Search

Retrospective cohort study OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term effects of bone cement-augmented instrumentation in multilevel lumbar fusions SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cement-augmented screw is one of the techniques used to reduce early mechanical failure in multilevel lumbar fusion, especially in the elderly. However, there is little information regarding the long-term effects.Fifty one patients who underwent three or more levels of lumbar fusion were divided into two groups according to bone cement-augmented screw fixation involving the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV): 22 patients (cemented group, group I) and 29 patients (non-cemented group, group II). The analysis of radiographic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) involved patients with lumbosacral fusion showing a similar degree of osteoporosis. Radiologic ASD was defined as more than two UCLA grades of progression at 2 years postoperatively. Other sagittal parameters were analyzed and preoperative MR Pfirrmann grades for adjacent level, probably related to ASD.Even when no significant differences existed in preoperative demographic and radiographic parameters between the two groups, the postoperative kyphotic changes at 3 months were higher in the non-cemented group. In terms of long-term effects, radiologic ASD (20 patients (95.2%) in group I; 15 (53.6%) in group II) was significantly higher in the cemented group. Logistic regression analysis of radiologic ASD including other clinical and radiological parameters, postoperative PI-LL mismatch (OR 5.201, 95% CI 1.123-24.090, p = 0.035) and cement augmentation (OR 20.193, 95% CI 2.195-185.729, p = 0.008) showed a significant correlation with the development of radiologic ASD at postoperative 2 years.Although bone cement-augmented screw implantation can prevent kyphotic deformation at the proximal junction of UIV in early postoperative stages of multi-level lumbar fusion, a discreet selection of patients is required due to possible accelerated degeneration of adjacent segments.

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an effective and popular surgical procedure for the management of various spinal pathologies, especially degenerative diseases. Currently, LIF can be performed with posterior, transforaminal, anterior, and lateral approaches by open surgery or minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. In general, posterior LIF is a well-established procedure with good fusion rates and low complication rates but is limited by the possibility of iatrogenic injury to the neural structures and paraspinal muscles. Transforaminal LIF is frequently performed using an MIS technique and has an advantage of reducing these iatrogenic injuries. Anterior LIF (ALIF) can restore the disk height and sagittal alignment but has inherent approach-related challenges such as visceral and vascular complications. Lateral LIF and oblique LIF are performed using an MIS technique and have shown postoperative outcomes similar to ALIF; however, these approaches carry a risk of injury to psoas, lumbar plexus, and vascular structures. Herein, we provide a detailed description of the surgical procedures of each LIF technique. We shall then consider the pearls and pitfalls, as well as propose surgical indications and contraindications based on the available evidence in the literatures.

Purpose: We evaluated the change of the ulnar variance (UV) as forearm rotation in patients with ulnocarpal impaction syndrome (UIS). Methods: Twenty patients who suffered from ulnar side pain of the wrist and had abnormal lesions at ulno-basal side of the lunate in the radiologic examinations were included in this study. Their UVs in six wrist position (neutral, supination, pronation, neutral and grip, supination and grip, pronation and grip) were measured by the method of perpendiculars. UVs and the maximum change of UV in patients with UIS were compared with those of control group statistically. Results: There were statistically significant differences in UVs of all forearm rotation and grip status. The maximum change of UV was in supination position to pronation and grip status for all cases. The mean maximum change of UV in patients with UIS was 2.03±1.03 mm, and that of control group was 1.86 ±0.86 mm. But there was no significant difference between them. The ulnar shortening osteotomy was performed for thirteen UIS patients, and one patient with osteoarthritis at distal radio-ulnar joint was operated with Darrach procedure. Six patients underwent conservative treatment. Conclusion: There were no significant differences in the maximum change of UV as forearm rotation between UIS patients and control group.