Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_6019_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
40 Мб
Скачать
204
Fig. 17.7 Preoperative imaging. (a) Sagittal CT. (b) Sagittal T2 MRI. (c) Sagittal STIR MRI
S.K. Mendenhall and S.A. K hairi
Fig. 17.8 Postoperative films. (a) AP standing X-ray. (b) Lateral standing X-ray. (c) Axial CT
based on the biomechanical considerations dis­cussed previously. This patient suffered an axial loading injury causing a compression fracture at T7 and a burst fracture at T12. These injuries lead
was extended past T7 because the patient has low­density bone for a male. Extending the instrumen­tation to T5 will help prevent further degeneration of the T7 compression fracture over time.
to axial loading instability in the sagittal plane. Posterior thoracic instrumentation with pedicle screws and rods counteract the axial loading

Outcome

instability by providing strength and rigidity to the posterior elements. In this case, the most unstable portion of the thoracic spine is at T12. Laminectomy was performed at this level to decompress the spinal cord from the retropulsed burst fracture fragments. At the thoracolumbar junction, there is greater motion than the other thoracic segments, and therefore instrumentation was carried down two levels to L2. The construct
The patient underwent surgical decompression and fusion without complication. He was fol­lowed up in a clinic at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. By his 6-month follow-up, his neurologic exam had returned to baseline, and he was ambulating well. By 1 year postoperatively, he had evidence of radiographic bony fusion from T5 to L2.
17 Posterior Thoracic Spinal Fixation
205

Technical Pearls

• Patient positioning that prevents abdominal tension greatly reduces blood loss during spi­nal surgery.
• The use of intraoperative fluoroscopy should be routinely used to confirm the spinal level before decompression and instrumentation.
• Careful preoperative measurement of the ped­icle width and length should be performed prior to each posterior spinal fusion to help prevent nerve root, thecal sac, and aortic injury.
• The distance from the medial wall of the ped­icle to the thecal sac is closest in the mid­thoracic region. Special care should be taken at these levels to prevent medial pedicle breach.
• Placement of pedicle screws before laminec­tomy utilizes the lamina as a safe guard for the possibility of pedicle screw instrumentation slippage.
• Understanding the biomechanics of the spine will help build solid fusion constructs that counteract destabilizing forces acting on the spine.
• Fusion should be considered across the cervi­cal thoracic junction in cases of C7–T1 instability.
• Long segment fixation of the thoracic spine should incorporate the thoracolumbar junction through L5 or the sacrum to prevent adjacent segment kyphosis.
• Bracing after spine surgery is controversial. Patients with poor bone quality and factors that may affect bone fusion should have careful consideration for external orthosis postoperatively.
• Smoking cessation prior to spinal instrumen­tation improves arthrodesis rates.
• Preoperative antibiotics 30 min to 1 h prior to surgery are effective at reducing the incidence of surgical site infection.
• 1–2 grams of vancomycin powder applied before closure is helpful in reducing surgical site infection.

