viernes, 22 de octubre de 2010

Subsequent Vertebral Fractures following Spinal Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Mean Ten-year Follow-u

rom Spine

Subsequent Vertebral Fractures following Spinal Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Mean Ten-year Follow-up

Tomoaki Toyone, MD; Tomoyuki Ozawa, MD; Koya Kamikawa, MD; Atsuya Watanabe, MD; Keisuke Matsuki, MD; Takeshi Yamashita, MD; Ryutaro Shiboi, MD; Masato Takeuchi, MD; Yuichi Wada, MD; Kunimasa Inada, MD; Yasuchika Aoki, MD; Gen Inoue, MD; Seiji Ohtori, MD; Tadashi Tanaka, MD
Posted: 10/12/2010; Spine. 2010;35(10):1915-1918. © 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
 
 

Abstract and Introduction

Abstract

Study Design. Case-control study.
Objective. To assess the long-term prevalence of vertebral fractures after lumbar spinal fusion with instrumentation.
Summary of Background Data. The incidence of the adjacent and the nonadjacent, remote level subsequent vertebral fractures after lumbar spinal fusion is not well described in the literature.
Methods. The study is a retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive patients of 55 years of age or older with spinal fusion for degenerative diseases between L1 and S1, and instrumentation for less than 4 segments. Patients with prevalent vertebral fractures defined at the time of surgery, or patients with secondary causes of osteoporosis were excluded. Mean follow-up period was 10.2 years (range, 7–14 years). Acute vertebral fractures were determined by magnetic resonance imaging and lateral spine radiographs.
Results. Acute vertebral fractures were determined in 20 vertebrae in 14 (24%) of the 59 female patients, whereas 1 male patient (2%) had 1 vertebral fracture during the follow-up period. Eighteen of the 21 fractures occurred within 2 years of the spinal instrumentation surgery. Regarding time to fracture occurrence after surgery, adjacent level fractures occurred within 8 months, and remote level fractures occurred between 8 and 22 months after surgery.
Conclusion. Postmenopausal female patients who underwent lumbar spinal instrumentation surgery were susceptible to develop subsequent vertebral fractures within 2 years after surgery. The greater the number of spinal segments between the fracture and the instrumentation was, the longer the time after surgery.

Introduction

The use of spinal fusion surgery is rapidly increasing.[1] The rational for spinal fusion includes prevention of painful motion and correction of deformity. Much of the increase in use has been seen in older adults, in association with laminectomy for spinal stenosis.[2]
It is not surprising that fusion is associated with more complications than those with other types of spinal surgery. Common complications include instrumentation failure (occurring in about 7% of cases), bone graft donor site complications (11%), neural injuries (3%), pulmonary embolus (2%), infections (3%), and pseudarthrosis (15%).[3]
Any abnormal process that develops in the mobile segment next to a spinal fusion is also known as adjacent segment diseases. In some articles, the term adjacent segment disease also refers to changes that occur at segments more proximal or distal than the one immediately next to a fusion. On the basis of a MEDLINE search using key words "adjacent," "transition zone," or "postoperative complication" combined with "spinal fusion," for the years between 1966 and 2002, Park et al reviewed 56 articles regarding adjacent segment diseases after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion.[4] Common findings next to spinal fusion were disc degeneration, listhesis, instability, hypertrophic facet joint arthritis, herniated nucleus pulposus, and stenosis. Vertebral compression fractures were noted in only one article.[5] Hart et al reported that proximal junctional acute collapse requiring revision surgery occurred in 2 of the 13 female patients older than 60 years who underwent lumbar fusions, and concluded that further efforts should be needed to determine more precisely the incidence of proximal junctional acute collapse and the effects of various risk factors on increasing this incidence.[6]
This complication such as the incidence of the adjacent and the nonadjacent, remote level subsequent vertebral fractures after lumbar spinal fusion is not well described in the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the long-term prevalence of vertebral compression fractures after lumbar spinal fusion with rigid instrumentation.

