Literature DB >> 17873809

Clinical and radiographic results after implant removal in idiopathic scoliosis.

Karl Rathjen1, Megan Wood, Anna McClung, Zachary Vest.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective radiographic and clinical analysis of patients with idiopathic scoliosis who had complete implant removal following posterior spinal fusion (PSF) at least 2 years previously.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and radiographic effect of implant removal after PSF for idiopathic scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Occasionally, implants must be removed following instrumented PSF. Indications for removal include infection and late operative site pain. Previously, it has been thought that there was little morbidity associated with implant removal in the presence of a solid fusion. However, recent studies have reported loss of coronal correction after implant removal in patients who had a PSF for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Few long-term studies have assessed the clinical or radiographic results of complete implant removal after PSF.
METHODS: We identified 56 patients who had undergone PSF for idiopathic scoliosis and subsequently had complete removal of all instrumentation. None of these patients had a pseudarthrosis at the time of implant removal. After IRB approval, 43 of 56 (77%) patients returned for new standing posteroanterior and lateral spine radiographs and completion of an SRS-22 questionnaire.
RESULTS: For the 43 patients who had new radiographs and completed an SRS-22, the time from the original PSF to complete implant removal averaged 2.9 years (range, 7 months to 7.25 years). Twenty-two patients had implants removed because of infection, and 21 patients had implants removed secondary to pain. The average time from implant removal to completion of the most recent radiographs and SRS-22 questionnaire was 9.5 years (range, 3.2-17.9 years). Patients were considered to have had progression of deformity after implant removal if their Cobb angle measurements increased by more than 10 degrees . Two patients had 11 degrees to 20 degrees of coronal plane progression of their main thoracic curve. No patient had more than 10 degrees of coronal plane progression of a lumbar curve. Sagittal curve progression was identified more frequently. Nineteen patients had between an 11 degrees and 20 degrees increase in thoracic kyphosis, and 5 patients had >20 degrees of thoracic kyphosis progression. Patients with >20 degrees of thoracic kyphosis progression after implant removal had greater thoracic kyphosis before surgery and larger main thoracic and lumbar coronal curves at the time of implant removal. Progressive kyphosis did not correlate with: reason for implant removal, length of follow-up, or time from fusion to implant removal. Although total SRS-22 scores correlated inversely with increased thoracic kyphosis, this trend did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSION: Implant removal after PSF for idiopathic scoliosis may be complicated by progression of deformity. Patients requiring implant removal should be appropriately counseled and monitored.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17873809     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b88a5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  12 in total

1.  Postoperative spinal infection mimicking systemic vasculitis with titanium-spinal implants.

Authors:  Vasileios I Sakellariou; Erato Atsali; Konstantinos Starantzis; Chrysanthi Batistaki; Triantafyllia Brozou; Panayiotis Pantos; Konstantinos Stathopoulos; Konstantinos Soultanis
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2011-09-13

Review 2.  Infections after spinal correction and fusion for spinal deformities in childhood and adolescence.

Authors:  Manon Bachy; Benjamin Bouyer; Raphaël Vialle
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-12-11       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Late-developing infection following posterior fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Mario Di Silvestre; Georgios Bakaloudis; Francesco Lolli; Stefano Giacomini
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Surgical Site Infection Management following Spinal Instrumentation Surgery: Implant Removal vs. Implant Retention: an Updated Systematical Review.

Authors:  Andhika Yudistira; Syaifullah Asmiragani; Abdul Waris Imran; Muhammad Alwy Sugiarto
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2022-06

5.  Biomechanical evaluation of a novel posterior integrated clamp that attaches to an existing posterior instrumentation for use in thoracolumbar revision.

Authors:  Patrick Senatus; Suresh Reddy Chinthakunta; Pedram Vazifeh; Saif Khalil
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2013-03-06

6.  Incidence, Management and Outcome of Delayed Deep Surgical Site Infection Following Spinal Deformity Surgery: 20-Year Experience at a Single Institution.

Authors:  Muyi Wang; Liang Xu; Bo Yang; Changzhi Du; Zezhang Zhu; Bin Wang; Yong Qiu; Xu Sun
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2020-12-30

7.  Does the removal of spinal implants reduce back pain?

Authors:  Hakan Ak; Ismail Gulsen; Tugay Atalay; Muzaffer Gencer
Journal:  J Clin Med Res       Date:  2015-04-08

8.  Grafted vertebral fracture after implant removal in a patient with spine-shortening vertebral osteotomy.

Authors:  Hiroaki Nakashima; Yasutsugu Yukawa; Keigo Ito; Masaaki Machino; Shunsuke Kanbara; Daigo Morita; Shiro Imagama; Naoki Ishiguro; Fumihiko Kato
Journal:  Nagoya J Med Sci       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.131

9.  Reinstrumentation for rapid curve progression after implant removal following posterior instrumented fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a case report.

Authors:  Toshiaki Kotani; Tsutomu Akazawa; Jose Mt Lumawig; Tsuyoshi Sakuma; Shohei Minami
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2013-09-03

10.  Infection with spinal instrumentation: Review of pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and management.

Authors:  Manish K Kasliwal; Lee A Tan; Vincent C Traynelis
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2013-10-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.