Journals / Turkish Neurosurgery / 2020 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 5

Effects of Lumbar Fusion Instrumentation Removal in Patients Who Experienced Continued Pain After Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Pages
763–767
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)

ODI scores were significantly lower than the preoperative scores at both one-month (p<0.001) and six-month(p<0.001) postoperative score.CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the instrumentation system removal after fusion for patients with LDD may be beneficialsince it alleviates pain and analgesic usage.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:AIM: To investigate the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores after the removal of the instrumentationsystem in patients who underwent lumbar instrumentation for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).MATERIAL and METHODS: This study included 30 patients (19 female, 11 male) who had undergone posterior lumbarinstrumentation for LDD in whom postoperative continuous or recurrent pain led to the removal of the implant system in our clinicbetween December 2013 and December 2019.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Nine patients had continuous low back pain in the surgical area,while twenty-one had recurrent low back pain.RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the number of admissions to the hospital (p<0.001), and the daily number ofanalgesics used (p<0.001) in six months after surgery compared to six months before surgery.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:ODI scores were significantly lower than the preoperative scores at both one-month (p<0.001) and six-month(p<0.001) postoperative score.CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the instrumentation system removal after fusion for patients with LDD may be beneficialsince it alleviates pain and analgesic usage.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

AIM: To investigate the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores after the removal of the instrumentationsystem in patients who underwent lumbar instrumentation for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).MATERIAL and METHODS: This study included 30 patients (19 female, 11 male) who had undergone posterior lumbarinstrumentation for LDD in whom postoperative continuous or recurrent pain led to the removal of the implant system in our clinicbetween December 2013 and December 2019. The patients had continuous or recurrent low back pain that did not respond tomedical treatment, physical therapy, or any type of lumbar block. Nine patients had continuous low back pain in the surgical area,while twenty-one had recurrent low back pain.RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the number of admissions to the hospital (p<0.001), and the daily number ofanalgesics used (p<0.001) in six months after surgery compared to six months before surgery. There were significant decreasesin VAS scores, both at the one-month (p<0.001) and six-month (p<0.001) postoperative assessments compared to preoperativemeasurements. ODI scores were significantly lower than the preoperative scores at both one-month (p<0.001) and six-month(p<0.001) postoperative score.CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the instrumentation system removal after fusion for patients with LDD may be beneficialsince it alleviates pain and analgesic usage.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜÇLER, N., SAYAR, S. (2020). Effects of Lumbar Fusion Instrumentation Removal in Patients Who Experienced Continued Pain After Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disease. Turkish Neurosurgery, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 5, 763–767. https://ajindex.com/articles/404343

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Becker C: Spine-tingling prospects. Artificial disc implants are among the new technologies expected to revolutionize the outcomes of back surgery. Mod Healthc 33: 30-32, 2003 2. Brodzky AE, Kovalsky ES, Khalil MA: Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploration. Spine 16: 261-265, 1991 3. DePalma AF, Rothman RH: The nature of pseudoarthrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 59: 113-118, 1968 4. DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo TR: Etiology of chronic low back pain in patients having undergone lumbar fusion. Pain Med 12: 732-739, 2011 5. Diwan AD, Parvartaneni H, Cammisa F: Failed degenerative lumbar spine surgery. Orthop Clin North Am 34: 309-324, 2003 6. Hume M, Capen DA, Nelson RW, Nagelberg S, Thomas JC Jr: Outcome after Wiltse pedicle screw removal. J Spinal Disord 9:121-124, 1996 7. Kim SW, Ju CI, Kim CG, Lee SM, Shin H: Efficacy of spinal implant removal after thoracolumbar junction fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 43: 139-142, 2008 8. Mody DR, Esses SI, Hegeness MH: A histologic study of soft-tissue reactions to spinal implants. Spine 19: 1153-1156, 1994 9. Waguespack A, Schofferman J, Slosar P, Reynolds J: Etiology of long-term failures of lumbar spine surgery. Pain Med 3: 18- 22, 2002 10. Wild A, Pinto MR, Butler L, Bressan C, Wroblewski JM: Removal of lumbar instrumentation for the treatment of recurrent low back pain in the absence of pseudarthrosis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 123: 414-418, 2003 11. Zotti MG, Brumby-Rendell OP, McDonald B, Fisher T, Tsimiklis C, Yoon WW, Osti OL: The outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation removal for ongoing low back pain following posterolateral lumbar fusion. J Spine Surg 1: 50-56, 2015