Отправить письмо автору 
Написать комментарий 
RESULTS OF REVISION SURGERY FOR DEGENERATIVE DYSTROPHIC DISEASES OF THE LUMBOSACRAL SPINE
Abakirov M.D., Nurmukhametov R.M., Mamyrbaev S.T., Al-Bavarid O.A.
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Central Clinical Hospital of Russian Academy of Sciences, City Clinical Hosptal No.17, Demikhov City Clinical Hospital, Moscow, Russia
Degenerative dystrophic diseases of the lumbosacral
spine present the common problem for healthcare in the whole world. According
to V.M. Ravindra et al., about 266 million people (3.63 %) acquire this disease
each year [1]. Despite of high amount of surgical interventions for treatment
of degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, the requirement for revision
surgery has been increasing [2]. The values of satisfactory outcomes of
revision surgery for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine vary from 15 to
89.3 % [3]. The positive outcomes of recurrent surgery for recurrent disk
hernia are achieved in 96.8 %, for recurrent stenosis of the spinal canal – in 75 %, for unstable spinal motion segment – in 84.6 % [2].
However, despite of significant advances in surgical
management of degenerative diseases of the spine, the outcomes are not
satisfactory in all cases [4]. Poor outcomes of surgical interventions for the lumbosacral
spine are 10-40 % [5]. For surgical interventions for degenerative diseases of
the spine, the incidence of revision surgery is 40-44 % (The International Spine Registry SPINE TANGO, 2008). More than 87 % of
revision operations, which were performed within the first 3 years after
primary surgery, were associated with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) [6].
The incidence of recurrent surgery after primary discectomy is 5-18 % [7].
According to Seung-PyoSuhetal, 9-45 % of patients receive revision surgery due
to recurrent pain after primary surgical interventions [8]. According to Kim
C.H. et al., the values of recurrent interventions depending on a surgical
technique in their retrospective cohort study were 5.4 % in 3 months, 7.4 % –
after one year, 9 % – after 2 years, 10.5 % – after 3 years, 12.1 % – after 4
years, 13.4 % – after 5 years. The rates of recurrent surgery after laminectomy
were 18.6 %, after nucleolysis – 14.7 %, after opened discectomy – 13.8 %,
after endoscopic discectomy – 12.4 %, after spondylodesis – 11.8 % [7].
Recurrent
surgical interventions are carried out due to postsurgical complications or
technical errors, as well as owing to progressing degenerative changes such as
recurrent stenosis, unstable spinal motion segment, adjacent segment syndrome
or in combination of all factors [9]. Back pain due to unstable spinal segment
varies from 4 to 30 % [10]. According to J.C. tang et al., after subtotal
laminectomy, the instability of the spinal motion segment was more often after
bilateral partial hemilaminectomy or unilateral laminectomy (45.5 %, 37.5 % and
16.7 %, correspondingly) [11]. The subanalysis of 8-year data from Spine
Patient Outcome Research Trial (SPORT) showed that recurrent surgery for spinal
canal stenosis was 8 %, including 52 % for recurrent stenosis; 42 % of
procedures were conducted within 2 years, 70 % – within 4 years, 84 % –within 6 years [12].
The values of revision procedures for spinal canal stenosis after decompression
with spondylodesis were 9.7 %, and 7.2 % after decompression in one year; after
2 years – 14.6 % and 12.5 %,
correspondingly [13].
Currently, lumbar spine spondylodesis is conducted for
various spine diseases including degenerative diseases. The satisfactory results
vary from16 to 95 %. However, some poor outcomes are registered, including pseudoarthrosis
(6-36 %) [14]. Pseudoarthrosis is one of the main causes of pain syndrome, and
is the most common indication for revision surgery [15]. According to some
authors, the rates of pseudoarthrosis varied from 3 to 56 % after lumbar fusion
[16-17]. Recurrent intervertebral disk hernia is the common problem for spinal
surgery, with incidence of 2-25 % [18-19]. Adjacent segment disease is a degenerative
process developing in mobile segments above or beneath the operated segment,
with incidence of 2-9 %. The incidence of the X-ray sign of adjacent segment
disease varies from 5.2 to 100 % after lumbar spine surgery, the values of
symptomatic syndrome of the adjacent segment – from 2 to 30 %; 6.3-77 % of case – above the operated segment, 13 % – beneath the
operated level [20].
