Spinal Instrumentation With A Low Complication Rate

Background Spinal instrumentation has become an increasing part of the armamentarium of neurosurgery and neurosurgical training. For noncontroversial indications for spine fusion the arthrodesis rate seems to be better. For both noncontroversial and controversial indications, the reported complicati...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical neurology 1997-12, Vol.48 (6), p.566-574
Hauptverfasser: Shapiro, Scott A, Snyder, William
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 574
container_issue 6
container_start_page 566
container_title Surgical neurology
container_volume 48
creator Shapiro, Scott A
Snyder, William
description Background Spinal instrumentation has become an increasing part of the armamentarium of neurosurgery and neurosurgical training. For noncontroversial indications for spine fusion the arthrodesis rate seems to be better. For both noncontroversial and controversial indications, the reported complication rate with spinal instrumentation tends to be greater than that with noninstrumented spine surgeries. These reported complications include a 2–3% neurologic injury rate, 3–45% reoperation rate for implant failure, and infection rates of 5–10%. Therefore, we report on 299 cases that have undergone spinal instrumentation placed exclusively by neurosurgeons with a very low complication rate. Methods Two hundred ninety-nine consecutive spinal instrumentation cases performed exclusively by neurosurgeons at Indiana University Medical Center were analyzed for complications related to spinal instrumentation. The spinal instrumentation placed consisted of 195 anterior cervical locking plates, 22 cases of posterior cervical instrumentation, 9 cases of combined anterior locking plates with posterior cervical instrumentation, 14 anterior thoraco-lumbar plates, 51 posterior thoraco-lumbar instrumentation cases, and 8 combined anterior/posterior thoraco-lumbar instrumentation cases. Results The mean follow-up is 40 months (6–95). There was one perioperative death unrelated to the spinal instrumentation. There were no neurologic injuries and there has been no hardware infection to date. There were two dural tears, three superficial wound infections, and three minor wound breakdowns successfully treated. Hardware complications included three cervical plate/screw extrusions reoperated, one cervical plate fracture reoperated, one posterior cervical screw backout not reoperated, one case of broken pedicle screws not reoperated, one vertebral body failure not reoperated, and one posterior rod case reoperated for excessive rod length and protrusion. The overall complication rate attributable to placement of spinal instrumentation was 10/299 (3%) with a reoperation rate of 2%. The arthrodesis rate was 298/299 (99%). Conclusion The complication rate for using spinal instrumentation can be less than previously reported. Lessons learned and discussed should reduce the rate even more. Spinal instrumentation is a safe and useful adjunct to fusion in treating degenerative, traumatic, infectious, and neoplastic diseases of the spine.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0090-3019(97)00296-6
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79467848</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0090301997002966</els_id><sourcerecordid>79467848</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-d6233c5304e2735e9e7b9e33b890ab3f301a3afd7d58214d9929db47d5da3daf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE1LxEAMhgdR1nX1Jyz0JHqopk3baU6yLH4sLAiu4nGYdlIc6cfaaRX_vd0P9uopJHmTN3mEmAZwE0CQ3K4ACHyEgK5IXgOElPjJkRgHqSQfEelYjA-SU3Hm3CcAIMU0EiOKABKUY4Grta116S1q17V9xXWnO9vU3rvtPryZt2x-vHlTrUub7-ovuuNzcVLo0vHFPk7E28P96_zJXz4_LuazpZ9jAp1vkhAxjxEiDiXGTCwzYsQsJdAZFsNdGnVhpInTMIgMUUgmi4bUaDS6wIm43O1dt81Xz65TlXU5l6WuuemdkhQlMo3SQRjvhHnbONdyodatrXT7qwJQG1hqC0ttSCiSagtLJcPcdG_QZxWbw9SeztC_2_V5-PLbcqtcbrnO2diW806Zxv7j8Ad_UXgo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>79467848</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Spinal Instrumentation With A Low Complication Rate</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Shapiro, Scott A ; Snyder, William</creator><creatorcontrib>Shapiro, Scott A ; Snyder, William</creatorcontrib><description>Background Spinal instrumentation has become an increasing part of the armamentarium of neurosurgery and neurosurgical training. For noncontroversial indications for spine fusion the arthrodesis rate seems to be better. For both noncontroversial and controversial indications, the reported complication rate with spinal instrumentation tends to be greater than that with noninstrumented spine surgeries. These reported complications include a 2–3% neurologic injury rate, 3–45% reoperation rate for implant failure, and infection rates of 5–10%. Therefore, we report on 299 cases that have undergone spinal instrumentation placed exclusively by neurosurgeons with a very low complication rate. Methods Two hundred ninety-nine consecutive spinal instrumentation cases performed exclusively by neurosurgeons at Indiana University Medical Center were analyzed for complications related to spinal instrumentation. The spinal instrumentation placed consisted of 195 anterior cervical locking plates, 22 cases of posterior cervical instrumentation, 9 cases of combined anterior locking plates with posterior cervical instrumentation, 14 anterior thoraco-lumbar plates, 51 posterior thoraco-lumbar instrumentation cases, and 8 combined anterior/posterior thoraco-lumbar instrumentation cases. Results The mean follow-up is 40 months (6–95). There was one perioperative death unrelated to the spinal instrumentation. There were no neurologic injuries and there has been no hardware infection to date. There were two dural tears, three superficial wound infections, and three minor wound breakdowns successfully treated. Hardware complications included three cervical plate/screw extrusions reoperated, one cervical plate fracture reoperated, one posterior cervical screw backout not reoperated, one case of broken pedicle screws not reoperated, one vertebral body failure not reoperated, and one posterior rod case reoperated for excessive rod length and protrusion. The overall complication rate attributable to placement of spinal instrumentation was 10/299 (3%) with a reoperation rate of 2%. The arthrodesis rate was 298/299 (99%). Conclusion The complication rate for using spinal instrumentation can be less than previously reported. Lessons learned and discussed should reduce the rate even more. Spinal instrumentation is a safe and useful adjunct to fusion in treating degenerative, traumatic, infectious, and neoplastic diseases of the spine.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-3019</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3339</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0090-3019(97)00296-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9400637</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Bone Plates ; Cervical Vertebrae - surgery ; Complications ; hardware infection ; Humans ; Internal Fixators - adverse effects ; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Radiography ; Sacrum - surgery ; Spinal Diseases - diagnostic imaging ; Spinal Diseases - surgery ; spinal instrumentation ; spine fusion ; Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Surgical neurology, 1997-12, Vol.48 (6), p.566-574</ispartof><rights>1997 Elsevier Science Inc.</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-d6233c5304e2735e9e7b9e33b890ab3f301a3afd7d58214d9929db47d5da3daf3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9400637$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shapiro, Scott A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, William</creatorcontrib><title>Spinal Instrumentation With A Low Complication Rate</title><title>Surgical neurology</title><addtitle>Surg Neurol</addtitle><description>Background Spinal instrumentation has become an increasing part of the armamentarium of neurosurgery and neurosurgical training. For noncontroversial indications for spine fusion the arthrodesis rate seems to be better. For both noncontroversial and controversial indications, the reported complication rate with spinal instrumentation tends to be greater than that with noninstrumented spine surgeries. These reported complications include a 2–3% neurologic injury rate, 3–45% reoperation rate for implant failure, and infection rates of 5–10%. Therefore, we report on 299 cases that have undergone spinal instrumentation placed exclusively by neurosurgeons with a very low complication rate. Methods Two hundred ninety-nine consecutive spinal instrumentation cases performed exclusively by neurosurgeons at Indiana University Medical Center were analyzed for complications related to spinal instrumentation. The spinal instrumentation placed consisted of 195 anterior cervical locking plates, 22 cases of posterior cervical instrumentation, 9 cases of combined anterior locking plates with posterior cervical instrumentation, 14 anterior thoraco-lumbar plates, 51 posterior thoraco-lumbar instrumentation cases, and 8 combined anterior/posterior thoraco-lumbar instrumentation cases. Results The mean follow-up is 40 months (6–95). There was one perioperative death unrelated to the spinal instrumentation. There were no neurologic injuries and there has been no hardware infection to date. There were two dural tears, three superficial wound infections, and three minor wound breakdowns successfully treated. Hardware complications included three cervical plate/screw extrusions reoperated, one cervical plate fracture reoperated, one posterior cervical screw backout not reoperated, one case of broken pedicle screws not reoperated, one vertebral body failure not reoperated, and one posterior rod case reoperated for excessive rod length and protrusion. The overall complication rate attributable to placement of spinal instrumentation was 10/299 (3%) with a reoperation rate of 2%. The arthrodesis rate was 298/299 (99%). Conclusion The complication rate for using spinal instrumentation can be less than previously reported. Lessons learned and discussed should reduce the rate even more. Spinal instrumentation is a safe and useful adjunct to fusion in treating degenerative, traumatic, infectious, and neoplastic diseases of the spine.</description><subject>Bone Plates</subject><subject>Cervical Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>hardware infection</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Fixators - adverse effects</subject><subject>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Sacrum - surgery</subject><subject>Spinal Diseases - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Spinal Diseases - surgery</subject><subject>spinal instrumentation</subject><subject>spine fusion</subject><subject>Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0090-3019</issn><issn>1879-3339</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE1LxEAMhgdR1nX1Jyz0JHqopk3baU6yLH4sLAiu4nGYdlIc6cfaaRX_vd0P9uopJHmTN3mEmAZwE0CQ3K4ACHyEgK5IXgOElPjJkRgHqSQfEelYjA-SU3Hm3CcAIMU0EiOKABKUY4Grta116S1q17V9xXWnO9vU3rvtPryZt2x-vHlTrUub7-ovuuNzcVLo0vHFPk7E28P96_zJXz4_LuazpZ9jAp1vkhAxjxEiDiXGTCwzYsQsJdAZFsNdGnVhpInTMIgMUUgmi4bUaDS6wIm43O1dt81Xz65TlXU5l6WuuemdkhQlMo3SQRjvhHnbONdyodatrXT7qwJQG1hqC0ttSCiSagtLJcPcdG_QZxWbw9SeztC_2_V5-PLbcqtcbrnO2diW806Zxv7j8Ad_UXgo</recordid><startdate>19971201</startdate><enddate>19971201</enddate><creator>Shapiro, Scott