Subsequent Vertebral Fractures Following Spinal Fusion Surgey: Materials and Methods

Physician Assistant Rating: 4 stars  ( 1 Vote )           
Rate This Article:
  
    
 
 

Materials and Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive patients. Inclusion criteria were as follows: patients aged 55 years or older with spinal fusion between L1 and S1 and instrumentation for less than 4 segments for degenerative disease, surgery was performed between April 1993 and March 2002, and continuously followed for at least 7 years. Patients of age 55 years or older were selected so that premenopausal women should not be included in the study. Patients with prevalent vertebral fractures defined at the time of surgery were excluded. Hospital records were reviewed to exclude secondary causes of osteoporosis. Secondary causes of osteoporosis were those related to prescription of corticosteroids, endocrine disorders, neoplastic diseases, or gastrointestinal disorders. Patients whose bone mineral density (BMD) was less than 80% of the young adult mean values were also excluded. Furthermore, patients who were on medication for osteoporosis were excluded.
There were 59 women and 41 men, and the mean age at surgery was 67 (range, 55–80). Preoperative diagnosis was degenerative spondylolisthesis in 63, isthmic spondylolisthesis in 10, degenerative scoliosis in 19, and stenosis and other spondylotic conditions in 8 patients. Surgical procedure was posterolateral fusion in 57 and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in 43 patients, and all the patients underwent pedicle screw fixation. The level of instrumentation was L5–S1 in 13, L4–L5 in 38, L3–L4 in 9, L2–L3 in 2, L1–L2 in 1, L4–S1 in 12, L3–L5 in 11, L2–L4 in 2, L1–L3 in 1, L3–S1 in 4, L2–L5 in 5, and L1–L4 in 2 patients. Mean follow-up period was 10.2 years (range, 7–14 years).
Lateral spine radiographs obtained at baseline (just before surgery), at 3 and 6 months after surgery, and yearly after surgery to the final follow-up were used for morphometric vertebral fracture ascertainment. Six points were placed on each vertebra to define anterior, posterior, and mid heights. Prevalent vertebral fractures at baseline were defined as deformity on preoperative radiographs derived from quantitative morphometry. Asymptomatic subsequent vertebral fractures were defined as a new fracture with a decrease of more than 20% in any vertebral height (minimum, 4 mm) from baseline.[7] Diagnostic criteria of symptomatic subsequent vertebral fractures was as follows: acute increase in back pain as a result of a fall from standing height or less or without any trauma, radiologic evidence of acute vertebral fractures determined by magnetic resonance imaging, showing geographic patterns of low-intensity-signal changes on T1-weighted images, and high-intensity-signal changes on T2-weighted images.[8]

Statistical Analysis

Fisher exact or χ2 tests were used for between-group comparisons. The Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated to test relationships between variables. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were carried out using the statistical package SPSS 14.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL), Windows version.

Subsequent Vertebral Fractures Following Spinal Fusion Surgey: Results

Physician Assistant Rating: 4 stars  ( 1 Vote )           
Rate This Article:
  
    
 
 