Objective
– to conduct the comparative analysis of results of revision surgery for
degenerative dystrophic diseases of the lumbosacral spine with use of
transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody
fusion (ALIF).
Figure 1. The scheme (axial view) of
surgical approach with use of ALIF and TLIF
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study included 50 patients with degenerative dystrophic diseases of the lumbosacral spine treated with revision surgery with ALIF and TLIF in 2017-2019. The patients were distributed into two groups according to a surgical technique. The group 1 consisted of 26 patients, age of 31-84 (М ± SD = 59.8 : 14.0), operated with TLIF. There were 12 men (46.2 %) and 14 women (53.8 %). Pain was estimated with VAS (М ± SD = 7.8 : 0.8 points). Oswestry index (М ± SD = 56.2 : 10.2). The group 2 consisted of 24 patients, age of 23-67, (М ± SD = 46.9 : 12.3), operated with ALIF. The ratio men-women was 16 (66.7 %) : 8 (33.3 %) in this group. Pain according to VAS (М ± SD = 50.4 : 11.5 points). Oswestry index (М ± SD = 56.2 : 10.2 %) (table 1).
Table 1. Presurgical demographic and clinical characteristics of patients according to surgery technique
|
Features |
Number of patients (%) |
p* |
|
|
Group
1 |
Group
2 |
||
|
Gender: |
|
|
> 0.05 |
|
Age М ± SD, |
59.8 ± 14.0 |
46.9 ± 12.3 |
< 0.01 |
|
ODI before surgery, М ± SD |
56.2 ± 10.2 |
50.4 ± 11.5 |
0.1 |
|
VAS before surgery, М ± SD |
7.8 ± 0.8 |
7.3 ± 1.2 |
> 0.05 |
Note: group 1 – decompressive stabilizing intervention with TLIF; group 2 – anterior decompression with ALIF in combination with TPF; * – level of significance of differences according to Mann-Whitney’s U-test.
The inclusion criteria were any revision surgery for recurrent stenosis or
disk hernia, abnormalities in the adjacent level, pseudoarthrosis, progressing
degenerative pathology or development of consequences relating to implanted
devices or fixing system.
The exclusion criteria were surgical management of traumatic pathology,
primary infectious lesion of the spine of their consequences; early
postsurgical revision surgery for abnormal surgical wound, including hematoma
or cerebrospinal fluid leakage, inadequate decompression or discectomy,
inadequate implantation of interbody implants or supporting elements of fixing
system.
Clinical and neurological examination: chronic pain in the back (VAS > 4 and/or ODI >
30 % within at least 3 last months); neurogenic intermittent claudication; root
pain syndrome or disordered sensitivity (all variants) in absence of effect of
conservative therapy; motion disorders (with muscular strength of 3 points and
less).
The complex of presurgical radiologic diagnosis included plain and functional X-ray imaging,
multi-spiral computer tomography(MSCT),magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Survey
spondilography was oriented to identification of common signs of degenerative
lesion of the spine: subchondral sclerosis, decreasing height of the
intervertebral disk, changes in shape of vetrebrae and facet joints, and spine
deformation. X-ray imaging with functional tests (in end positions of extension
and flexion) was carried out for estimating the position of metal elements, and
for assessing the instability of the construct or adjacent segments. Vertebral
displacement was estimated with a method described by А. White и М. Panjabi [21]. The instability of the spinal motion segment was
interpreted at values of 5 points and more.
MSCT was conducted
for all patients to clarify the stability of the metal construct, presence of
resorption foci in bone tissue in implant-bone contact site, as well as to
determine the criteria of spondylodesis and compressing influence on neural
structures of the spinal canal. MRI is not enough informative for estimation of
these values owing to presence of artefacts of metal elements, and it is
contraindicated for patients with cardiac stimulator. MRI is conducted for all
patients for estimation of degenerative dystrophic changes in the
intervertebral disk according to the classification by C. Pfirrmann [22], and
for assessment of reactive changes in subchondral part of vertebral bodies
according to the classification by M. Modic [23]. Spondyloarthrosis of facet
joints was estimated with the improved classification by D. Weishaupt [24].
