Meralgia Paresthetica After Spine Surgery on the Jackson Table

The Short-Term Efficacy of Bikini Incision and Traditional Incision in Total Hip Replacement for Elderly Patients via the Direct Anterior Approach

Background

The study aimed to explore the short-term clinical efficacy of bikini incision and traditional incision in total hip replacement via the direct anterior approach.

Methods

The study enrolled 94 patients who underwent total hip replacement using the direct anterior approach between March 2018 and April 2020. They were assigned to the study group and the control group with 47 patients in each group using the random number table method. They received traditional incision and bikini incision, respectively. The operative time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, incision healing, postoperative Harris score, and occurrences of complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in operative time, incision length, and intraoperative estimated blood loss between the two groups (P > 0.05). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the study group than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in pain severity between the two groups (P > 0.05). No incision infection occurred in either group. The study group had small scar areas and scar scores than the control group (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in Harris scores between the two groups at three and six months postoperatively (P > 0.05). The rate of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury was lower in the study group than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Bikini incision in total hip replacement via the direct anterior approach can shorten the length of hospital stay, promote incision healing, lower the incidence of complications, improve the prognosis, and promote recovery of patients, and it is worthy of being promoted for wide clinical use.

Are the Choice of Frame and Intraoperative Patient Positioning Associated With Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes in Long-instrumented Lumbar Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity?

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of patient positioning during spinal surgery evaluated intraoperative or immediate postoperative outcomes after short-instrumented lumbar fusion. However, patient positioning during long-instrumented fusion for an adult spinal deformity (ASD) might be associated with differences in intraoperative parameters such as blood loss and longer-term outcomes such as spine alignment, and comparing types of surgical tables in the context of these larger procedures and evaluating longer-term outcome scores seem important.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Do blood loss and the number of transfusions differ between patients who underwent multi-level spinal fusion with a Wilson frame and those with a four-poster frame? (2) Does restoration of lumbar lordosis and the sagittal vertical axis differ between patients who underwent surgery with the use of one frame or the other? (3) Do clinical outcomes as determined by Numeric Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores differ between the two groups of patients? (4) Are there differences in postoperative complications between the two groups?

METHODS

Among 651 patients undergoing thoracolumbar instrumented fusion between 2015 and 2018, 129 patients treated with more than four levels of initial fusion for an ASD were identified. A total of 48% (62 of 129) were eligible; 44% (57 of 129) were excluded because of a history of fusion, three-column osteotomy, or surgical indications other than degenerative deformity, and another 8% (10 of 129) were lost before the minimum 2-year follow-up period. Before January 2017, one surgeon in this study used only a Wilson frame; starting in January 2017, the same surgeon consistently used a four-poster frame. Forty patients had spinal fusion using the Wilson frame; 85% (34 of 40) of these had follow-up at least 2 years postoperatively (mean 44 ± 13 months). Thirty-two patients underwent surgery using the four-poster frame; 88% (28 of 32) of these were available for follow-up at least 2 years later (mean 34 ± 6 months). The groups did not differ in terms of age, gender, BMI, type of deformity, or number of fused levels. Surgical parameters such as blood loss and the total amount of blood transfused were compared between the two groups. Estimated blood loss was measured by the amount of suction drainage and the amount of blood that soaked gauze. The decision to transfuse blood was based on intraoperative hemoglobin values, a protocol that was applied equally to both groups. Radiologic outcomes including sagittal parameters and clinical outcomes such as the Numerical Rating Scale score for back pain (range 0-10; minimal clinically important difference [MCID] 2.9) and leg pain (range 0-10; MCID 2.9) as well as the Oswestry Disability Index score (range 0-100; MCID 15.4) were also assessed through a longitudinally maintained database by two spine surgeons who participated in this study. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare selected radiologic outcomes between the two groups over time.

RESULTS

Blood loss and the total amount of transfused blood were greater in the Wilson frame group than in the four-poster frame group (2019 ± 1213 mL versus 1171 ± 875 mL; mean difference 848 [95% CI 297 to 1399]; p = 0.003 for blood loss; 1706 ± 1003 mL versus 911 ± 651 mL; mean difference 795 [95% CI 353 to 1237]; p = 0.001 for transfusion). Lumbar lordosis and the sagittal vertical axis were less restored in the Wilson frame group than in the four-poster frame group (7° ± 10° versus 18° ± 14°; mean difference -11° [95% -17° to -5°]; p < 0.001 for lumbar lordosis; -22 ± 31 mm versus -43 ± 27 mm; mean difference 21 [95% CI 5 to 36]; p = 0.009 for the sagittal vertical axis). Such differences persisted at 2 years of follow-up. The proportion of patients with the desired correction was also greater in the four-poster frame group than in the Wilson frame group immediately postoperatively and at 2 years of follow-up (50% versus 21%, respectively; odds ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.3 to 11.7]; p = 0.02; 43% versus 12%, respectively; odds ratio 5.6 [95% CI 1.6 to 20.3]; p = 0.005). We found no clinically important differences in postoperative patient-reported outcomes including Numeric Rating Scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores, and there were no differences in postoperative complications at 2 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The ideal patient position during surgery for an ASD should decrease intra-abdominal pressure and induce lordosis as the abdomen hangs freely and hip flexion is decreased. The four-poster frame appears advantageous for long-segment fusions for spinal deformities. Future studies are needed to extend our analyses to different types of spinal deformities and validate radiologic and clinical outcomes with follow-up for more than 2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE LEVEL

III, therapeutic study.

Extra-spinal sciatica and sciatica mimics: a scoping review

Not all sciatica-like manifestations are of lumbar spine origin. Some of them are caused at points along the extra-spinal course of the sciatic nerve, making diagnosis difficult for the treating physician and delaying adequate treatment. While evaluating a patient with sciatica, straightforward diagnostic conclusions are impossible without first excluding sciatica mimics. Examples of benign extra-spinal sciatica are: piriformis syndrome, walletosis, quadratus lumborum myofascial pain syndrome, cluneal nerve disorder, and osteitis condensans ilii. In some cases, extra-spinal sciatica may have a catastrophic course when the sciatic nerve is involved in cyclical sciatica, or the piriformis muscle in piriformis pyomyositis. In addition to cases of sciatica with clear spinal or extra-spinal origin, some cases can be a product of both origins; the same could be true for pseudo-sciatica or sciatica mimics, we simply don’t know how prevalent extra-spinal sciatica is among total sciatica cases. As treatment regimens differ for spinal, extra-spinal sciatica, and sciatica-mimics, their precise diagnosis will help physicians to make a targeted treatment plan. As published works regarding extra-spinal sciatica and sciatica mimics include only a few case reports and case series, and systematic reviews addressing them are hardly feasible at this stage, a scoping review in the field can be an eye-opener for the scientific community to do larger-scale prospective research.