A</creator><creator>Snyder, William</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19971201</creationdate><title>Spinal Instrumentation With A Low Complication Rate</title><author>Shapiro, Scott A ; Snyder, William</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-d6233c5304e2735e9e7b9e33b890ab3f301a3afd7d58214d9929db47d5da3daf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Bone Plates</topic><topic>Cervical Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>hardware infection</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Fixators - adverse effects</topic><topic>Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Sacrum - surgery</topic><topic>Spinal Diseases - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Spinal Diseases - surgery</topic><topic>spinal instrumentation</topic><topic>spine fusion</topic><topic>Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shapiro, Scott A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, William</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Surgical neurology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shapiro, Scott A</au><au>Snyder, William</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Spinal Instrumentation With A Low Complication Rate</atitle><jtitle>Surgical neurology</jtitle><addtitle>Surg Neurol</addtitle><date>1997-12-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>566</spage><epage>574</epage><pages>566-574</pages><issn>0090-3019</issn><eissn>1879-3339</eissn><abstract>Background Spinal instrumentation has become an increasing part of the armamentarium of neurosurgery and neurosurgical training. For noncontroversial indications for spine fusion the arthrodesis rate seems to be better. For both noncontroversial and controversial indications, the reported complication rate with spinal instrumentation tends to be greater than that with noninstrumented spine surgeries. These reported complications include a 2–3% neurologic injury rate, 3–45% reoperation rate for implant failure, and infection rates of 5–10%. Therefore, we report on 299 cases that have undergone spinal instrumentation placed exclusively by neurosurgeons with a very low complication rate. Methods Two hundred ninety-nine consecutive spinal instrumentation cases performed exclusively by neurosurgeons at Indiana University Medical Center were analyzed for complications related to spinal instrumentation. The spinal instrumentation placed consisted of 195 anterior cervical locking plates, 22 cases of posterior cervical instrumentation, 9 cases of combined anterior locking plates with posterior cervical instrumentation, 14 anterior thoraco-lumbar plates, 51 posterior thoraco-lumbar instrumentation cases, and 8 combined anterior/posterior thoraco-lumbar instrumentation cases. Results The mean follow-up is 40 months (6–95). There was one perioperative death unrelated to the spinal instrumentation. There were no neurologic injuries and there has been no hardware infection to date. There were two dural tears, three superficial wound infections, and three minor wound breakdowns successfully treated. Hardware complications included three cervical plate/screw extrusions reoperated, one cervical plate fracture reoperated, one posterior cervical screw backout not reoperated, one case of broken pedicle screws not reoperated, one vertebral body failure not reoperated, and one posterior rod case reoperated for excessive rod length and protrusion. The overall complication rate attributable to placement of spinal instrumentation was 10/299 (3%) with a reoperation rate of 2%. The arthrodesis rate was 298/299 (99%). Conclusion The complication rate for using spinal instrumentation can be less than previously reported. Lessons learned and discussed should reduce the rate even more. Spinal instrumentation is a safe and useful adjunct to fusion in treating degenerative, traumatic, infectious, and neoplastic diseases of the spine.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>9400637</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0090-3019(97)00296-6</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-3019
ispartof Surgical neurology, 1997-12, Vol.48 (6), p.566-574
issn 0090-3019
1879-3339
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79467848
source MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Bone Plates
Cervical Vertebrae - surgery
Complications
hardware infection
Humans
Internal Fixators - adverse effects
Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Radiography
Sacrum - surgery
Spinal Diseases - diagnostic imaging
Spinal Diseases - surgery
spinal instrumentation
spine fusion
Thoracic Vertebrae - surgery
Treatment Outcome
title Spinal Instrumentation With A Low Complication Rate
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T15%3A41%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Spinal%20Instrumentation%20With%20A%20Low%20Complication%20Rate&rft.jtitle=Surgical%20neurology&rft.au=Shapiro,%20Scott%20A&rft.date=1997-12-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=566&rft.epage=574&rft.pages=566-574&rft.issn=0090-3019&rft.eissn=1879-3339&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0090-3019(97)00296-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E79467848%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=79467848&rft_id=info:pmid/9400637&rft_els_id=S0090301997002966&rfr_iscdi=true