Predisposing factors and radiological findings of pseudoarthrosis were assessed in light of literature, clinical results of the patients were measured by Scoliosis Research Society – 30 (SRS-30) questionnaire. Categorical data were provided with the analysis of Pearson&#700;s k2 Test and Fisher&#700;s Exact Test. Numerical values were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U Test and Pearson-Spearman Correlation Test. Results: The most common complaint was the pain at the pseudoarthrosis site (26 patients, 81,3%). Diabetes Mellitus, smoking, osteoporosis and non steroidal anti inflammatory drug use were not the risk factors of spinal pseudoarthrosis for our patients. Rod or implant failure was recorded as the most common radiological finding of pseudoarthrosis in both groups (Group1 10 patients, 90,0%; Group2 18 patients, 85,7%). Progression of deformity was a specific finding for Group2 patients (14 patients 66,6%), and middle column damage was only seen on Group1 patients (3 patients, 27,3%). The number of fused vertebra, halo sign around the screws and non fused vertebra number at the fuse level were significantly correlated with pseudoarthrosis (p<0,001; r:0,725). Patients had similar SRS-30 scores at the final follow up (in Group1 average 3,30; in Group2 average 3,39) (p:0,984). Conclusion: Currently there is a few number of studies about spinal pseudoarthrosis. Diagnosis and treatment of this condition are still difficult despite the technological evolutions. The number of fused vertebra is correlated with pseudoarthrosis number. In this study, co-morbidities were not found out as significantly correlated with pseudoarthrosis.

Özet

Amaç: Şubat 1999 – Şubat 2010 tarihleri arasında İstanbul Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Kliniğiʼnde, spinal deformite veya vertebra kırığı sonrası posterior torakolomber segmental enstrümantasyon uygulanmış hastalarda ortaya çıkan aseptik psödoartrozun klinik ve radyolojik değerlendirilmesi ve orta-uzun dönem fonksiyonel sonuçların retrospektif olarak değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: 11ʼi kırık (Grup-1), 21ʼi deformite (Grup-2) sebebiyle opere olmuş 32 psödoartroz hastası çalışma gruplarını oluşturmaktadır. Ortalama takip süresi 36 (dağılımı 6-110) aydır. Hastalarımızın dosyaları geriye dönük olarak gözden geçirilmiş ve son kontrolleri dikkate alınarak veriler hazırlanmıştır. Hastalarımızın psödoartroz sebepleri literatürdeki araştırmalar ışığında araştırılmış, psödoartrozun radyolojik bulguları irdelenmiş ve klinik sonuçları Skolyoz Araştırma Derneği – 30 (SRS-30) skorlama sistemi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen kategorik veriler, psödoartrozla ilişkisi yönünden, Pearson k2 ve Fisher Exact Test ile; sayısal değerler Mann- Whitney U Test ve Pearson Spearman Korelasyon Testi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışmaya alınan hastaların en sık başvuru şikayetinin psödoartroz sahasında ağrı (26 hastada, % 81,3) olduğu kaydedilmiştir. Diyabet, sigara kullanımı, osteoporoz ve non steroid ve anti enflamatuvar ilaç kullanımının hastalarımızda spinal psödoartroz risk faktörü olarak anlamlı olmadıkları görülmüştür. Her iki grupta en sık radyolojik psödoartroz bulgusunun rot veya implant kırığı (Grup1 10 hasta, % 90.9, Grup2 18 hasta, % 85.7). olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Deformite hastalarında deformitenin ilerlemesi (14 hasta, % 66.6), kırık hastalarında orta kolon hasarı (3 hasta,%27.3) gruplara özel bulgular olarak saptandı. Füzyona katılan vertebra sayısı, vida çevresinde hale gözükmesi ve füzyon sahasında olup vida konmayan vertebra sayısı ile psödoartroz sayısı arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğu görülmüştür (p<0.001, r: 0.725). Hastaların son kontrol SRS-30 toplam değerleri, Grup-1 için ortalama 3.30; Grup2 için ortalama 3.39 (p: 0,984) olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Füzyona katılan vertebra sayısı psödoartroz sayısı ile yakından ilişkilidir. Bu çalışmada, diğer komorbiditelerle psödoartroz arasında anlamlı ilişki bulunamamıştır. Anahtar kelimeler: Skolyoz, torakolomber vertebra kırığı, spinal füzyon, psödoartroz, revizyon cerrahi.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARADENİZ, H., ERDOĞAN, S., ATICI, Y., MERT, M., ÇARKÇI, E., NURSAN, G., ŞÜKÜR, E. (2013). Clinical outcomes of the aseptic thoracolumbar pseudoarthrosis occured after posterior spinal instrumentation. Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 1, 47–60. https://ajindex.com/articles/213833

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Aurori BF, Weierman RJ, Lowell HA, Nadel CI, Parsons JR. Pseudoarthrosis after spinal fusion for scoliosis. A comparison of autogenic and allogenic bone grafts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 199: 153-158
  2. Bohnsack M, Gossé F, Rühmann O, Wenger K. The value of scintigraphy in the diagnosis of pseudoarthrosis after spinal fusion surgery. J Spinal Disord 1999; 12(6): 482-484
  3. Bosworth DM. Surgery of the spine. Instr Course Lect 1957; 14: 39-55
  4. Cleveland M, Bosworth DM, Thompson FR. Pseudoarthrosis in the lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg 1948; 30-A(2): 302-312
  5. Cobb JR. The problem of the primary curve. J Bone Joint Surg 1960; 42-A: 1413-1425
  6. Coe JD, Arlet V, Donaldson W, Berven S, Hanson DS, Mudiyam R, Perra JH, Shaffrey CI. Complications in spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in the new millennium. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine 2006; 31(3): 345-349
  7. Dawson EG, Clader TJ, Bassett LW. A comparison of different methods used to diagnose pseudoarthrosis in posterior spine fusion for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg 1985; 67-A(8): 1153-1159
  8. De Palma AF, Rothman RH. The nature of pseudoarthrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1968; 59: 113-118
  9. De Wald RL. Spinal Deformities. First Edition. Thieme Medical Publishers, New York 2003; pp: 644-684
  10. Farey ID, McAfee PC, Davis RF, Long DM. Pseudoarthrosis of the cervical spine after anterior arthrodesis. Treatment by posterior nerve-root decompression, stabilization, and arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72-A (8): 1171-1177
  11. Kim KT, Lee SH, Suk KS, JH, Im YJ. Spinal pseudoarthrosis in advanced ankylosing spondylitis with sagittal plane deformity: Clinical characteristics and outcome analysis. Spine 2007; 32(15): 1641-1647
  12. Kim YJ, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Rinella AS, Edwards C 2nd. Pseudoarthrosis in primary fusions for adult idiopathic scoliosis: incidence, risk factors, and outcome analysis. Spine 2005; 30(4): 468-474
  13. Kuklo TR, Potter BK, Lenke LG, Polly DW Jr, Sides B, Bridwell KH. Surgical revision rates of hook versus hybrid versus screws versus combined anteroposterior spinal fusion for adolesant idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 2007; 32(20): 2258-2264
  14. Pateder DB, Park YS, Kebaish KM, Cascio BM, Buchowski JM, Song EW, Shapiro MB, Kostuik JP. Spinal fusion after revision surgery for pseudoarthrosis in adult scoliosis. Spine 2006; 31(11): E314-319
  15. Ralston EL, Thompson WA. The diagnosis and repair of pseudart