Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Asunto principal
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Spine J ; 23(11): 1641-1651, 2023 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37406861

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The role of fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is controversial. The Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system was developed to assist surgeons in surgical technique selection based on individual patient characteristics. This system has not been clinically validated as a guide to surgical technique selection. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if outcomes vary with different surgical techniques across the CARDS categories. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective cohort study performed at one Swiss and one American spine center. PATIENT SAMPLE: Five hundred eight patients with DS undergoing surgical treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Core Outcomes Measure Index (COMI) at 3 months and 12 months postoperatively. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for DS were enrolled at 2 institutions and classified according to the CARDS system using dynamic radiographs. The Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) was completed preoperatively, and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Surgical technique was classified as uninstrumented (decompression alone or decompression with uninstrumented fusion) or instrumented (decompression with pedicle screw instrumentation with or without interbody fusion). Unadjusted analyses and mixed effect models compared COMI scores between the two surgery technique groups (uninstrumented vs instrumented), stratified by CARDS category over time. Reoperation rates were also compared between the surgery technique groups stratified by CARDS category. Partial funding was given through NASS grant for clinical research. RESULTS: Five hundred five out of 508 patients enrolled in the study had sufficient data to be classified according to CARDS. Seven percent were classified as CARDS A, 28% as CARDS B, 48% as CARDS C, and 17% as CARDS D (CARDS A most "stable," CARDS D least "stable"). One hundred and thirty-three patients (26%) underwent decompression alone, 30 (6%) underwent decompression and uninstrumented fusion, 42 (8%) underwent decompression and posterolateral instrumented fusion, and 303 (60%) underwent decompression with posterolateral and interbody instrumented fusion. Patients in the least "stable" categories tended to be less likely to be treated with an uninstrumented technique (CARDS D 19% vs 32% for the other categories, p=.10). There were no significant differences in 3 or 12-month COMI scores between surgical technique groups stratified by CARDS category in the unadjusted or adjusted analyses. In the unadjusted analyses, there was a trend towards less improvement in 12-month COMI change score in the CARDS D patients in the uninstrumented group compared to the instrumented group (-2.7 vs -4.1, p=.10). Reoperation rates were not significantly different between the surgical technique groups stratified by CARDS category. CONCLUSIONS: In general, outcomes for uninstrumented and instrumented surgical techniques were similar across the CARDS categories. Surgeons likely took factors included in CARDS into account during surgical technique selection. This resulted in a low number of CARDS D (n=15) patients being treated with uninstrumented techniques, which limited the statistical power of this analysis. As such, this study does not validate CARDS as a useful classification system for surgical technique selection in DS.

2.
Clin Neurol Neurosurg ; 197: 106185, 2020 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32877765

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Spinal epidural abscesses (SEA's) are a challenge to diagnose, particularly if there are non-contiguous (skip) lesions. There is also limited data to predict which patients can be treated with antibiotics alone and which require surgery. We sought to assess which demographics, clinical and laboratory findings can guide both diagnosis and management of SEA's. METHODS: All patients with SEA (ICD9 324.1, ICD10 G06.1) between April 2011-May 2019 at a single tertiary center were included. A retrospective EMR review was completed. Patient and disease characteristics were compared using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: 108 patients underwent initial surgical treatment versus 105 that were treated medically initially; 22 (21 %) of those failed medical management. Patients who failed medical management had significantly higher CRP, longer symptom duration, and had higher rates of concurrent non-spinal infections. 9% of patients had skip lesions. Patients with skip lesions had significantly higher WBC, ESR, as well as higher rates of bacteremia and concurrent non-spinal infections. Demographic characteristics and proportion with IVDU, smoking, malignancy, and immunosuppression were similar among the three treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: 21 % of SEA patients failed initial medical management; they had significantly greater CRP, longer symptom duration, more commonly had neurologic deficits, and concurrent non-spinal infections. 9% of patients had skip lesions; they had significantly higher WBC, ESR, rates of bacteremia and infections outside the spine. These variables may guide diagnostic imaging, and identify those at risk of failing of medical management, and therefore require more involved clinical evaluation, and consideration for surgical intervention.


Asunto(s)
Absceso Epidural/diagnóstico , Absceso Epidural/tratamiento farmacológico , Absceso Epidural/cirugía , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...