Knee injury rating scales

Background and purpose An increasing number of lumbar fusions are performed using allograft to avoid donor-site pain. In elderly patients, fusion potential is reduced and the patient may need supplementary stability to achieve a solid fusion if allograft is used. We investigated the effect of instrumentation in lumbar spinal fusion performed with fresh frozen allograft in elderly patients.

Methods 94 patients, mean age 70 (60–88) years, who underwent posterolateral spinal fusion either non-instrumented (51 patients) or instrumented (43 patients) were followed for 2–7 years. Functional outcome was assessed with the Dallas pain questionnaire (DPQ), the low back pain rating scale pain index (LBPRS), and SF-36. Fusion was assessed using plain radiographs.

Results Instrumented patients had statistically significantly better outcome scores in 6 of 7 parameters. Fusion rate was higher in the instrumented group (81% vs. 68%, p = 0.1). Solid fusion was associated with a better functional outcome at follow-up (significant in 2 of 7 parameters). 15 patients (6 in the non-instrumented group and 9 in the instrumented group) had repeated lumbar surgery after their initial fusion procedure. Functional outcome was poorer in the group with additional spine surgeries (significant in 4 of 7 parameters).

Interpretation Superior outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion in elderly patients can be achieved by use of instrumentation in selected patients. Outcome was better in patients in which a solid fusion was obtained. Instrumentation was associated with a larger number of additional surgeries, which resulted in a lesser degree of improvement. Instrumentation should not be discarded just because of the age of the patient.     

The influence of lumbar lordosis on spinal fusion and functional outcome after posterolateral spinal fusion with and without pedicle screw instrumentation

The aim of the current study was to examine the correlation between lumbar lordosis, spinal fusion, and functional outcome in patients suffering from severe low back pain, treated by posterolateral spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. One hundred thirty patients were randomly allocated to posterolateral lumbar fusion with or without Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation. Functional outcome was assessed preoperatively, and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Lordosis angles of the lumbar spine and fusion rates were assessed at the 1- and 2-year follow-up. No difference in lordosis angle was found between the two groups at any time. Lordosis was unchanged at 2 years compared with preoperative status in both groups. In the instrumented group, nonunion (23%) was followed by a decrease in lordosis at follow-up (p < 0.05). However, in the noninstrumented group, nonunion (14%) resulted in increased lordosis (p < 0.05). No correlation was found between functional outcome and lordosis angle. The current study showed no correlation between functional outcome and lordosis angle either before or after posterolateral spinal fusion. Use of instrumentation did not influence lumbar spinal alignment compared with noninstrumented fusions. The sagittal alignment was stable both 1 and 2 years after solid fusion. The failure mode of instrumented fusions was a reduced degree of lordosis in contrast to an increased degree of lordosis in patients with noninstrumented fusion.     

Lumbar spine instrumented fusion surgery under spinal anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia-A retrospective study of 239 cases

ObjectiveConventionally spinal surgeries are done under general anaesthesia (GA). Plenty of literature is available on lumbar spine non-instrumented surgeries under spinal anaesthesia (SA) but handful of literature is there on lumbar spinal instrumented fusion surgeries under SA. We retrospectively analysed the data of 131 patients operated under SA and 108 patients under GA. Aim of the study was to evaluate the safety, advantages and disadvantages of doing lumbar spine instrumented fusion surgeries under SA.In time of COVID-19 pandemic, aerosol generating procedure like intubation, can be avoided if lumbar spine instrumented fusion surgeries are performed under SA.Methods239 patients aged between 20 and 79 years operated from January 2014 to December 2019 were included in this study. Indications for surgery were lumbar canal stenosis, degenerative or lytic spondylolisthesis. They underwent L4-L5 or L5-S1 fusion surgeries either TLIF or pedicle screw fixation postero lateral fusion (PLF) and decompression. Out of 239 patients,131 were operated under SA and 108 patients under GA. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood loss, operating room time, post-op pain relief and need of analgesics, cost of surgery and anaesthesia related complications were analysed.ResultsThe study found significantly less blood loss (p<.05), less OR time, better post-op analgesia and lesser incidence of nausea and vomiting in SA (8.4%) than GA (29.6%). We observed average 10% cost reduction in SA. This study did not find any prone position related complication in regional anaesthesia but one transient brachial plexus palsy and one post-op shoulder pain in GA group.ConclusionSA is a safe alternative to GA for lumbar spine instrumented fusion surgery with significant less blood loss, OR time, better post-op analgesia, average 10% overall cost reduction and no reported prone-position related complications.     

