ABSTRACT
STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective study. OBJECTIVES: To correlate improvement in motor evoked potential (MEP) during spine surgery with postoperative clinical improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred fifty-three patients operated for posterior spinal decompression and fixation surgeries were prospectively selected and followed up. Patients who underwent lumbar, dorsal, and cervical surgeries were grouped into-group A, B, and C, respectively. Intraoperative neuromonitoring was done using MEP with free-running electromyography. Improvements in MEP scores were calculated in percentage. Similarly, postoperative improvement in Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores at 3 months were calculated in percentage. Improvements in MEP scores were correlated with clinical improvement using the Spearman ρ test and the r value was calculated to find out the association. RESULTS: Of 353 patients, 319 (250-group A, 38-group B, and 31-group C) were included for the study. VAS and ODI improved significantly from preoperative 8.5±0.8 and 62.9±14.5, to postoperative 2.3±1.1 and 15.9±11.5, respectively, in the entire group. Average preoperative MEP were 127.8±191.0 mV on the right side and 132.3±206.6 mV on the left side, which significantly improved to 163.7±231.2 mV (P=0.0001) and 155.2±219.6 mV (P=0.0001), respectively, showing 157.0% and 178.5% improvement. Correlating MEP improvement with postoperative improvement in ODI showed poor correlation (r=0.088 right and 0.030 left sides). Similarly, correlating MEP improvement with improvement in VAS showed r=0.110 on the right and -0.023 on the left side suggesting poor correlation. Postoperative neurological complications (0.56%) were found in 2 patients in the form of screw malpositioning. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative neuromonitoring showed significant improvement during posterior decompression and fixation surgery, and reduction in postoperative neurological complication. The study also exhibited significant postoperative clinical improvement. However, improvement in MEP did not correlate with postoperative clinical improvement suggesting that it has no predictive role.
Subject(s)
Neurosurgical Procedures , Spine , Decompression, Surgical , Humans , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
Pheohyphomycosis is an uncommon infection and its association in spondylodiscitis has not yet been reported. The purpose of this case report is to describe a rare case of Pheohyphomycotic spondylodiscitis and methods to diagnose and manage the patient with less invasive techniques. A 29-year-old male patient presented to the outpatient department with complaints of gradually increasing low back pain with bilateral lower limbs radicular pain since one and a half years. He had associated fever, weight loss, voice changes, and dry, scaly, erythematous skin with elevated ESR. The patient had been taking anti-Koch's therapy since 1 year with little relief in pain and no radiological improvement. Percutaneous pedicle biopsy of L4 vertebra was taken under local anaesthesia and confirmed Pheohyphomycosis which was treated with antifungal medications. The patient showed sequential improvement with long term antifungal treatment. He was eventually able to walk independently without support.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of etodolac injection and diclofenac injection in patients with postoperative orthopedic pain. METHODS: This was multicentric, randomized, assessor-blind and parallel-group study. A group of 158 patients with moderate to severe pain following orthopedic surgery were randomly assigned to receive either etodolac 400 mg twice a day (n = 78) or diclofenac 75 mg thrice a day (n = 80). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome measures were pain intensity difference, sum of pain intensity differences and pain relief whereas secondary efficacy variables included maximum fall in pain intensity, number of doses of study medication consumed, number of patients who required rescue medication and overall response to therapy. RESULTS: Mean pain intensity differences assessed on 10 cm VAS were significantly better for etodolac arm compared to diclofenac arm at 4, 8, 20 and 24 hours (p < 0.05). Sum of pain intensity differences over the first 8 hours (-21.31 ± 6.26 for etodolac vs. -19.13 ± 6.98 for diclofenac; p = 0.041) and over the 24 hours (-39.83 ± 10.70 for etodolac vs. -35.25 ± 12.00 for diclofenac; p = 0.012) for the etodolac group was significantly superior than diclofenac group. Assessment of pain relief showed that etodolac injection was significantly more effective than diclofenac injection (p < 0.0001) over the 24 hour assessment period. Maximum fall in pain intensity score, number of doses of study medication consumed and patients' and investigators' overall response to the drug at the end of treatment period were also significantly superior in the etodolac arm as compared to the diclofenac arm (p < 0.05). However, the number of patients who were rescued was comparable in both the treatment arms. A change in emotional functioning of the patients was not captured in this study. Both the study medications were well tolerated with no incidence of SAE throughout the study. CONCLUSION: Etodolac can be considered as an effective alternative to traditional NSAIDS in the treatment of post operative pain.