Cargando…

When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review()

INTODUCTION: Mechanical complications from spinal fusion including implant loosening or junctional failure result in poor outcomes, particularly in osteoporotic patients. While the use of percutaneous vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) has been studied for augmentation of junc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cawley, Derek T., Divani, Kiran, Shafafy, Roozbeh, Devitt, Aiden, Molloy, Sean
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10293288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37383448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2023.101726
_version_ 1785062969340592128
author Cawley, Derek T.
Divani, Kiran
Shafafy, Roozbeh
Devitt, Aiden
Molloy, Sean
author_facet Cawley, Derek T.
Divani, Kiran
Shafafy, Roozbeh
Devitt, Aiden
Molloy, Sean
author_sort Cawley, Derek T.
collection PubMed
description INTODUCTION: Mechanical complications from spinal fusion including implant loosening or junctional failure result in poor outcomes, particularly in osteoporotic patients. While the use of percutaneous vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) has been studied for augmentation of junctional levels to offset against kyphosis and failure, its deployment around existing loose screws or in failing surrounding bone as a salvage percutaneous procedure has been described in small case series and merits review. RESEARCH QUESTION: How effective and safe is the use of PMMA as a salvage procedure for mechanical complications in failed spinal fusion?. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic search of online databases for clinical studies using this technique. RESULTS: 11 studies were identified, only consisting of two case reports and nine case series. Consistent improvements were observed in pre- to post-operative VAS and with sustained improvements at final follow-up. The extra- or para-pedicular approach was the most frequent access trajectory. Most studies cited difficulties with visibility on fluoroscopy, using navigation or oblique views as a solution for this. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous cementation at a failing screw-bone interface stabilises further micromotion with reductions in back pain. This rarely used technique is manifested by a low but increasing number of reported cases. The technique warrants further evaluation and is best performed within a multidisciplinary setting at a specialist centre. Notwithstanding that underlying pathology may not be addressed, awareness of this technique may allow an effective and safe salvage solution with minimal morbidity for older sicker patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10293288
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102932882023-06-28 When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review() Cawley, Derek T. Divani, Kiran Shafafy, Roozbeh Devitt, Aiden Molloy, Sean Brain Spine Review INTODUCTION: Mechanical complications from spinal fusion including implant loosening or junctional failure result in poor outcomes, particularly in osteoporotic patients. While the use of percutaneous vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) has been studied for augmentation of junctional levels to offset against kyphosis and failure, its deployment around existing loose screws or in failing surrounding bone as a salvage percutaneous procedure has been described in small case series and merits review. RESEARCH QUESTION: How effective and safe is the use of PMMA as a salvage procedure for mechanical complications in failed spinal fusion?. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic search of online databases for clinical studies using this technique. RESULTS: 11 studies were identified, only consisting of two case reports and nine case series. Consistent improvements were observed in pre- to post-operative VAS and with sustained improvements at final follow-up. The extra- or para-pedicular approach was the most frequent access trajectory. Most studies cited difficulties with visibility on fluoroscopy, using navigation or oblique views as a solution for this. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous cementation at a failing screw-bone interface stabilises further micromotion with reductions in back pain. This rarely used technique is manifested by a low but increasing number of reported cases. The technique warrants further evaluation and is best performed within a multidisciplinary setting at a specialist centre. Notwithstanding that underlying pathology may not be addressed, awareness of this technique may allow an effective and safe salvage solution with minimal morbidity for older sicker patients. Elsevier 2023-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10293288/ /pubmed/37383448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2023.101726 Text en © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Cawley, Derek T.
Divani, Kiran
Shafafy, Roozbeh
Devitt, Aiden
Molloy, Sean
When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review()
title When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review()
title_full When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review()
title_fullStr When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review()
title_full_unstemmed When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review()
title_short When spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: Salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: A systematic review()
title_sort when spinal instrumentation revision is not an option: salvage vertebral augmentation with polymethylmethacrylate for mechanical complications: a systematic review()
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10293288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37383448
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2023.101726
work_keys_str_mv AT cawleyderekt whenspinalinstrumentationrevisionisnotanoptionsalvagevertebralaugmentationwithpolymethylmethacrylateformechanicalcomplicationsasystematicreview
AT divanikiran whenspinalinstrumentationrevisionisnotanoptionsalvagevertebralaugmentationwithpolymethylmethacrylateformechanicalcomplicationsasystematicreview
AT shafafyroozbeh whenspinalinstrumentationrevisionisnotanoptionsalvagevertebralaugmentationwithpolymethylmethacrylateformechanicalcomplicationsasystematicreview
AT devittaiden whenspinalinstrumentationrevisionisnotanoptionsalvagevertebralaugmentationwithpolymethylmethacrylateformechanicalcomplicationsasystematicreview
AT molloysean whenspinalinstrumentationrevisionisnotanoptionsalvagevertebralaugmentationwithpolymethylmethacrylateformechanicalcomplicationsasystematicreview