Browsing by Subject "Zygapophyseal Joint"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Comparison of superior-level facet joint violations during open and percutaneous pedicle screw placement.(Neurosurgery, 2012-11) Babu, Ranjith; Park, Jong G; Mehta, Ankit I; Shan, Tony; Grossi, Peter M; Brown, Christopher R; Richardson, William J; Isaacs, Robert E; Bagley, Carlos A; Kuchibhatla, Maragatha; Gottfried, Oren NBackground
Superior-level facet joint violation by pedicle screws may result in increased stress to the level above the instrumentation and may contribute to adjacent segment disease. Previous studies have evaluated facet joint violations in open or percutaneous screw cases, but there are no reports describing a direct institutional comparison.Objective
To compare the incidence of superior-level facet violation for open vs percutaneous pedicle screws and to evaluate patient and surgical factors that affect this outcome.Methods
We reviewed 279 consecutive patients who underwent an index instrumented lumbar fusion from 2007 to 2011 for degenerative spine disease with stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis. We used a computed tomography grading system that represents progressively increasing grades of facet joint violation. Patient and surgical factors were evaluated to determine their impact on facet violation.Results
Our cohort consisted of 126 open and 153 percutaneous cases. Percutaneous procedures had a higher overall violation grade (P = .02) and a greater incidence of high-grade violations (P = .006) compared with open procedures. Bivariate analysis showed significantly greater violations in percutaneous cases for age < 65 years, obesity, pedicle screws at L4, and 1- and 2-level surgeries. Multivariate analysis showed the percutaneous approach and depth of the spine to be independent risk factors for high-grade violations.Conclusion
This study demonstrates greater facet violations for percutaneously placed pedicle screws compared with open screws.Item Open Access Degenerative Spinal Deformity.(Neurosurgery, 2015-10) Ailon, Tamir; Smith, Justin S; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Lenke, Lawrence G; Brodke, Darrel; Harrop, James S; Fehlings, Michael; Ames, Christopher PDegenerative spinal deformity afflicts a significant portion of the elderly and is increasing in prevalence. Recent evidence has revealed sagittal plane malalignment to be a key driver of pain and disability in this population and has led to a significant shift toward a more evidence-based management paradigm. In this narrative review, we review the recent literature on the epidemiology, evaluation, management, and outcomes of degenerative adult spinal deformity (ASD). ASD is increasing in prevalence in North America due to an aging population and demographic shifts. It results from cumulative degenerative changes focused in the intervertebral discs and facet joints that occur asymmetrically to produce deformity. Deformity correction focuses on restoration of global alignment, especially in the sagittal plane, and decompression of the neural elements. General realignment goals have been established, including sagittal vertical axis <50 mm, pelvic tilt <22°, and lumbopelvic mismatch <±9°; however, these should be tailored to the patient. Operative management, in carefully selected patients, yields satisfactory outcomes that appear to be superior to nonoperative strategies. ASD is characterized by malalignment in the sagittal and/or coronal plane and, in adults, presents with pain and disability. Nonoperative management is recommended for patients with mild, nonprogressive symptoms; however, evidence of its efficacy is limited. Surgery aims to restore global spinal alignment, decompress neural elements, and achieve fusion with minimal complications. The surgical approach should balance the desired correction with the increased risk of more aggressive maneuvers. In well-selected patients, surgery yields excellent outcomes.Item Open Access Faced joint locking.(Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2011-01) Shaffrey, Christopher IItem Open Access The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy classification.(Neurosurgery, 2015-03) Schwab, Frank; Blondel, Benjamin; Chay, Edward; Demakakos, Jason; Lenke, Lawrence; Tropiano, Patrick; Ames, Christopher; Smith, Justin S; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Glassman, Steven; Farcy, Jean-Pierre; Lafage, VirginieBackground
Global sagittal malalignment is significantly correlated with health-related quality-of-life scores in the setting of spinal deformity. In order to address rigid deformity patterns, the use of spinal osteotomies has seen a substantial increase. Unfortunately, variations of established techniques and hybrid combinations of osteotomies have made comparisons of outcomes difficult.Objective
To propose a classification system of anatomically-based spinal osteotomies and provide a common language among spine specialists.Methods
The proposed classification system is based on 6 anatomic grades of resection (1 through 6) corresponding to the extent of bone resection and increasing degree of destabilizing potential. In addition, a surgical approach modifier is added (posterior approach or combined anterior and posterior approaches). Reliability of the classification system was evaluated by an analysis of 16 clinical cases, rated 2 times by 8 different readers, and calculation of Fleiss kappa coefficients.Results
Intraobserver reliability was classified as 'almost perfect'; Fleiss kappa coefficient averaged 0.96 (range, 0.92-1.0) for resection type and 0.90 (0.71-1.0) for the approach modifier. Results from the interobserver reliability for the classification were 0.96 for resection type and 0.88 for the approach modifier.Conclusion
This proposed anatomically based classification system provides a consistent description of the various osteotomies performed in spinal deformity correction surgery. The reliability study confirmed that the classification is simple and consistent. Further development of its use will provide a common frame for osteotomy assessment and permit comparative analysis of different treatments.Item Open Access The impact of facet dislocation on clinical outcomes after cervical spinal cord injury: results of a multicenter North American prospective cohort study.(Spine, 2013-01) Wilson, Jefferson R; Vaccaro, Alexander; Harrop, James S; Aarabi, Bizhan; Shaffrey, Christopher; Dvorak, Marcel; Fisher, Charles; Arnold, Paul; Massicotte, Eric M; Lewis, Stephen; Rampersaud, Raja; Okonkwo, David O; Fehlings, Michael GStudy design
A multicenter prospective cohort study.Objective
To define differences in baseline characteristics and long-term clinical outcomes in patients with cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) with and without facet dislocation (FD).Summary of background data
Reports of dramatic neurological improvement in patients with FD and cervical SCI, treated with rapid reduction have led to the hypothesis that this represents a subgroup of patients with significant recovery potential. However, without a large systematic comparative analysis, this hypothesis remains untested.Methods
Patients were classified into FD and non-FD groups based on imaging investigations at admission. The primary outcome was change in American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score (AMS) at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included ASIA impairment scale (AIS) grade conversion and functional independence measure score at 1-year postinjury, as well as length of acute hospitalization. Baseline characteristics and long-term outcomes were also compared for patients with unilateral and bilateral FD.Results
Of 421 patients who enrolled, 135 (32.1%) had FD and 286 (67.9%) had no FD. Patients in the FD group presented with a significantly worse AIS grade and higher energy injury mechanisms (P < 0.01). Patients with bilateral FD had a greater severity of baseline neurological deficit compared with those with unilateral FD, measured by AIS grade and AMS. The mean length of acute hospitalization was 41.2 days among patients with FD and 30 days among patients without FD (P = 0.04). At 1-year follow-up, patients with FD experienced a mean AMS improvement of 18.0 points, whereas patients without FD experienced an improvement of 27.9 points (P < 0.01). In the adjusted analysis, patients with FD continued to demonstrate less AMS recovery compared with the patients without FD (P = 0.04).Conclusion
Compared with patients without FD, cervical SCI patients with FD tended to present with a more severe degree of initial injury and displayed less potential for motor recovery at 1-year follow-up.