Study background: A retrospective study to compare the rate of facet joint violation (FJV) in lumbar posterior spinal instrumentation using open pedicle screw, percutaneous pedicle screw, and cortical bone trajectory (CBT) technique. CBT is a new posterior spinal instrumentation technique in which a more caudal entry point can minimize iatrogenic damage to the cranial facet joint. Only one recent study reports incidence of FJV of 11%; however, no previous reports comment on radiological outcomes comparing to traditional open and percutaneous screws. Methods: We reviewed 90 patients who underwent lumbar posterior spinal instrumentation from January 2016 to June 2017. Postoperative computer tomography scans were performed to evaluate FJV. Incidence of FJV was graded by three reviewers according to Seo classification. Results: Totally, 446 screws (open 43.4%, percutaneous 37.8%, CBT 18.9%) were inserted. Among these, 6.3% (28/446) had screw head or rod in contact with facet joint and 0.9% (4/446) had screws directly invaded the facet joint. Overall, FJV was 7.2% (CTB = 3.4%, open = 10.4%, and percutaneous = 4.5%, p = 0.075). Conclusion: CBT technique has potential advantage in reducing FJV. It has a unique entry site at lateral aspect of pars interarticular with a caudomedial to craniolateral pathway. It is a reasonable alternative to open or percutaneous techniques in lumbar posterior spinal instrumentation.

Background: Although the majority of total knee arthroplasty cases have good outcome and survival, some arthroplasty eventually required revision. While early outcomes of revision knee arthroplasty are well reported, there is relatively fewer literatures reporting on the longer term outcome of revision knee arthroplasty. This study aims to review the outcome of revision knee arthroplasty for a longer term, and also make comparison between the two common indications for revision arthroplasty of infection and aseptic loosening. Methods: This study reviews all total knee arthroplasty revision performed at a single center over a 11 year period. Of the 48 cases found, 35 cases not lost to follow-up had a mean follow-up duration of 10.6 years (SD 2.9) for aseptic loosening, and 10.1 years (SD 2.6) for infection. Data of initial arthroplasty, revision arthroplasty, demographics, follow-up outcome were obtained, analyzed and compared. Results: Revision arthroplasty due to infection had more cases that required use of varus/valgus constraints (p ∼ 0.008) and extensile surgical exposure of quadriceps snip (p ∼ 0.005) compared to aseptic loosening. The survival at 10 years for this study is 91% overall (aseptic loosening 93.3%, infection 89.3%). Infection cases had significant initial improvement for range of motion (p ∼ 0.001) and use of walking aid (p ∼ 0.04) at post-operation 1 year, but no significant differences between the infection and aseptic loosening cases at 5 years and 10 years follow-up. Comparison between the two groups on other factors including initial arthroplasty, operative details, demographics, post-operative details and X-rays showed no statistically significant difference.