Fluoroscopy-based image guidance that uses only a single reference marker for the entire thoracic spine is highly inaccurate and unsafe. Systems with registration based on the instrumented vertebrae provide more accurate placement of thoracic vertebral body screws than standard fluoroscopy, but expose the patient to more radiation and require more time for screw insertion.
Iatrogenic loss of lordosis is now frequently recognized as a complication following placement of thoracolumbar instrumentation, especially with distraction instrumentation. Flat-back syndrome is characterized by forward inclination of the trunk, inability to stand upright, and back pain. Evaluation of the deformity should include a full-length lateral radiograph obtained with the patient's knees and hips fully extended. The most common cause of the deformity includes the use of distraction instrumentation in the lumbar spine and pseudarthrosis.Surgical treatment described in the literature includes opening (Smith-Petersen) osteotomy, polysegmental osteotomy, and closing wedge osteotomy. The authors will review the literature, cause, clinical presentation, prevention, and surgical management of flat-back syndrome.
ObjectAnterior decompression and stabilization for thoracic spinal tumors often involves a thoracotomy and can be associated with surgical approach–related complications. An alternative to thoracotomy is surgery via a costotransversectomy exposure.To delineate the risks of surgery, the authors reviewed their prospective database for patients who had undergone surgery via either of these approaches for thoracic or thoracolumbar tumors. The complications were recorded and graded based on severity and risk of impact on patient outcome.MethodsBetween September 1995 and April 2001, the authors performed 29 costotransversectomies (Group 1) and 18 thoracolumbar or combined (Group 2) approaches as initial operations for thoracic neoplasms. The age, sex, pre-operative motor score, and preoperative Frankel grade did not significantly differ between the groups. In the costotransversectomy group there were greater numbers of metastases, upper thoracic procedures, and affected vertebral levels; additionally, the comorbidity rate based on Charlson score, was higher. The mean Frankel grades at discharge were not significantly different whereas the discharge motor and last follow-up motor scores were better in Group 2. There were 11 Group 1 and seven Group 2 patients who suffered at least one complication. The number or patients with complications, the mean number of complications, and severity of complications did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsCompared with anterior or combined approaches, the incidence and severity of perioperative complications in the surgical treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar spinal tumors is similar in patients who undergo costotransversectomy. Costotransversectomy may be the preferred operation in patients with significant medical comorbidity or tumors involving more than one thoracic vertebra.
Laminectomy is the traditional technique used for multilevel cervical stenosis. The complications related to laminectomy, such as late neurological decline, kyphosis, instability, and postoperative radiculopathy, led to laminectomy with fusion. In Japan, dissatisfaction with both laminectomy and laminectomy with fusion led to the development of laminoplasty for dorsal treatment of multilevel cervical stenosis. This article highlights the salient features of preoperative evaluation in this patient population as it pertains to dorsal surgical approaches. Additionally, the techniques of laminectomy, laminectomy with fusion, and laminoplasty are compared, and the results are reviewed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.