"Short-segment lumbar fusion" vs."microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach" after removal of the spinal fixators in patients with adjacent segment disease: clinical retrospective study.

Turgut Kuytu, Ahmet Karaoğlu
{"title":"\"Short-segment lumbar fusion\" vs.\"microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach\" after removal of the spinal fixators in patients with adjacent segment disease: clinical retrospective study.","authors":"Turgut Kuytu, Ahmet Karaoğlu","doi":"10.1016/j.neucie.2025.500654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objectives: </strong>In cases where adjacent segment disease (ASD) develops following lumbar fusion surgery, various surgical approaches can be employed. In such cases, removal of the instrumentation can positively impact lumbar pain syndrome. One frequently used method is short-segment fixation-decompression (SSFD). One of minimally invasive methods is microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach (MBDU).This study aims to determine which method is more effective and safe in cases that developed ASD following fusion surgery by comparing SSFD and MBDU after instrumentation removal.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 47 cases treated with SSFD and 29 cases treated with MBDU. The groups were analyzed for gender, age, preoperative symptom duration, duration of hospitalization, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores during the preoperative and postoperative intermittent follow-up periods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Duration of hospitalization was higher in the SSFD group compared to the MBDU group (p=<0.001 CI = 56,42 - 76,24 and 22,04- 25,13 respectively), mean transverse canal diameter ratio in the decompressed segment was lower in the SSFD group (p = 0,03 IC = 0,24 - 0,31 for SSFD y 0,40 - 0,47 for MBDU), and ODI indices were higher in the SSFD group in all follow-ups (p = <0.001). During the follow-up period, symptomatic ASD was observed in 3 of 47 patients in the SSFD group, whereas no symptomatic ASD was observed in the MBDU group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In selected patients who develop ASD after fusion surgery MBDU after instrumentation removal can be considered as a minimally invasive option that does not exacerbate postoperative lumbar pain syndrome or lead to the development of new ASD. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comparison of these two techniques in literature after removal of spinal fixators in lumbar ASD cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":74273,"journal":{"name":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","volume":" ","pages":"500654"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucie.2025.500654","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and objectives: In cases where adjacent segment disease (ASD) develops following lumbar fusion surgery, various surgical approaches can be employed. In such cases, removal of the instrumentation can positively impact lumbar pain syndrome. One frequently used method is short-segment fixation-decompression (SSFD). One of minimally invasive methods is microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach (MBDU).This study aims to determine which method is more effective and safe in cases that developed ASD following fusion surgery by comparing SSFD and MBDU after instrumentation removal.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 47 cases treated with SSFD and 29 cases treated with MBDU. The groups were analyzed for gender, age, preoperative symptom duration, duration of hospitalization, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores during the preoperative and postoperative intermittent follow-up periods.

Results: Duration of hospitalization was higher in the SSFD group compared to the MBDU group (p=<0.001 CI = 56,42 - 76,24 and 22,04- 25,13 respectively), mean transverse canal diameter ratio in the decompressed segment was lower in the SSFD group (p = 0,03 IC = 0,24 - 0,31 for SSFD y 0,40 - 0,47 for MBDU), and ODI indices were higher in the SSFD group in all follow-ups (p = <0.001). During the follow-up period, symptomatic ASD was observed in 3 of 47 patients in the SSFD group, whereas no symptomatic ASD was observed in the MBDU group.

Conclusion: In selected patients who develop ASD after fusion surgery MBDU after instrumentation removal can be considered as a minimally invasive option that does not exacerbate postoperative lumbar pain syndrome or lead to the development of new ASD. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comparison of these two techniques in literature after removal of spinal fixators in lumbar ASD cases.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Continuous sitting position during the postoperative period as an intervention to reduce risk of cerebrospinal fluid leak after endoscopic endonasal surgery. The role of Glucose/Potassium Ratio and Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio in the prognosis of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. "Short-segment lumbar fusion" vs."microsurgical bilateral decompression via unilateral approach" after removal of the spinal fixators in patients with adjacent segment disease: clinical retrospective study. Craniopharyngioma and Abscess: when Tumor and Infection Co-exist. Global Trends in Neurosurgical Research: Insights from the Top 100 Most-Cited Articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1