Distraction, Compression, Extension, and Reduction Combined With Joint Remodeling and Extra-articular Distraction: Description of 2 New Modifications for Its Application in Basilar Invagination and Atlantoaxial Dislocation: Prospective Study in 79 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Recent strategies for treatment of basilar invagination (BI) and atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD) are based on simultaneous posterior reduction and fixation. OBJECTIVE: To describe new modifications of the procedure distraction, compression, extension, and reduction (DCER), ie, joint remodeling (JRM) and extra-articular distraction (EAD) in patients with "vertical" joints, and to quantify the improvement in joint indices, ie, sagittal inclination (SI), craniocervical tilt (CCT), and coronal inclination. METHODS: Prospective study (May 2010 to September 2014). Joint indices measured included (normal values): SI (87.15 ± 5.65°), CCT (60.2 ± 9.2°), and coronal inclination (110.3 ± 4.23°). Surgical procedures included DCER alone (performed in SI <100°, group I) or JRM with DCER (in SI: 100-160°, group II), or EAD with DCER in severe BI with almost vertical joints (SI >160°, group III). RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were selected (mean, 22.5 years of age). All conventional indices improved significantly (P < .001). CCT improved in all groups (P < .01); group I (n = 32): 54 ± 8.7° (preoperative 80.71 ± 12.72°); group II (n = 40): 58 ± 7.0° (preoperative 86.5 ± 14°); group III (n = 7): 62 ± 10.0° (preoperative 104 ± 11.2°). SI improved in both group I and II, P < .01 (cannot be measured in group III). At long-term follow-up (n = 64, 29 ± 8 months, range 12-39 months), the Nurick grade improved to 1.5 ± 0.52 (preoperative: 3.4 ± 0.65; P < .001). CONCLUSION: DCER seems to be an effective technique in reducing both BI and AAD. JRM and EAD with DCER are useful in moderate to severe BI and AAD (with SI >100°). Joint indices provide useful information for surgical strategy and planning.

A prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage versus single-stage management of patients with gallstone disease and common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients with concomitant common bile duct stones and gallstones is still evolving. With the introduction of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration, many centers prefer single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration over preoperative endoscopic bile duct clearance followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The present study was done to compare these two management options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 30 patients with symptomatic gallstones and common bile duct stones were randomized to either treatment option. Preoperative endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and/or magnetic resonance pancreaticography (MRCP) was done in all patients to confirm the diagnosis. In group I, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct exploration was done at the same sitting; in group II, endoscopic stone clearance was followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy 4-6 weeks later. Success was defined as successful treatment by the intended modality. RESULTS: 15 patients were randomized to each group and the two groups had comparable demographic and clinical profile. In group I there was a success rate of 93.5% in comparison with 86.7% in group II (p = 0.32, Fisher's exact test). The complications were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed equivalent success rate in terms of morbidity and hospital stay. Laparoscopic approach seems to be favorable because of the smaller number of procedures and hospital visits.