Results

Acute vertebral fractures were determined in 20 vertebrae in 14 (24%) of the 59 female patients, whereas 1 male patient (2%) had 1 vertebral fracture during the follow-up period. Subsequent vertebral fractures were recognized between T10 and L3, and they peaked at L1. Twenty of the 21 fractures were symptomatic and painful. One asymptomatic fracture was defined at a periodic medical check-up 8 years after surgery. The latest fracture occurred 11 years after surgery at the adjacent vertebra of the posterolateral fusion for degenerative scoliosis. With respect to the incidence of subsequent vertebral fracture, there were significant differences between female and male patients (P< 0.001). Although, PLIF, 3-level fusion, and low preoperative BMD were found to be frequent in patients with subsequent vertebral fractures, no variables such as surgical procedures (P = 0.15), the number of fusion levels (P= 0.30), preoperative and postoperative sagittal alignment (P = 0.44 and P = 0.39), and preoperative BMD (P = 0.12) were significantly related with the incidence of subsequent vertebral fractures.
Eighteen of the 21 fracture occurred within 2 years of the spinal instrumentation surgery (Table 1). Regarding time to fracture occurrence after surgery, adjacent level fractures occurred within 8 months, and remote level fractures occurred between 8 and 22 months after surgery (P < 0.001)(Figure 1). Subsequent fractures 2-levels away from the instrumentation level occurred between 8 and 12 months, fractures 3-levels away from the instrumentation level occurred between 8 and 20 months, and fractures 4-levels away from the instrumentation level occurred between 14 and 22 months after surgery (Table 2). The distance of the subsequent vertebral fracture from the instrumentation level was associated with time to subsequent fracture occurrence (adjacent with 2-levels, P = 0.01; 2-levels with 3-levels, P = 0.09; 3-levels with 4-levels, P = 0.06).
Click to zoom

Discussion

Etebar and Cahill performed a retrospective analysis of 125 consecutive patients in whom instrumentation was placed to promote lumbar fusion for the treatment of degenerative instability.[5]Eighteen of 125 patients developed symptomatic next-segment failure based on radiographic studies. The mean follow-up period was 44.8 months. Stress fracture of the adjacent vertebral body was observed in 5 patients, and they concluded that the risk appeared to be especially high in postmenopausal women. Recently, to investigate the morphologic features of adults after spinal deformity surgery, Watanabe et al reported 10 adult patients who underwent segmental spinal instrumented fusion and concluded that old age, osteopenia, preoperative comorbidities, and severe global sagittal imbalance were found to be frequent in patients with proximal junctional fracture.[9] In the present study, PLIF, 3-levels fusion, and low preoperative BMD might be considered as a risk factor, but there was no significant difference in the incidence of subsequent vertebral fractures.
Published data on subsequent vertebral fractures after lumbar or thoracolumbar spinal instrumentation is scarce, but the literature for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty reports a subsequent fracture rate of 12% to 52%.[10–13]Fribourg et al undertook a retrospective review of 38 kyphoplasty patients.[10] Within the mean follow-up period of 8 months, 10 patients sustained 17 subsequent vertebral fractures. They reported that 15 adjacent level fractures occurred within 60 days, whereas 2 remote level fractures occurred 181 and 559 days after kyphoplasty. Trout et al studied 432 patients who underwent vertebroplasty, and reported that 186 new vertebral fractures occurred in 86 patients.[13] Adjacent level fractures occurred in a mean of 55 days after surgery, whereas remote level fractures occurred in a mean of 127 days after surgery. The study of kyphoplasty, the study of vertebroplasty, and our study concerning spinal fusion with rigid instrumentation have all come up with similar results showing that adjacent level vertebral fractures occurred sooner than remote level vertebral fractures. However, adjacent level vertebral fractures occurred within 2 months after kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty, whereas within 8 months after surgery in our study.