Removal of lumbar instrumentation for the treatment of recurrent low back pain in the absence of pseudarthrosis

Introduction Removal of spine instrumentation for the treatment of recurrent low back pain remains controversial in the absence of pseudarthrosis and when no obvious pain generators are present. It is our practice to offer these patients surgical exploration and removal of instrumentation.Materials and methods Forty-five patients underwent an anterior and posterior lumbar spinal fusion. The removal of instrumentation was performed by the same surgeon and senior author of this paper (MRP). The reason for the revision surgery was recurrent low back and leg pain. All patients had a solid fusion based on a thorough surgical exploration of the fusion mass. Instrumentation was deemed either solid or loose at time of removal based on the purchase at the screw-bone interface. Final outcomes were determined using a functional and satisfactory questionnaire and compared between the two groups (Loose Instrumentation versus Solid Instrumentation).Results The majority of the patients in both groups would recommend the surgery to a family member (79% overall), would have the surgery again themselves (82%) and consider the surgery a success (77%). Pain was significantly decreased from pre-operatively to post-operatively and from pre-operative to final follow-up in both groups. The group of patients with loose instrumentation were significantly more likely to have a successful outcome than the group without loose instrumentation.Conclusions This study indicates that the removal of instrumentation in the absence of pseudarthrosis is beneficial in the relief of low back pain and leg pain symptoms. Increased success rates were noted in patients with loose instrumentation. However, this classification was based on inter-operative inspection. Further studies of the ability to diagnose and predict success prior to surgery needs to be done.     

两种脊柱融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症合并轻度腰椎滑脱的临床疗效比较

目的比较两种脊柱融合术治疗腰椎管狭窄症伴轻度腰椎滑脱的临床疗效。方法将1998年4月至2003年4月收治的45例患者分为A、B两组。分别行椎管减压 SOCON复位 横突间植骨术(A组),在A组基础上加用椎间融合器(Cage)固定(B组)。A组24例,平均54岁,其中退变型17例,峡部型7例。B组21例,平均53岁,其中退变型16例,峡部型5例。两组滑脱主要部位为L4-5和(或)L5～S1,滑脱度为Ⅰ至Ⅱ度,术前均行脊髓造影或CTM检查,证实有侧隐窝狭窄和(或)中央椎管狭窄。结果随访时间1～6年,A组临床疗效满意率91．7％(22／24);完全复位率为91．7％(22／24)。B组临床疗效满意率90．5％(19／21);完全复位率为95．2％(20／21)。A组手术时间、术中出血、输血量、手术并发症情况优于B组,两组滑脱复位率及随访后最终临床疗效无显著差异,B组滑脱角及椎间盘指数恢复优于A组。结论彻底减压、后外侧融合加椎弓根内固定是首选手术方案,应强调Cage适应证。     

The positive effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion is preserved at long-term follow-up: a RCT with 11–13 year follow-up

Introduction Few studies have investigated the long-term effect of posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion on functional outcome. Aim To investigate the long-term result after posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with and without pedicle screw instrumentation. Methods Questionnaire survey of 129 patients originally randomised to posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Follow-up included Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 and a question regarding willingness to undergo the procedure again knowing the result as global outcome parameter. Results Follow-up was 83% of the original study population (107 patients). Average follow-up time was 12 years (range 11–13 years). DPQ-scores were significantly lower than preoperatively in both groups (P < 0.005) and no drift towards the preoperative level was seen. No difference between the two groups were observed (instrumented vs. non-instrumented): DPQ Daily Activity mean 37.0 versus 32.0, ODI mean 33.4 versus 30.6, SF-36 PCS mean 38.8 versus 39.8, SF-36 MCS mean 49.0 versus 53.3. About 71% in both groups were answered positively to the global outcome question. Patients who had retired due to low back pain had poorer outcome than patients retired for other reasons, best outcome was seen in patients still at work (P = 0.01 or less in all questionnaires, except SF-36 MCS P = 0.08). Discussion Improvement in functional outcome is preserved for 10 or more years after posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion. No difference between instrumented fusion and non-instrumented fusion was observed. Patients who have to retired due to low back pain have the smallest improvement.     