Complications and Strategies for Avoidance

Complications associated with posterior thoracic spinal instrumentation can be broken down into several main categories: (1) patient positioning, (2) thoracic spine exposure, (3) instrumentation, and (4) postoperative.
The surgical and anesthesia teams are respon­sible for proper and safe positioning of the patient prior to thoracic instrumentation. Detailed atten­tion is paid to positioning of the neck and limbs in the prone position. The neck must be in a neu­tral position and the limbs properly padded to avoid injury to peripheral nerves. There are case reports of excessive neck rotation causing carotid artery occlusion and resultant stroke [50]. The shoulders need to be padded and placed in a neu­tral position to avoid brachial plexus injury. Padding must be placed under the arms at the elbow, iliac crests, and knees to prevent skin breakdown and pressure ulcer development.
Prone positioning has the risk of ocular com­plications. Postoperative visual deficits have been reported with an incidence as high as 0.1–
0.2% [51]. The most common cause of postop­erative visual deficit is ischemic optic neuropathy (ION). The major risk factors include prolonged intraoperative hypotension, postoperative anemia, and facial swelling. Avoiding or immediately correcting these risk factors greatly reduces the incidence of ION [52]. Visual deficit can also result from central retinal artery occlusion, isolated stroke, or embolic phenomenon. While ocular complica­tions are rare, prevention of such complications in high-risk patients (e.g., patients with diabe­tes, hypertension, history of prior stroke or cases with long operative time) is achieved by reducing the central venous pressure [53, 54].
Safe thoracic exposure entails a comprehen­sive knowledge of the local anatomy and neuro­vascular structures within the region of dissection. During posterior thoracic exposure, the neural elements are at risk once the spinal canal is entered. Care must be taken to avoid plunging
206
S.K. Mendenhall and S.A. K hairi
instruments into the spinal canal during expo­sure. This becomes especially true when the spine is flexed on the Wilson Frame, revision spine surgery, and trauma. Additionally, the cor­rect level must be identified prior to exposure. In one study, 50% of spine surgeons admitted to performing a wrong-level surgery at least once during their career [55]. Wrong-level spine sur­gery can be avoided with careful preoperative planning and intraoperative localization utilizing fluoroscopy.
Pedicle screw placement places the nerve roots, thecal sac, spinal cord, and aorta at risk for injury. Preoperative imaging should be reviewed for any anatomic abnormalities that would increase the chance for neurologic injury and plans made to circumvent the abnormal anatomy. Intraoperatively, anatomic landmarks and image guidance, when available, should be used to ensure proper screw placement. Pedicle diameter and length are measured preoperatively to ensure correct screw diameter and length intraopera­tively. Screws that are “long” and placed on the left side of the spine have the potential to injure the aorta because of its close proximity to the ventral vertebral body. Additionally, screws placed on the right side of the body have the potential to injure the superior intercostal vessels at T4–T5, esophagus at T4–T9, azygous vein at T5–T11, inferior vena cava at T11–T12, and tho­racic duct at T4–T12. Techniques that check for medial and lateral breach during pedicle cannula­tion are essential. Medial and lateral pedicle screw breaches have the potential to injure the thecal sac and nerve root, respectively.
Many complications associated with instru­mentation occur due to disruption of the inter­face between the bony tissue and pedicle screws. Wound infection rates have been shown to be higher in instrumented spine procedures com­pared to ones that are non-instrumented and lead to erosion of the bone around the pedicle screws [56]. Patients with osteoporosis often experience early fixation failure or pedicle screw pullout. Other conditions associated with hardware fail­ure include steroid use, smoking, cancer, radia­tion therapy, and poor nutrition. Poor nutritional status in spinal instrumentation candidates
should be reversed to improve surgical outcome [57]. Smoking cessation improves fusion out- comes [
58].
The most common complication after spine surgery is postoperative wound infection. The incidence reported in the literature is quite vari­able and ranges from 0.5% to 15% [
5961].
This is likely due to variation in case complex­ity across the different studies examining spine infection rates. Infection can be prevented by use of prophylactic antibiotics [62]. The most effective prophylactic antibiotic agents are those that have action against the most common bacteria present in tissues adjacent to the surgi­cal site. Cefazolin is commonly used at our institution. It is currently recommended that perioperative antibiotics be administered 30 min to 1 h preoperatively to ensure adequate levels at the surgical site at the time of skin incision [63, 64]. In addition to preoperative antibiotics, irrigation solutions are commonly used intraop­eratively. Common irrigants include bacitracin, iodine, chlorhexidine, neomycin, and poly­myxin. There is no clinical evidence that these irrigants reduce infection rates in spine surgery, but in vitro studies show a significant reduction in bacterial counts [65]. More recently, vanco­mycin powder has gained popularity for reduc­ing surgical site infections. Typically 1–2 g is added generously to the wound upon closure. This is the typical practice at our institution. There is no class 1 evidence proving vancomy­cin powder effectiveness, but there are many retrospective and prospective studies that vali­date its everyday use in spinal instrumentation surgery [6672].

Conclusion

Posterior thoracic spinal fixation is used to restore spinal stability when its mechanical functions are disrupted by trauma, tumor, infection, degenera­tive disease, deformity, or surgical management of these disorders. Achieving safe and optimal results requires a thorough knowledge of the anatomy and the biomechanical properties of the thoracic spine. Pedicle screw fixation has sup-
17 Posterior Thoracic Spinal Fixation
207
planted previous techniques because of its advan­tageous biomechanical properties and greater reduction power. Familiarity with the instrumen­tation techniques discussed in this chapter will help the surgeon minimize complications while enabling the treatment of a wide variety of spinal pathologies.

