Chest tube management following two row vertebral body tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

BACKGROUND: The current gold standard of scoliosis correction procedures is still posterior spinal fusion, an extensively studied procedure. anterior vertebral body tethering is a newer surgical technique for the correction of scoliotic curves. Consequently, best practices have yet to be determined. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective, review of all patients diagnosed with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who underwent two row anterior vertebral body tethering between June 2020 and April 2022 was performed. RESULTS: Over the study period, 95 patients met inclusion: 79 females (83.2%) and 16 males (16.8%), age 14.4 ± 2.5 years, with a body mass index of 20.0 ± 2.9, and an average of 8.4 ± 2.1 levels treated. 28 (29.5%) procedures were for double curves and 67 (70.5%) for single curves. After tethering, a chest tube was positioned in each corrected side. A total of 123 chest tubes were analyzed, including 67 single curves and 28 double curves. Average chest tube duration was 2.5 ± 1.1 days and average length of stay was 5.0 ± 2.0 days. Average chest tube output eight hours prior to removal was 61.1 ± 45.6 mL. There was no significant difference in average length of stay for patients who underwent correction of a single curve versus a double curve nor was there a difference in average length of stay or chest tube duration for revisions compared to primary procedures. For the entire cohort, 30-day emergency department visit rate was 7.4% (n = 7) and readmission rate was 4.2% (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: This early review of a 2-year two row vertebral body tethering postoperative experience provides a report of a safe and effective approach to chest tube management at a single academic center.

Skipped versus consecutive pedicle screw constructs for correction of Lenke 1 curves.

PURPOSE: Thoracic pedicle screws provide superior curve correction to hook and wire constructs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, while increasing cost. The number of implants required for best correction and outcome has not yet been determined. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed pre- and post-operative radiographs and self-reported outcome measures in an age- and curve-matched cohort of 40 patients with Lenke I AIS who underwent selective fusions between T3/4 and L1. Twenty patients were treated with thoracic pedicle screws at every level bilaterally (CON) and 20 patients with screws at every level on the concave side and skipped levels on the convex side of the curve (SKP). All patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Radiographs were assessed for coronal and sagittal curvatures, as well as thoracic torsion and vertebral rotation. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the SRS-22 instrument. Instrumentation cost data were collected for each case. RESULTS: Postoperative follow-up averaged 28 months for the CON group and 29 months for the SKP group. No statistically significant differences were found between groups with respect to age and pre- and post-operative radiographic parameters. Both constructs provided acceptable correction of the main thoracic curves (66.9 vs. 66.6 %, CON group and SKP group, respectively; p = 0.92), and spontaneous correction of the proximal thoracic (41.5 vs. 41.1 %; p = 0.92) and thoracolumbar/lumbar curves (54.8 vs. 54.3 %; p = 0.92). No significant difference was found in postoperative SRS-22 scores (96 vs. 94.3; p = 0.34). The CON group cost for instrumentation was significantly higher than the SKP group ($19,500 vs. $13,300; p = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in operating room times between groups. CONCLUSION: Both construct types provide excellent coronal correction and sagittal balance, with no significant differences in radiographic findings or clinical outcomes. A significant decrease in cost was found with use of skipped screw constructs.

Partial facetectomy for lumbar foraminal stenosis.

Background. Several different techniques exist to address the pain and disability caused by isolated nerve root impingement. Failure to adequately decompress the lumbar foramen may lead to failed back surgery syndrome. However, aggressive treatment often causes spinal instability or may require fusion for satisfactory results. We describe a novel technique for decompression of the lumbar nerve root and demonstrate its effectiveness in relief of radicular symptoms. Methods. Partial facetectomy was performed by removal of the medial portion of the superior facet in patients with lumbar foraminal stenosis. 47 patients underwent the procedure from 2001 to 2010. Those who demonstrated neurogenic claudication without spinal instability or central canal stenosis and failed conservative management were eligible for the procedure. Functional level was recorded for each patient. These patients were followed for an average of 3.9 years to evaluate outcomes. Results. 27 of 47 patients (57%) reported no back pain and no functional limitations. Eight of 47 patients (17%) reported moderate pain, but had no limitations. Six of 47 patients (13%) continued to experience degenerative symptoms. Five of 47 patients (11%) required additional surgery. Conclusions. Partial facetectomy is an effective means to decompress the lumbar nerve root foramen without causing spinal instability.

Postoperative spondilodiscitis.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative spondylodiscitis is a primary infection of the nucleus pulposus with secondary involvement of the cartilaginous endplate and vertebral bone. Although uncommon, postoperative spondylodiscitis causes major morbidity and may be associated with serious long-term sequelae. Several risk factors had been identified, including immunosuppression, obesity, alcohol, smoking, diabetes and malnutrition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of the literature was done to analyse the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of postoperative spondylodiscitis. RESULTS: We found that the principles of conservative treatment are to establish an accurate microbiological diagnosis, treat with appropriate antibiotics, immobilise the spine, and closely monitor for spinal instability and neurological deterioration. The purpose of surgical treatment is to obtain multiple cultures of bone and soft tissue, perform a thorough debridement of infected tissue, decompress neural structures, and reconstruct the unstable spinal column with bone graft with or without concomitant instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate management requires aggressive medical treatment and, at times, surgical intervention. If recognised early and treated appropriately, a full recovery can often be expected. Therefore, clinicians should be aware of the clinical presentation of such infections to improve patient outcome. A review of the literature was done to advance our understanding of the diagnosis, treatment, prevention and outcome of these infections.

Infections in spinal instrumentation.

Surgical-site infection (SSI) in the spine is a serious postoperative complication. Factors such as posterior surgical approach, arthrodesis, use of spinal instrumentation, age, obesity, diabetes, tobacco use, operating-room environment and estimated blood loss are well established in the literature to affect the risk of infection. Infection after spine surgery with instrumentation is becoming a common pathology. The reported infection rates range from 0.7% to 11.9%, depending on the diagnosis and complexity of the procedure. Besides operative factors, patient characteristics could also account for increased infection rates. These infections after instrumented spinal fusion are particularly difficult to manage due to the implanted, and possibly infected, instrumentation. Because the medical, economic and social costs of SSI after spinal instrumentation are enormous, any significant reduction in risks will pay dividends. The goal of this literature review was to analyse risk factors, causative organisms, diagnostic elements (both clinical and biological), different treatment options and their efficiency and consequences and the means of SSI prevention.

Infection and revision strategies in total disc arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to revise the different strategies for treating an infected disc arthroplasty. METHODS: Despite recognition that disc replacement may reduce the incidence of adjacent-segment disease, the risk of potential complications associated with primary and revision total disc arthroplasty has diminished surgeon enthusiasm for the procedure. We performed a literature review of the different revision strategies for an infected disc arthroplasty. RESULTS: The need for revision of lumbar total disc arthroplasty has been reported in a number of prospective, randomised trials (level I or II evidence). Suboptimal patient selection and/or surgical technique accounted for the majority of failed disc arthroplasties. Revision procedures include posterior stabilisation or anterior extraction and conversion to arthrodesis. The risk of injury to the great vessels and retroperitoneal structures is greater during revision than primary procedures. The use of a distant lateral, or transpsoas, approach to the anterior column may reduce these adverse events. Also, the use of adhesion barriers has been shown to reduce adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery and may be of benefit in revision disc arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: This review article provides an update on the various treatments for infected lumbar disc prosthesis and the different surgical approaches used in these difficult cases. It also describes potential options to avoid complications associated with the revision surgical approach.