N A Ebraheim1, C Inzerillo, R Xu. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, USA.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Determination of the fusion level by direct observation and palpation of anatomic landmarks is compared with the finding obtained from a lateral intraoperative radiograph. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of the use of intraoperative anatomic landmarks in determination of the fusion level. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Accurate determination of the level to be fused in noninstrumented posterolateral fusion is crucial. No studies are available in which the value of direct observation and palpation of the anatomic landmarks in determination of the fusion level has been assessed. METHODS: Eighty patients who underwent posterolateral fusion without instrumentation in the lumbosacral spine were included in this study. During surgery, first, the cephalad transverse process at the desired level to be fused was determined by direct observation and palpation of the anatomic landmarks; second, a metal mark was placed beneath the cephalad transverse process at the level determined by anatomic landmarks. This was followed by a lateral radiograph. The consistency and discrepancy between the use of the anatomic landmarks and lateral radiography in determining the desired fusion level were recorded. RESULTS: The fusion level determined by direct observation and palpation of the anatomic landmarks was accurate in 76 (95%) cases. In the remaining four cases, intraoperative x-rays determined that the selection of the cephalad transverse process for fusion was one level too high in three cases and one level too low in the other case. All errors in determination of the level to be fused occurred in patients who had extensive laminectomy at L4-S1. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of fusion level by direct observation and palpation of the anatomic landmarks is not reliable in patients who have had or require decompressive procedures. A lateral radiograph should be routinely obtained for accurate identification of the level to be fused.
STUDY DESIGN: Determination of the fusion level by direct observation and palpation of anatomic landmarks is compared with the finding obtained from a lateral intraoperative radiograph. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of the use of intraoperative anatomic landmarks in determination of the fusion level. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Accurate determination of the level to be fused in noninstrumented posterolateral fusion is crucial. No studies are available in which the value of direct observation and palpation of the anatomic landmarks in determination of the fusion level has been assessed. METHODS: Eighty patients who underwent posterolateral fusion without instrumentation in the lumbosacral spine were included in this study. During surgery, first, the cephalad transverse process at the desired level to be fused was determined by direct observation and palpation of the anatomic landmarks; second, a metal mark was placed beneath the cephalad transverse process at the level determined by anatomic landmarks. This was followed by a lateral radiograph. The consistency and discrepancy between the use of the anatomic landmarks and lateral radiography in determining the desired fusion level were recorded. RESULTS: The fusion level determined by direct observation and palpation of the anatomic landmarks was accurate in 76 (95%) cases. In the remaining four cases, intraoperative x-rays determined that the selection of the cephalad transverse process for fusion was one level too high in three cases and one level too low in the other case. All errors in determination of the level to be fused occurred in patients who had extensive laminectomy at L4-S1. CONCLUSIONS: Determination of fusion level by direct observation and palpation of the anatomic landmarks is not reliable in patients who have had or require decompressive procedures. A lateral radiograph should be routinely obtained for accurate identification of the level to be fused.
Authors: Wadie I Najm; Michael A Seffinger; Shiraz I Mishra; Vivian M Dickerson; Alan Adams; Sibylle Reinsch; Linda S Murphy; Arnold F Goodman Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2003-05-07 Impact factor: 3.659