TRANSFORAMINAL APPROACH IN SURGERY FOR LOCALIZED INFECTIOUS SPONDYLITIS IN THE LUMBAR AND LUMBOSACRAL SPINE
https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2015.3.83-88
Abstract
Objective. To analyze the possibilities of using transforaminal approach in surgery for infectious lesions of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine.
Material and Methods. The study included 26 patients operated on for tuberculous spondylitis and nonspecific spondylodiscitis in the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. Patients in Group I (n = 12) underwent radical reconstructive surgery through anterior approach at the first stage, and single-step transpedicular fixation - at the second one. Patients in Group II (n = 14) underwent resection of vertebrae and fusion combined with transpedicular fixation through transforaminal approach.
Results. Mean operative time in Group I was 280 ± 12 min, in Group II - 221 ± 17 min. Correction of segmental kyphosis in Group I was 7.0° ± 1.4°, in Group II - 5.0° ± 0.9°, and loss of correction - 0.7° ± 0.3° and 0.9° ± 0.4°, respectively. Bone block formation occurred six months after surgery in 8 (66 %) patients in Group I and in 1 (7 %) patient in Group II, and 12-36 months after surgery in 12 (100 %) and 13 (93 %) patients, respectively. The level of pain according to Denis scale decreased in the late period to 0.4 ± 0.1 in Group I, and to 1.3 ± 0.1 in Group II. Quality of life assessed with the Oswestry scale was 27 ± 1 (Group I) and 39 ± 1 (Group II) 12 months after surgery.
Conclusion. Transforaminal approach is less time-consuming surgical procedure for the treatment of small forms of infectious disease of the spine. Nevertheless, the formation of interbody bone block is more efficient after radical reconstructive surgery through anterior or anterolateral approach.
About the Author
Denis Leonidovich KhashchinRussian Federation
References
1. Макаров М.С. Комплексное лечение кифозов туберкулезного происхождения. М., 1972.
2. Тиходеев С.А., Вишневский А.А. Неспецифический остеомиелит позвоночника. СПб., 2004.
3. Черепанов Е.А. Русская версия опросника Освестри: культурная адаптация и валидность // Хирургия позвоночника. 2009. № 3. С. 93-98.
4. Юндин В.И. Этюды спинальной хирургии. М., 2012.
5. Blume HG. Unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion: simplified dowel technique. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1985; (193): 75-84.
6. Coe JD. Instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bioabsorbable polymer implants and iliac crest autograft. Neurosurg. Focus. 2004; 16: E11.
7. Denis F, Davis S, Comfort T. Sacral fractures: an important problem. Retrospective analysis of 236 cases. Clin. Ortop. Relat. Res. 1988; 227: 67-81.
8. Harms J, Rolinger H. [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982; 120: 343-347. In German. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1051624.
9. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2001; 26: 567-571. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023.
10. Salehi SA, Tawk R, Ganju A, LaMarca F, Liu JC, Ondra SL. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique and results in 24 patients. Neurosurgery. 2004; 54: 368-374. DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000103493.25162.18.
Review
For citations:
Khashchin D.L. TRANSFORAMINAL APPROACH IN SURGERY FOR LOCALIZED INFECTIOUS SPONDYLITIS IN THE LUMBAR AND LUMBOSACRAL SPINE. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2015;12(3):83-88. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2015.3.83-88