Several studies have been conducted addressing human BMD with respect to spinal fusion. An initial (6 months) decrease in the BMD at the level adjacent to the instrumented spine and fusion level has been observed. Bogdanffy et al studied 15 patients who underwent a combined anteroposterior L4–S1 spinal fusion as a first time operation, and assessed BMD by dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry.[14] They reported that BMD at L3, 1 level above the fusion, and L2, 2 levels above, decreased significantly at 3 months and remained reduced at 6 months after surgery. This loss of BMD appears to be time-dependent and at a 1-year follow-up, the BMD at the level above the combined anterior-posterior instrumented fusion returned to or exceeded the preoperative level in 60% of the patients. The authors attributed these changes to postoperative immobilization and altered biomechanics secondary to the arthrodesis. An alternative explanation for the initial decrease in bone density may be related to Frost's concept of bone remodeling. This process has been termed as a regional accelerating phenomenon, which is reflected in the loss of bone density for up to 6 months to a year.
Only one study to our knowledge has evaluated vertebral BMD at longer periods of follow-up. Singh et al studied 7 patients who underwent a posterior lumbar spinal fusion with instrumentation.[15] The BMD increased at a mean 10.8-year follow-up at all 3 adjacent cephalad levels when compared with a mean 4-year follow-up. There was a gradual decrease in BMD changes with increasing distance from the fusion level. The authors stated that the discectomy group did not demonstrate a significant change in vertebral BMD, supporting the theory of stress-concentration altering local bone metabolism resulting in bone deposition and a resultant increase in vertebral BMD.
These results, an initial decrease in the BMD at the level adjacent to the spinal instrumentation and fusion level and an increase at longer periods of follow-up, might explain a possible pathogenesis of subsequent vertebral fractures occurring within 2 years after spinal fusion surgery in this study. According to the results from the European Prospective Osteoporosis Study, the incidence increased markedly with age in both men and women.[16] Our data also differs from this large population-based study.
In this investigation, we have intended to exclude several potential confounding factors, such as baseline BMD, secondary causes of osteoporosis, prevalent vertebral fractures, and medications for osteoporosis, which might reduce risk of fracture. Nevertheless, as for the frequency of fracture between male and female patients, female patients might suffer from osteoporosis more frequently in this population and that might explain the gender difference for the frequency of the subsequent fracture. We were not able to include bone markers into the analysis, which might be a potential problem of this study. To define the rate of subsequent vertebral fractures and their risk factors, further prospective investigations are crucial.
This is the first study to ascertain the influence of spinal instrumentation surgery for subsequent vertebral fractures in patients more than 55 years of age. Results of our study with a 7-year minimum follow-up suggest that postmenopausal female patients who underwent lumbar spinal instrumentation surgery were susceptible to develop subsequent vertebral fractures within 2 years after surgery. It could be concluded that the greater the number of spinal segments between the fracture and the instrumentation, the longer the time after surgery.

