Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical evaluation of the stability of single-segment short pedicle screw fixation for the reconstruction of lumbar and sacral tuberculosis lesions

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The routine surgical approach to posterior reconstruction in spinal tuberculosis is short- or long-segment fixation and/or fusion. This method sacrifices movement at more than one vertebral level, limits normal movement of the spinal column, and leads to degeneration of the small joints of the adjacent levels. Surgical techniques that reduce the number of fixed vertebral levels and maximize the retention of movement of the spinal column are of current interest in the treatment of spinal tuberculosis.

Materials and methods

A total of 106 patients with lumbosacral tuberculosis were randomly divided into two groups: a single-segment fixation group and a short-segment fixation group. After posterior correction and internal fixation, all patients underwent anterior radical debridement and interbody fusion with bone grafting.

Results

The mean postoperative follow-up period was 58.09 ± 17.01 months. The average bone graft healing time was 4.35 ± 1.04 months in the single-segment group and 4.47 ± 1.10 months in the short-segment group. In the single-segment group, correction of the Cobb angle was 14.47 ± 3.76° and the loss rate was 7.22 %, and in the short-segment group, correction of the Cobb angle was 16.20 ± 2.70° and the loss rate was 6.37 % (P < 0.05). Patients with operative time, blood loss, costs in the single-segment group were significantly reduced than the short-segment group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Single-segment pedicle screw fixation and correction surgery can fix and fuse the diseased segment in lumbar and sacral tuberculosis, retain normal movement in the adjacent spinal column, and promote functional recovery of the spinal column postoperatively. It was be regarded as a cost-effective means of treatment with lumbar and sacral tuberculosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ha KY, Chung YG, Ryoo SJ (2005) Adherence and biofilm formation of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Mycobacterium tuberculosis on various spinal implants. Spine 30:38–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Oga M, Arizono T, Takasita M et al (1993) Evaluation of the risk of instrumentation as a foreign body in spinal tuberculosis. Clinical and biologic study. Spine 18:1890–1894

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Klöckner C, Valencia R (2003) Sagittal alignment after anterior debridement and fusion with or without additional posterior instrumentation in the treatment of pyogenic and tuberculous spondylodiscitis. Spine 28:1036–1042

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yilmaz C, Selek HY, Gürkan I et al (1999) Anterior instrumentation for the treatment of spinal tuberculosis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 81:1261–1267

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang ZL, Yang WY, Jin WD et al (2004) Treatment of spinal tuberculosis with anterior partial vertebrectomy, iliac grafting and internal fixation. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord 14:716–723

    Google Scholar 

  6. Talu U, Gogus A, Ozturk C et al (2006) The role of posterior instrumentation and fusion after anterior radical debridement and fusion in the surgical treatment of spinal tuberculosis: experience of 127 cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:554–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bezer M, Kucukdurmaz F, Aydin N et al (2005) Tuberculous spondylitis of the lumbosacral region: long-term follow-up of patients treated by chemotherapy, transpedicular drainage, posterior instrumentation, and fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:425–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee SH, Sung JK, Park YM (2006) Single-stage transpedicular decompression and posterior instrumentation in treatment of thoracic and thoracolumbar spinal tuberculosis: a retrospective case series. J Spinal Disord Tech 19:595–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sudo H, Oda I, Abumi K et al (2006) Biomechanical study on the effect of five different lumbar reconstruction techniques on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and lamina strain. J Neurosurg Spine 5:150–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu QJ, Wang ZL, Ge ZH et al (2010) Biomechanical test of varied segment pedicle screw instrumentation following a single segment of anterior and mid column spine corpectomy. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord 20:267–271

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wang ZL, Wu QJ, Jin WD et al (2010) Debridement and single segment fusion and instrumentation for spinal tuberculosis. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord 20:811–815

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ge Z, Wang Z, Wei M (2008) Measurement of the concentration of three antituberculosis drugs in the focus of spinal tuberculosis. Eur Spine J 17:1482–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yang WY, Wang ZL, Qiao YD et al (2006) Resectable range of anterior partial vertebrectomy for spinal tuberculosis. J Fourth Mil Med Univ 27:695–697

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Moon MS (1997) Tuberculosis of the spinal controversies and a new challenge. Spine 22:1791–1797

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee JS, Moon KP, Kim SJ et al (2007) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation in the surgical management of lumbar tuberculous spondylitis. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89:210–214

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hirakawa A, Miyamoto K, Ohno Y et al (2008) Two-stage (posterior and anterior) surgical treatment of spinal osteomyelitis due to atypical mycobacteria and associated thoracolumbar kyphoscoliosis in a nonimmunocompromised patient. Spine 33:E221–E224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wawro W, Konrad L, Aebi M (1994) Single segment internal fixator device in treatment of thoracolumbar vertebral fractures. Unfallchirurg 97:114–120

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Qu DB, Zhu QA, Zhong SD (1998) Adjacent segment degeneration and mechanism after surgery of spinal fusion. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord 8:344–346

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kuklo TR, Polly DW, Owens BD et al (2001) Measurement of thoracic and lumbar fracture kyphosis: evaluation of intraobserver, interobserver, and technique variability. Spine 26:61–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McLain RF, Burkus JK, Benson DR (2001) Segmental instrumentation for thoracic and thoracolumbar fractures: prospective analysis of construct survival and five-year follow-up. Spine J 1:310–323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wei FX, Liu SY, Liang CX et al (2008) Biomechanical evaluation of single-level pedicle instrumentation in management of thoracolumbar fracture. Biomed Eng Clin Med 12:85–89

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chen Y, Bai B, Wu JM et al (2009) Biomechanical study of the adjacent intervertebral disc after short-segment pedicle screw fixation. Chin J Traumatol 11:346–350

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chen Y, Bai B, Sun H et al (2010) Biomechanical study of after short-segment pedicle screw fixation. Chin J Traumatol 26:39–42

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Defino HL, Scarparo P (2005) Fractures of thoracolumbar spine: monosegmental fixation. Injury 36:B90–B97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu S, Li H, Liang C et al (2009) Monosegmental transpedicular fixation for selected patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:38–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Biedemann L (1994) Biomecaianica of pedicle fixation as related to implant design, 1st American-European meeting on pedicle fixation of the spine and other advanced techniques. Springer, Munich, p 115

  27. Mahar A, Kim C, Wedemeyer M et al (2007) Short-segment fixation of lumbar burst fractures using pedicle fixation at the level of the fracture. Spine 32:1503–1507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ohlin A, Karlsson M, Düppe H et al (1994) Complications after transpedicular stabilization of the spine. A survivorship analysis of 163 cases. Spine 19:2774–2779

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang Z, Shen GP, Chen WB et al (2004) Biomechanical analysis on the stability of internal fixation of the pedicle of vertebral arch screw. Chin J Clin Rehabil 8:2755–2757

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weinstein JN, Rydevik BL, Rauschning W (1992) Anatomic and technical considerations of pedicle screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 284:34–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Spinal Surgery, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, 804 Shengli Street, Yinchuan, 750004, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China

    Weidong Jin & Zili Wang

Authors
  1. Weidong Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zili Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zili Wang.

Additional information

W. Jin and Z. Wang contributed equally to this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jin, W., Wang, Z. Clinical evaluation of the stability of single-segment short pedicle screw fixation for the reconstruction of lumbar and sacral tuberculosis lesions. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132, 1429–1435 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1575-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1575-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation