Efficacy of percutaneous pedicle screws for thoracic and lumbar spine fractures compared with open technique.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to compare percutaneous techniques (MIS) with the open technique in terms of angle correction, long-term maintenance and clinical results. METHODS: The authors collected a prospective database of thoraco-lumbar fractures treated with posterior stabilization without fusion from 2013 to 2019. The statistical analysis has been carried out retrospectively. The patients were classified into Open and MIS group. To compare the two population, samples, treatments and mitigate the differences between the groups, the propensity score (PS) matching was used. RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients with thoraco-lumbar fractures were included. After performing the PS, 21 patients were obtained in the open group and 28 in the MIS group. For operative and perioperative parameters there were no differences in number of patients with posterior decompression, number of instrumented segments, number of total screws, operative time and complications. Postoperative hemoglobin was similar in both groups. However, in the open group a greater loss of hemoglobin was observed; as well as, higher analgesia requirements and length of stay. No statistically significant differences were observed in neurological status in both groups in the preoperative, postoperative period and at follow-up. The Cobb angle showed no differences at admission comparing both groups. A similar angle correction was observed with both surgeries, but in open surgery there was a statistically significant loss of correction. CONCLUSIONS: We observed in this study that the MIS technique for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures is as effective as the open technique in terms of angle correction; and demonstrated that is better in its maintenance over time. Clinical results were at least as good as with the open technique.

Patients awaiting surgery for neurosurgical diseases during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: a multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The large number of infected patients requiring mechanical ventilation has led to the postponement of scheduled neurosurgical procedures during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aims of this study were to investigate the factors that influence the decision to postpone scheduled neurosurgical procedures and to evaluate the effect of the restriction in scheduled surgery adopted to deal with the first outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain on the outcome of patients awaiting surgery. DESIGN: This was an observational retrospective study. SETTINGS: A tertiary-level multicentre study of neurosurgery activity between 1 March and 30 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 680 patients awaiting any scheduled neurosurgical procedure were enrolled. 470 patients (69.1%) were awaiting surgery because of spine degenerative disease, 86 patients (12.6%) due to functional disorders, 58 patients (8.5%) due to brain or spine tumours, 25 patients (3.7%) due to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) disorders and 17 patients (2.5%) due to cerebrovascular disease. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was mortality due to any reason and any deterioration of the specific neurosurgical condition. Second, we analysed the rate of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: More than one-quarter of patients experienced clinical or radiological deterioration. The rate of worsening was higher among patients with functional (39.5%) or CSF disorders (40%). Two patients died (0.4%) during the waiting period, both because of a concurrent disease. We performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine independent covariates associated with maintaining the surgical indication. We found that community SARS-CoV-2 incidence (OR=1.011, p<0.001), degenerative spine (OR=0.296, p=0.027) and expedited indications (OR=6.095, p<0.001) were independent factors for being operated on during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Patients awaiting neurosurgery experienced significant collateral damage even when they were considered for scheduled procedures.