Diagnosis of
recurrent spinal canal stenosis was based on the clinical picture with
dominating root pain syndrome and/or neurogenic intermittent claudification,
and with radiologic data. Central stenosis was estimated with the
classification by Schizas et al., which is based on estimation of distribution
of spinal fluid, cauda equina roots, epidural fibers on T2-weighted axial MRI
images [25]. Lateral stenosis was estimated with the classification by
Bartynski et al.: the degree 1 – deformation of lateral recess in comparison with the contralateral side;
the degree 2 – deformation of the
root with presence of focus of liquor; the degree 3 – rough compression with
obliteration of liquor spaces [26]. The classification by S. Lee et al. [27]
was used for diagnosis of foraminal stenosis, where the degree 1 is
obliteration of epidural fat tissue on both sides from the root in the
intervertebral foramina on sagittal scans in T1VI MRI; the degree 2 –
obliteration of epidural fat tissue on all sides from the root, but without
morphological changes; degree 3 –obliteration with morphological changes.
Pseudoarthrosis was estimated with presence of the bone block according to the
recommendation by Choudhri T.F. et al. [28].
The appropriate
bone block was acknowledged in presence of at least single continuous bone
bridge between vertebral bodies through the interbody implant and around it. In
the opposite case, inconsistency of formation of the bone block was
acknowledged. At the same time, the condition of the fixing system was
estimated: the fixing system was unstable in presence of a bilateral fracture
of longitudinal rods at the single level, or a fracture of both screws at least
in one vetebrae and/or presence of osteolysis around both screws at least in
one vertebrae.
In
the group 1 of patients, in case of clinically significant stenosis, the most
important thing was adequate decompression of vascular and neural structures of
the spinal canal, spondylodesis with TLIF – 14 (53.8) cases. Decompression was
conducted for adjacent segment disease, spondylodesis and prolongation of
fixation – in 4 (15.4 %) cases, total discectomy and spondylodesis – in 8 (30.8
%) cases.
In
the group 2, patients with pseudoarthrosis received ALIF in combination with
transpedicular fixation in 9 (37.6 %) cases. It was determined by technical
difficulties because of impossibility of change of the interbody cage,
including 10 (41.6 %) – for recurrent disk hernia, and 5 (20.8 %) cases – for
spinal canal stenosis determined by migration of the cage. The figure 2 shows a clinical example. The
table 2 shows the distribution of patients in dependence on a cause of revision surgery.
Table 2. Distribution of patients in dependence on cause of revision surgery
|
|
Recurrent stenosis |
Recurrent disk hernia |
Pseudoarthrosis |
Adjacent segment syndrome |
Total |
|||||
|
abs. |
% |
abs. |
% |
abs. |
% |
abs. |
% |
abs. |
% |
|
|
Group 1 |
14 |
53.8 |
8 |
30.8 |
- |
|
4 |
15.4 |
26 |
100 |
|
Group 2 |
5 |
20.8 |
10 |
41.6 |
9 |
37.6 |
- |
- |
24 |
100 |
|
Total |
19 |
38.0 |
18 |
36.0 |
9 |
18.0 |
4 |
8.0 |
50 |
100 |
Note: group 1 – decompressive stabilizing intervention with TLIF; group 2 – anterior decompression with ALIF in combination with TPF.
Figure 2. The patient, age of
81. Diagnosis:
“Pseudoarthrosis, migration of the cage with stenosis of spinal channel at
L4-L5. L5 radiculopathy to the left”. VAS – 8, ODI – 60 %: a), b) mark of the
cage in channel; c) the cage removed with ALIF; d), e) preparation of bed and
installment of autobone; f) CT after 1 year: VAS – 2, ODI –19 %
The results of revision surgical procedures were
analyzed in one year after surgery. Pain intensity (< 2 points – high degree)
was estimated with VAS. Functional activity and life quality were estimated
with Russian version of the Oswestry Disability Index [29]. Vital disorders were
minimal for ODI of 0-20 %, moderate – for 20-40 %, intense – for 40-60 %, disabling – for 60-80 %, extremely intense or exaggerated – for
80-100 %. MacNabscore was used.