Circumferential and posterolateral fusion for lumbar disc disease

Clinical outcome of low back fusion is unpredictable. There are various reports discussing the merits and clinical outcome of these two procedures. The patients were selected from a population of patients who had chronic low back pain unresponsive to conservative treatment. Thirty-six instrumented posterolateral fusions and 35 instrumented circumferential fusions with posterior lumbar interbody fusions were done simultaneously. Preoperative radiographic assessment included plain radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging scans, and provocative discography in all the patients. Posterolateral fusion or anterior lumbar interbody fusion was done for internal disc disruption. The Oswestry disability index, subjective scoring, and assessment of fusion were done at a minimum followup of 2 years. On subjective scoring assessment there was a satisfactory outcome of 63.9% (23 patients) in the posterolateral fusion group and 82.8% (29 patients) in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group. On assessment by the Oswestry index no difference was found in outcome between the two groups. The posterolateral fusion group had a 63.9% satisfactory outcome and the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group had an 80% satisfactory outcome using the Oswestry disability index for postoperative assessment. There was 61.1% improvement in working ability in the posterolateral fusion group and 77.1% improvement in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion group which was not statistically significant. The authors consider instrumented circumferential fusion with posterior lumbar interbody fusion better than instrumented posterolateral fusion for managing chronic disabling low back pain.     

The long-term effect of posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Today there is some evidence-based medicine support for a positive short-term treatment effect of fusion in chronic low back pain in spondylolisthesis and in nonspecific degenerative lumbar spine disorders. The long-term effect is, however, unknown. PURPOSE: To determine the long-term outcome of lumbar fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled study comparing a 1-year exercise program with instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral fusion with average long-term follow-up of 9 years (range, 5-13). PATIENT SAMPLE: 111 patients aged 18 to 55 years with adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis at L5 or L4 level of all degrees, and at least 1-year's duration of severe lumbar pain with or without sciatica. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and functional disability was quantified by pain (VAS), the Disability Rating Index (DRI), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) work status, and global assessment of outcome by the patient into much better, better, unchanged or worse. Quality of life was assessed by the SF-36. METHODS: The patients were randomly allocated to treatment with 1) a 1-year exercise program (n=34), 2) posterolateral fusion without pedicle screw instrumentation (n=37), or 3) posterolateral fusion with pedicle screw instrumentation (n=40). Long-term follow-up was obtained in 101 (91%) patients. Nine patients in the exercise group were eventually operated on. RESULTS: Longitudinal analysis: At long-term follow-up pain and functional disability were significantly better than before treatment in both surgical groups. No significant differences were observed between instrumented and non-instrumented patients in any variable studied. In the exercise group the pain was significantly reduced but not the functional disability. Compared with the 2-year follow-up a significant increase in functional disability was observed, as measured by the DRI, but not the ODI, in the surgical group at long term. In the exercise group no significant changes were observed between the 2-year and the long-term follow-up. Cross-sectional analysis: Between the surgical and conservative group no significant differences were observed in any outcome measurement at long-term follow-up except for global assessment, which was significantly better for surgical patients. Of surgical patients 76% classified the overall outcome as much better or better compared with 50% of conservatively treated patients (p=0.015). Quality of life as estimated by the SF-36 at long term was not different between treatment groups in any of the eight domains studied but was considerably lower than for the normal population. CONCLUSIONS: Posterolateral fusion in adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis results ina modestly improved long-term outcome compared with a 1-year exercise program. Although the results show that some of the previously reported short-term improvement is lost at long term, patients with fusion still classify their global outcome as clearly better than conservatively treated patients. Furthermore, because the long-term outcome of the patients conservatively treated most likely reflects the natural course, one can also conclude that no considerable spontaneous improvement should be expected over time in adult patients with symptomatic isthmic spondylolisthesis. Substantial pain, functional disability and a reduced quality of life will in most patients most likely remain unaltered over many years.     

Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion

Pain drawings have been used in spine surgery for diagnostic use and psychological evaluation of fusion candidates; they have rarely been used to evaluate pain status after spinal fusion. This study is a 5-year follow-up on a randomised clinical trial assigning patients to posterolateral spinal fusion with or without pedicle screw instrumentation. Patients were mailed a pain drawing and questionnaires including questions regarding work, social status, smoking status, the Dallas Pain Questionnaire (DPQ), and the Low Back Pain Rating Scale (LBPRS). Pain drawings were scored using a visual inspection method and a surface-based point scoring and evaluated for the presence of donor site pain. Pain drawings from 109 patients (87% of the initially included patients), 56 men and 53 women, mean age at follow-up 51 years, were analysed. Fifty-three patients had undergone an instrumented fusion and 56 a non-instrumented fusion. Some presence of low back pain was marked by 79% and leg pain by 69%. Sixty-two percent of the pain drawings were classified as "organic" and 38% as "non-organic". There was no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group. DPQ and LBPRS scores were higher in the non-organic group ( P=0.007). Using the point scoring, no difference between the instrumented and the uninstrumented group was seen. The results of the point scoring were found to correlate with the DPQ and LBPRS scores ( P=0.001). Working patients (39%) had significantly better scores than the rest. Ten percent of the patients had donor site pain. Twenty percent of spinal fusion patients are totally pain free at 5-year follow-up. Ten percent still experience donor site pain. In general, instrumentation does not affect the amount and localisation of pain 5 years after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The pain drawing seems to be a valuable tool when following spinal fusion patients, but its use as prognostic marker in connection with fusion surgery needs further investigation.     

