Results of surgical intervention in the symptomatic multiply-operated back patient. Analysis of sixty-seven cases followed for three to seven years.

Finnegan, Walter J.; Fenlin, John M.; Marvel, Jeffrey; Nardini, R J; Rothman, Richard H.

doi:10.2106/00004623-197961070-00018

Cited by 167 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[5][6][7][8] The causes of dural tear during primary operation include eroded or thin dura, dura adhesion, and redundant dura in patients diagnosed with a tight spinal stenosis. It is particularly prevalent in patients who have epidural fibrosis and scar tissue adherent to the dura during revision of spine surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intracranial subdural hematoma after unintended durotomy during spine surgery

Kong

et al. 2002

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intracranial subdural hematoma after unintended durotomy during spine surgery

Kong

et al. 2002

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reported prevalence varies widely from\1 to 17 % [1][2][3][4]. A prospective study by Tafazal and Sell [5] of 1,549 cases in the United Kingdom reports rates of 3.5 % for primary discectomy, 8.5 % for spinal stenosis surgery and 13.2 % for revision discectomy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dural tears in primary decompressive lumbar surgery. Is primary repair necessary for a good outcome?

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study of 103 patients, Waddell et al reported the success rate of a second operation to be 50%, while 20% of patients considered themselves worse off afterwards [20]. Furthermore, the number of surgical successes diminishes proportionally to the number of procedures performed [4,20]. Fritsch et al found the same tendency but also stated that the best revision technique was spinal fusion [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional outcome after posterolateral spinal fusion using pedicle screws: comparison between primary and salvage procedure

Christensen

Thomsen

Eiskjær

et al. 1998

European Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar spinal fusion is a commonly performed surgical procedure, yet both the indications for its performance and its results remain controversial. It is generally believed that apart from situations where obvious measurable instability exists, a repeat surgical procedure such as spinal fusion does not improve the functional outcome in more than an average of 50% of cases. The aim of this study was to analyse functional outcome after posterolateral lumbar or lumbosacral spinal fusion, comparing primary and salvage procedures. It was designed as a prospective case/referent study with a 2-year follow-up. A total of 39 patients underwent a short posterior fusion with Cotrel-Dubousset (CD) pedicle screw fixation after earlier surgery of the lumbar spine. Two patients were erroneously omitted from the study at the index, so 37 patients were included in the salvage group. In the same period, 69 patients underwent lumbar fusion with pedicle screw fixation (CD) as primary surgery (referent group). Functional outcome was assessed by means of the Dallas Pain Questionnaire preoperatively and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Fusion rates were determined by ordinary X-ray evaluation by two independent observers. Patients who had undergone previous spinal surgery had a significant improvement in functional outcome in terms of daily activity, work and leisure-time activities and anxiety/depression. With regard to social functioning, a significantly inferior outcome was found after the salvage procedure. The return-to-work rates at 2 years after surgery were 50% in the salvage group and 53% in the referent group. There was a significant correlation between radiological evaluation of the fusion mass and the functional outcome. The fusion rate was 76% in the salvage group and 72% in the referent group. This study demonstrates that a posterolateral spinal fusion can be effectively used as a salvage procedure. The functional and radiological outcome of the patients with revision surgery did not differ from those of the group of patients who underwent primary surgery. There was, however a clear indication of inferior social functioning after revision surgery.

show abstract

Results of surgical intervention in the symptomatic multiply-operated back patient. Analysis of sixty-seven cases followed for three to seven years.

Cited by 167 publications

References 0 publications

Intracranial subdural hematoma after unintended durotomy during spine surgery

Intracranial subdural hematoma after unintended durotomy during spine surgery

Dural tears in primary decompressive lumbar surgery. Is primary repair necessary for a good outcome?

Functional outcome after posterolateral spinal fusion using pedicle screws: comparison between primary and salvage procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About