Description of statistical methods. The study materials were exposed to statistical
preparation with parametric and non-parametric analysis. Accumulation,
correction and systematization of basic information and, and visualization of
results were performed in electronic tables with Microsoft Office Excel 2016.
The statistical analysis was conducted with IBM SPSS Statistics v.20 (IBM
Corporation). The variance analysis (Kruskal-Wallis test) was used for
comparison of two and more groups, followed by paired comparison (Dann test).
Mann-Whitney's test was used for comparison of two groups. The presence of a
relationship between the studied values was examined with contingency tables
(Fisher's exact test). Wilcoxon's test was used for analysis of recurrent
changes (over time). P value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
The study corresponds to the standards of Helsinki
Declare – Ethical Principles for Medical Research with Human
Subjects. The informed consent for data analysis was received.
RESULTS
Recurrent
stenosis of spinal canal was the main indication for revision surgery in 19 (38
%) patients. Recurrent disk hernia determined the indications for revision
surgery in 18 (36 %) patients. Adjacent segment disease was identified in 4 (8
%) cases. Pseudoarthrosis was the cause for revision surgery in 9 (18 %) patients.
The
comparative results of ODI and VAS after surgical treatment are presented in
the table 3. The group 2 (ALIF combined with TPF) showed the statistically significant
results: presurgical VAS –7.3 ±
1.2, postsurgical VAS – 1.7 ± 0.4, p < 0.001,
presurgical ODI – 50.4 ± 11.5, postsurgical ODI – 10.0 ± 4.6, p < 0.001. The
group 1 with decompressive stabilizing interventions (TLIF) also showed
statistically significant results: presurgical VAS – 7.8 ± 0.8,
postsurgical VAS – 2.7 ± 1.6, p < 0.001, presurgical
ODI – 56.2 ± 10.2,
postsurgical ODI – 20.6 ± 13.9, p < 0.001.
However, the comparative analysis showed better VAS and ODI in the group 2 (p
< 0.001).
Table 3. Comparative results of ODI and VAS before and after surgical treatment and between groups
|
Features |
Number of patients (%) |
Level of intergroup significance, p* |
|||||
|
Group 1 |
Group 2 |
||||||
|
before surgery |
after surgery |
p** |
before surgery |
after surgery |
p** |
|
|
|
Gender: |
|
|
|
|
> 0.05 |
||
|
Age, М ± SD, range (years) |
59.8 ± 14.0 |
|
46,9 ±12,3 |
|
< 0.01 |
||
|
ODI, М ± SD |
56.2 ± 10.2 |
20.6 ± 13.9 |
< 0.001 |
50.4 ± 11.5 |
10.0 ± 4.6 |
< 0.001 |
< 0.001 |
|
VAS, М ± SD |
7.8 ± 0.8 |
2.7 ± 1.6 |
< 0.001 |
7.3 ± 1.2 |
1.7 ± 0.4 |
< 0.001 |
< 0.01 |
Note: group 1 – decompressive stabilizing intervention with TLIF; group 2 – anterior decompression with ALIF in combination with TPF; * – level of significance of differences according to Mann-Whitney’s U-test; ** – estimation of significance of differences of values before and after treatment according to Wilcoxon’s test.
The
results of subjective estimation of revision surgery with MacNab score were
mainly positive: 42.30 % of excellent results, 34.60 % of good results and
11.50 % of poor results in the group 1. Poor results were determined by
preservation or development of pain syndrome. The group 2 showed 54.10 % of
excellent results, 25 % of good results and 16.60 % of satisfactory results.
The results are presented in the figure 3.
Figure 3. Results of subjective estimation of
revision surgery with MacNab score
The table 4 shows complications of intrasurgical and early postsurgical period after revision surgery. 3 cases (11.5 %) with superficial infection of surgical site were treated with sanitation, opened management of the wound, and antibacterial therapy according to results of bacteriological studies. For a sudden injury to dura matter (3 cases, 11.5 %), a defect was covered with the muscular flap with use of surgical glue Ivisel (Biopharmaceuticals Ltd., Israel). For 2 cases (8.3 %) with iliac vein injuries, the integrity of the injured part was recovered with application of vascular sutures. In the postsurgical period, early activation and anticoagulant therapy were conducted. There were not any signs of venous insufficiency. Transitory retrograde ejaculation was identified in 1 (4.1 %) patient.