两种手术方式治疗退变性腰椎滑脱症的疗效比较

[目的]对比椎弓根钉内固定联合单枚Cage斜形放置椎间植骨融合与椎弓根钉内固定后外侧融合治疗退变性腰椎滑脱的临床疗效。[方法]单节段退变性腰椎滑脱患者44例,按手术方式分为:Ⅰ组23例,行椎弓根器械复位固定后单枚Cage斜形放置的椎体间融合;Ⅱ组21例,行椎弓根器械复位固定后外侧融合。对两组术后JOA评分,腰腿痛VAS评分,影像学进行随访。[结果]随访15~36个月,两组间JOA评分、骨融合率无显著性差异(P>0.05);Ⅰ组在下腰痛缓解的VAS评分、Taillard指数、相对椎间隙高度的维持方面优于Ⅱ组(P<0.05)。[结论]单枚融合器附加椎弓根钉的椎间植骨融合是治疗退变性腰椎滑脱更为理想的方法。     

退行性腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄症的手术策略和方法

目的 :评估椎管成形术、椎板减压融合术、减压融合固定术治疗退行性腰椎滑脱合并腰椎管狭窄症。方法 :16例稳定性腰椎滑脱患者接受棘突截骨椎管成形术 ,15例不稳定性腰椎滑脱患者接受椎板减压加后外侧融合术 ,14例不稳定性腰椎滑脱患者接受椎板减压椎间融合经椎弓根内固定术。术后进行疗效评分和影像学观察。结果 :术后 1年功能改善率 :椎管成形术为 85 .7% ,减压融合术为 84.8% ,固定融合术为 86.2 % ,各组疗效无显著差别 (P >0 .0 5 )。术后 4年功能改善率 :椎管成形术为 84.9% ,减压融合术为 75 .6% ,固定融合术为 84.6% ,减压融合术疗效下降显著 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :椎管成形术治疗稳定性腰椎滑脱 ,术后近中期疗效与影像学评估满意。椎板减压后外侧融合术治疗不稳定性腰椎滑脱 ,腰椎假关节发生率较高和术后中期疗效明显下降。椎板减压椎间融合内固定治疗不稳定性腰椎滑脱 ,术后中期疗效无明显改变     

Clinical and radiological evaluation of lumbosacral motion below fusion levels in idiopathic scoliosis

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the unfused segments of the lumbar spine in patients who had Harrington instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Forty-eight patients, with an average follow-up of 11 years, were evaluated. The translational motion in the unfused segments below the instrumented levels was measured, using lateral flexion and extension radiographs of the lumbar spine. This motion was compared with values obtained from an earlier study of asymptomatic nonscoliotic individuals. The amount of disc space narrowing, retrolisthesis, length and level of the fusion, and the presence of traction spurs also were recorded. The incidence of low-back pain was highest in those patients fused to L4 (62%). Individuals instrumented and fused to L3 or L4 had significantly more translational motion in the adjacent lower interspace when compared with the control group (P = 0.05 and P = 0.001, respectively). Increased translational motion correlated with the presence of low-back pain in patients fused to L4. Retrolisthesis occurred in 81% of patients instrumented to L4, in 40% of those fused to L3, and was not found in patients fused to high levels. Its presence was strongly associated with low-back pain. There was no relationship between low-back pain and traction spurs, length of the fusion mass, lumbar lordosis, or width of the disc space in the unfused lower levels. The authors conclude that retrolisthesis and increased translational motion are important factors in determining low-back pain following surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. Instrumentation to L4 should be avoided if possible.     

