Patient-reported outcome from minimal invasive surgery compared with conventional open surgery for thoracolumbar fractures of the spine.

Study design: retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. Objective: The treatment guidelines for thoracolumbar spinal fractures are controversial although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a popular alternative to the traditional open approach (TOA). Limited data exists about outcomes after MIS fracture treatment. The main aim of our study was to evaluate self-reported disability, health-related quality of life, pain, and satisfaction after MIS compared with TOA. Methods: Of 173 patients operated from 2014 to 2018, 64.7% patients completed the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the EQ-5D-5L, and a tailored clinical follow-up questionnaire on employment status, pain, activity level, and satisfaction with treatment. Results: Of the 112 patients, 34 had MIS and 78 had TOA. Mean follow-up was 56 months. The two groups were comparable on demographic variables apart from mean age - MIS group was 10 years older. The MIS group had better ODI scores (p = 0.046), but the groups were similar regarding return to work and disability retirement. The EQ-5D-5L index for the MIS were very close (mean -0.033, median +0.049) to the Danish population score, while the TOA showed a greater deviation (mean - 0.125, median -0.040). The MIS used less pain medication than the TOA. Both groups were similarly satisfied with treatment results. Conclusion: Our data indicates that MIS surgery for thoracolumbar spinal fractures can achieve acceptable self-reported outcomes in terms of disability, health-related quality of life, pain, and satisfaction with treatment. However, a randomized controlled trial is needed to determine whether the MIS approach is superior to TOA.

Kinematic and kinetic analysis of static sitting of patients with neuropathic spine deformity.

Wheelchair dependent children with neuropathic and neuromuscular diseases have up to 90% risk for progressive spine deformities. An unbalanced sitting can induce progression of spinal and pelvic deformities. Many current clinical assessment methods of sitting of such patients are semi-quantitative, or questionnaire-based. A 3D movement analysis offers quantitative and objective biomechanical analysis of sitting. The aim was to validate a method to describe quiet sitting and differences between patients and controls as well as to apply the methodology for pre- and post-operative comparison. The analysis was performed on 14 patients and 10 controls. Four patients were retested after spine surgery. Seat load asymmetry was up to 30% in the patient group comparing to maximum 7% in the control group. The asymmetric position of Ground Reaction Force vector between left and right sides was significant. Plumb line of cervical 7th vertebra over sacral 1st was different only in rotation. The location of Common Center of Pressure relative to inter-trochanteric midpoint was more anterior in controls than in patients. Pelvic inclination in patients was smaller, the obliquity and rotation was similar. There were no significant differences between patients and controls of the thorax position. Results with more changes in the seat-loading domain in comparison with posture indicate good postural control compensation of spinal deformity induced disequilibrium despite neuromuscular disease in the background. The comparison of the pelvic obliquity data from kinematics and X-ray showed good correlation. The four patients tested postoperatively improved after surgery.

One-stage major spine deformity correction surgery: comparison between groups with and without additional neurosurgical intervention, with more than 24 months of follow-up. Clinical article.

OBJECT: Early-onset, nonidiopathic spine deformities are frequently caused by intraspinal anomalies necessitating both neurosurgical and orthopedic intervention. The clinical tradition at most treatment units is to perform neurosurgical and orthopedic procedures separately. Sometimes the deformity correction surgery is also done in stages, which leads to several periods of hospitalization, increased use of health care resources, and a long rehabilitation time for the patient. The purpose of this project was to perform an outcome survey for major spine surgery in high-risk patients, and to analyze whether an additional neurosurgical intervention during the same session increased the risk of complications. METHODS: A consecutive series of 81 patients with major rigid spine deformities treated by the same orthopedic surgeon was analyzed. In 24 of 81 cases there were additional intraspinal pathological entities indicating a neurosurgical procedure. All cases were divided into 2 groups: one with anterior-posterior surgery and also neurosurgery, and the other with anterior-posterior surgery but without neurosurgery. The result variables for the group comparisons were as follows: clinical and radiographic outcome, operating time, length of intensive care and hospital stay, relative blood loss, and occurrence of complications or adverse events. Groups were similar in terms of sex, size of spinal curve, and surgical procedures, but different in terms of diagnosis (there were more patients with myelomeningocele in the group treated with both anterior-posterior surgery and neurosurgery) and patient age (the group with both anterior-posterior surgery and neurosurgery was younger). RESULTS: An additional neurosurgical procedure combined with fusion surgery did not increase the complication rate or use of resources compared with fusion surgery alone, except in the length of operating time. The mean correction of the spinal curve was 56.7%, and the mean correction of the pelvic obliquity was 74.7%. The loss of correction was 3° on average. A more than 10° progression was seen in 9 cases. There were no deaths, and there were no neurological complications or surgery-related deterioration of ambulatory function. There were 10 complications that altered the planned postoperative course, including 5 infections. CONCLUSIONS: One-stage major spine surgery, even when neurosurgery is included, is safe and does not increase the risk of complications. The increase in hospital and ICU stays is marginal.

Outcome of major spinal deformity surgery in high-risk patients: comparison between two departments.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort studyObjective: To describe the outcome and resource use in major spine surgery on high-risk patients, and analyze possible differences between two surgical departments. METHODS: Data from the deformity register and medical records of 136 patients, median age 12-years, with neuromuscular and congenital spinal deformities with and without intraspinal pathology, surgically treated by one surgeon from 1997 through 2004 at two departments. H1 with a pediatric multidisciplinary team, and H2 with focus on adult spine. Variables at baseline: age, gender, diagnosis, curve size, and type of surgical procedure. Result variables included clinical and radiographic outcome, surgery time, length of intensive care and hospital stay, relative blood loss, and occurrence of complications during 2 or more years follow-up. RESULTS: There was no perioperative or postoperative mortality, no spinal-cord damage, no neurological or ambulatory function deterioration. The overall complication rate was 36%, and the overall major complication rate was 15.4%. The mean loss of correction was 2° during the follow-up. There were statistically significant differences between the H1 and H2 departments. At H1, deformity correction was better and surgery time shorter. Infections were more frequent at H2 (P = .04; 6/65 at H1; 16/71 at H2), tendency (P = .06) of more department-related complications was higher at H2. CONCLUSIONS: Major spine surgery in high-risk patients can be performed safely and with good outcoms. Impact of organization and workplace culture on the outcome might be important and worth further study.