References

1. Whitesides TE Jr. Traumatic kyphosis of the thoraco­lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977;128:78–92.
2. An HS, Singh K, Vaccaro AR, Wang G, Yoshida H, Eck J, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of contempo­rary posterior spinal internal fixation configurations in an unstable burst-fracture calf spine model: special references of hook configurations and pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(3):257–62.
3. Hitchon PW, Brenton MD, Black AG, From A, Harrod JS, Barry C, et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of pedicle screws, sublaminar hooks, and sublaminar cables. J Neurosurg. 2003;99(1 Suppl):104–9.
4. Karatoprak O, Unay K, Tezer M, Ozturk C, Aydogan M, Mirzanli C. Comparative analysis of pedicle screw versus hybrid instrumentation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Int Orthop. 2008;32(4):523–8. dis­cussion 9
5. Gurr KR, McAfee PC, Shih CM. Biomechanical anal­ysis of anterior and posterior instrumentation systems after corpectomy. A calf-spine model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(8):1182–91.
6. Gurr KR, McAfee PC, Shih CM. Biomechanical analysis of posterior instrumentation systems after decompressive laminectomy. An unstable calf-spine model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(5):680–91.
7. Lee SM, Suk SI, Chung ER. Direct vertebral rotation: a new technique of three-dimensional deformity cor­rection with segmental pedicle screw fixation in ado­lescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(3):343–9.
8. Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L, Link T, Halm H. Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and lami­nar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg. 2001;67(2):157–63.
9. Rampersaud YR, Simon DA, Foley KT. Accuracy requirements for image-guided spinal pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(4):352–9.
10. Ebraheim NA, Jabaly G, Xu R, Yeasting RA. Anatomic relations of the thoracic pedicle to the adjacent neural structures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(14):1553–
6. discussion 7
11. Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L. Morphometric analysis of thoracic and lumbar vertebrae in idiopathic scolio­sis. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2002;88:382–6.
12. Vaccaro AR, Rizzolo SJ, Allardyce TJ, Ramsey M, Salvo J, Balderston RA, et al. Placement of pedicle screws in the thoracic spine. Part I: morphometric
analysis of the thoracic vertebrae. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(8):1193–9.
13. Vaccaro AR, Rizzolo SJ, Balderston RA, Allardyce TJ, Garfin SR, Dolinskas C, et al. Placement of pedi­cle screws in the thoracic spine. Part II: an anatomical and radiographic assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(8):1200–6.
14. Ebraheim NA, Xu R, Ahmad M, Yeasting RA. Projection of the thoracic pedicle and its morphometric analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(3):233–8.
15. Vaccaro AR, Lehman RA Jr, Hurlbert RJ, Anderson PA, Harris M, Hedlund R, et al. A new classification of thoracolumbar injuries: the importance of injury morphology, the integrity of the posterior ligamen­tous complex, and neurologic status. Spine (Phila Pa
1976). 2005;30(20):2325–33.
16. Kalanithi PA, Arrigo R, Boakye M. Morbid obesity increases cost and complication rates in spinal arthrod­esis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(11):982–8.
17. Magee DJ. Orthopedic physical assessment. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2002.
18. Hoppenfeld SDP, Hutton R. Surgical exposures in Orthopaedics: the anatomic approach. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1994.
19. Kim DH. Surgical anatomy and techniques to the spine. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2006.
20. Whang PG, Vaccaro AR. Thoracolumbar fracture: posterior instrumentation using distraction and ligamentotaxis reduction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(11):695–701.
21. White AAPM. Clinical biomechanics of the spine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1990.
22. Xu R, Ebraheim NA, Shepherd ME, Yeasting RA. Thoracic pedicle screw placement guided by computed tomographic measurements. J Spinal Disord. 1999;12(3):222–6.
23. Sucato DJ, Duchene C. The position of the aorta rela­tive to the spine: a comparison of patients with and without idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(8):1461–9.
24. Charles YP, Barbe B, Beaujeux R, Boujan F, Steib JP. Relevance of the anatomical location of the Adamkiewicz artery in spine surgery. Surg Radiol Anat. 2011;33(1):3–9.
25. Watkins R, Watkins R 3rd, Williams L, Ahlbrand S, Garcia R, Karamanian A, et al. Stability provided by the sternum and rib cage in the thoracic spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(11):1283–6.
