No abstract

✓ The authors describe an alternative method of C1–2 joint distraction, reduction, and fixation in the treatment of 24 patients with fixed atlantoaxial dislocation. Based on their results, they conclude that there is a place for reduction of fixed atlantoaxial dislocation and subsequent fixation in a procedure that does not require removal of any osseous spinal element.

Background:Discectomy performed open or with an operating microscope remains the standard surgical management. Tubular retractor system is being increasingly used. Potential benefits include less muscle and local damage, better cosmesis, decreased pain and operative time and faster recovery after surgery. We have evaluated the outcome of micro endoscopic discectomy (MED) utilizing tubular retractors in terms of safety and efficacy of the technique.Materials and Methods:188 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for herniated disc using the tubular retractors between April 2007 and April 2012 are reported. All patients had a preoperative MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and were operated by a single surgeon with the METRx system (Medtronic, Sofamor-Danek, Memphis, TN) using 18 and 16 mm ports. All patients were mobilized as soon as pain subsided and discharged within 24-48 hours post surgery. The results were evaluated by using VAS (Visual Analog Scale 0-5) for back and leg pain and ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Patients were followed up at intervals of 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 2 years.Results:The mean age of patients was 46 years (range 16-78 years) and the sex ratio was 1.5 males to 1 female. The mean followup was 22 months (range 8-69 months). The mean VAS scale for leg pain improved from 4.14 to 0.76 (P < 0.05) and the mean VAS scale for back pain improved from 4.1 to 0.9 (P < 0.05). The mean ODI changed from 59.5 to 22.6 (P < 0.05). The mean operative time per level was about 50 minutes (range 20-90 minutes). Dural punctures occurred in 11 (5%) cases. Average blood loss was 30 ml (range 10-500 ml). A wrong level was identified and later corrected in a case of revision discectomy. Four patients with residual disc-herniation had revision MED and three patients with recurrent disc herniation later underwent fusion. One patient had wound infection which needed a debridement.Conclusion:MED for herniated discs effectively achieves the goals of surgery with minimal access. The advantages of the procedure are cosmesis, early postoperative recovery and minimal postoperative morbidity.

Background:The aim of the present prospective study is to evaluate whether the touted advantages of minimal invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) translate into superior, equal, or inferior outcomes as compared to open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF). This is the first study from the Indian subcontinent prospectively comparing the outcomes of MI-TLIF and O-TLIF.Materials and Methods:All consecutive cases of open and MI-TLIF were prospectively followed up. Single-level TLIF procedures for spondylolytic and degenerative conditions (degenerative spondylolisthesis, central disc herniations) operated between January 2011 and January 2013 were included. The pre and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain and leg pain, length of hospital stay, operative time, radiation exposure, quantitative C-reactive protein (QCRP), and blood loss were compared between the two groups. The parameters were statistically analyzed (using IBM® SPSS® Statistics version 17).Results:129 patients underwent TLIF procedure during the study period of which, 71 patients (46 MI-TLIF and 25 O-TLIF) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, a further 10 patients were excluded on account of insufficient data and/or no followup. The mean followup was 36.5 months (range 18-54 months). The duration of hospital stay (O-TLIF 5.84 days + 2.249, MI-TLIF 4.11 days + 1.8, P < 0.05) was shorter in MI-TLIF cases. There was less blood loss (open 358.8 ml, MI 111.81 ml, P < 0.05) in MI-TLIF cases. The operative time (O-TLIF 2.96 h + 0.57, MI-TLIF 3.40 h + 0.54, P < 0.05) was longer in MI group. On an average, 57.77 fluoroscopic exposures were required in MI-TLIF which was significantly higher than in O-TLIF (8.2). There was no statistically significant difference in the improvement in ODI and VAS scores in MI-TLIF and O-TLIF groups. The change in QCRP values preoperative and postoperative was significantly lower (P < 0.000) in MI-TLIF group than in O-TLIF group, indicating lesser tissue trauma.Conclusion:The results in MI TLIF are comparable with O-TLIF in terms of outcomes. The advantages of MI-TLIF are lesser blood loss, shorter hospital stay, lesser tissue trauma, and early mobilization. The challenges of MI-TLIF lie in the steep learning curve and significant radiation exposure. The ultimate success of TLIF lies in the execution of the procedure, and in this respect the ability to achieve similar results using a minimally invasive technique makes MI-TLIF an attractive alternative.

This report describes a case of spondylodiscitis occurring adjacent to levels at which anterior cervical discectomy and fusion was performed. The objective is to describe a rare cause of spondylodiscitis and discuss its successful management. Post-operative discitis involving the same level is a known occurrence. We report an interesting case of spondylodiscitis occurring at the adjacent level of fusion, and to our knowledge this is the first such case reported in literature. A two-level decompression and fusion was performed at C5–6 and C6–7 levels with PEEK cages and anterior cervical plating in a middle-aged gentleman for persistent axial neck pain and left-sided radiculopathy involving C6 and C7 distribution. After 6 weeks, the patient presented to us with complaints of mild paresthesia in the abdomen and extremities. Radiological investigations including plain radiographs and MRI revealed a surprising finding of discitis at C4–5 level with an associated epidural abscess. In view of the patient’s myelopathic symptoms, surgical debridement and decompression of the spinal cord was performed. The plate and screws were removed, the cages were left intact, and the C4–5 disc level was reconstructed with tricortical iliac crest autograft. No further instrumentation was performed. The biopsy specimen from the disc at C4–5 level grew Serratia marcescens. It was contemplated that C4–5 discitis was initiated by inoculation of bacteria at the superior endplate of C5 by contaminated vertebral pins/drill-bit or screws. Adjacent level discitis is a rare but potentially serious complication of anterior cervical fusion. A high index of suspicion of infection is necessary if the patient complains of new symptoms after anterior cervical fusion. Thorough assessment and aggressive treatment is necessary for successful management.