Vacuum-assisted wound closure of deep infections after instrumented spinal fusion in six children with neuromuscular scoliosis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The rate of infection after spinal fusion in neuromuscular scoliosis is reported to range from 4% to 20%. Infection persists in about 50% after traditional treatment including debridement and closure. Instrumentation removal is necessary in up to 28%. PURPOSE: To analyze the outcome of vacuum-assisted wound closure (VAC) in combination with antibiotics for the treatment of deep wound infection after instrumented spinal fusion in pediatric neuromuscular scoliosis. STUDY DESIGN: Six prospective consecutive neuromuscular patients with scoliosis. PATIENT SAMPLE: Between 2001 and 2005, six consecutive pediatric patients (average age, 12.6 years) with neuromuscular scoliosis with a postoperative deep wound infection after instrumented spinal fusion were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Measurement of the duration of wound closure and infection parameters during treatment. METHODS: The patients were treated with a VAC system in combination with antibiotics. RESULTS: Wound closure averaged 3 months. Infection parameters were normalized within 6 weeks. Removal of the instrumentation was not necessary in any patient, and there were no signs of infection at follow-up ranging from 9 to 42 months. CONCLUSION: The VAC system, in combination with antibiotic therapy, seems to be a useful method for treatment of deep wound infections after spinal fusion in pediatric neuromuscular scoliosis. It may prevent removal of the instrumentation and multiple surgery for irrigation and closure of the wound.     

Implant removal for late-developing infection after instrumented posterior spinal fusion for scoliosis: reinstrumentation reduces loss of correction. A retrospective analysis of 45 cases

A retrospective follow-up study of patients who, having undergone instrumented posterior spinal fusion for scoliosis, experienced late infection and then underwent either implant removal alone or implant removal and instrumented refusion. We conducted this study to determine whether it is possible to avoid loss of correction by a single-stage implant removal and reinstrumentation procedure. There have been a few reports of late-appearing infections after spinal instrumentation. Implant bulk, metallurgic reactions, and contamination with low-virulence microorganisms have been suggested as possible etiologic factors. The clinical symptoms include pain, swelling, redness, and spontaneous drainage of fluid. Complete instrumentation removal and systemic antibiotics is usually curative. We retrospectively reviewed 45 patients who underwent instrumented posterior spinal fusion for scoliosis and experienced development of late infections and, after a mean of 3 years after the initial procedure, either underwent implant removal alone [n=35, instrumentation removal (HR) group] or additionally underwent reinstrumentation and fusion [n=10, reinstrumentation and fusion (RI&F) group]. Three patients were reinstrumented 1.5 years after instrumentation removal, and seven underwent a one-stage rod removal and reinstrumentation/refusion procedure. Allergic predisposition, protracted postoperative fever, and pseudarthrosis appear to increase the risk of late-developing infection after posterior spinal fusion. All wounds in both groups healed uneventfully. Preoperative radiographic Cobb measurements showed no statistically significant between-group differences. At follow-up, however, outcome was clearly better in the RI&F group: Loss of correction was significantly smaller in reinstrumented patients. Thus, the thoracic Cobb angle was 28±16° (range 0–55°) in the RI&F group versus 42±15° (21–80°) in the HR group, and the lumbar Cobb angle was 22±11° (10–36°) in the RI&F group versus 29±12° (13–54°) in the HR group. The results of our study demonstrate that wound healing is usually uneventful after instrumentation removal for late infection, also when patients undergo instrumented refusion in a one-stage procedure. Reinstrumentation appears to achieve permanent correction of scoliosis.     

Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) restores disc height, the load bearing ability of anterior ligaments and muscles, root canal dimensions, and spinal balance. It immobilizes the painful degenerate spinal segment and decompresses the nerve roots. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) does the same, but could have complications of graft extrusion, compression and instability contributing to pseudarthrosis in the absence of instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the outcome of instrumented circumferential fusion through a posterior approach [PLIF and posterolateral fusion (PLF)] with instrumented ALIF using the Hartshill horseshoe cage, for comparable degrees of internal disc disruption and clinical disability. It was designed as a prospective study, comparing the outcome of two methods of instrumented interbody fusion for internal disc disruption. Between April 1994 and June 1998, the senior author (N.R.B.) performed 39 instrumented ALIF procedures and 35 instrumented circumferential fusion with PLIF procedures. The second author, an independent assessor (S.M.), performed the entire review. Preoperative radiographic assessment included plain radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and provocative discography in all the patients. The outcome in the two groups was compared in terms of radiological improvement and clinical improvement, measured on the basis of improvement of back pain and work capacity. Preoperatively, patients were asked to fill out a questionnaire giving their demographic details, maximum walking distance and current employment status in order to establish the comparability of the two groups. Patient assessment was with the Oswestry Disability Index, quality of life questionnaire (subjective), pain drawing, visual analogue scale, disability benefit, compensation status, and psychological profile. The results of the study showed a satisfactory outcome (score30) on the subjective (quality of life questionnaire) score of 71.8% (28 patients) in the ALIF group and 74.3% (26 patients) in the PLIF group (P>0.05). On categorising Oswestry Index scores into "excellent", "better", "same", and "worse", we found no difference in outcome between the two groups: 79.5% (n=31) had satisfactory outcome with ALIF and 80% (n=28) had satisfactory outcome with PLIF. The rate of return to work was no different in the two groups. On radiological assessment, we found two nonunions in the circumferential fusion (PLIF) group (94.3% fusion rate) and indirect evidence of no nonunions in the ALIF group. There was no significant difference between the compensation rate and disability benefit rate between the two groups. There were three complications in ALIF group and four in the PLIF (circumferential) group. On the basis of these results, we conclude that it is possible to treat discogenic back pain by anterior interbody fusion with Hartshill horseshoe cage or with circumferential fusion using instrumented PLIF.     