26. Takeuchi T, Abumi K, Shono Y, Oda I, Kaneda K. Biomechanical role of the intervertebral disc and costovertebral joint in stability of the thoracic spine. A canine model study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(14):1414–20.
27. Orndorff DGZT. Rothman-Simeone the spine. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2011.
28. Schonauer C, Bocchetti A, Barbagallo G, Albanese V, Moraci A. Positioning on surgical table. Eur Spine J. 2004;13(Suppl 1):S50–5.
29. Palmon SC, Kirsch JR, Depper JA, Toung TJ. The effect of the prone position on pulmonary mechanics is frame-dependent. Anesth Analg. 1998;87(5):1175–80.
208
S.K. Mendenhall and S.A. K hairi
30. Brewin J, Hill M, Ellis H. The prevalence of cer­vical ribs in a London population. Clin Anat. 2009;22(3):331–6.
31. Merks JH, Smets AM, Van Rijn RR, Kobes J, Caron HN, Maas M, et al. Prevalence of rib anomalies in normal Caucasian children and childhood cancer patients. Eur J Med Genet. 2005;48(2):113–29.
32. Scheufler KM, Franke J, Eckardt A, Dohmen H. Accuracy of image-guided pedicle screw placement using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation with automated referencing, part I: cervi­cothoracic spine. Neurosurgery. 2011;69(4):782–95. discussion 95
33. Scheufler KM, Franke J, Eckardt A, Dohmen H. Accuracy of image-guided pedicle screw placement using intraoperative computed tomography-based navigation with automated referencing. Part II: thora­columbar spine. Neurosurgery. 2011;69(6):1307–16.
34. Dinesh SK, Tiruchelvarayan R, Ng I. A prospective study on the use of intraoperative computed tomog­raphy (iCT) for image-guided placement of thoracic pedicle screws. Br J Neurosurg. 2012;26(6):838–44.
35. Lee CY, Wu MH, Li YY, Cheng CC, Hsu CH, Huang TJ, et al. Intraoperative computed tomography navi­gation for transpedicular screw fixation to treat unstable thoracic and lumbar spine fractures: clinical analysis of a case series (CARE-compliant). Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(20):e757.
36. Kim YJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Cho YS, Riew KD. Free hand pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine: is it safe? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(3):333–42. discussion 42
37. Raynor BL, Lenke LG, Kim Y, Hanson DS, Wilson­Holden TJ, Bridwell KH, et al. Can triggered elec­tromyograph thresholds predict safe thoracic pedicle screw placement? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(18):2030–5.
38. Hackenberg L, Link T, Liljenqvist U. Axial and tan­gential fixation strength of pedicle screws versus hooks in the thoracic spine in relation to bone mineral density. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(9):937–42.
39. Halvorson TL, Kelley LA, Thomas KA, Whitecloud TS 3rd, Cook SD. Effects of bone mineral density on pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994;19(21):2415–20.
40. Soshi S, Shiba R, Kondo H, Murota K. An experimen­tal study on transpedicular screw fixation in relation to osteoporosis of the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa
1976). 1991;16(11):1335–41.
41. Zindrick MR, Wiltse LL, Widell EH, Thomas JC, Holland WR, Field BT, et al. A biomechanical study of intrapeduncular screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;203:99–112.
42. Sarzier JS, Evans AJ, Cahill DW. Increased pedicle screw pullout strength with vertebroplasty augmenta­tion in osteoporotic spines. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(3 Suppl):309–12.
43. Frankel BM, D'Agostino S, Wang C. A biomechani­cal cadaveric analysis of polymethylmethacrylate-
augmented pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(1):47–53.
44. Dick JC, Zdeblick TA, Bartel BD, Kunz DN. Mechanical evaluation of cross-link designs in rigid pedicle screw systems. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(4):370–5.
45. Dick JC, Jones MP, Zdeblick TA, Kunz DN, Horton WC. A biomechanical comparison evaluating the use of intermediate screws and cross-linkage in lumbar pedicle fixation. J Spinal Disord. 1994;7(5):402–7.
46. Johnston CE 2nd, Ashman RB, Baird AM, Allard RN. Effect of spinal construct stiffness on early fusion mass incorporation. Experimental study Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990;15(9):908–12.
47. Lynn G, Mukherjee DP, Kruse RN, Sadasivan KK, Albright JA. Mechanical stability of thoracolumbar pedicle screw fixation. The effect of crosslinks. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(14):1568–72. discussion 73
48. Schroeder JE, Girardi FP, Sandhu H, Weinstein J, Cammisa FP, Sama A. The use of local vancomy­cin powder in degenerative spine surgery. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(4):1029–33.
49. Bakhsheshian J, Dahdaleh NS, Lam SK, Savage JW, Smith ZA. The use of vancomycin powder in modern spine surgery: systematic review and meta­analysis of the clinical evidence. World Neurosurg. 2015;83(5):816–23.
50. Wang LC, Liou JT, Liu FC, Hsu JC, Lui PW. Fatal ischemia stroke in a patient with an asymptom­atic carotid artery occlusion after lumbar spine sur­gery--a case report. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwanica. 2004;42(3):179–82.
