Analysis of Long-Term Results of Lumbar Discectomy With and Without an Interspinous Device.

BACKGROUND: Discectomy is the surgical treatment of choice for disc herniation. However, discectomy can lead to disc degeneration and vertebral instability over time. Interspinous devices (ISDs), added to conventional surgery, constitute a low-invasive alternative that attempts to prevent these complications. The aim of this study is to compare the long-term clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing conventional discectomy with those who had an ISD added during surgery. METHODS: This analytical-descriptive, retrospective, and transversal studyinvestigated outcomes of 114 patients who underwent surgery for a lumbar disc herniation between 2008 and 2011. The results were evaluated with a minimum follow-up of 8 years (mean, 10 years) by means of different questionnaires: visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), consumption of analgesic medication, work status, degree of satisfaction, and complications and reinterventions during the follow-up period. RESULTS: At the end of the follow-up, an overall improvement of VAS of 5 points (71%) and ODI of 36 points (77%) was observed, with a degree of satisfaction of 76% with disc surgery. The analysis between both groups showed a better behavior in VAS and ODI in the implant group, with a pre- and postsurgery difference of 73% and 79% compared to 66% and 77% in the control group, respectively, though this finding was not statistically significant. The current analgesic consumption and the degree of satisfaction were also better in the group with an implant. Compared with the non-implant group, the number of reinterventions at the end of the follow-up was lower (7% vs 15.5%) and the time until the second intervention was higher (81.5 vs 41 months) in the group with an implant, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar discectomy proved to be a safe technique for the treatment of disc herniation, and results are maintained over time. The additional gesture of adding an ISD to conventional discectomy improves clinical outcomes overall, but not in a statistically significant way. The lower number of reinterventions and the longer period without surgery being required may mean a certain protective effect of the ISD on the intervertebral disc being operated on.

Anterior tibiofemoral dislocation after total knee arthroplasty: A case report and literature review.

Anterior tibiofemoral dislocation after total knee arthroplasty is an extremely rare and serious event. Amongst English-published papers, we found only 15 relevant cases, 3 of which presented vascular complications. This manuscript aims to present a 77-year-old woman with a TC-Plus (Smith & Nephew) cruciate-retaining type in first time of knee prosthesis, who suffered an anterior tibiofemoral dislocation and were admitted to our hospital. The clinical management and outcome were evaluated. Furthermore, a review of literature was performed. We concluded that early detection and surgical intervention of vascular injury is the key in the survival of the limbs. If there is still knee instability after acute recovery, it seems that revision surgery with constrained total knee arthroplasty can bring about good clinical and functional results.

Profilaxis dual con teicoplanina añadida a cefazolina en la prevención de la infección de prótesis articular / Dual prophylaxis with teicoplanin and cefazolin in the prevention of prosthetic joint infection

INTRODUCCIÓN: Existe un creciente aumento de las infecciones de prótesis articular (IPA) por bacterias resistentes a las cefalosporinas utilizadas en la profilaxis quirúrgica. La sustitución de estas por glucopéptidos no ha demostrado mejorar los resultados pero sí su asociación. MÉTODOS: Estudio comparativo de la asociación de teicoplanina y cefazolina antes de la cirugía de artroplastia frente a cefazolina sola de un grupo control previo. RESULTADOS: En el periodo control hubo 16 IPA de 585 cirugías, mientras que en el grupo de intervención fueron 6 de 579 (incidencia 2,7% vs. 1,03%; RR 0,4, p = 0,04). En el grupo control, 11 de las infecciones fueron causadas por bacterias grampositivas frente a 4 en el de intervención (1,8% vs. 0,7%, p = 0,08). CONCLUSIONES: La adición de teicoplanina a cefazolina en la profilaxis de la cirugía de artroplastia se asoció a una reducción de la incidencia de IPA, a expensas de un descenso de las causadas por grampositivos

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing increase in prosthetic joint infection (PJI) incidence due to cephalosporin-resistant bacteria, used in surgical prophylaxis. The replacement of these with glycopeptides has not been shown to improve the results, but they have been shown to improve with their combination. METHODS: Comparative study of combination of teicoplanin and cefazolin before arthroplasty surgery against cefazolin alone from a previous control group. RESULTS: During the control period, there were 16 PJIs from 585 surgeries, while in the intervention group there were 6 from 579 (incidence 2.7% vs. 1.03%, RR 0.4, P = .04). In control group, 11 of the infections were caused by Gram-positive bacteria versus 4 in the intervention group (1.8% vs. 0.7%, P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of teicoplanin to cefazolin in the prophylaxis of arthroplasty surgery was associated with a reduction in the incidence of PJI, thanks to a decrease in infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria

Dual prophylaxis with teicoplanin and cefazolin in the prevention of prosthetic joint infection. / Profilaxis dual con teicoplanina añadida a cefazolina en la prevención de la infección de prótesis articular.

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing increase in prosthetic joint infection (PJI) incidence due to cephalosporin-resistant bacteria, used in surgical prophylaxis. The replacement of these with glycopeptides has not been shown to improve the results, but they have been shown to improve with their combination. METHODS: Comparative study of combination of teicoplanin and cefazolin before arthroplasty surgery against cefazolin alone from a previous control group. RESULTS: During the control period, there were 16 PJIs from 585 surgeries, while in the intervention group there were 6 from 579 (incidence 2.7% vs. 1.03%, RR 0.4, P=.04). In control group, 11 of the infections were caused by Gram-positive bacteria versus 4 in the intervention group (1.8% vs. 0.7%, P=.08). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of teicoplanin to cefazolin in the prophylaxis of arthroplasty surgery was associated with a reduction in the incidence of PJI, thanks to a decrease in infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria.