Study Design: This is a comparison of primary (N = 18) to revision (N = 26) combined (anterior and posterior surgery) adult spinal deformity patients with regard to late (>6 months) complications and radiographic/functional outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Objectives: To determine whether revision status increases the risk of late complications or offers a poor prognosis for functional outcome in adult deformity patients.

Summary Of Background Data: It is known that patients who have combined surgery for adult deformity have a high incidence of perioperative complications. Long-term complications and the effect of revision status have not been clarified in the literature. The functional outcomes for these patients are unclear as to whether or not there is a difference between primary and revision patients. Outside the arena of adult spinal deformity the functional outcomes for revision cases have been disappointing.

Methods: A consecutive series of 44 patients who underwent combined procedures for adult spinal deformity were followed for a minimum of 2 years (average follow-up 42 months). Clinical data were obtained by chart and radiographic review. Major complications were considered to be deep wound infection, pseudarthrosis, transition syndrome, neurologic deficit, and death. Minor complications considered were asymptomatic instrumentation failure (without loss of correction), instrumentation prominence requiring removal, and proximal or distal junctional segmental kyphosis (5-10 degrees ) or subsequent disc space narrowing of 2-5 mm without clinical symptoms. The patients also completed the AAOS Lumbar/Scoliosis MODEMS questionnaires aimed at assessing pain, function, and satisfaction.

Results: Minor complications were comparable in both groups: 4 of 18 (22%) in the primary group and 6 of 26 (23%) in the revision group. Major complications were slightly more frequent in the primary group with five complications in 4 patients (4 of 18 patients) (22%) compared with 3 of 26 patients (12%) in the revision group. The incidence of pseudarthrosis was 22% (4 of 18) for the primary group and 4% (1 of 26) for the revision group (P< 0.14). Forty of 44 patients completed the questionnaires. The primary patients functioned at a slightly higher level after surgery than the revision group. The level of pain was also slightly lower at final follow-up in the primary group. Despite these differences, the revision group had a higher level of patient satisfaction.

Conclusion: At a minimum 2-year follow-up the late complications were not higher in the revision patients than in the primary group. The rate of major long-term complications, specifically pseudarthroses, was higher in the primary group. Patient satisfaction was higher in the revision patients, probably because they were experiencing a greater level of perceived pain and dysfunction at the time of their reconstruction.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200104150-00025DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

primary group
24
revision group
20
adult spinal
16
spinal deformity
16
revision patients
16
patients
15
revision
13
long-term complications
12
primary revision
12
complications
11

Similar Publications

Background: A number of efforts have been made to tailor behavioral healthcare treatments to the variable needs of patients with low back pain (LBP). The most common approach involves the STarT Back Screening Tool (SBST) to triage the need for psychologically informed care, which explores concerns about pain and addresses unhelpful beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Such beliefs that pain always signifies injury or tissue damage and that exercise should be avoided have been implied as psychosocial mediators of chronic pain and can impede recovery.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: There is debate as to whether kinematic TKA or mechanical alignment TKA is superior. Recent systematic reviews have suggested that kinematically aligned TKAs may be the preferred option. However, the observed differences in alignment favoring kinematic alignment may not improve outcomes (performance or durability) in ways that patients can perceive, and likewise, statistical differences in outcome scores sometimes observed in clinical trials may be too small for patients to notice.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Hemostatic Efficacy of TachoSil in Loop Electrosurgical Excisional Procedure: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

J Low Genit Tract Dis

January 2025

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the hemostatic efficacy of the fibrin sealant patch (TachoSil) after loop electrosurgical excision (LEEP) and its influence on other complications and quality of life (QoL).

Materials And Methods: This single-blind, prospective, randomized study involved patients undergoing LEEP with or without TachoSil (1:1) between August 2014 and August 2015 in Asan Medical Center, Korea. Primary outcome measures were bleeding duration and the frequency of additional treatment owing to vaginal bleeding within 2 weeks after LEEP.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Abelacimab versus Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

N Engl J Med

January 2025

From the TIMI Study Group, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston (C.T.R., S.M.P., R.P.G., D.A.M., J.F.K., E.L.G., S.A.M., S.D.W., M.S.S.); Anthos Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA (B.H., S.P., D.B.); the Heart Rhythm Center, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Cardiovascular Center, Taipei, Taiwan (S.-A.C.); Taichung Veterans Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan (S.-A.C.); National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan (S.-A.C.); National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan (S.-A.C.); St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto (S.G.G.); Canadian VIGOUR Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada (S.G.G.); the Division of Cardiology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea (B.J.); the Department of Cardiology, Central Hospital of Northern Pest-Military Hospital, Budapest, Hungary (R.G.K.); the Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary (R.G.K.); the Internal Cardiology Department, St. Ann University Hospital and Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic (J.S.); the Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland (W.W.); the Departments of Medicine and of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada (J.W.); and the Thrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada (J.W.).

Background: Abelacimab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to the inactive form of factor XI and blocks its activation. The safety of abelacimab as compared with a direct oral anticoagulant in patients with atrial fibrillation is unknown.

Methods: Patients with atrial fibrillation and a moderate-to-high risk of stroke were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive subcutaneous injection of abelacimab (150 mg or 90 mg once monthly) administered in a blinded fashion or oral rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) administered in an open-label fashion.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Perioperative Chemotherapy or Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal Cancer.

N Engl J Med

January 2025

From Bielefeld University, Medical School and University Medical Center Ostwestfalen-Lippe, Campus Hospital Lippe, Detmold, Germany (J.H.); the Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria (T.B.); the Clinical Trials Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany (C.S.); the Institute of Surgical Pathology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany (P.B.); the Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein-Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany (B.K., T.K.); Comprehensive Cancer Center Augsburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany (R.C.); the Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany (S.U.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany (J.R.I.); the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute and San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan (I.G.); the Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic, and Endocrine Surgery, Johannes Wesling University Hospital Minden, Ruhr University Bochum, Minden, Germany (B.G.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany (M.G.); the Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic, Transplantation, and Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein-Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany (B.R.); the Department of General, Visceral, Transplantation, Vascular, and Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany (J.F.L.); the Department of General, Visceral, Cancer, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany (C.B.); the Department of Hematology and Oncology, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Offenbach am Main, Germany (E.R.); the Department of Surgery, Klinikum Dortmund, Klinikum der Universität Witten-Herdecke, Dortmund, Germany (M.S.); the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany (F.B.); the Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany (G.F.); the Department of Hematology, Oncology, and Cancer Immunology, Charité-University Medicine Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin (P.T.-P.); the Department of General, Visceral, Cancer, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany (U.P.N.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany (A.P.); the Department of Radiotherapy and Oncology, Goethe University Frankfurt, University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany (D.I.); the Division of Gastroenterology, Rheumatology, and Infectology, Department of Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin (S.D.); the Department of Surgery, Robert Bosch Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany (T.S.); the Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany (C.K.); the Department of Medicine II, Saarland University Medical Center, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany (S.Z.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital, Munich, Germany (J.W.); the Department of Internal Medicine I, Klinikum Mutterhaus der Borromaerinnen, Trier, Germany (R.M.); the Departments of Hematology, Oncology, and Palliative Care, Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany (G.I.); the Department of General, Visceral, and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany (P.G.); and the Department of Medicine II, University Cancer Center Leipzig, Cancer Center Central Germany, University Medical Center Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany (F.L.).

Background: The best multimodal approach for resectable locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is unclear. An important question is whether perioperative chemotherapy is preferable to preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Methods: In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma to receive perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) plus surgery or preoperative chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy at a dose of 41.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!