51. Chang SH, Miller NR. The incidence of vision loss due to perioperative ischemic optic neuropathy associated with spine surgery: the Johns Hopkins Hospital experience. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(11):1299–302.
52. Dunker S, Hsu HY, Sebag J, Sadun AA. Perioperative risk factors for posterior ischemic optic neuropathy. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194(6):705–10.
53. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative B. Practice advisory for periopera­tive visual loss associated with spine surgery: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on perioperative blindness. Anesthesiology. 2006;104(6):1319–28.
54. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Visual L. Practice advisory for perioperative visual loss associated with spine sur­gery: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on perioperative visual loss. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(2):274–85.
55. Upadhyaya CD, Wu JC, Chin CT, Balamurali G, Mummaneni PV. Avoidance of wrong-level tho­racic spine surgery: intraoperative localization with preoperative percutaneous fiducial screw placement. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(3):280–4.
56. Weinstein MA, McCabe JP, Cammisa FP Jr. Postoperative spinal wound infection: a review of
17 Posterior Thoracic Spinal Fixation
209
2,391 consecutive index procedures. J Spinal Disord. 2000;13(5):422–6.
57. Klein JD, Hey LA, Yu CS, Klein BB, Coufal FJ, Young EP, et al. Perioperative nutrition and postoperative complications in patients under­going spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(22):2676–82.
58. Glassman SD, Anagnost SC, Parker A, Burke D, Johnson JR, Dimar JR. The effect of cigarette smok­ing and smoking cessation on spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(20):2608–15.
59. El-Gindi S, Aref S, Salama M, Andrew J. Infection of intervertebral discs after operation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1976;58(1):114–6.
60. Rechtine GR, Bono PL, Cahill D, Bolesta MJ, Chrin AM. Postoperative wound infection after instrumen­tation of thoracic and lumbar fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2001;15(8):566–9.
61. Fernandez-Sousa JM, Gavilanes JG, Municio AM, Paredes JA, Perez-Aranda A, Rodriguez R. Primary structure of cytochrome c from the insect Ceratitis capitata. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1975;393(2):358–67.
62. Savitz MH, Malis LI, Savitz SI. Efficacy of prophy­lactic antibiotic therapy in spinal surgery: a meta­analysis. Neurosurgery. 2003;53(1):243–4. author reply 4-5
63. Swoboda SM, Merz C, Kostuik J, Trentler B, Lipsett PA. Does intraoperative blood loss affect antibi­otic serum and tissue concentrations? Arch Surg. 1996;131(11):1165–71. discussion 71-2
64. Polly DW Jr, Meter JJ, Brueckner R, Asplund L, van Dam BE. The effect of intraoperative blood loss on serum cefazolin level in patients undergoing instru­mented spinal fusion. A prospective, controlled study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996;21(20):2363–7.
65. Rosenstein BD, Wilson FC, Funderburk CH. The use of bacitracin irrigation to prevent infection in post­operative skeletal wounds. An experimental study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(3):427–30.
66. Caroom C, Tullar JM, Benton EG Jr, Jones JR, Chaput CD. Intrawound vancomycin powder reduces surgi­cal site infections in posterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(14):1183–7.
67. Heller A, McIff TE, Lai SM, Burton DC. Intrawound Vancomycin powder decreases staphylococcal surgi­cal site infections after posterior instrumented spinal arthrodesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(10):E584–9.
68. Martin JR, Adogwa O, Brown CR, Bagley CA, Richardson WJ, Lad SP, et al. Experience with intra­wound vancomycin powder for spinal deformity sur­gery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(2):177–84.
69. O'Neill KR, Smith JG, Abtahi AM, Archer KR, Spengler DM, McGirt MJ, et al. Reduced surgical site infections in patients undergoing posterior spinal stabilization of traumatic injuries using vancomycin powder. Spine J. 2011;11(7):641–6.
70. Strom RG, Pacione D, Kalhorn SP, Frempong­Boadu AK. Lumbar laminectomy and fusion with routine local application of vancomycin pow­der: decreased infection rate in instrumented and non-instrumented cases. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013;115(9):1766–9.
71. Strom RG, Pacione D, Kalhorn SP, Frempong­Boadu AK. Decreased risk of wound infection after posterior cervical fusion with routine local applica­tion of vancomycin powder. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(12):991–4.
72. Evaniew N, Khan M, Drew B, Peterson D, Bhandari M, Ghert M. Intrawound vancomycin to prevent infections after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(3):533–42.

