Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series.
Bone fusion
Cobalt chromium
Instrumentation failure
Liquid nitrogen
Revision surgery
Total en bloc spondylectomy
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Sep 2020
02 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
27
04
2020
accepted:
31
08
2020
entrez:
4
9
2020
pubmed:
4
9
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There have been several reports of instrumentation failure after three-column resections such as total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal tumors; however, clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES are seldom reported. Therefore, this study assessed the clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES. This study employed a retrospective case series in a single center and included 61 patients with spinal tumors who underwent TES between 2010 and 2015 and were followed up for > 2 years. Instrumentation failure rate, back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, operation time, blood loss, complications, bone fusion after revision surgery, and re-instrumentation failure were assessed. Data were collected on back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, and management for patients with instrumentation failure, and we documented radiological bone fusion and re-instrumentation failure in cases followed up for > 2 years after revision surgery. Of the 61 patients, 26 (42.6%) experienced instrumentation failure at an average of 32 (range, 11-92) months after TES. Of these, 23 underwent revision surgery. The average operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 204 min and 97 ml, respectively. Including the six patients who were unable to walk after instrumentation failure, all patients were able to walk after revision surgery. Perioperative complications of reoperation were surgical site infection (n = 2) and delayed wound healing (n = 1). At the final follow-up, bone fusion was observed in all patients. No re-instrumentation failure was recorded. Bone fusion was achieved by revision surgery using the posterior approach alone.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There have been several reports of instrumentation failure after three-column resections such as total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal tumors; however, clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES are seldom reported. Therefore, this study assessed the clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES.
METHODS
METHODS
This study employed a retrospective case series in a single center and included 61 patients with spinal tumors who underwent TES between 2010 and 2015 and were followed up for > 2 years. Instrumentation failure rate, back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, operation time, blood loss, complications, bone fusion after revision surgery, and re-instrumentation failure were assessed. Data were collected on back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, and management for patients with instrumentation failure, and we documented radiological bone fusion and re-instrumentation failure in cases followed up for > 2 years after revision surgery.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 61 patients, 26 (42.6%) experienced instrumentation failure at an average of 32 (range, 11-92) months after TES. Of these, 23 underwent revision surgery. The average operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 204 min and 97 ml, respectively. Including the six patients who were unable to walk after instrumentation failure, all patients were able to walk after revision surgery. Perioperative complications of reoperation were surgical site infection (n = 2) and delayed wound healing (n = 1). At the final follow-up, bone fusion was observed in all patients. No re-instrumentation failure was recorded.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Bone fusion was achieved by revision surgery using the posterior approach alone.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32878615
doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03622-6
pii: 10.1186/s12891-020-03622-6
pmc: PMC7469324
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
591Références
J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Feb;14(2):172-6
pubmed: 21184643
Global Spine J. 2016 Feb;6(1):21-8
pubmed: 26835198
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):858-67
pubmed: 24838759
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jan 15;37(2):119-26
pubmed: 22037533
Orthopedics. 2013 Aug;36(8):605-7
pubmed: 23937737
J Surg Oncol. 2015 Oct;112(5):544-54
pubmed: 26496212
Orthop Clin North Am. 2009 Jan;40(1):47-63, vi
pubmed: 19064055
Spine J. 2019 Oct;19(10):1613-1619
pubmed: 31059817
Eur Spine J. 2018 Dec;27(12):3084-3091
pubmed: 30209582
Scoliosis. 2015 Nov 04;10:30
pubmed: 26543498
J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Sep;15(3):320-7
pubmed: 21639702
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Mar 15;37(6):E381-6
pubmed: 22422440
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jan 1;36(1):74-82
pubmed: 20823784
Eur Spine J. 2016 Dec;25(12):4080-4087
pubmed: 27262560
Spine Surg Relat Res. 2017 Dec 20;1(1):31-39
pubmed: 31440610
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Sep;97(37):e12366
pubmed: 30212997
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Feb 1;22(3):324-33
pubmed: 9051895
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2015 Nov-Dec;20(6):454-63
pubmed: 26696786
Spine J. 2014 Nov 1;14(11):2608-17
pubmed: 24561037
Ann Surg Oncol. 2014 Apr;21(4):1330-6
pubmed: 24150193
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 May 1;36(10):E647-55
pubmed: 21217423
Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2015 Sep;73(9):795-802
pubmed: 26352500
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 25;13(1):e0191679
pubmed: 29370240
Int Orthop. 1994 Oct;18(5):291-8
pubmed: 7852009
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Feb 1;26(3):298-306
pubmed: 11224867