The Effect of Early Initiation of Rehabilitation After Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Randomized Clinical Study

STUDY DESIGN.: A multicenter randomized clinical trial including 82 patients. OBJECTIVE.: To examine the effect of early initiation of rehabilitation after instrumented lumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Lumbar spinal fusion has been performed for more than 70 years. Yet, few studies have examined patients' subsequent rehabilitation. Group-based rehabilitation is both efficient and cost-effective in rehabilitation of lumbar spinal fusion patients. METHODS.: Patients with degenerative disc diseases undergoing instrumented lumbar spinal fusion were randomly assigned to initiate their rehabilitation 6 weeks (6-wk group) or 12 weeks after lumbar spinal fusion (12-wk group). Both groups received the same group-based rehabilitation. Primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcome was the Dallas Pain Questionnaire, the Low Back Pain Rating Scale, and absence from work. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare the groups in terms of differences from baseline to 6 months and 1-year follow-up. Results are presented in median with 25th and 75th percentiles. RESULTS.: According to the Oswestry Disability Index, at 1-year follow-up, the 6-week-group had a median reduction of -6 (-19; 4) compared with -20 (-30;-7) in the 12-week group (P, 0.05). The Dallas Pain Questionnaire showed overall the same tendency, and within daily activities were significantly reduced in favor of the 12-week group (P, 0.05). For back pain, the 6-week group had a median reduction of -2.2 (-3.0; -0.7) similar with -3.3 (-4.7; -1.7) in the 12-week group (P, 0.05). The results at 6 months of follow-up were similar. No difference was found according to return to work 1 year postsurgery. CONCLUSION.: Early start of rehabilitation (6 wk vs. 12 wk) after lumbar spinal fusion resulted in inferior outcomes. The improvements in the 12-week group were 4 times better than that in the 6-week group, indicating that the start-up time of rehabilitation is an important contributing factor for the overall outcome.     

Accelerating lumbar fusions by combining rhBMP-2 with allograft bone: a prospective analysis of interbody fusion rates and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is an osteoinductive protein approved for use in the anterior lumbar interspace. High fusion rates with rhBMP-2 have been reported with threaded interbody allograft dowels. There may be a clinical benefit for the patient by adding rhBMP-2 to the allograft. PURPOSE: To compare the fusion rates and clinical outcomes of patients treated with allograft interbody fusions with and without the addition of rhBMP-2. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective consecutive patient enrollment with minimum 24-month follow-up. PATIENT SAMPLE: Seventy-five patients with lumbar interbody fusions at 1-3 spinal segments. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Clinical: Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographic: X-ray and computed tomographic scan analysis using the Molinari-Bridwell fusion scale. METHODS: Seventy-five patients scheduled for lumbar fusion were enrolled sequentially. Group 1: 30 patients had anterior interbody allografts alone. Group 2: 45 patients had anterior interbody allograft filled with rhBMP-2. All cases had posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. A total of 165 surgical levels (62 allograft alone/103 allograft+BMP) were included. Fusion data and clinical outcomes were collected for a minimum of 2 years after surgery. RESULTS: Statistically higher fusion rates were observed in the patients with BMP at all time points compared with allograft alone. Group 2 (+ BMP) fusion rates were 94%, 100%, and 100% at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Group 1 (-BMP) fusion rates were 66%, 84%, and 89% at the same time intervals. Clinical outcomes were significantly improved in Group 2 compared with Group 1 at 6 months. There were no revisions (0%) in the BMP group and 4 revision fusion surgeries (13%) in the allograft group. No untoward effects were attributable to the rhBMP-2. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms the efficacy of an innovative lumbar fusion technique: an interbody femoral ring allograft, combined with an osteoinductive stimulant (rhBMP-2), protected by pedicle screws. This combination of a structural interbody allograft with rhBMP-2 eliminates the insult of iliac crest harvest, allows for reliable radiographic analysis, and results in successful fusion formation in 100% of the cases in this study.     