Table 4. Results of complications of intrasurgical and postsurgical period in revision surgery
|
Complications |
Revision surgery techniques |
|
|
Decompressive stabilizing intervention with TLIF |
Anterior decompression with ALIF and TPF |
|
|
Non-healing wounds |
3 (11.5 %) |
- |
|
Durotomy |
3 (11.5 %) |
- |
|
Iliac vein injury |
- |
2 (8.3 %) |
|
Transitory retrograde ejaculation |
- |
1(4.1 %) |
Note: no reliable differences (Fisher’s exact test).
DISCUSSION
According to the
literature data, the values of poor results of revision surgery for
degenerative dystrophic diseases of the lumbar spine vary from 15 % to 83.9 %
[3-30]. In our study, the values of excellent results were 96.40 % of cases,
the satisfactory results – 59.60 %. Recurrent
disk hernia and subsequent degeneration after discectomy present the common
problem with incidence of 2-25 % [31]. This is one of the main causes of
revision surgery after primary surgery. In our study, recurrent disk hernia was
identified in 36 %. Adjacent segment disease was 8 %. Adjacent segment disease
is the natural process for patients with degenerative dystrophic diseases of
the spine which is promoted by surgical intervention, which is, however, is not
its cause. According to literature data, the values of symptomatic adjacent
segment syndrome are 2-30 % [32]. According to some authors, the values of
pseudoarthrosis varied from 3 to 56 % [16-17]. In our study, pseudoarthrosis
was 18 % which is similar with data in the foreign literature.
According to some
authors, ALIF with TPF can be the efficient alternative in revision surgery of
the lumbosacral spine [33-34]. The systematic review and metaanalysis were
performed for assessment of efficiency of ALIF for treatment of recurrent disk
hernia in 7 studies. The mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was 50.5 (95 % CI
26.8-74.2; I² = 99.42 %, p < 0.001). The
mean improvement in VAS for back pain was 4.8 % (95 % CI
3.05–6.5; I² = 98.37 %; p < 0.001). The
main improvement in VAS for legs was 3.7 (95 % CI 2.7–4.6; I² = 85.57 %; p < 0.001) [35]. According to Ralph J. and Mobbs et al.,
ALIF as the alternative technique for lumbar pseudoarthrosis after insufficient
surgery with TLIF or PLIF showed some excellent differences between presurgical
(7.25 ± 0.8) and postsurgical (3.1 ± 2.1) VAS (p < 0.0001). ODI also showed a
statistically significant decrease (p < 0.0001). The values of SF-12 were
significantly better (p = 0.0001). Totally, 95 % of cases achieved spondylodesis
[36]. In our study, ALIF combined with TPF showed some statistically
significant results: presurgical VAS – 7.3 ± 1.2, postsurgical VAS – 1.7 ± 0.4,
p < 0.001, presurgical ODI – 50.4
± 11.5, postsurgical ODI
– 10 ± 4.6, p < 0.001.
According
to Mohammad El-Sh. et al., the comparative analysis of treatment outcomes of
pseudoarthrosis with use of TLIF showed significantly better mean VAS (p =
0.001) and ODI (p = 0.001). Complete fusion was 97.7 % in TLIF, 38.1 % – in PLF (p = 0.001) [19]. A separate study of TLIF in
treatment of failed back surgery syndrome showed excellent results in 35 (83.3
%) patients, good results – in 4 patients (9.5 %) and satisfactory ones – in 3
patients (7.1 %) [37]. In our study, the values of decompressive stabilizing
interventions with TLIF showed statistically significant results: presurgical
VAS – 7.8 ± 0.8, postsurgical VAS – 2.7 ± 1.6,
p < 0.001, presurgical ODI – 56.2
± 10.2, postsurgical ODI
– 20.6 ± 13.9, p < 0.001.
There are some differences between primary and
revision surgery, including changes in tissues, epidural fibrosis with
concurrent risk of accidental durotomy, adjacent segment disease after
stabilization or instability after extensive laminectomy. The most common
intrasurgical complications of revision surgery were ruptures of dura matter
due to scarry changes. According to Cammisa et al., dura matter laceration
appears in 3.1 % in revision surgery on average [38]. Papavero L. et al. (2015) [39] reported on 14.3 % of durotomy cases in
revision surgery, however, without any long term complications. In all cases, dura
matter was restored intrasurgically. In our study, dura matter injury was noted
in 3 (5.4 %) patients. The incidence of superficial wound infection was 5.4 %.