Alerta: las fracturas de cadera van a ir a más

SE CALCULAN SEIS MILLONES Y MEDIO DE CASOS EN EUROPA EN 2050

Alerta: las fracturas de cadera van a ir a más

Las fracturas de cadera son un problema emergente en Europa y su progresión no va a frenarse. La mejor herramienta para mejorar los resultados quirúrgicos son las auditorías por centros.
Jordi Montaner. Barcelona - Martes, 29 de Septiembre de 2009 - Actualizado a las 00:00h.
¡vota!
 0 comentarios
compartir (¿qué es esto?)
 
  • Mail
  •  
  • Facebook
  •  
  • Delicious
  •  
  • Twitter
  •  
  • Meneame
  •  
  • Digg
  •  
  • Technorati
Cada vez se romperán más caderas, que comprometerán la supervivencia y la calidad de vida de muchos europeos y, sobre todo, europeas, según han alertado Enric Cáceres, presidente de la Sociedad Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (Secot), y Karl-Göran Thorngren, presidente de la Federación Europea de Asociaciones Nacionales de Ortopedia y Traumatología (Efort), que han presidido un foro de discusión sobre cirugía de cadera en el que tomaron parte Gemma Pidemunt (Barcelona), Javier Vaquero (Madrid), Olle Svensson (Umea) y Colin Currie (Edimburgo).
Tras ese toque de alerta, Thorngren ha abierto el foro recordando que la población mayor de 65 años pasó de 323 millones de individuos en 1990 "y se aproximará a los 1.555 en 2050". Asimismo, de un millón y medio de fracturas de cadera registradas en 1990 podría pasarse en 2050 a seis millones y medio.
Para explicar esa multiplicación de fracturas, el presidente sueco de la Efort ha recordado que los ancianos son cada vez más activos a la vez que más frágiles y proclives a las caídas. Ha justificado la celebración de un foro como éste por las importantes diferencias en resultados y protocolos que se dan en los distintos centros del continente europeo. “Esta situación promovió que la Efort pusiera en marcha el proyecto Sahfe (Standardised Audit of Hip Fracture in Europe), una auditoría sobre cómo se están reparando las roturas de cadera en las diferentes latitudes”, ha recordado. A su juicio, la comparación de resultados entre los centros, lejos de plantear una competición, posibilita aprender de quien mejores resultados obtiene: “En Suecia, por lo menos, esta auditoría se ha saldado con una mejoría en la calidad asistencial de las intervenciones y en mejores resultados estadísticos”.
Calidad de vida
Pidemunt, por su parte, ha echado mano de las estadísticas propias para informar de que en 2007 se registraron en España 58.844 fracturas de cadera entre mayores de 65 años, planteando una media desde entonces de 2.000 nuevos casos/año.
En Cataluña, datos de 2005 mostraban 9.352 fracturas de cadera registradas, "y nuestro equipo (Hospital del Mar) contabilizó 346 fracturas en 2008, con un incremento anual del 7 por ciento desde 2005".
La mortalidad al año de la fractura, según estos datos, se sitúa entre el 15 y el 30 por ciento. La ponente ha subrayado que el 25 por ciento de los pacientes fracturados viven en casa sin ninguna compañía ni auxilio.
La hospitalización de los pacientes intervenidos se prolonga de media unos diez días y el coste de la intervención (sin contar los gastos de hospitalización) se aproxima a los 5.000 euros. Ha destacado también que una cuarta parte de las camas en traumatología están ocupadas por pacientes con rotura del cuello femoral.
"Lo que más nos preocupa es la constatación de que el 20 por ciento de los pacientes operados nunca vuelve a andar por sus medios y de que el 30 por ciento evoluciona a un estado de salud peor que el que tenía antes de la fractura". Pidemunt, sin embargo, matizó que se produce un empeoramiento justo después de la operación y que, pasados unos meses, el paciente mejora de forma ostensible.
"El zénit de la recuperación suele conseguirse entre los seis meses y el año posteriores a la sustitución de cadera".

Tiempos de espera más cortos

Javier Vaquero, del Hospital Gregorio Marañón, de Madrid, ha defendido que las estrategias ortopédicas deben encaminarse a una mayor supervivencia a medio y largo plazo, la recuperación de la situación funcional previa a la fractura y tiempos de espera más cortos.

Los últimos días de Astrid

Astrid era una mujer que fue intervenida en Suecia a los 103 años para beneficiarse de una prótesis de cadera alojada mediante cirugía mínimamente invasiva. Thorngren ha explicado en Barcelona la prodigiosa eficacia con la que esta anciana se recuperó, para volver por sus medios a una casa en la que vivía totalmente sola. "Pasados unos meses, una enfermera del hospital fue a visitarla y corroboró su buen estado de salud: Astrid le abrió la puerta, le invitó a entrar y le sirvió un té con galletas que ella misma había horneado unas horas antes; ambas mujeres estuvieron charlando un par de horas y la anciana despidió a la enfermera en la puerta…". Lamentablemente, Astrid falleció un año más tarde por una complicación cardiovascular ajena a la intervención de cadera. El presidente de los cirujanos ortopedas europeos ha puesto este ejemplo para concretar los resultados excelentes que una buena práctica quirúrgica permite obtener hoy día, incluso en pacientes que antes no eran intervenidos.

Los casos clínicos de los residentes llegan a la novena edición

TODAS LAS UNIDADES DOCENTES DE LA ESPECIALIDAD COMPITEN POR COLOCAR CADA AÑO SUS MEJORES EXPERIENCIAS

Los casos clínicos de los residentes llegan a la novena edición

Francisco Forriol Campo, director de Investigación del Hospital Fremap, de Madrid, ha presentado en el congreso anual de la Secot una nueva edición del Libro de casos clínicos de residentes en cirugía ortopédica y traumatología; y ya van nueve.
Jordi Montaner. Barcelona - Martes, 29 de Septiembre de 2009 - Actualizado a las 00:00h.
¡vota!
 0 comentarios
compartir (¿qué es esto?)
 
  • Mail
  •  
  • Facebook
  •  
  • Delicious
  •  
  • Twitter
  •  
  • Meneame
  •  
  • Digg
  •  
  • Technorati
  • Sólo se incluyen en el libro una tercera parte de los casos que los MIR presentan al concurso, a pesar de que todos son de calidad excelente
  • Los especialistas en formación ponen en tela de juicio, con elementos de evidencia, la bondad o pertinencia de técnicas y protocolos
El experto es consciente de que cada edición despierta una auténtica competición entre unidades de toda España por ver quién coloca un nuevo caso en el libro. "Somos conscientes de esa inquietud; precisamente la idea del libro es la de promover la investigación puntera entre los residentes".

Los MIR no se andan por las ramas: concursan en la convocatoria con casos cada vez más raros, complejos o difíciles, a fin de exhibir su potencial científico y contribuir a la tradición del centro u hospital que les acoge.

El libro incluye una decena de secciones: hombro y codo, mano y muñeca, cadera y muslo, rodilla, tobillo y pie, pelvis y columna vertebral, osteoporosis, tumores, ortopedia infantil y miscelánea.

Con el patrocinio de Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), el libro centra cada año el orgullo de los residentes que ven publicados sus casos y la protesta de quienes quedan fuera de concurso. "Sólo podemos editar una tercera parte de los casos presentados, admitiendo que son todos de una calidad excelente, pero que quizá no reúnen el mismo interés general". Sobre los criterios de selección, Forriol afirma que no es fácil: "Primero nos centramos en la temática; se da la circunstancia de que muchos residentes nos envían casos de tumores genéticos muy poco frecuentes con la intención de aportar luz a las zonas científicamente más oscuras". Sin embargo, el coordinador ha especificado que el libro no puede erigirse en bazar de casos raros "y los evaluadores tenemos que equilibrar su contenido". 

Espíritu crítico
Otro afán de los residentes concursantes es el de poner en tela de juicio, con elementos de evidencia, la bondad o la pertinencia de determinadas técnicas o protocolos, acusando sus fallos, sus problemas y sugiriendo alternativas. "No obstante, el libro no admite que se ponga nunca en duda la mala praxis o la profesionalidad de quienes se sirven de tales técnicas o protocolos; en eso somos muy juiciosos". También muestra cautela con algunas de las críticas "puesto que, a veces, no queda claro si los errores se deben a fallos técnicos o a no haber seguido al pie de la letra las instrucciones del fabricante".

A modo de aviso o instrucción, el coordinador recalca que tienen cabida en el libro todos los temas que aborda la especialidad, justificando sus autores las peculiaridades del caso escogido y su valor. El rigor del método es esencial: se parte de un diagnóstico y una historia coherente, se correlaciona el resultado de pruebas complementarias con la historia y las pruebas de imagen y se apunta una sospecha... "Queremos que los residentes se acostumbren a escribir, a argumentar por escrito. La literatura científica es esencial en nuestro oficio".

La presentación del libro en el congreso de este año ha estado precedida por la entrega de premios a los tres casos más meritorios.

EL PRIMERO

El primer caso de los residentes premiado este año es el de una mujer paquistaní de 28 años que ingresó en el Servicio de Urgencias del Hospital Clínico de Barcelona con odinofagia y trismus, asociados a cervicalgia de cuatro meses de duración. Tras una ardua investigación, los MIR autores de la propuesta llegaron a la conclusión de que el extraño caso se debía a una infección tuberculosa que pasaron a erradicar con tuberculostáticos. Este caso demuestra que muchos cuadros que se tenían por rarísimos hace cinco años hoy cobran plena vigencia debido a los movimientos migratorios y a la llegada de cuadros que se creían erradicados.