Komplikationen im zeitlichen Verlauf nach einer operativen Wirbelsäulenversorgung

Impact of Metabolic Syndrome on Early Postoperative Outcomes After Cervical Disk Replacement: A Propensity-matched Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following cervical disk replacement (CDR) among patients with and without metabolic syndrome (MetS).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The prevalence of MetS-involving concurrent obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia-has increased in the United States over the last 2 decades. Little is known about the impact of MetS on early postoperative outcomes and complications following CDR.

METHODS

The 2005-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients with and without MetS were divided into 2 cohorts. MetS was defined, according to other National Surgical Quality Improvement Program studies, as concurrent diabetes mellitus, hypertension requiring medication, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 . Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, complications, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition were compared using χ 2 and Fisher exact tests. One to 2 propensity-matching was performed, matching for demographics, comorbidities, and number of operative levels.

RESULTS

A total of 5395 patients were included for unmatched analysis. Two hundred thirty-six had MetS, and 5159 did not. The MetS cohort had greater rates of 30-day readmission (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P =0.023), morbidity (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P =0.032), nonhome discharges (3% vs. 0.6%; P =0.002), and longer hospital stays (1.35±4.04 vs. 1±1.48 days; P =0.029). After propensity-matching, 699 patients were included. All differences reported above lost significance ( P >0.05) except for 30-day morbidity (superficial wound infections), which remained higher for the MetS cohort (2.5% vs. 0.4%, P =0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified MetS as an independent predictor of 30-day morbidity in the form of superficial wound infections following single-level CDR. Although MetS patients experienced greater rates of 30-day readmission, nonhome discharge, and longer lengths of stay, MetS did not independently predict these outcomes after controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Early fusion outcome after surgical treatment of single-level and multi-level pyogenic spondylodiscitis: experience at a level 1 center for spinal surgery-a single center cohort study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective single center cohort study.

PURPOSE

Spinal instrumentation in combination with antibiotic therapy is a treatment option for acute or chronic pyogenic spondylodiscitis (PSD). This study compares the early fusion outcome for multi-level and single-level PSD after urgent surgical treatment with interbody fusion in combination with fixation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Over a 10 year period at a single institution, all surgically treated patients received surgical debridement, fusion und fixation of the spine to treat PSD. Multi-level cases were either adjacent to each other on the spine or distant. Fusion rates were assessed at 3 and 12 months after surgery. We analyzed demographic data, ASA status, duration of surgery, location and length of spine affected, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and early complications.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included. Of these, 114 patients suffered from single-level and 58 from multi-level PSD. The most frequent location was the lumbar spine (54.0%) followed by the thoracic spine (18.0%). The PSD was adjacent in 19.0% and distant in 81.0% of multi-level cases. Fusion rates at the 3 month follow-up did not differ among the multi-level group (p = 0.27 for both adjacent and distant sites). In the single-level group, sufficient fusion was achieved in 70.2% of cases. Pathogen identification was possible 58.5% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment of multi-level PSD is a safe option. Our study demonstrates that there was no significant difference in early fusion outcomes between single-level and multi-level PSD, whether adjacent or distant.

Indications for early revision surgery for material failure in spinal instrumentation: experience at a level 1 center for spinal surgery - a single-center study

Posterior instrumentation is an established treatment for a range of spinal disorders. Material failure is not uncommon, and the indications for a revision are very heterogeneous. This study aimed to evaluate the indications and timing for early revision spinal surgery due to material failure.In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, patients underwent spinal posterior instrumentation between January 2017 and July 2019. They were followed up at 3, 12, and 18 months postoperatively. The time of onset of material failure which led to revision surgery was analyzed. In addition, the relationship between the indications for revision surgery and independent variables was examined using a multivariate logistic regression model.A total of one hundred thirty-five patients were enrolled. Radiolucent zones were found in 30 patients (20%) after 3 months, whereas 48 patients (31%) had radiolucent zones after 12 months. Revision surgery was performed in 13 patients (8.5%). The peak time for revision due to instability was within the first four months of the primary surgery. Multivariate analysis revealed that location, pathology, ASA score, and smoking had no significant impact on the indication for revision surgery, and neither did BMI (P = .042). Non-fusion (P = .007) and radiolucent zones (P = .004), in combination with increased pain (P = .006), were predictors for revision.Our data show that the peak time for early revision of material failure after posterior instrumentation was within the first 4 months of primary surgery. The abnormalities (e.g., radiolucent zones) surrounding the screws without fusion, including persistence of pain, were predictors for revision surgery.

Biomechanical performance of bicortical versus pericortical bone trajectory (CBT) pedicle screws

PURPOSE

The cortical bone trajectory (CBT) is an alternative to the traditional pedicle screw trajectory (TT) in posterior spinal instrumentation, enhancing screw contact with cortical bone and therefore increasing fixation strength. Additional to the trajectory, insertion depth (pericortical vs. bicortical placement) could be a relevant factor affecting the fixation strength. However, the potential biomechanical benefit of a bicortical placement of CBT screws is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify the fixation strength of pericortical- versus bicortical-CBT (pCBT versus bCBT) screws in a randomized cadaveric study.

METHODS

Pedicle screws were either placed pericortical or bicortical with a CBT in 20 lumbar vertebrae (2 × 20 instrumented pedicles) from four human spine cadavers by using patient-specific templates. Instrumented specimens underwent physiological cyclic loading testing (1'800'000 cycles, 10 Hz), including shear and tension loads as well as bending moments. Translational and angular displacements of the screws were quantified and compared between the two techniques.

RESULTS

There was a slight decrease in translational (0.2 mm ± 0.09 vs. 0.24 mm ± 0.11) and angular displacements (0.06° ± 0.05 vs. 0.13° ± 0.11) of bCBT screws when compared with pCBT screws after 1'800'000 cycles. However, the results were non-significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The authors do not recommend placing CBT screws bicortically, as no relevant biomechanical advantage is gained while the potential risk for iatrogenic injury to structures anterior to the spine is increased.