Lots of authors explained this fact with devascularization after primary
surgery [40]. It is reported that the incidence of retrograde ejaculation in
men after anterior interbody fusion varied from 0.42 to 5.9 % [41]. In our
study, transitory retrograde ejaculation was in 1 (4.1 %) case. According to Mobbs
R.J. et al., intrasurgical vascular injury in use of ALIF, requiring for
primary recovery with suturing, was in 6.6 % [42]. In our case, the external
iliac vein injury was observed in 2 patients (8.3 %).
CONCLUSION
ALIF with TPF as the revision surgery technique allows
total discectomy for recurrent disk hernia, decreases the time of traction of
paraspinal muscles, and causes less
postsurgical pain and lower blood loss during surgery, and lower spinal cord
and its roots injury after traction. Recurrent posterior approach can lead to
higher risk of dura matter rupture, higher removal of the posterior supporting
column for approach to disk space, which can be hindered by scar tissue and
epidural fibrosis. These complications could be potentially prevented with anterior
approach. Moreover, anterior approach to the lumbar spine allows installing the
bigger cages with wider contact surface, resulting in correction of lumbar
lordosis and recovery of sagittal balance, which is also important in revision
surgery for degenerative dystrophic diseases of the lumbosacral spine.
However, ALIF has some risks. One of the main
complications is magistral vascular injury and retrograde ejaculation.
Information on financing and conflict of interests
The
study was conducted without sponsorship.
The authors declare the absence of any clear and
potential conflicts of interests relating to publication of this article.
REFERENCES:
1. Ravindra
VM, Steven SS, Abbas R, Michael CD, Roger H, Erica B, et al. Degenerative
lumbar spine disease: estimating global incidence and worldwide volume. Global Spine J. 2018; 8(8): 784-794. DOI: 10.1177/2192568218770769
2. Hosni HS,
Tarek HA. Revision surgery in lumbar degenerative disease. Zagazig University Medical Journals. 2019; 25(3): 344-349. DOI: 10.21608/ZUMJ.2019.30933
3. Phillips
FM, Carlson GD, Bohlman HH, Hughes SS. Results of surgery for spinal stenosis
adjacent to previous lumbar fusion. Journal
of Spinal Disorders. 2000; 13(5): 432-437. DOI: 10.1097/00002517-200010000-00011
4. Riccardo
C, Alessandro P, Valentina M, Venceslao W, Emanuele P, Sergio P, et al.
Assessing the real benefits of surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis
without instability and spondylolisthesis: a single surgeon experience with a
mean 8-year follow-up. J OrthopTraumatol.
2018; 19(1): 6. DOI: 10.1186/s10195-018-0497-8
5. Zagorodniy
NV, Abakirov MD, Dotsenko VV. Recurrent surgery for lumbar spine in
degenerative diseases. New Medical Technologies. 2008; (3):
16-39. Russian (Загородний Н. В. Абакиров М. Д.
Доценко В. В. Повторные операции на поясничном отделе позвоночника при
дегенеративных заболеваниях //Новые медицинские технологии. 2008. № 3. C. 16-39)
6. Bulakhtin
YuA, Bulakhtin YuYu. Surgical treatment of patients with failed back surgery
syndrome. Health. Medical Ecology. Science.
2012; 1-2(47-48): 69. Russian (Булахтин Ю.А. Булахтин Ю.Ю. Хирургическое лечение
больных с синдромом неудачной хирургии поясничного отдела позвоночника
//Здоровье. Медицинская экология. Наука. 2012. № 1-2(47-48). С. 69)
7. Kim CH, Chung
CK, Park CS, Choi B, Kim MJ, Park BJ. Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar
herniated intervertebral disc disease: nationwide cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(7):
581-590. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318274f9a7
8. Seung-PS,
Young-HJ, Hae WJ, Won RC, Chang-NK. Outcomes of revision surgery following
instrumented posterolateral fusion in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a
comparative analysis between pseudarthrosis and adjacent segment disease. Asian Spine J. 2017; 11(3): 463-471. DOI: 10.4184/asj.2017.11.3.463
