Yu Chao Lee1, Robert Lee1. 1. Spinal Surgery Unit, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revision spinal surgery following primary spinal fusion procedure occurs in 8-45% of cases. Reasons for revision include recurrence of stenosis, non-union, implant failure, infection, adjacent segment degeneration and flat back fusion. With the rise in elective lumbar fusion rates, it is expected that the rate for revision spinal surgery will also increase with time. The use of minimal invasive surgical techniques for revision spinal surgery is controversial. Careful patient and technique selection is important in achieving satisfactory outcome in revision spinal surgery. METHODS: This article outlines our algorithm for selecting the appropriate minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for revision lumbar spinal surgery. Surgical options range from decompression employing MIS techniques to open osteotomies, but the optimal approach comes down to two deciding factors: (I) nature of previous surgery and (II) spinopelvic parameters. RESULTS: Representative revision cases managed using MIS techniques based on proposed revision algorithm are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed algorithm provides surgeons with a systematic approach in selecting the appropriate combination of MIS techniques for revision lumbar spinal surgery based on pathology and sagittal alignment. 2019 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Revision spinal surgery following primary spinal fusion procedure occurs in 8-45% of cases. Reasons for revision include recurrence of stenosis, non-union, implant failure, infection, adjacent segment degeneration and flat back fusion. With the rise in elective lumbar fusion rates, it is expected that the rate for revision spinal surgery will also increase with time. The use of minimal invasive surgical techniques for revision spinal surgery is controversial. Careful patient and technique selection is important in achieving satisfactory outcome in revision spinal surgery. METHODS: This article outlines our algorithm for selecting the appropriate minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for revision lumbar spinal surgery. Surgical options range from decompression employing MIS techniques to open osteotomies, but the optimal approach comes down to two deciding factors: (I) nature of previous surgery and (II) spinopelvic parameters. RESULTS: Representative revision cases managed using MIS techniques based on proposed revision algorithm are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed algorithm provides surgeons with a systematic approach in selecting the appropriate combination of MIS techniques for revision lumbar spinal surgery based on pathology and sagittal alignment. 2019 Journal of Spine Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Renaud Lafage; Frank Schwab; Vincent Challier; Jensen K Henry; Jeffrey Gum; Justin Smith; Richard Hostin; Christopher Shaffrey; Han J Kim; Christopher Ames; Justin Scheer; Eric Klineberg; Shay Bess; Douglas Burton; Virginie Lafage Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Frank J Schwab; Nicola Hawkinson; Virginie Lafage; Justin S Smith; Robert Hart; Gregory Mundis; Douglas C Burton; Breton Line; Behrooz Akbarnia; Oheneba Boachie-Adjei; Richard Hostin; Christopher I Shaffrey; Vincent Arlet; Kirkham Wood; Munish Gupta; Shay Bess; Praveen V Mummaneni Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Varun Puvanesarajah; Francis H Shen; Jourdan M Cancienne; Wendy M Novicoff; Amit Jain; Adam L Shimer; Hamid Hassanzadeh Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2016-05-06
Authors: Mark A Pichelmann; Lawrence G Lenke; Keith H Bridwell; Christopher R Good; Patrick T O'Leary; Brenda A Sides Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468