Anterior versus posterior procedure for surgical treatment of thoracolumbar tuberculosis: A retrospective analysis

Background:

Approach for surgical treatment of thoracolumbar tuberculosis has been controversial. The aim of present study is to compare the clinical, radiological and functional outcome of anterior versus posterior debridement and spinal fixation for the surgical treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar tuberculosis.

Materials and Methods:

70 patients with spinal tuberculosis treated surgically between Jan 2001 and Dec 2006 were included in the study. Thirty four patients (group I) with mean age 34.9 years underwent anterior debridement, decompression and instrumentation by anterior transthoracic, transpleural and/or retroperitoneal diaphragm cutting approach. Thirty six patients (group II) with mean age of 33.6 years were operated by posterolateral (extracavitary) decompression and posterior instrumentation. Various parameters like blood loss, surgical time, levels of instrumentation, neurological recovery, and kyphosis improvement were compared. Fusion assessment was done as per Bridwell criteria. Functional outcome was assessed using Prolo scale. Mean followup was 26 months.

Results:

Mean surgical time in group I was 5 h 10 min versus 4 h 50 min in group II (P>0.05). Average blood loss in group I was 900 ml compared to 1100 ml in group II (P>0.05). In group I, the percentage immediate correction in kyphosis was 52.27% versus 72.80% in group II. Satisfactory bony fusion (grades I and II) was seen in 100% patients in group I versus 97.22% in group II. Three patients in group I needed prolonged immediate postoperative ICU support compared to one in group II. Injury to lung parenchyma was seen in one patient in group I while the anterior procedure had to be abandoned in one case due to pleural adhesions. Functional outcome (Prolo scale) in group II was good in 94.4% patients compared to 88.23% patients in group I.

Conclusion:

Though the anterior approach is an equally good method for debridement and stabilization, kyphus correction is better with posterior instrumentation and the posterior approach is associated with less morbidity and complications.     