9. Justin MD, Rachel MD, Christopher M.B.
Recurrent lumbar spinal stenosis: Etiology and surgical management. Seminars in Spine Surgery. 2013; 25(4):
283-294. DOI: org/10.1053/j.semss.2013.05.009
10. Chirchiglia
D, Chirchiglia P, Murrone D. Postural instability after lumbar spinal surgery:
are there any predictive factors? A case control study. Chin Neurosurg J. 2018; 4: 40. DOI: 10.1186/s41016-018-0147-2
11. Yang JC, Kim SG, Kim TW, Park KH. Analysis of factors contributing to postoperative
spinal instability after lumbar decompression for spinal stenosis. Korean J Spine. 2013; 10(3): 149-154. DOI:
10.14245/kjs.2013.10.3.149
12. Michael
CG, Dante L, Peter GP, Virginie L, Kristina B, Alexandra L, et al. Risk factors
for reoperation in patients treated surgically for lumbar stenosis. A
subanalysis of the 8-year data from the SPORT Trial. Spine. 2016; 41(10):
901-909
13. Modhia U, Takemoto S,
Braid-Forbes MJ, Weber M, Berven SH. Readmission rates after decompression
surgery in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis among Medicare beneficiaries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38(7):
591-596. DOI:
10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828628f5
14. Etminan M, Girardi FP, Khan SN, Cammisa FP Jr. Revision strategies for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Orthop Clin N Am. 2002; 33(2): 381-392. DOI: org/10.1016/S0030-5898(02)00005-6
15. Dede O,
Thuillier D, Pekmezci M, Ames CP, Hu SS, Berven SH, Deviren V. Revision surgery
for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Spine J.
2015; 15(5): 977-982. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.05.039
16. Gologorsky
Y, Skovrlj B, Steinberger J, Moore M, Arginteanu M, Moore F, et al. Increased
incidence of pseudarthrosis after unilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar
interbody fusion in patients with lumbar spondylosis: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 21(4): 601-607.
DOI: 10.3171/2014.6.SPINE13488
17. Saleh SB,
Belen GM, David CN. Long-Term outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion
using stand-alone ray threaded cage for degenerative disk disease: a 20-year
follow-up. Asian Spine Journal. 2016;
10(6): 1100-1105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.6.1100
18. Leven
D, Passias PG, Errico TJ, Lafage V, Bianco K, Lee A, et al. Risk factors for reoperation
in patients treated surgically for intervertebral disc herniation: a
subanalysis of eight-year SPORT Data. J
Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97(16): 1316-1325. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01287
19. El-Sharkawiorcid
M, Koptan W, Miligui YEl. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for
revision of failed posterolateral spinal fusion. Egyptian Spine Journal (ESJ). 2012; 2: 1-9. DOI:
10.21608/ESJ.2012.3784
20. Okuda S,
Yamashita T, Matsumoto T, Nagamoto Y, Sugiura T, Takahashi Y, et al. Adjacent
segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a case series of 1000
patients. Global Spine J. 2018; 8(7):
722-727. DOI: 10.1177/2192568218766488
21. Panjabi
MM, White AA 3rd. Basic biomechanics of the spine. Neurosurgery. 1980; 7(1): 76-93. DOI: 10.1227/00006123-198007000-00014
22. Pfirrmann
CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification
of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(17): 1873-1878. DOI:
10.1097/00007632-200109010-00011
23. Modic MT, Steinberg PM, Ross
JS, Masaryk TJ, Carter JR. Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in
vertebral body marrow with MR imaging. Radiology.
1988; 166(1. Pt 1): 193-199. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.166.1.3336678
24. Weishaupt
D, Zanetti M, Boos N, Hodler J. MR imaging and CT in osteoarthritis of the
lumbar facet joints. Skeletal Radiology.
1999; 28(4): 215-219. DOI: 10.1007/s002560050503
25. Schizas C,
Theumann N, Burn A, Tansey R, Wardlaw D, Smith FW, Kulik G. Qualitative grading
of severity of lumbar spinal stenosis based on the morphology of the dural sac
on magnetic resonance images. Spine.
