Journals / Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery / 2021 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 3

PROGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR POST-OPERATIVE SUCCESS IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING SURGERY FOR ADULT SPINAL DEFORMITIES

Pages
131–137
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)

The most common surgical planning mistakes leading to revision weredetected as proximal short fusion extending to thoracolumbar junction and not to T10, thus avoiding the stabilizing effect of the rib cage in 18patients (56.3%); followed by no bone cement [polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)] augmented screw application despite documented osteoporosisin 17 patients (53.1%).Conclusion: The present study concluded that ASM and PJK were the most common reasons for revision following ASD surgery, while shortproximal level of instrumentation and not placing PMMA augmented pedicle screws in patients with documented osteoporosis were the mostcommon surgical planning pitfalls leading to revision.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The current reported rate of revision after surgery for adult spinal deformities (ASDs) is up to 45%.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to analyzepatients with ASD who underwent failed primary surgery and required revision surgeries, in order to identify the reasons for failure and revision,while assessing possible prognostic criteria.Materials and Methods: Thirty-two patients (27 women, 5 men) with a mean age of 69.8 years and follow-up period of 44.6 months wereincluded.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The most common surgical planning mistakes leading to revision weredetected as proximal short fusion extending to thoracolumbar junction and not to T10, thus avoiding the stabilizing effect of the rib cage in 18patients (56.3%); followed by no bone cement [polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)] augmented screw application despite documented osteoporosisin 17 patients (53.1%).Conclusion: The present study concluded that ASM and PJK were the most common reasons for revision following ASD surgery, while shortproximal level of instrumentation and not placing PMMA augmented pedicle screws in patients with documented osteoporosis were the mostcommon surgical planning pitfalls leading to revision.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: The current reported rate of revision after surgery for adult spinal deformities (ASDs) is up to 45%. The aim of this study was to analyzepatients with ASD who underwent failed primary surgery and required revision surgeries, in order to identify the reasons for failure and revision,while assessing possible prognostic criteria.Materials and Methods: Thirty-two patients (27 women, 5 men) with a mean age of 69.8 years and follow-up period of 44.6 months wereincluded. Before first revision, patients had a mean sagittal vertical axis (SVA) of 94.2 mm, lumbar lordosis (LL) of 33.3°, thoracic kyphosis (TK)of 35.3°, pelvic incidence (PI) of 56.9°, pelvic tilt (PT) of 27.8°, PI-LL of 24.9°, and coronal Cobb angle of 22°. Mean duration from the initialsurgery until the first revision was 34.8 months. Fusion levels extended from T1 to S2. Twenty patients received transforaminal lumbar interbodyfusion and 9 received anterior lumbar interbody fusion cages. Five patients underwent corpectomy combined with anterior cage. Three patientsunderwent ponte-, and 7 underwent pedicle subtraction osteotomies.Results: After the last revision surgery, patients’ sagittal plane parameters were significantly corrected (p<0.001 for mean SVA, LL, PT, PI-LLmismatch and coronal Cobb). The most frequent reason for revision was found as advanced sagittal malalignment (ASM) in 29 patients (90.6%)followed by proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) in 13 patients (40.6%). The most common surgical planning mistakes leading to revision weredetected as proximal short fusion extending to thoracolumbar junction and not to T10, thus avoiding the stabilizing effect of the rib cage in 18patients (56.3%); followed by no bone cement [polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)] augmented screw application despite documented osteoporosisin 17 patients (53.1%).Conclusion: The present study concluded that ASM and PJK were the most common reasons for revision following ASD surgery, while shortproximal level of instrumentation and not placing PMMA augmented pedicle screws in patients with documented osteoporosis were the mostcommon surgical planning pitfalls leading to revision.

🔖

Cite This Article

PEHLİVANOĞLU, T., AKGÜL, T., BAYRAM, S., SARIYILMAZ, K., DİKİCİ, F., TALU, U. (2021). PROGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR POST-OPERATIVE SUCCESS IN PATIENTS UNDERGOING SURGERY FOR ADULT SPINAL DEFORMITIES. Journal of Turkish Spinal Surgery, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 3, 131–137. https://ajindex.com/articles/347539

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ames CP, Scheer JK, Lafage V, Smith JS, Bess S, Berven SH, et al. Adult spinal deformity: epidemiology, health impact, evaluation, and management. Spine Deform. 2016;4:310-22
  2. Pitter FT, Lindberg-Larsen M, Pedersen AB, Dahl B, Gehrchen M. Revision risk after primary adult spinal deformity surgery: a nationwide study with two-year follow-up. Spine Deform. 2019;7:619-626.e2
  3. Martini C, Langella F, Mazzucchelli L, Lamartina C. Revision strategies for failed adult spinal deformity surgery. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(Suppl 1):116-25
  4. Sing DC, Berven SH, Burch S, Metz LN. Increase in spinal deformity surgery in patients age 60 and older is not associated with increased complications. Spine J. 2017;17:627-35
  5. Smith JS, Fu K-M, Urban P, Shaffrey CI. Neurological symptoms and deficits in adults with scoliosis who present to a surgical clinic: incidence and association with the choice of operative versus nonoperative management. J Neurosurg Spine. 2008;9:326-31
  6. Glassman SD, Bridwell K, Dimar JR, Horton W, Berven S, Schwab F. The impact of positive sagittal balance in adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:2024-9
  7. Hu X, Lieberman IH. Revision adult spinal deformity surgery: does the number of previous operations have a negative impact on outcome? Eur Spine J. 2019;28:155-60
  8. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Glassman SD, Berven SH, Schwab FJ, Hamill CL, et al. Risk-benefit assessment of surgery for adult scoliosis: an analysis based on patient age. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:817-24
  9. Puvanesarajah V, Shen FH, Cancienne JM, Novicoff WM, Jain A, Shimer AL, et al. Risk factors for revision surgery following primary adult spinal deformity surgery in patients 65 years and older. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;25:486-93
  10. Kelly MP, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Agarwal R, Godzik J, Koester L. Fate of the adult revision spinal deformity patient: a single institution experience. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:E1196-200
  11. Schwab FJ, Hawkinson N, Lafage V, Smith JS, Hart R, Mundis G, et al. Risk factors for major peri-operative complications in adult spinal deformity surgery: a multi-center review of 953 consecutive patients. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:2603-10
  12. Cho SK, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Yi J-S, Pahys JM, Zebala LP, et al. Major complications in revision adult deformity surgery: risk factors and clinical outcomes with 2- to 7-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:489-500
  13. Glassman SD, Dimar JR 2nd, Carreon LY. Revision rate after adult defo