Outcome of a posterior spinal fusion technique using spinous process wire and vertical strut

Adeolu, Augustine Abiodun; Komolafe, E O

doi:10.4103/1596-3519.126947

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The pooled average SSI rate was calculated to be 1.6% (median, 2.8%; range, 0.2%–18.3%) based on 64 cohorts comprising a total of 212,639 patients. Patients who underwent instrumented spinal fusion procedures were evaluated for SSIs in 35 identified studies [6,12,25,28,35,37,39,48,50,61,67,74,77,78,84,85,90,93,97,98,101,112,121,122,126,127,132,134,135,137,148,154,156,160,174]. The pooled average SSI rate was calculated to be 3.8% (median, 4.2%; range, 0.4%–20%) based on 39 cohorts with a total of 28,628 patients.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Burden of Surgical Site Infections Associated with Select Spine Operations and Involvement ofStaphylococcus aureus

Patel¹,

Khoury²,

Girgenti

et al. 2017

Surgical Infections

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Spine operations may be indicated for treatment of diseases including vertebral injuries, degenerative spinal conditions, disk disease, spinal misalignments, or malformations. Surgical site infection (SSI) is a clinically important complication of spine surgery. Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), is a leading cause of post-spinal SSIs.Methods: PubMed and applicable infectious disease conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant published studies. Overall, 343 full-text publications were screened for epidemiologic, mortality, health care resource utilization, and cost data on SSIs associated with specified spine operations.Results: Surgical site infection rates were identified in 161 studies from North America, Europe, and Asia. Pooled average SSI and S. aureus SSI rates for spine surgery were 1.9% (median, 3.3%; range, 0.1%–22.6%) and 1.0% (median, 2.0%; range, 0.02%–10.0%). Pooled average contribution of S. aureus infections to spinal SSIs was 49.3% (median, 50.0%; range, 16.7%–100%). Pooled average proportion of S. aureus SSIs attributable to MRSA was 37.9% (median, 42.5%; range, 0%–100%). Instrumented spinal fusion had the highest pooled average SSI rate (3.8%), followed by spinal decompression (1.8%) and spinal fusion (1.6%). The SSI-related mortality rate among spine surgical patients ranged from 1.1%–2.3% (three studies). All studies comparing SSI and control cohorts reported longer hospital stays for patients with SSIs. Pooled average SSI-associated re-admission rate occurring within 30 d from discharge ranged from 20% to 100% (four studies). Pooled average SSI-related re-operation rate was 67.1% (median, 100%; range, 33.5%–100%). According to two studies reporting direct costs, spine surgical patients incur approximately double the health care costs when they develop an SSI.Conclusions: Available published studies demonstrate a clinically important burden of SSIs related to spine operations and the substantial contribution of S. aureus (including MRSA). Preventive strategies aimed specifically at S. aureus SSIs could reduce health care costs and improve patient outcomes for spine operations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Burden of Surgical Site Infections Associated with Select Spine Operations and Involvement ofStaphylococcus aureus