2010; 35(21): 1919-1924. DOI: 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181d359bd
26. Bartynski
WS, Lin L. Lumbar root compression in the lateral recess: MR imaging, conventional
myelography, and CT myelography comparison with surgical confirmation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2003; 24(3):
348-360
27. Lee S, Lee JW, Yeom JS, Kim KJ, Kim HJ, Chung SK, et al. A practical MRI grading system for lumbar
foraminal stenosis. Am. J. Roentgenol.
2010; 194(4): 1095-1098. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2772
28. Choudhri
TF, Mummaneni PV, Dhall SS, Eck JC, Groff MW, Ghogawala Z, et al. Guideline
update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the
lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion status. J. Neurosurg. Spine. 2014; 21(1): 23-30.
DOI:
10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14267
29. Cherepanov
EA. Russian version of Oswestry questionnaire: cultural adaptation and
validity: practical recommendations. Spine Surgery. 2009; (3): 93-98. Russian (Черепанов Е. А. Русская версия
опросника Освестри: культурная адаптация и валидность: практические
рекомендации //Хирургия позвоночника. 2009. №
3. С. 93-98)
30. Wong CB,
Chen WJ, Chen LH, Niu CC, Lai PL. Clinical outcomes of revision lumbar spinal
surgery: 124 patients with a minimum of two years of follow-up. Chang Gung Med J. 2002; 25(3): 175-182
31. Nicholas
S, Woojin C. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a review. Global Spine J. 2019; 9(2): 202-209. DOI: 10.1177/2192568217745063
32. Quinn JC, Buchholz AL, Buell T,
Haid R, Bess S, Lafage V, et al. Adjacent segment
disease after lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Prevention and treatment. Contemporary Neurosurgery. 2018; 40(18):
1-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.CNE.0000550406.53097.7b
33. Lee SH,
Kang BU, Jeon SH, Park JD, Maeng DH, Choi YG, et al. Revision surgery of the
lumbar spine: anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous pedicle
screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine.
2006; 5(3): 228-233. DOI: 10.3171/spi.2006.5.3.228
34. Yun DJ, Yu
JW, Jeon SH, Lee HC, Lee SH. Salvage anterior lumbar iInterbody fusion for
pseudoarthrosis after posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a
review of 10 patients. World Neurosurg.
2018; 111: e746-e755. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.155. Epub 2018 Jan 5
35. Kevin P,
Alan L, Nicholas C, Yam-Ting H, David Abi-H, Jack K, et al. Anterior lumbar
interbody fusion (ALIF) as an option for recurrent disc herniations: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. J
Spine Surg. 2017; 3(4): 587-595. DOI: 10.21037/jss.2017.11.04
36. Ralph JM,
Kevin P, Ganesha KT, Prashanth JR. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion as a
salvage technique for pseudarthrosis following posterior lumbar fusion surgery.
Global Spine J. 2016; 6(1): 14-20.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1055/s-0035-1555656
37. Ali MM,
Figen A, Ezzat M.El-H, Mohamed A.M. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in
failed back surgery. Egyptian Orthopedic
Journal. 2012; 47: 265-270. DOI: 10.7123/01.EOJ.0000417985.13365.28
38. Cammisa FP
Jr, Girardi FP, Sangani PK, Parvataneni HK, Cadag S, Sandhu HS. Incidental
durotomy in spine surgery. Spine
(Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(20): 2663-2667. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200010150-00019
39. Papavero
L, Engler N, Kothe R. Incidental durotomy in spine surgery: first aid in ten
steps. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(9):
2077-2084. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3837-x
40. Eichholz KM, Ryken TC. Complications of
revision spinal surgery. Neurosurg Focus.
2003; 15(3): E1. DOI: 10.3171/foc.2003.15.3.1
41. Sasso RC,
Kenneth BJ, LeHuec JC. Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody
fusion: transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal exposure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(10): 1023-1026. DOI:
10.1097/01.BRS.0000062965.47779.EB
42. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Daly D, Rao PJ, Lennox A. Approach-related complications of anterior lumbar
interbody fusion: results of a combined spine and vascular surgical team. Global Spine J. 2016; 6(2): 147-154. DOI:
10.1055/s-0035-1557141
Статистика просмотров
Ссылки
- На текущий момент ссылки отсутствуют.
