Norman Ramirez1, Pablo Valentin2, Manuel García-Cartagena3, Solais Samalot4, Ivan Iriarte5. 1. Pediatric Orthopedic Department, Hospital de la Concepción, Box 6847 Marina Station, Mayagüez, 00681, Puerto Rico. normanpipe@aol.com. 2. Biology Department, Inter-American University, San German, San German, Puerto Rico. 3. School of Medicine, Ponce Health Sciences University, Ponce, Puerto Rico. 4. Biology Department, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. 5. Public Health Program, and Ponce Research Institute, Ponce Health Sciences University, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with IRB approval. INTRODUCTION: Significant blood loss remains an important concern in terms of the performance of the posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Several strategies have been reported to minimize blood loss during surgery. In order to address the need to minimize blood loss without sacrificing the quality of the fusion, in our hospital, we adopted a two-step surgical approach. This surgical approach consist of the exposure and instrumentation of the lumbar region prior to and followed by an extension of the surgical incision to the thoracic region for its subsequent instrumentation. The main purpose of this study was to compare a two-step surgical approach with the one-step (standard) approach. METHODS: This study was a review of all the data on consecutive posterior spinal fusion surgeries performed by a specific two-surgeon team during 2004-2013. Demographics, surgical variables, radiographic findings, and outcomes regarding blood loss, morbidity, and the duration of the procedure were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients underwent the standard surgical exposure, and 41 patients underwent the two-step surgical technique. With the exception of BMI, neither group showed any statistically preoperative variable significant differences. None of the postoperative outcome variables were statistically significant between both surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were detected in terms of using a two-step surgical approach versus the one-step standard surgical approach regarding perioperative blood loss, surgical time, or complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level of evidence III.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with IRB approval. INTRODUCTION: Significant blood loss remains an important concern in terms of the performance of the posterior spinal fusion in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Several strategies have been reported to minimize blood loss during surgery. In order to address the need to minimize blood loss without sacrificing the quality of the fusion, in our hospital, we adopted a two-step surgical approach. This surgical approach consist of the exposure and instrumentation of the lumbar region prior to and followed by an extension of the surgical incision to the thoracic region for its subsequent instrumentation. The main purpose of this study was to compare a two-step surgical approach with the one-step (standard) approach. METHODS: This study was a review of all the data on consecutive posterior spinal fusion surgeries performed by a specific two-surgeon team during 2004-2013. Demographics, surgical variables, radiographic findings, and outcomes regarding blood loss, morbidity, and the duration of the procedure were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients underwent the standard surgical exposure, and 41 patients underwent the two-step surgical technique. With the exception of BMI, neither group showed any statistically preoperative variable significant differences. None of the postoperative outcome variables were statistically significant between both surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were detected in terms of using a two-step surgical approach versus the one-step standard surgical approach regarding perioperative blood loss, surgical time, or complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level of evidence III.
Authors: Richard E Bowen; Steven Gardner; Anthony A Scaduto; Michael Eagan; Jason Beckstead Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Mark E Thompson; Jessica M Kohring; Kim McFann; Bryan McNair; Jennifer K Hansen; Nancy H Miller Journal: Spine J Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.166