Lumbar spinal fusion. Outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) has become one of the most common causes of disability in adults under 45 years of age and is consequently one of the most common reasons for early retirement in industrialised societies. Accordingly, CLBP represents an expensive drain on society's resources and is a very challenging area for which a consensus for rational therapy is yet to be established. The spinal fusion procedure was introduced as a treatment option for CLBP more than 70 years ago. However, few areas of spinal surgery have caused so much controversy as spinal fusion. The literature reveals divergent opinions about when fusion is indicated and how it should be performed. Furthermore, the significance of the role of postoperative rehabilitation following spinal fusion may be underestimated. There exists no consensus on the design of a program specific for rehabilitation. Ideally, for any given surgical procedure, it should be possible to identify not only possible complications relative to a surgical procedure, but also what symptoms may be expected, and what pain behaviour may be expected of a particular patient. The overall aims of the current studies were: 1) to introduce patient-based functional outcome evaluation into spinal fusion treatment; 2) to evaluate radiological assessment of different spinal fusion procedures; 3) to investigate the effect of titanium versus stainless steel pedicle screws on mechanical fixation and bone ingrowth in lumbar spinal fusion; 4) to analyse the clinical and radiological outcome of different lumbar spinal fusion techniques; 5) to evaluate complications and re-operation rates following different surgical procedures; and 6) to analyse the effect of different rehabilitation strategies for lumbar spinal fusion patients. The present thesis comprises 9 studies: 2 clinical retrospective studies, 1 clinical prospective case/reference study, 5 clinical randomised prospective studies and 1 animal study (Mini-pigs). In total, 594 patients were included in the investigation from 1979 to 1999. Each had prior to inclusion at least 2 years of CLBP and had therefore been subjected to most of the conservative treatment leg pain, due to localized isthmic spondylolisthesis grades I-II or primary or secondary degeneration. PATIENT-BASED FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME: Patients' self-reported parameters should include the impact of CLBP on daily activity, work and leisure time activities, anxiety/depression, social interests and intensity of back and leg pain. Between 1993 and 2003 approximately 1400 lumbar spinal fusion patients completed the Dallas Pain Questionnaire under prospective design studies. In 1996, the Low Back Pain Rating scale was added to the standard questionnaire packet distributed among spinal fusion patients. In our experience, these tools are valid instruments for clinical assessment of candidates for spinal fusion procedures. RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: It is extremely difficult to interpret radiographs of both lumbar posterolateral fusion and anterior interbody fusion. Plain radiographs are clearly not the perfect media for analysis of spinal fusion, but until new and better diagnostic methods are available for clinical use, radiographs will remain the golden standard. Therefore, the development of a detailed reliable radiographic classification system is highly desirable. The classification used in the present thesis for the evaluation of posteroalteral spinal fusion, both with and without instrumentation, demonstrated good interobserver and intraobserver agreement. The classification showed acceptable reliability and may be one way to improve interstudy and intrastudy correlation of radiologic outcomes after posterolateral spinal fusion. Radiology-based evaluation of anterior lumbar interbody fusion is further complicated when cages are employed. The use of different cage designs and materials makes it almost impossible to establish a standard radiological classification system for anterior fusions. BONE-SCREW INTERFACE: Mechanical binding at the bone-screw interface was significantly greater for titanium pedicle screws than it was for stainless steel. This could be explained by the fact that the titanium screws had superior bone on-growth. There was no correlation between screw removal torques and pull-out strength. Clinically, the use of titanium and titanium-alloy pedicle screws may be preferable for osteoporotic patients and those with decreased osteogenesis. OUTCOME: The present series of studies observed significant long-term functional improvement for approximately 70% of patients who had undergone lumbar spinal fusion procedure. Solid fusion as determined from radiographs ranged from 52% to 92% depending on the choice of surgical procedure. The choice of surgical procedure should relate to the diagnosis, as patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis (Grades I and II) are best served with posterolateral fusion without instrumentation, and patients with disc degeneration seem to gain most from instrumented posterolateral fusion or circumferential fusion. COMPLICATIONS: The number of perioperative complications increased with the use of pedicle screw systems to support posterolateral fusions and increased further with the use of circumferential fusions. There was no significant association between outcome result and perioperative complications. The risk of reoperation within 2 years after the spinal fusion procedure was, however, significantly lower for those who had received circumferential fusion in comparison to posterolateral fusion with instrumentation. Furthermore, the risk of non-union was found to be significantly lower for patients who had received circumferential fusion as compared to posterolateral fusion with and without instrumentation. The complications of sexual dysfunction and fusion at non-intended levels were found to be significant but without influence on the overall outcome. REHABILITATION: The patients in the Back-café group performed a succession of many daily tasks significantly better and moreover had less pain compared with both the Video and Training groups 2 years after lumbar spinal fusion. The Video group had significantly greater treatment demands outside the hospital system. This study demonstrates the importance of the inclusion of coping schemes and questions the role of intensive exercises in a rehabilitation program for spinal fusion patients.     

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using non resorbable poly-ether-ether-ketone versus resorbable poly-l-lactide-co-d,l-lactide fusion devices. Clinical outcome at a minimum of 2-year follow-up

Previous papers on resorbable poly-l-lactide-co-d,l-lactide (PLDLLA) cages in spinal fusion have failed to report adequately on patient-centred clinical outcome measures. Also comparison of PLDLLA cage with a traditionally applicable counterpart has not been previously reported. This is the first randomized prospective study that assesses clinical outcome of PLDLLA cage compared with a poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) implant. Twenty-six patients were randomly assigned to undergo instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) whereby either a PEEK cage or a PLDLLA cage was implanted. Clinical outcome based on visual analogue scale scores for leg pain and back pain, as well as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-36 questionnaires were documented and analysed. When compared with preoperative values, all clinical parameters have significantly improved in the PEEK group at 2 years after surgery with the exception of SF-36 general health, SF-36 mental health and SF-36 role emotional scores. No clinical parameter showed significant improvement at 2 years after surgery compared with preoperative values in the PLDLLA patient group. Only six patients (50%) in the PLDLLA group showed improvement in the VAS scores for leg and back pain as well as the ODI, as opposed to 10 patients (71%) in the PEEK group. One-third of the patients in the PLDLLA group actually reported worsening of their pain scores and ODI. Three cases of mild to moderate osteolysis were seen in the PLDLLA group. Following up on our preliminary report, these 2-year results confirm the superiority of the PEEK implant to the resorbable PLDLLA implant in aiding spinal fusion and alleviating symptoms following PLIF in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis associated with either canal stenosis or foramen stenosis or both and emanating from a single lumbar segment.