RESUMEN
Background Context: Both Transforaminal (TF) and Interlaminar (IL) endoscopic approaches are established techniques of decompression for lumbar compressive radiculopathy. In the absence of adequate literature, there is always some dilemma in selecting the approach for endoscopic decompression leading to long learning curves and high chances of inadequate decompression, iatrogenic instability, dural tear, or dysesthesia. Hence authors propose a new surgical nomenclature and algorithm for selection of endoscopic approach. Methods: This retrospective study included 396 of 626 consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria, who underwent either TF (n=302) or IL (n=202) full endoscopic spine surgery. MRI findings of every patient were classified as per FAPDIS (Facet angle, Anterior pathology, Posterior pathology, Dorsal, Inferior, and Superior migration) algorithm. Inter-observer variations were calculated. The targeted nomenclature was used to define the selection of endoscopic TF or IL approach for symptomatic nerve root decompression. All patients were followed up for preop and postop 6 months VAS and Oswestry Disability Index score for validation of FAPDIS algorithm. Results: Median age: 46.8 years; Sides and levels operated 330 single-level ipsilateral, 54 multiple-level ipsilateral, 6 single-level bilateral, and 6 multiple-level bilateral. Interobserver agreement in the selection of TF approach was 0.873 and IL approach was 0.882. Interobserver variability was also calculated for each FAPDIS factor, selection of P3 and P4 pathology was the main reason for disagreement. All other FAPDIS factors show good to excellent correlation. The overall VAS score decreased from a preoperative value of 9 to 1 at 6 months follow-up (p-value < 0.001), and the overall Oswestry Disability Index score improved from 89 to 12 (p-value <.001). Conclusions: The author's new FAPDIS surgical nomenclature and algorithm is a reliable tool for describing the symptomatic nerve root compression for the selection of endoscopic surgical approach to achieve adequate decompression of offending neural structure with minimum challenges to minimize perioperative complication rate.
RESUMEN
Introduction Most surgeons prefer a single implant for segmental proximal and diaphyseal femur fractures, although results are controversial and still no consensus for proper management is present. This prospective study analyses the functional and radiological outcome of managing 17 patients with ipsilateral shaft and proximal femur fractures by dual implant osteosynthesis at our center. Methods Over a two-year period, we managed 17 patients with a mean age of 35 years, with cancellous cannulated screws or dynamic hip screws for intracapsular femur fractures and improvised proximal femoral nail for extracapsular proximal femur fractures. Distal femoral locking plates or distal femoral nails were used for shaft femur fractures depending upon fracture morphology. The patients had a maximum follow-up of 18 months. Results A total of 80% of patients had a good functional outcome (using the Friedman-Wyman scoring system) while 60% had an excellent Harris Hip Score. The mean time taken for the bone union for proximal femur fractures was 4.75 months and for shaft femur fractures, it was 6 months. Conclusion We had a satisfactory functional and clinical outcome of managing these fractures with two implants, one focusing biomechanically on each fracture. This principle of dual implant osteosynthesis can reliably be used in such difficult fracture patterns and it negates the use of the single cephalomedullary nail for fixating both fractures.
