Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 21, Supplement 4, pp 549–553 | Cite as

Minimally invasive lumbopelvic instrumentation for traumatic sacrolisthesis in an elderly patient

  • Joshua J. WindEmail author
  • Lauren M. Burke
  • Khalid H. Kurtom
  • Fabio Roberti
  • Joseph R. O’Brien
Case Report

Abstract

Purpose

We present a novel minimally invasive technique for lumbopelvic instrumentation in selected elderly patients suffering from traumatic sacrolisthesis. An 82-year-old female suffered from sacrolisthesis after a fall. She developed significant low back pain and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. Preoperative radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging sequences demonstrated the fracture dislocation between S1 and S2 with compromise of the spinal canal. Lumbopelvic instrumentation was sought to offer fixation and allow mobilization; however, open lumbopelvic instrumentation techniques have significant morbidity, especially in this patient population of elderly patients with medical comorbidities.

Methods

A minimally invasive technique employing percutaneous pedicle screws at L5 and S1 coupled with percutaneous S2 iliac screws was employed.

Results and conclusions

The patient tolerated the procedure well without any complications or morbidity. At the last follow-up of 14 months, she was ambulating without assistance with near total resolution of back pain and radicular pain. Radiographs obtained at 8 months’ follow-up demonstrated fusion across the fracture line. Although further follow-up data is still needed to establish the durability of this technique in the long-term, this minimally invasive technique for lumbopelvic instrumentation can be considered as an option in elderly patients with traumatic sacrolisthesis, whose need for early mobilization and medical comorbidities preclude the use of an open lumbopelvic fixation procedure.

Keywords

Sacrolisthesis Lumbopelvic instrumentation Minimally invasive 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomography

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

EMG

Electromyography

AP

Anteroposterior

MIS

Minimally invasive surgery

Notes

Conflict of interest

None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

586_2012_2204_MOESM1_ESM.mov (10.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (MOV 10383 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MOV 6348 kb)

586_2012_2204_MOESM3_ESM.mov (8.3 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (MOV 8498 kb)
586_2012_2204_MOESM4_ESM.tiff (36.8 mb)
Supplementary material 4 (TIFF 37710 kb)
586_2012_2204_MOESM5_ESM.tiff (42.6 mb)
Supplementary material 5 (TIFF 43572 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bucknill TM, Blackburne JS (1976) Fracture-dislocations of the sacrum. Report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 58-B:467–470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fountain SS, Hamilton RD, Jameson RM (1977) Transverse fractures of the sacrum. A report of six cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59:486–489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thumbikat P, Abdlslam KM, Howard AC (2002) Atypical traumatic sacrolisthesis following minimal trauma. Injury 33:371–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parker SL, Adogwa O, Witham TF, Aaronson OS, Cheng J, McGirt MJ (2011) Post-operative infection after minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): literature review and cost analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 54:33–37. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1269904 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Lerner J, Engelhart L, Knight T, Wang MY (2011) Comparative analysis of perioperative surgical site infection after minimally invasive versus open posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of hospital billing and discharge data from 5170 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 14:771–778. doi: 10.3171/2011.1.SPINE10571 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peng CW, Yue WM, Poh SY, Yeo W, Tan SB (2009) Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:1385–1389. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3be CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsuchiya K, Bridwell KH, Kuklo TR, Lenke LG, Baldus C (2006) Minimum 5-year analysis of L5–S1 fusion using sacropelvic fixation (bilateral S1 and iliac screws) for spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:303–308. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000197193.81296.f1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Brien JR, Yu WD, Bhatnagar R, Sponseller P, Kebaish KM (2009) An anatomic study of the S2 iliac technique for lumbopelvic screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E439–E442. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a4e3e4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emami A, Deviren V, Berven S, Smith JA, Hu SS, Bradford DS (2002) Outcome and complications of long fusions to the sacrum in adult spine deformity: luque-galveston, combined iliac and sacral screws, and sacral fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:776–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua J. Wind
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lauren M. Burke
    • 2
  • Khalid H. Kurtom
    • 1
  • Fabio Roberti
    • 1
  • Joseph R. O’Brien
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Neurologic SurgeryThe George Washington University Medical Center, The George Washington University School of MedicineWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryThe George Washington University School of MedicineWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations