Pedicle or vertebral body cortical penetration occurred with 25% of the screws but with no neurologic compromise. Curve correction was slightly greater than with hooks, but not to a statistically significant extent.

Correct placement of transpedicular screws for spinal fusion seems to be more difficult than it looks. The computed tomography scanning is useful for differential diagnosis of postoperative radicular syndromes after lumbar transpedicular fixation.

Posterior correction and fusion with segmental hook instrumentation represent the gold standard in the surgical treatment of progressive idiopathic thoracic scoliosis. However, there is a debate over whether pedicle screws are safe in scoliosis surgery and whether their usage might enable a better curve correction and a shorter fusion length. The details of curve correction, fusion length and complication rate of 99 patients with idiopathic thoracic scoliosis treated with either hook or pedicle screw instrumentation were analyzed. Forty-nine patients had been operated with the Cotrel-Dubousset system using hooks exclusively ("hook group"). Fifty patients had been operated with either a combination of pedicle screws in the lumbar and lower thoracic and hooks in the upper thoracic spine or exclusive pedicle screw instrumentation using the Münster Posterior Double Rod System ("screw group"). The preoperative Cobb angle averaged 61.3 degrees (range 40 degrees-84 degrees ) in the hook group and 62.5 degrees (range 43 degrees-94 degrees ) in the screw group. Average primary curve correction was 51.7% in the hook group and 55.8% in the screw group ( P>0.05). However, at follow-up (2-12 years later) primary curve correction was significantly greater ( P=0.001) in the screw group (at 50.1%) compared to the hook group (at 41.1%). Secondary lumbar curve correction was significantly greater ( P=0.04) in the screw group (54.9%) compared to the hook group (46.9%). Correction of the apical vertebral rotation according to Perdriolle was minimal in both groups. Apical vertebral translation was corrected by 42.0% in the hook group and 55.6% in the screw group ( P=0.008). Correction of the tilt of the lowest instrumented vertebra averaged 48.1% in the hook group and 66.2% in the screw group ( P=0.0004). There were no differences concerning correction of the sagittal plane deformity between the two groups. Fusion length was, on average, 0.6 segments shorter in the screw group compared to the hook group ( P=0.03). With pedicle screws, the lowest instrumented vertebra was usually one below the lower end vertebra, whereas in the hook group it was between one and two vertebrae below the lower end vertebra. Both operative time and intraoperative blood loss were significantly higher in the hook group ( P<0.0001). One pedicle screw at T5 was exchanged due to the direct proximity to the aorta. There were no neurologic complications related to pedicle screw instrumentation. Pedicle screw instrumentation alone or in combination with proximal hook instrumentation offers a significantly better primary and secondary curve correction in idiopathic thoracic scoliosis and enables a significantly shorter fusion length.

The morphometry in scoliotic vertebrae is substantially different from that of vertebrae in normal spines, with an asymmetrical intravertebral deformity shown in scoliotic vertebrae. Pedicle screw instrumentation on the concavity in the apical region of thoracic curves appears critical because of the small endosteal pedicle width.

The unilateral transforaminal approach for lumbar interbody fusion as an alternative to the anterior (ALIF) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) combined with pedicle screw instrumentation is gaining in popularity. At present, a prospective study using a standardized tool for outcome measurement after the transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) with a follow-up of at least 3 years is not available in the current literature, although there have been reports on specific complications and cost efficiency. Therefore, a study of TLIF was undertaken. Fifty-two consecutive patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 years were included, with the mean follow-up being 46 months (36--64). The indications were 22 isthmic spondylolistheses and 30 degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. Thirty-nine cases were one-level, 11 cases were two-level, and two cases were three-level fusions. The pain and disability status was prospectively evaluated by the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and a visual analog scale (VAS). The status of bony fusion was evaluated by an independent radiologist using anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs. The operation time averaged 173 min for one-level and 238 min for multiple-level fusions. Average blood loss was 485 ml for one-level and 560 ml for multiple-level fusions. There were four serious complications registered: a deep infection, a persistent radiculopathy, a symptomatic contralateral disc herniation and a pseudarthrosis with loosening of the implants. Overall, the pain relief in the VAS and the reduction of the ODI was significant (P<0.05) at follow-up. The fusion rate was 89%. At the latest follow-up, significant differences of the ODI were neither found between isthmic spondylolistheses and degenerative diseases, nor between one- and multiple-level fusions. In conclusion, the TLIF technique has comparable results to other interbody fusions, such as the PLIF and ALIF techniques. The potential advantages of the TLIF technique include avoidance of the anterior approach and reduction of the approach related posterior trauma to the spinal canal.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract