Perioperative complications in open versus percutaneous treatment of spinal fractures in patients with an ankylosed spine.

We compared open stabilization of vertebral fractures to percutaneous spinal fixation techniques in patients with a diagnosis of either ankylosing spondylitis (AS) or diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH). A retrospective review of patients known to have AS or DISH treated for spinal column fracture at a single institution between 1995 and 2011 was performed. Patients were analyzed by the type of fixation, divided into either a percutaneous group (PG) or an open group (OG). There were 41 patients identified with a spinal column fracture and history of AS or DISH who received surgical intervention. There were 17 (42%) patients with AS and 24 (58%) with DISH. Patients in the PG and OG cohorts presented with similar mechanisms of injury, Injury Severity Scale, number of vertebral fractures, number of additional injuries, and Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification scores. Mean operative time (254.76minutes versus 334.67minutes, p=0.040), estimated blood loss (166.8 versus 1240.36mL, p<0.001), blood transfusion volume (178.32 versus 848.69mL, p<0.001), and time to discharge (9.58 days versus 16.73 days, p=0.008) were significantly less in the PG cohort. The rate of blood transfusion (36% versus 87.5%, p=0.001) and complications (56% versus 87%, p=0.045) were significantly less in the PG cohort. Percutaneous stabilization of fractures in patients with AS or DISH was associated with lower blood loss, shorter operative times and decreased need for transfusion, shorter hospitalization time and a lower perioperative complication rate.

Sagittal balance and spinopelvic parameters after lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative scoliosis: a case-control study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective matched-cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the change in radiographical parameters in patients undergoing interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation compared with posterior spine fusion (PSF) alone for degenerative scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little is known about the effect of lateral interbody fusion (LIF) on sagittal plane correction in the setting of degenerative scoliosis. We performed a retrospective study to investigate these changes compared with PSF. METHODS: Between 1997 and 2011, 33 patients had LIF at 181 levels between T8 and L5 vertebrae for the treatment of degenerative scoliosis (mean; 5 ± 2 levels). Of those, 23 patients had additional anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at 37 levels between L4 and S1 vertebrae (mean; 1.6 ± 0.5 levels). A 1:1 matched control of patients who underwent PSF was performed. Patients were matched by age, sex, and diagnosis. Clinical and radiographical data were collected and compared between the matched cohorts. RESULTS: Lumbar lordosis (LL) was significantly restored in the LIF ± ALIF compared with PSF cohort (44° ± 14° vs. 36° ± 15°, P = 0.02). The segmental LL over the 102 LIF levels significantly improved from 12°± 10° to 21°± 13° postoperatively (P < 0.0001). However, the change over the 37 ALIF levels was not significant (from 30° ± 15° to 29° ± 9°, P = 0.8). Sagittal plane alignment was improved in the LIF ± ALIF compared with PSF cohort and trended toward but did not reach significance (3.8 ± 3.2 cm vs. 6.2 ± 5.7 cm, P = 0.09). Sacral slope was significantly higher in the LIF ± ALIF compared with PSF cohort (33° ± 11° vs. 28° ± 10°, P = 0.03). Pelvic tilt was lower in the LIF ± ALIF compared with PSF cohort and trended toward but did not reach significance (22° ± 10° vs. 26° ± 10°, P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: LL and sacral slope had mildly but statistically improved in the interbody fusion cohort compared with PSF cohort. Sagittal alignment and pelvic tilt trended toward but did not reach statistical significance. Segmental LL was improved at LIF levels more than at ALIF levels. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.