Stephen J Lewis1, Chandan Mohanty2, Aaron M Gazendam2, So Kato2, Sam G Keshen2, Noah D Lewis2, Sofia P Magana2, David Perlmutter2, Jennifer Cape2. 1. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, 399 Bathurst Street, Room 442, First Floor, East Wing, Toronto, ON, M5T 2S8, Canada. stephen.lewis@uhn.ca. 2. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, 399 Bathurst Street, Room 442, First Floor, East Wing, Toronto, ON, M5T 2S8, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of pseudarthrosis at the osteotomy site after three-column spinal osteotomies (3-COs) with posterior column reconstruction. METHODS: 82 consecutive adult 3-COs (66 patients) with a minimum of 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. All cases underwent posterior 3-COs with two-rod constructs. The inferior facets of the proximal level were reduced to the superior facets of the distal level. If that was not possible, a structural piece of bone graft either from the local resection or a local rib was slotted in the posterior column defect to re-establish continual structural posterior bone across the lateral margins of the resection. No interbody cages were used at the level of the osteotomy. RESULTS: There were 34 thoracic osteotomies, 47 lumbar osteotomies and one sacral osteotomy with a mean follow-up of 52 (24-126) months. All cases underwent posterior column reconstructions described above and the addition of interbody support or additional posterior rods was not performed for fusion at the osteotomy level. Among them, 29 patients underwent one or more revision surgeries. There were three definite cases of pseudarthrosis at the osteotomy site (4%). Six revisions were also performed for pseudarthrosis at other levels. CONCLUSION: Restoration of the structural integrity of the posterior column in three-column posterior-based osteotomies was associated with > 95% fusion rate at the level of the osteotomy. Pseudarthrosis at other levels was the second most common reason for revision following adjacent segment disease in the long-term follow-up.
PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of pseudarthrosis at the osteotomy site after three-column spinal osteotomies (3-COs) with posterior column reconstruction. METHODS: 82 consecutive adult 3-COs (66 patients) with a minimum of 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. All cases underwent posterior 3-COs with two-rod constructs. The inferior facets of the proximal level were reduced to the superior facets of the distal level. If that was not possible, a structural piece of bone graft either from the local resection or a local rib was slotted in the posterior column defect to re-establish continual structural posterior bone across the lateral margins of the resection. No interbody cages were used at the level of the osteotomy. RESULTS: There were 34 thoracic osteotomies, 47 lumbar osteotomies and one sacral osteotomy with a mean follow-up of 52 (24-126) months. All cases underwent posterior column reconstructions described above and the addition of interbody support or additional posterior rods was not performed for fusion at the osteotomy level. Among them, 29 patients underwent one or more revision surgeries. There were three definite cases of pseudarthrosis at the osteotomy site (4%). Six revisions were also performed for pseudarthrosis at other levels. CONCLUSION: Restoration of the structural integrity of the posterior column in three-column posterior-based osteotomies was associated with > 95% fusion rate at the level of the osteotomy. Pseudarthrosis at other levels was the second most common reason for revision following adjacent segment disease in the long-term follow-up.
Authors: Joshua D Auerbach; Lawrence G Lenke; Keith H Bridwell; Jennifer K Sehn; Andrew H Milby; David Bumpass; Charles H Crawford; Brian A OʼShaughnessy; Jacob M Buchowski; Michael S Chang; Lukas P Zebala; Brenda A Sides Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Yongjung J Kim; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Gene Cheh; Christine Baldus Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Brian A O'shaughnessy; Timothy R Kuklo; Patrick C Hsieh; Benson P Yang; Tyler R Koski; Stephen L Ondra Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Christopher P Ames; Jason Demakakos; Kai-Ming G Fu; Sassan Keshavarzi; Carol M Y Li; Vedat Deviren; Frank J Schwab; Virginie Lafage; Shay Bess Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.654