Literature DB >> 19096621

Efficacy of spinal implant removal after thoracolumbar junction fusion.

Seok Won Kim1, Chang Il Ju, Chong Gue Kim, Seung Myung Lee, Ho Shin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of spinal implant removal and to determine the possible mechanisms of pain relief.
METHODS: Fourteen patients with an average of 42 years (from 22 to 67 years) were retrospectively evaluated. All patients had posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion, who later developed recurrent back pain or persistent back pain despite a solid fusion mass. Patients' clinical charts, operative notes, and preoperative x-rays were evaluated. Relief of pain was evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain change after implant removal. Clinical outcome using VAS and modified MacNab's criteria was assessed on before implant removal, 1 month after implant removal and at the last clinical follow-up. Radiological analysis of sagittal alignment was also assessed.
RESULTS: Average follow-up period was 18 months (from 12 to 25 months). There were 4 patients who had persistent back pain at the surgical site and 10 patients who had recurrent back pain. The median time after the first fusion operation and the recurrence of pain was 6.5 months (from 3 to 13 months). All patients except one had palpation pain at operative site. The mean blood loss was less than 100ml and there were no major complications. The mean pain score before screw removal and at final follow up was 6.4 and 2.9, respectively (p<0.005). Thirteen of the 14 patients were graded as excellent and good according to modified MacNab's criteria. Overall 5.9 degrees of sagittal correction loss was observed at final follow up, but was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: For the patients with persistent or recurrent back pain after spinal instrumentation, removal of the spinal implant may be safe and an efficient procedure for carefully selected patients who have palpation pain and are unresponsive to conservative treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Back pain; Spinal implant removal

Year:  2008        PMID: 19096621      PMCID: PMC2588244          DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2008.43.3.139

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc        ISSN: 1225-8245


  9 in total

1.  Reoperation after primary posterior instrumentation and fusion for idiopathic scoliosis. Toward defining late operative site pain of unknown cause.

Authors:  S Cook; M Asher; S M Lai; J Shobe
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Failed degenerative lumbar spine surgery.

Authors:  Ashish D Diwan; Hari Parvartaneni; Frank Cammisa
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 2.472

3.  5-year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery.

Authors:  A D Malter; B McNeney; J D Loeser; R A Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Late operative site pain with isola posterior instrumentation requiring implant removal: infection or metal reaction?

Authors:  W J Gaine; S M Andrew; P Chadwick; E Cooke; J B Williamson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  The nature of pseudarthrosis.

Authors:  A F DePalma; R H Rothman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1968 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Loss of sagittal plane correction after removal of spinal implants.

Authors:  J E Deckey; C Court; D S Bradford
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Etiology of long-term failures of lumbar spine surgery.

Authors:  Alexis Waguespack; Jerome Schofferman; Paul Slosar; James Reynolds
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.750

8.  Removal of lumbar instrumentation for the treatment of recurrent low back pain in the absence of pseudarthrosis.

Authors:  Alexander Wild; Manuel R Pinto; Lisa Butler; Clayton Bressan; Jill M Wroblewski
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2003-07-31       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Outcome after Wiltse pedicle screw removal.

Authors:  M Hume; D A Capen; R W Nelson; S Nagelberg; J C Thomas
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1996-04
  9 in total
  6 in total

1.  Posterior implant removal in patients with thoracolumbar spine fractures: long-term results.

Authors:  A J Smits; L den Ouden; A Jonkergouw; J Deunk; F W Bloemers
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation removal for ongoing low back pain following posterolateral lumbar fusion.

Authors:  Mario G Zotti; Oscar P Brumby-Rendell; Ben McDonald; Tom Fisher; Christovalantis Tsimiklis; Wai Weng Yoon; Orso L Osti
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-12

3.  Estimated number of korean adults with back pain and population-based associated factors of back pain : data from the fourth Korea national health and nutrition examination survey.

Authors:  Hyung-Joon Jhun; Jung-Yul Park
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2009-11-30

4.  Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for cage migration after screw removal: a case report.

Authors:  Myung Hoon Kim; Seok Won Kim; Sung Hoon Kim; Hyeun Sung Kim
Journal:  Korean J Spine       Date:  2013-06-30

5.  The use of a dehydrated amnion/chorion membrane allograft in patients who subsequently undergo reexploration after posterior lumbar instrumentation.

Authors:  Brian R Subach; Anne G Copay
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2015-01-13

6.  Tulip-Screw Head Disjunction from Posterior C2 Fracture Fixation Instrumentation.

Authors:  Halle E K Burley; Darius S Ansari; Alexander von Glinski; Ryan Goodmanson; Benjamin Schell; Jens R Chapman; Rod J Oskouian
Journal:  Case Rep Orthop       Date:  2020-02-24
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.