Impact of implant removal on quality of life and loss of correction in the treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracolumbar spine.

Background: Benefit of implant removal in spine surgery remains unclear. While there is mostly consensus about necessity of implant removal in posterior-only stabilized patients, the effect of this measure in cases with combined anterior-posterior stabilization is undetermined. With this work we present a retrospective analysis of 87 patients with traumatic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures concerning quality of life (QOL), loss of correction (LOC) and range of motion (ROM). The effect of implant removal on the outcome 18-74 months after surgery was analyzed to determine how implant removal affects radiologic, functional and quality-of life-related parameters. Patients and methods: 87 patients suffering from a traumatic vertebral body fracture (T11 - L2) were included. Quality of life was determined using four different scoring systems (SF 36, VAS, Oswestry, LBOS). Clinical examination included range of motion. Radiologic findings were correlated with QOL. Results: Patients with removal of the internal fixator had a trend towards better range of motion than patients with posterior instrumentation left in place. Radiologic findings showed no correlation to QOL. Implant removal led to better values in Oswestry and SF-36. 69% of patients after removal reported a reduction of their symptoms.All patients with persistence of severe pain after implant removal belonged to subgroup II.2 (anterior monosegmental fusion with bone graft). Conclusion: Removal of the internal fixator can lead to a reduction of symptoms. Patient selection is crucial for successful indication. Radiologic findings do not correlate with QOL.

Urapidil in the preoperative treatment of pheochromocytomas: a safe and cost-effective method.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for pheochromocytoma may lead to uncontrolled catecholamine secretion with severe hypertension and cardiac failure. Perioperative α1-receptor-blockade with orally administered phenoxybenzamine or intravenous urapidil therefore is a standard procedure in the treatment regime prior to surgery. METHODS: Medical records of 30 patients who underwent surgery for pheochromocytoma during the years 2002-2011 were retrospectively analyzed. We investigated the difference in the clinical course of patients undergoing surgery for pheochromocytoma with either phenoxybenzamine or urapidil pretreatment with special regard to the intraoperative course and length of hospital stay and costs. RESULTS: Nineteen (16 female, 3 male) patients (63 %) received a preoperative α-block with orally administered phenoxybenzamine. Eleven patients (6 female, 5 male) (37 %) were treated with intravenous urapidil for 3 days prior to surgery. Intraoperative episodes of hypertension or hypotension did not differ significantly. The median total hospital stay in phenoxybenzamine-treated patients was 17 days in contrast to 11 days in the urapidil group (p = 0.0087). Patients who received i.v. pretreatment spent significantly fewer days in the hospital prior to operation [median: 3 days (range: 3-7 days) versus 9 days (range: 3-21 days); p = 0.0001]. The reduction in the number of days in the hospital in the urapidil group led to a significantly elevated revenue per day (637.49/day versus 412.50/day; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative treatment with the selective α1 blocker urapidil remains a simple and cost effective method in the treatment regime of patients with pheochromocytoma.