Dynamic posterior stabilization for degenerative lumbar spine disease: a large consecutive case series with long-term follow-up by additional postal survey.

INTRODUCTION: Dynamic stabilization of the degenerated spine was invented to overcome the negative side effects of fusion surgery like adjacent segment degeneration. Amongst various different implants DSS(®) is a pedicle-based dynamic device for stabilizing the spine and preserving motion. Nearly no clinical data of the implant have been reported so far. The current analysis presents results from a single spine surgeon who has been using DSS(®) for the past 5 years and recorded all treatment and outcome data in the international Spine Tango registry. MATERIALS/METHODS: From the prospectively documented overall patient pool 436 cases treated with DSS(®) could be identified. The analysis was enhanced with a mailing of COMI patient questionnaires for generating longer-term follow-ups up to 4 years. RESULTS: 387 patients (189 male, 198 female; mean age 67.3 years) with degenerative lumbar spinal disease including degenerative spondylolisthesis (6.1 %) could be evaluated. The type of degeneration was mainly spinal stenosis (89.9 %). After a mean follow-up of 1.94 years, the COMI score and NRS back and leg pain improved significantly and to a clinically relevant extent. The postoperative trend analysis could not determine a relevant deterioration of these outcomes until 4 years postoperative. 10 patients were revised (2.6 %) and the implant was removed; in most cases, a fusion was performed. Another 5 cases (1.3 %) had an extension of the dynamic stabilization system to the adjacent level. 84.2 % of patients rated that the surgery had helped a lot or had helped. DISCUSSION: The results of this large consecutive series with a follow-up up to 4 years could demonstrate a good and stable clinical outcome after posterior dynamic stabilization with DSS(®). For degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine, this treatment seems to be a valid alternative to fusion surgery.

Spine Tango annual report 2012.

PURPOSE: Since the Spine Tango registry was founded over a decade ago it has become established internationally. An annual report has been produced using the same format as the SWEspine group to allow for first data comparisons between the two registries. METHODS: Data was captured with the latest generation of surgery and follow-up forms. Also, the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) from interventions performed in the year 2012 with follow-up to June 2013 was analyzed. Groups of patients with the most common degenerative lumbar spine diseases and a single group of patients with degenerative cervical spine diseases were created. The demographics, risk factors, previous treatments, current treatment, short-term outcomes, patient satisfaction and complications were analyzed. Pre- and postoperative pain and function scores were derived from the COMI. RESULTS: About 6,500 procedures were captured with Spine Tango in 2012. The definitions and composition of all the degenerative groups could not completely be matched between the two registries with the consequence that the age and sex distributions were partially different. Preoperative pain levels were similar. The short-term outcomes available did not allow for evaluation of the final result of surgical intervention. This will be possible with the longer term data in the next annual report. There was a distinct disparity in reported complication rates between surgeons and patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is a valuable first step in creating comparable reports for SWEspine and Spine Tango. The German spine registry may be able to collaborate in the future because of similar items and data structure as Spine Tango. There needs to be more work on understanding the harmonization of the different degenerative subgroups. The Spine Tango report is weakened by the short and incomplete follow-up. The visual presentation of data may be a useful model for aiding decision making for surgeons and patients in the future.

[Traumatic physeal separations of the distal tibia. Occurrence, forms, treatment strategies]. / Traumatische Wachstumsfugenlösungen der distalen Tibia. Aufkommen, Formen, Behandlungsstrategien.

Traumatic physeal separations (SH I/II) of the lower extremities are rare. Complications are reported in 2.2-39.6%. The current study is intended to provide recent data concerning epidemiology and treatment decisions in physeal separation of the distal tibia. All patients who suffered a physeal separation of the distal tibia in a 36-month period were included in a multicenter study. Age, gender, mechanism of injury, classification, therapeutic decision, and early complications were recorded online. There were 150 cases (64.6% male, 35.4% female, average age 11.8 years). The most frequent mechanism of injury was sportive activity (42%); 76% of cases needed reduction. Antecurvation was tolerated up to 10° (p=0.0021) and valgus up to 7° (p=0.0155). Tolerance ranges up to 5° of retrocurvation and varus were not statistically significant. The investigation confirmed epidemiological data of former studies. For the first time data concerning the treatment reality of physeal separations of the distal tibia were recorded. They consistently follow the recommendations of the appropriate literature.

[Do paediatric and adult surgeons follow different approaches to physeal fractures?]. / Haben Kinderchirurgen und Erwachsenenchirurgen unterschiedliche Therapieansätze bei der Behandlung von Wachstumsfugenlösungen?

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of paediatric fractures is the concern of several different surgical specialties. There has been no scientific investigation on the different concepts of paediatric (PS) and adult surgeons (AS). METHODS: 62 paediatric traumatologists were asked concerning their experience with physeal fractures of the leg, including ten cases. RESULTS: Growth disturbances was estimated to be more rare by PS. On evaluation of the examples there were no significant differences in the judgement of degree and direction of the displacement. For displaced fractures, PS rather preferred closed reduction and immobilisation, whereas AS favoured osteosynthesis. DISCUSSION: There were no basic differences between PS and AS in the treatment of lower limb fractures. AS tend to act more invasively. At the same time they are more concerned about growth disturbances.