Comparison of single-level L4-L5 versus L5-S1 lumbar disc replacement: results and prognostic factors.

The aim of our prospective non-randomized clinical study was to analyze operative data, short-term results, safety, efficacy, complications, and prognostic factors for single-level total lumbar disc replacement (TLDR), and to compare results between different levels (L4-L5 vs. L5-S1). Thirty-six patients with single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 TLDR, with 1-year minimum follow-up (FU), had complete clinical [SF36, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] and radiological data, and were included in our study. Mean FU was 38.67 +/- 17.34 months. Replaced level was L4-L5 in 12 (33.3%) cases, and L5-S1 in 24 cases (66.7%). Mean age at diagnosis was 41.17 +/- 7.14 years. 24 (66.7%) were females and 12 (33.3%) were males. Statistical analyses were assessed using t tests or Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test analyses for categorical variables. Univariate linear regression and binary logistic regression analyses were utilized to evaluate the relationship between surgical outcomes and covariates (gender, age, etiology, treated level, pre-operative SF36, ODI, and VAS). Mean operative time was 147.03 +/- 30.03 min. Mean hospital stay was 9.69 +/- 5.39 days, and mean return to ambulation was 4.31 +/- 1.17 days. At 1-year FU, patients revealed a statistical significant improvement in VAS pain (P = 0.000), ODI lumbar function (P = 0.000), and SF36 general health status (P = 0.000). Single-level TLDR is a good alternative to fusion for chronic discogenic low back pain refractory to conservative measures. Our study confirmed satisfactory clinical results for monosegmental L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc prosthesis, with no difference between the two different levels for SF36 (P = 0.217), ODI (P = 0.527), and VAS (P = 0.269). However, replacement of the L4-L5 disc is affected by an increased risk of complication (P = 0.000). There were no prognostic factors for intraoperative blood loss or return to ambulation. Age (P = 0.034) was the only prognostic factor for operative time. Hospital stay was affected by level (P = 0.036) and pre-op VAS (P = 0.006), while complications were affected by the level (P = 0.000) and pre-op ODI (P = 0.049). Complete pre-operative assessment (in particular VAS and ODI questionnaires) is important because more debilitating patients will have more hospital stay and higher complications or complaints. Patients had to be informed that complications, possibly severe, are particularly frequent (80.6%).

Traumatic atlantoaxial rotatory dislocation in adults.

Pure traumatic atlantoaxial rotatory dislocation (TAARD) is a possible cause of torticollis in children, but very rare in adults. Aim of this study is to report three very rare cases of TAARD in adults, focusing anatomy, management, and outcome. All 3 patients had a head-on automobile accident. Cases included a 26-year old woman, a 21-year old woman, and a 29-year-old man. The first case had a 45-day delay in diagnosis; the second and third cases were suspected to have odontoid lateral mass asymmetry on transoral radiographs. In all cases CT scan confirmed diagnosis and clarified the type of subluxation. All had conservative treatment with reduction and immobilization with Halo-Vest for case 1 and 2, and a rigid cervical collar for case 3. After follow-up of 10 years for case 1 and 2, and 3 years for case 3, all had no sign of C1-C2 complex mobility/instability. Patients 2 and 3 had complete and pain free cervical spine range of motion, while case 1 had stiffness and straightness of the cervical spine, headache, and nerve roots deficits, probably due to the complex cervical spine injury with sagittal imbalance on X-ray and C5-C6 spinal cord compression (pre-existing the trauma). TAARD should be considered in the differential diagnosis of post-traumatic neck pain and limitation, with or without evident torticollis, even in adults. CT scan is mandatory for a correct evaluation of C1-C2 complex. Conservative treatment with reduction followed by 50-60 days of rigid cervical immobilization (3 months in delayed diagnosis) is usually effective. Delay in diagnosis could be the cause of a poor outcome.

Is conservative treatment really effective for Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease? A critical review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of Legg-Calvé-Perthes Disease (LCPD) is controversial and not well defined. This literature review aimed to assess the quality of the evidence available to support the effectiveness of conservative LCPD treatment advocated by orthopaedic surgeons and(or) paediatricians. A secondary aim was to see if conservative treatments really modify the natural history of LCPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review was performed mainly on the PubMed Database and based on the principles of Evidence Based Practice (EBP). Keywords used were Perthes disease, conservative treatment, containment treatment, review, and weight-relief. EBP is the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values of which there are five different levels of evidence: (1) Randomized Controlled Trials; (2) Prospective Cohort Study; (3) Case Control or Retrospective Cohort Study;(4) Case Series; 5) Expert Opinion or Individual Case Report. Results. Until 20th August 2005 there were 144 articles of clinical relevance about conservative treatment of LCPD: 16.7% of EBP level 5; 50.7% of level 4; 31.9% of level 3; none of level 2; and 0.7% of level 1. CONCLUSION: The quality of evidence that supports conservative treatment for children with LCPD is not of high quality. There is no scientific evidence that conservative treatments modify LCPD natural history. Containment, no containment and simple symptomatic treatment have comparable effectiveness. Prolonged weight-relief and(or) containment treatments are associated with social and psychological problems.