Patel¹,

Khoury²,

Girgenti

et al. 2017

Surgical Infections

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seeking solutions, some LMIC centers have employed costeffective methods of spinal fixation, such as the Adeolu technique in Nigeria, where stabilization is achieved with a modified Rush nail as a vertical strut secured to the spine with sublaminar cerclage wire [21]. The same authors used this technique in 30 patients with TSI, and 94% of patients were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the procedure [8,22]. Wiring for cervical injuries and Luque rods for multilevel thoracic and lumbar fixation have also been used [9].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonoperative treatment of traumatic spinal injuries in Tanzania: who is not undergoing surgery and why?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design Retrospective, cohort study of a prospectively collected database. Objectives In a cohort of patients with traumatic spine injury (TSI) in Tanzania who did not undergo surgery, we sought to:(1) describe this nonoperative population, (2) compare outcomes to operative patients, and (3) determine predictors of nonoperative treatment. Setting Tertiary referral hospital. Methods All patients admitted for TSI over a 33-month period were reviewed. Variables included demographics, fracture morphology, neurologic exam, indication for surgery, length of hospitalization, and mortality. Regression analyses were used to report outcomes and predictors of nonoperative treatment. Results 270 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 145 were managed nonoperatively. Demographics between groups were similar. The nonoperative group was young (mean = 35.5 years) and primarily male (n = 125, 86%). Nonoperative patients had 7.39 times the odds of death (p = 0.003). Patients with AO type A0/1/2/3 fractures (p < 0.001), ASIA E exams (p = 0.016), cervical spine injuries (p = 0.005), and central cord syndrome (p = 0.016) were more commonly managed nonoperatively. One hundred and twenty-four patients (86%) had indications for but did not undergo surgery. After multivariate analysis, the only predictor of nonoperative management was sustaining a cervical injury (p < 0.001). Conclusions Eighty-six percent of nonoperative TSI patients had an indication for surgery. Nonoperative management was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Cervical injury was the single independent risk factor for not undergoing surgery. The principle reason for nonoperative management was cost of implants. While a causal relationship between nonoperative management and inferior outcomes cannot be made, efforts should be made to provide surgery when indicated, regardless of a patient's ability to pay.

show abstract

“… 5 Due to insufficient funds, many patients are relegated to nonoperative care, consisting of bed rest for 3 months. 6 - 8 Case series from Nigeria 9 and Ghana 10 report operative rates ranging from 47% to 57% in patients with surgical indications. While implants have a high upfront cost, the value of spine trauma surgery may be realized through achieving early mobilization, neurologic improvement, and return to wage-earning jobs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effectiveness of Operating on Traumatic Spinal Injuries in Low-Middle Income Countries: A Preliminary Report From a Major East African Referral Center

Lessing

Zuckerman

Lazaro

et al. 2020

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. Objectives: While the incidence of traumatic spine injury (TSI) is high in low-middle income countries (LMICs), surgery is rarely possible due to cost-prohibitive implants. The objective of this study was to conduct a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of operative treatment of TSI patients in a LMIC setting. Methods: At a tertiary hospital in Tanzania from September 2016 to May 2019, a retrospective analysis was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of operative versus nonoperative treatment of TSI. Operative treatment included decompression/stabilization. Nonoperative treatment meant 3 months of bed rest. Direct costs included imaging, operating fees, surgical implants, and length of stay. Four patient scenarios were chosen to represent the heterogeneity of spine trauma: Quadriplegic, paraplegic, neurologic improvement, and neurologically intact. Disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYs) and incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to determine the cost per unit benefit of operative versus nonoperative treatment. Cost/DALY averted was the primary outcome (i.e., the amount of money required to avoid losing 1 year of healthy life). Results: A total of 270 TSI patients were included (125 operative; 145 nonoperative). Operative treatment averaged $731/patient. Nonoperative care averaged $212/patient. Comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment, the incremental cost/DALY averted for each patient outcome was: quadriplegic ($112-$158/DALY averted), paraplegic ($47-$67/DALY averted), neurologic improvement ($50-$71/DALY averted), neurologically intact ($41-$58/DALY averted). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings without major differences. Conclusions: This preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that the upfront costs of spine trauma surgery may be offset by a reduction in disability. LMIC governments should consider conducting more spine trauma cost-effectiveness analyses and including spine trauma surgery in universal health care.

show abstract

Outcome of a posterior spinal fusion technique using spinous process wire and vertical strut

Abstract: The technique appears safe and effective in carefully selected cases. The technique needs further evaluation in a larger patient population and with a longer duration of follow-up.

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

Burden of Surgical Site Infections Associated with Select Spine Operations and Involvement ofStaphylococcus aureus

Burden of Surgical Site Infections Associated with Select Spine Operations and Involvement ofStaphylococcus aureus

Nonoperative treatment of traumatic spinal injuries in Tanzania: who is not undergoing surgery and why?

Cost-Effectiveness of Operating on Traumatic Spinal Injuries in Low-Middle Income Countries: A Preliminary Report From a Major East African Referral Center

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About