Summary of Background Data:Multilevel posterior cervical instrumented fusions are becoming more prevalent in current practice. Biomechanical characteristics of the cervicothoracic junction may necessitate extending the construct to upper thoracic segments. However, fixation in upper thoracic spine can be technically demanding owing to transitional anatomy while suboptimal placement facilitates vascular and neurologic complications. Thoracic instrumentation methods include free-hand, fluoroscopic guidance, and CT-based image guidance. However, fluoroscopy of upper thoracic spine is challenging secondary to vertebral geometry and patient positioning, while image-guided systems present substantial financial commitment and are not readily available at most centers. Additionally, imaging modalities increase radiation exposure to the patient and surgeon while potentially lengthening surgical time.Materials and Methods:Retrospective review of 44 consecutive patients undergoing a cervicothoracic fusion by a single surgeon using the novel free-hand T1 pedicle screw technique between June 2009 and November 2012. A starting point medial and cephalad to classic entry as well as new trajectory were utilized. No imaging modalities were employed during screw insertion. Postoperative CT scans were obtained on day 1. Screw accuracy was independently evaluated according to the Heary classification.Results:In total, 87 pedicle screws placed were at T1. Grade 1 placement occurred in 72 (82.8%) screws, Grade 2 in 4 (4.6%) screws and Grade 3 in 9 (10.3%) screws. All Grade 2 and 3 breaches were <2 mm except one Grade 3 screw breaching 2-4 mm laterally. Only two screws (2.3%) were noted to be Grade 4, both breaching medially by less than 2 mm. No new neurological deficits or returns to operating room took place postoperatively.Conclusions:This modification of the traditional starting point and trajectory at T1 is safe and effective. It attenuates additional bone removal or imaging modalities while maintaining a high rate of successful screw placement compared to historical controls.
Background?Endoscopic endonasal skull base reconstructions have been associated with postoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks. Objective?A repair protocol for endoscopic endonasal skull base reconstruction is presented with the objective of decreasing the overall leak rate. Methods?A total of 180 endoscopic endonasal skull base reconstructions were reviewed. Reconstructions were classified I to IV according to the reconstruction method, determined by severity of intraoperatively encountered CSF leaks for types I to III, and planned preoperatively for type IVs, which required nasoseptal flap. Results?A total of 11 patients(6%) had postoperative leaks: 0 in type I (0%), 2 in type II (5%), 7 in type III (18%), and 2 (4%) in type IV reconstruction. Type III leak rate was higher than all other reconstructions. Total 31 intraoperative and 16 postoperative lumbar drains were placed. More patients had lumbar drains placed postoperatively for type III and intraoperatively for type IV than all other groups. There were significant overall differences in postoperative CSF leaks and lumbar drain placement between the four reconstruction types. No patient with type III reconstruction and intraoperative lumbar drain had postoperative CSF leak. Conclusions?A repair protocol for endoscopic endonasal reconstructions determined by intraoperative CSF leak and preoperative planning minimizes unnecessary repair materials and additional morbidity. Our experience leads to a routine prophylactic lumbar drain placement in all type III leak and reconstructions. We also favor the type III reconstruction for minor intraoperative leaks, and a more generous use of type IV reconstructions in expectation of significant intraoperative CSF leak. The option of rescue flap technique in type III leaks should be strongly considered.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.