Hollow Screw Placement Combined with Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Serves as a Valuable Three-Column Intensive Treatment for Patients with Kummell's Disease and Pedicle Rupture.

Purpose: To introduce the surgical methods and clinical results of percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) combined with hollow screw placement as a treatment for patients with Kummell's disease and pedicle rupture. Methods: From January 2020 to January 2023, a total of 10 patients with Kummell's disease and pedicle rupture confirmed via imaging underwent three-column intensive therapy using hollow screws combined with PVP. There were two males and eight females with an average age 75.7±6.11 years old. The time of operation, bone cement injection amount, bone cement leakage during operation were recorded. X-ray and CT were reexamined after operation. The improvement in quality of life was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the improvement in low back pain was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: Hollow screw placement combined with PVP was successfully performed in all patients. The average operation time was 39.2±5.1 min, and the average volume of bone cement injected was 5.85±0.83mL. No leakage of bone cement into spinal canal occurred.The mean preoperative ODI score was 75.70±4.39, but this decreased significantly postoperatively(P<0.05), being 37.70±6.95 at 1 day and 26.40±4.90, 23.70±4.87, 21.70±5.46, and 20.50±4.21 at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the operation, respectively. The mean VAS pain score before the operation was 8.35±0.63, but the symptoms of back pain were significantly relieved after operation(P<0.05). The mean VAS scores 1 day and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the operation were 3.45±0.47, 2.55±0.60, 1.89±0.48, 1.50±0.27, and 1.12±0.20, respectively. Conclusion: Hollow screw placement combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty serves as a valuable three-column intensive treatment for patients with Kummell's disease and pedicle rupture. This procedure has the advantages of minimal trauma, less pain and quick recovery. The strong anchoring of bone cement and hollow screws provides stable and firm healing conditions for vertebral and pedicle fractures.

Treatment of thoracolumbar fractures by temporary posterior instrumentation with selective fusion schemes.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study investigated the clinical and radiographic outcomes following temporary transpedicular posterior instrumentation between two cohorts of patients with thoracolumbar fractures (TLF) who underwent selective or bi-segments intervertebral articular process fusion. METHODS: Patients with TLF who underwent the temporary posterior fixation with selective fusion (Group SF), or bi-segments fusion (Group BF) were studied. Superior intervertebral articular process and interlaminar fusion were performed in Group SF, whereas in Group BF, the patients underwent bi-segments fusion in both superior and inferior articular processes, as well as interlaminar fusion. We measured the distal and proximal intervertebral mobility, regional kyphotic angle, and vertebral height before and after surgery in both groups. Greenough Low-Back Outcome Score was used to assess the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients with TLF from T12 to L2 fractures were enrolled in the study period: 33 patients in the Group SF and 32 patients in the Group BF. All the patients experienced fracture healing (mean follow-up time: 19.7 months). The mean postoperative functional outcomes were 65.0 ± 2.0 points for the Low-Back Outcome Score in the Group SF and 65.2 ± 1.8 for the Group BF. A progressive regional kyphotic angle was observed with time regardless of fusion but was not significantly different between the two groups. There was a statistical difference between unfused inferior proximal adjacent and inferior distal adjacent segment regardless of fracture segments. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy of selective fusion is reported to be useful for the treatment of patients with TLF. The motion in the un-fused and adjacent segment could be better regained after instrumentation removal in the selective fusion group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Infection Risk of Lumbar Epidural Injection in the Operating Theatre Prior to Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine the association between preoperative lumbar epidural injections (LEIs) in the operating theater (OR) and the occurrence of surgical site infection (SSI) after posterior lumbar instrumented fusion surgery. METHODS: This study was performed from January 2015 to September 2019. We enrolled 2312 patients who underwent lumbar surgery without LEIs (control group) and 469 patients who underwent lumbar surgery after LEIs in the OR. We further separated the patients by the time interval between the LEIs and surgery: 1) for the 0-1 M group, lumbar surgery was performed within 1 month after the LEIs, and 2) for the >1 M group, it was performed more than 1 month after the LEIs. RESULTS: The postoperative infection rate in the 0-1 M group was considerably higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0101). We further subdivided the 0-1 M and >1 M groups into four subgroups: a) the 0-1 MNS group included patients in the 0-1 M group who did not receive steroids; b) the 0-1 MS group who received steroids; c) the >1 MNS group included patients in the >1 M group who did not receive steroids; d) the >1 MS group who received steroids. The postoperative infection rate in the 0-1 MS subgroup was considerably higher than that in the control group (p = 0.0018). However, the infection rate was lower in the >1 MS subgroup (p = 0.1650). There were no statistically significant differences in the postoperative infection rate between the control group and the two non-steroid groups (0-1 MNS group, p = 0.4961; 1 MNS group, p = 0.7381). CONCLUSION: The administration of LEIs without steroids in the OR before lumbar instrumented fusion does not significantly increase patients' risk of postoperative infection. We recommend avoiding steroid injections administered within 1 month before lumbar instrumented fusion.