Cargando…

Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series

BACKGROUND: There have been several reports of instrumentation failure after three-column resections such as total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal tumors; however, clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES are seldom reported. Therefore, this study assessed t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shinmura, Kazuya, Kato, Satoshi, Demura, Satoru, Yokogawa, Noriaki, Yonezawa, Noritaka, Shimizu, Takaki, Oku, Norihiro, Kitagawa, Ryo, Handa, Makoto, Annen, Ryohei, Murakami, Hideki, Tsuchiya, Hiroyuki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7469324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32878615
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03622-6
_version_ 1783578402669723648
author Shinmura, Kazuya
Kato, Satoshi
Demura, Satoru
Yokogawa, Noriaki
Yonezawa, Noritaka
Shimizu, Takaki
Oku, Norihiro
Kitagawa, Ryo
Handa, Makoto
Annen, Ryohei
Murakami, Hideki
Tsuchiya, Hiroyuki
author_facet Shinmura, Kazuya
Kato, Satoshi
Demura, Satoru
Yokogawa, Noriaki
Yonezawa, Noritaka
Shimizu, Takaki
Oku, Norihiro
Kitagawa, Ryo
Handa, Makoto
Annen, Ryohei
Murakami, Hideki
Tsuchiya, Hiroyuki
author_sort Shinmura, Kazuya
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There have been several reports of instrumentation failure after three-column resections such as total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal tumors; however, clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES are seldom reported. Therefore, this study assessed the clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES. METHODS: This study employed a retrospective case series in a single center and included 61 patients with spinal tumors who underwent TES between 2010 and 2015 and were followed up for > 2 years. Instrumentation failure rate, back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, operation time, blood loss, complications, bone fusion after revision surgery, and re-instrumentation failure were assessed. Data were collected on back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, and management for patients with instrumentation failure, and we documented radiological bone fusion and re-instrumentation failure in cases followed up for > 2 years after revision surgery. RESULTS: Of the 61 patients, 26 (42.6%) experienced instrumentation failure at an average of 32 (range, 11–92) months after TES. Of these, 23 underwent revision surgery. The average operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 204 min and 97 ml, respectively. Including the six patients who were unable to walk after instrumentation failure, all patients were able to walk after revision surgery. Perioperative complications of reoperation were surgical site infection (n = 2) and delayed wound healing (n = 1). At the final follow-up, bone fusion was observed in all patients. No re-instrumentation failure was recorded. CONCLUSION: Bone fusion was achieved by revision surgery using the posterior approach alone.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7469324
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74693242020-09-03 Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series Shinmura, Kazuya Kato, Satoshi Demura, Satoru Yokogawa, Noriaki Yonezawa, Noritaka Shimizu, Takaki Oku, Norihiro Kitagawa, Ryo Handa, Makoto Annen, Ryohei Murakami, Hideki Tsuchiya, Hiroyuki BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: There have been several reports of instrumentation failure after three-column resections such as total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal tumors; however, clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES are seldom reported. Therefore, this study assessed the clinical outcomes of revision surgery for instrumentation failure after TES. METHODS: This study employed a retrospective case series in a single center and included 61 patients with spinal tumors who underwent TES between 2010 and 2015 and were followed up for > 2 years. Instrumentation failure rate, back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, operation time, blood loss, complications, bone fusion after revision surgery, and re-instrumentation failure were assessed. Data were collected on back pain, neurological deterioration, ambulatory status, and management for patients with instrumentation failure, and we documented radiological bone fusion and re-instrumentation failure in cases followed up for > 2 years after revision surgery. RESULTS: Of the 61 patients, 26 (42.6%) experienced instrumentation failure at an average of 32 (range, 11–92) months after TES. Of these, 23 underwent revision surgery. The average operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 204 min and 97 ml, respectively. Including the six patients who were unable to walk after instrumentation failure, all patients were able to walk after revision surgery. Perioperative complications of reoperation were surgical site infection (n = 2) and delayed wound healing (n = 1). At the final follow-up, bone fusion was observed in all patients. No re-instrumentation failure was recorded. CONCLUSION: Bone fusion was achieved by revision surgery using the posterior approach alone. BioMed Central 2020-09-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7469324/ /pubmed/32878615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03622-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Shinmura, Kazuya
Kato, Satoshi
Demura, Satoru
Yokogawa, Noriaki
Yonezawa, Noritaka
Shimizu, Takaki
Oku, Norihiro
Kitagawa, Ryo
Handa, Makoto
Annen, Ryohei
Murakami, Hideki
Tsuchiya, Hiroyuki
Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series
title Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series
title_full Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series
title_fullStr Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series
title_full_unstemmed Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series
title_short Revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series
title_sort revision surgery for instrumentation failure after total en bloc spondylectomy: a retrospective case series
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7469324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32878615
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03622-6
work_keys_str_mv AT shinmurakazuya revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT katosatoshi revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT demurasatoru revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT yokogawanoriaki revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT yonezawanoritaka revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT shimizutakaki revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT okunorihiro revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT kitagawaryo revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT handamakoto revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT annenryohei revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT murakamihideki revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries
AT tsuchiyahiroyuki revisionsurgeryforinstrumentationfailureaftertotalenblocspondylectomyaretrospectivecaseseries