ABSTRACT
The Distress Risk Assessment Method (DRAM) was presented by Main, Wood and Hillis in 1992 as a simple means of assessing the risk of failure due to psychosocial factors in spine surgery. To our knowledge, it has not been used in our setting. The aim of this study was to analyse the usefulness of the Spanish translation of this instrument to predict poor outcomes. METHODS: A prospective blind study was conducted including 65 patients undergoing spine surgery. We created two groups of patients based on DRAM score: not distressed (NDRAM) or distressed (DDRAM). A visual analogue scale for pain and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) were used at baseline, 6 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: 24 patients were classified as DDRAM and 38 as NDRAM, with 3 patients not completing the questionnaires. The analysis found no significant differences in the demographic or clinical variables at baseline. At 6 weeks and 6 months, the NDRAM group showed improvements in low back pain (p < 0.001; p = 0.005), leg pain (p < 0.001; p = 0.017), physical health (p = 0.031; p = 0.003) and mental health (p = 0.137; p = 0.049). In contrast, in the DDRAM group, though leg pain score improved (p < 0.001; p = 0.002), there was no improvement at 6 weeks or 6 months in low back pain (p = 0.108; p = 0.287), physical health (p = 0.620; p = 0.263) or mental health (p = 0.185; p = 0.329). CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, the DRAM is a useful screening tool, and it has allowed the creation of a program between psychiatry and spine surgery.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) are surgical procedures with proven benefits. Although the literature reports outcomes of fusion of the lumbar spine comparable to those of THA/TKA in general health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) questionnaires, functional assessment is nevertheless needed for these results to be of use in clinical practice and management. Aim of our study was to prove that lumbar spinal fusion has similar if not better outcomes than THA/TKA using intervention-specific HRQoL questionnaires and functional assessment questionnaires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Observational, ambispective, multicentre study of three cohorts undergoing lumbar spinal fusion (n = 115), THA (n = 119) and TKA (n = 253). Patients were evaluated using the Short-Form-12 (SF-12), Harris-Hip-Score, Hospital for Special Surgery Scale (HSS) and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability questionnaires. A minimum follow-up of two years was conducted. RESULTS: The SF-12 showed significant improvement in all groups. The SF-12 physical component summary score indicated a more severe pre-operative status (p = 0.031) in the THA cohort. The mental component summary score indicated a less severe pre-operative status in the TKA cohort (p = 0.008) and greater post-operative improvement in the TKA and THA cohorts across follow-up (six months p = 0.021; one year p = 0.012; two years p = 0.042). Functional assessment indicated greater pre-operative disability in the THA group. At two years of follow-up, functional improvement according to the Harris, HSS and Oswestry questionnaires were 152.01%, 50.07% and 41.14% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that lumbar spinal fusion and total knee and hip arthroplasty are comparable in terms of functional improvement when thoroughly studied with health, quality-of-life and functional assessment questionnaires.
ABSTRACT
OBJETIVO: Observar el comportamiento del tornillo expansivo en pacientes con mala calidad ósea, su seguridad, técnica, manejo y complicaciones: porcentaje de aflojamiento, roturas, "pull-out" y pseudartrosis. MÉTODOS: Realizamos estudio prospectivo multicéntrico analizando factores de riesgo del paciente, VAS, tiempo quirúrgico, pérdida de sangre, emplazamiento de tornillos y complicaciones debidas al implante a la alta y a los 3, 12 y 24 meses. RESULTADOS: El 99% de los pacientes no tuvieron ninguna complicación permanente relacionada con el implante; sólo hubo un caso de radiculopatía no resuelta. En el 95% de los implantes, los tornillos se colocaron sin complicaciones; en el 5% aparecieron complicaciones relacionadas con la mala colocación o expansión del tornillo, resueltas en acto quirúrgico. Tiempo quirúrgico promedio por nivel, 56 min.; tiempo promedio por intervención, 2 horas 35 min. Sangramiento promedio por nivel intervenido, 211cc. Hemos tenido tres casos de "pull-out". El VAS evolucionó favorablemente de forma significativa, con reducciones promedio mayores a cuatro puntos. El estudio continuará hasta los cinco años, siendo estos los resultados preliminares. CONCLUSIONES: Este tipo de tornillos expansivos aportan un nuevo sistema de anclaje para pacientes con mala calidad ósea; son seguros y eficaces, ofrecen rapidez en su colocación, una menor exposición a los RXy, en caso de retirada del tornillo, dejan el camino libre para una nueva cirugía.
OBJETIVO: Observar o comportamento do parafuso expansivo em pacientes com má qualidade óssea, sua segurança, a técnica, conduta e complicações: porcentagem de afrouxamento, quebras, "pull-out" e pseudoartrose. MÉTODOS: Estudo prospectivo multicêntrico analisando fatores de risco do paciente, VAS, tempo cirúrgico, perda de sangue, localização dos parafusos e complicações devido ao implante na alta e aos 3, 12 e 24 meses. RESULTADOS: 99% dos pacientes não tiveram nenhuma complicação permanente relacionada com o implante; apenas um caso de radiculopatia não se resolveu. Em 95% dos implantes, os parafusos foram colocados sem complicações; em 5% houve complicações relacionadas com a má colocação ou expansão do parafuso, que foram resolvidas com cirurgia. Tempo médio de cirurgia por nível, 56 min.; tempo médio por intervenção, 2 horas e 35 min. Sangramento médio por nível que recebeu intervenção, 211 cc. Ocorreram três casos de "pull-out". A VAS evoluiu favoravelmente e de forma significante, con reduções médias maiores que quatro pontos. O estudo continuará até os cinco anos, sendo que estes são os resultados preliminares. CONCLUSÕES: Esse tipo de parafuso expansivo é um novo sistema de ancoragem para pacientes com má qualidade óssea; são seguros e eficazes, rápidos para colocar, proporcionam menos exposição aos RX e, em caso de retirada do parafuso, deixam o caminho livre para uma nova cirurgia.
OBJECTIVE: To observe the behavior of the expansive screw in patients with poor bone quality, its safety, the technique, conduct and complications: percentage of loosening, breaks, pull-outs and pseudoarthrosis. METHODS: Prospective multicenter study analyzing the patient’s risk factors, VAS, surgery time, blood loss, location of the screws and complications due to the implant at the time of discharge, and at 3, 12 and 24 months. RESULTS: 99% of the patients did not have any permanent complications related to the implant; there was only one case of unresolved radiculopathy. In 95% of the implants, the screws were placed without complications; in 5% percent of cases there were complications related to poor placement or expansion of the screw, which were resolved with the surgery. Mean intervention time per level: 56 minutes; average intervention time, 2 hours and 35 min. Average bleeding per level that received intervention, 211cc. There were three cases of "pull-out". VAS evolved favorably and significantly, with average reduction greater than four points. The study will continue until age five, these being the preliminary results. CONCLUSIONS: This type of expansive screw provides a new anchoring system for patients with poor bone quality; it is safe and effective, easy to insert, and provides less exposure to X-ray, and in case of removal of the screw, it leaves the way free for a new surgery.
