RESUMEN

CASE: We present a case of a 54-year-old man with atraumatic, U-type sacral insufficiency and L5 compression fractures leading to spinopelvic dissociation, inability to ambulate, and bowel/bladder compromise. The patient underwent L3-4 percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with bilateral iliac bolts and percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation. Postoperatively, the patient had return of bowel/bladder function and independent ambulation at 2.5 years. CONCLUSION: Atraumatic spinopelvic dissociation is an underappreciated pathology in older patients. Here, we describe the result of our preferred treatment strategy, triangular osteosynthesis, to preserve function and independence. Despite optimal, prompt treatment, these injuries pose a difficult rehabilitation process for patients.

Asunto(s)

Fracturas por Estrés , Fracturas de la Columna Vertebral , Masculino , Humanos , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Fracturas de la Columna Vertebral/diagnóstico por imagen , Fracturas de la Columna Vertebral/cirugía , Fracturas por Estrés/diagnóstico por imagen , Fracturas por Estrés/cirugía , Sacro/diagnóstico por imagen , Sacro/cirugía , Sacro/lesiones , Fijación Interna de Fracturas/métodos , Ilion/cirugía

RESUMEN

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the radiographic and clinical utility of postoperative orthoses following cervical spine surgery. METHODS: We performed a search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline Ovid, and SCOPUS databases from inception until November 2021. Eligible studies included outcomes of postoperative bracing vs no bracing following cervical spine surgery. The primary outcome of interest was fusion rates after cervical surgery in braced vs unbraced patients. Secondary outcomes included patient reported outcomes and complication rates. RESULTS: A total of 3232 titles were initially screened. After inclusion criteria were applied, 7 studies (550 patients) were included, which compared results of braced vs unbraced patients after cervical spine surgery. These studies showed acceptable reliability for inclusion based on the Methodical Index for Non-Randomized studies and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme assessment tools. There were no significant differences in fusion rates or complications between braced vs unbraced patients identified in any study. Patient reported pain and quality of life measures between braced and unbraced groups varied amongst studies, without any clear overall advantages favoring either method. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that external bracing, though widely used following cervical spine surgery, may not offer any advantages in patient-reported outcomes, as compared to not bracing. In regard to the effect of bracing on fusion rates, no strong consensus can be made as the methods of fusion assessment in the included studies were heterogenous and suboptimal. Future high-quality studies using recommended methods of fusion assessment are needed to adequately address this important question.

RESUMEN

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pathology is a common cause of significant pain and disability, and operative treatment consisting of SIJ fusion can be performed in cases where non-operative measures fail to provide sustained relief. Through the years, SIJ fusion has evolved from an open invasive procedure, to more recently, being performed through minimally invasive techniques. Intraoperative navigation systems and robotic guidance are becoming popularized for SIJ fusion, as well as other routine and complex spinal cases. The utility of navigation and robotics is the enhanced ability of the surgeon to place instrumentation more accurately, with less dissection, blood less, and overall operative time. We present a technique guide for robotic instrumented SIJ fusion with intraoperative navigation that we have put into practice at our institution and found to be very beneficial to patients for the above reasons. We describe the setup and utilization of these technologies intraoperatively, and provide specific case examples to highlight our technique. The described methods have been found to be effective and reproducible, allowing for minimally invasive SIJ screw placement with high accuracy and safety. We emphasize that utilizing intraoperative navigation and robotics is not meant to substitute for surgeon knowledge of case steps or anatomy, but rather to enhance safety and efficacy. To our knowledge, robotic SIJ fusion has not been previously described in the literature.

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: Return-to-play (RTP) outcomes in elite athletes after cervical spine surgery are currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review RTP outcomes in elite athletes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc replacement (CDR), or posterior foraminotomy (PF) surgery. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, and Medline databases from inception until April 2020. Keywords included elite athletes, return to play, ACDF, foraminotomy, and cervical disc replacement. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies included those that reported RTP outcomes in elite athletes after cervical spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: The primary outcomes of interest were rates and timing of RTP. Secondary outcomes included performance on RTP. A total of 1720 studies were initially screened. After inclusion criteria were applied, 13 studies with a total of 349 patients were included. A total of 262 (75%) played football, 37 (11%) played baseball, 19 (5%) played rugby, 10 (3%) played basketball, 10 (3%) played hockey, 9 (3%) were wresters, and 2 (1%) played soccer. ACDF was reported in 13 studies, PF in 3 studies, and CDR in 2 studies. The majority of studies suggest that RTP after surgical management is safe in elite athletes who are asymptomatic after their procedure and may lead to higher rates and earlier times of RTP. There is limited evidence regarding RTP or outcomes after CDR or multilevel surgery. CONCLUSION: The management and RTP in elite athletes after cervical spine injury is a highly complex and multifactorial topic. The overall evidence in this review suggests that RTP in asymptomatic athletes after both ACDF and PF is safe, and there is little evidence for decreased performance postoperatively. Surgical management results in a higher RTP rate compared with athletes managed conservatively.

Asunto(s)

Vértebras Cervicales/cirugía , Volver al Deporte , Enfermedades de la Columna Vertebral/cirugía , Traumatismos Vertebrales/cirugía , Vértebras Cervicales/lesiones , Humanos

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) on fracture healing is a topic of debate. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effect of NSAID medications on spinal fracture healing rates. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline Ovid, and SCOPUS databases from inception until April 2021, and additionally searched the NIH Clinical Trials Database. Eligible studies included those which reported on spinal fracture healing rates in patients taking NSAIDs. Two reviewers independently assessed all potential studies for eligibility and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed with validated tools by two reviewers. The primary outcome of interest was healing rates of spinal fractures in patients taking NSAIDs. Secondary outcomes of interest included healing rates stratified by NSAID selectivity. RESULTS: A total of 1,715 studies were initially screened. After inclusion criteria were applied, three studies (214 patients) were included which discussed spinal fracture healing rates in patients taking NSAIDs. These studies showed acceptable reliability for inclusion. The 3 studies reported heterogeneous results, with one study reporting a 96% healing rate, and another study reporting over 90% non-union rate. The types of fracture, NSAID type, and dosage/duration of NSAID use varied widely amongst studies. DISCUSSION: This systematic review identified a significant paucity in the literature on the effect of NSAID medications on spinal fracture healing rates. Given the limited number of studies, as well as the heterogeneous results and methods from these studies, no consensus statement can be made on the safety profile of NSAIDs in the context of spinal fractures. Further studies are needed to better address this question.