Aim. The aim of this study was to compare the complication rate of traditional minimally invasive anterior with the new minimally invasive lateral trans-psoatic retroperitoneal approaches to the intervertebral discs at levels T12-L5. Methods. A review of all cases of minimally invasive anterior (ALIF) and lateral (XLIF) intervertebral disc surgery at levels T12-L5, treated at the Department of Neurosurgery from January 1996 to September 2011. The ALIF group consisted of 120 and the XLIF group consisted of 88 patients. Preoperative diagnoses were: degenerative disc disease, failed back surgery syndrome, spondylolisthesis, retrolisthesis and posttraumatic disc injury. The surgical steps are described. All surgical intraoperative and postoperative complications directly related to the spinal surgery were prospectively documented. The outcome measure was rate of complications. Results. In the ALIF group there were no major complications, only 35 minor intra-and postoperative complications in 32 patients (26.6%). The main complication was lumbar post-sympathectomy syndrome in 19 patients (15.8%). In the XLIF group there were 26 complications in 22 patients (25%). One major intraoperative complication was partial and transient injury to the L5 nerve root (1.1%). There were 25 minor postoperative complications in the XLIF group in 21 patients (23.9%), mainly transient pain of the left groin or anterior thigh in 11 patients (12.5%) or numbness in the same dermatomas in 9 patients (10.2%). Statistically there was no difference between the ALIF and XLIF groups in complication rate. Conclusion. Anterolateral and lateral retroperitoneal minimally invasive approaches to levels T12-L5 disc spaces are safe procedures with only minor complications and one exception. The rate of complications was similar in both groups. In the case of ALIF, the particular complication was post-sympathectomy syndrome. The main complication of XLIF was transient nerve root injury in one patient due to underestimation of the procedure in the outset. Intraoperative neuromonitoring during XLIF surgery is fully recommended.
Aims.To compare the pharmacodynamics of 0.6 mg kg -1 rocuronium in young and older patients of both genders during total intravenous anesthesia.Methods. Following local ethics committee approval and informed consent, patients scheduled for surgery under total intravenous anesthesia (propofol/sufentanil) were divided into 4 study groups: 37 males aged 20-40, 40 males aged 60-75 yrs, 43 females aged 20-40 and 38 females aged 60-75 yrs. Neuromuscular block following rocuronium (0.6 mg kg -1 ) was monitored: train-of-four [TOF] stimulation of the ulnar nerve at 15-s intervals, EMG of the adductor pollicis muscle. The onset time (from application of rocuronium to maximum depression of T 1 ), clinical duration (from application to 25% recovery of T 1 ), and time to full spontaneous recovery (from application to TOF-ratio ≥ 0.9) were determined for each patient. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare differences between groups; P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results.
Abnormal corticospinal MEP findings in cervical spondylotic myelopathy were associated with differences in brain activation, which further increased after spinal cord decompression and did not resolve within 12-month follow-up. In summary, surgery may come too late for those patients with abnormal MEP to recover completely despite their mild clinical signs and symptoms.
Intraoperative reversal of shallow rocuronium-induced block with either sugammadex or neostigmine is an efficient method. For reliable detection of lumbar nerve roots with a stimulating current of 10 mA, the block should be reversed to a TOF ratio of at least 0.70. For a current intensity of 5 mA, the TOF ratio should reach 0.90.
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.