Anterior Spinal Column Augmentation Techniques

Ian K. White, Eric Potts, and Jean-Pierre Mobasser

Introduction

Vertebral fractures are a major source of morbidity in the United States in terms of pain, work days lost to patients and families, and dollars spent on medical treatment. Osteoporosis accounts for the majority of these fractures (85%), with high­impact trauma (12%) and pathologic fractures (3%) accounting for a much lower cohort [1]. The incidence of osteoporotic- related spine frac­ture in the United States is 117 per 100,000 life years with the number approaching 2.1 million in
2016. This is not surprising with the aging popu­lation and 10 million Americans (8 million women/2 million men) meeting the criteria for osteoporosis.
Vertebral compression fractures (VCF) are the most common fragility fractures followed by the hip, wrist, and ankle. Although commonly thought to have a benign course, osteoporotic fractures are associated with significant morbid-
I.K. White, MD (*) • E. Potts, MD J.-P. Mobasser, MD Goodman Campbell Brain and Spine, Department of Neurological Surgery, Indiana University School of Medicine, 355 W. 16th Street, Suite 5100, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA e-mail: ian.k.white33@gmail.com;
epotts@goodmancampbell.com; jmobasser@goodmancampbell.com
18
ity and increased mortality and costs. Once an individual suffers a compression fracture, it increases the patient’s risk of sustaining a second fracture by 5–10 times [2].
Traditionally, nonoperative medical manage­ment including lifestyle changes (smoking cessa­tion, diet, supplements), medications (anti­resorptive and anabolic), pain control, and brac­ing has served as the standard of care. Despite treatment, many patients have debilitating resid­ual pain, functional limitations, and decreased
high rates of adverse events in this population due to poor fixation and further fracture espe­cially at adjacent segments and from medical comorbidities.
Neoplasm commonly affects the spine in more than one-third of cancer patients and is the pre­senting symptom in 10–15%. Metastatic disease from breast, lung, and prostate cancer accounts for 60–65% of these cases. In addition, multiple myeloma commonly presents with severe osteo­porosis and spinal fracture. The mechanism of bone loss is due to osteoclastic activation and resorption of bone architecture that predisposes patients to fractures resulting in pain, neurologic deficits, and progressive spinal deformity that have a severe impact on their quality of life.
Limitations in effective management of VCFs in these patients have led to the development of percutaneous vertebral augmentation. These tech­niques include vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty.
© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 L.T. Holly, P.A. Anderson (eds.), Essentials of Spinal Stabilization, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-59713-3_18
I.K. White et al.
In both techniques, polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) is placed percutaneously into the verte­bral body, although other materials are being investigated. Vertebral augmentation provides rapid improvement in pain with some restoration in vertebral body height and prevention of pro­gressive deformity. In addition, surgeons have begun to use cement augmentation to improve pedicle screw fixation. In this chapter, we explore the indications and techniques for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty along with the growing use of PMMA in open surgery.

History

Galibert performed the first vertebroplasty in France in 1984 where PMMA was used to treat a painful hemangioma of the C2 vertebra [3, 4]. One year later, vertebroplasty was used to treat a compression fracture in an osteoporotic patient, and, subsequently, the first North American ver­tebroplasty was performed at the University of Virginia in 1993. Balloon assistance to create a cavity and expand the vertebral body, termed kyphoplasty, was first reported in 1998, and its use became widespread [510]. In 2003, in a ran­domized controlled trial, Diamond et al. demon­strated the efficacy of vertebroplasty in providing rapid and effective pain control after osteoporotic compression fractures [11]. Since then, there have been many uses for PMMA that are reviewed later in this chapter.

Patient Evaluation and Indications

Patient Selection

The majority of patients sustaining a compres­sion fracture from trauma or osteoporotic/patho­logic etiologies benefit from a trial of nonoperative treatment. However, a detailed neurological examination must first occur to guide the patient’s post-injury course. Most often, compression frac­tures are first identified on plain radiographs or CT. If not already available, three-dimensional
imaging is used to evaluate the posterior body wall and estimate stability. CT may also be used to estimate bone mineral density using x-ray attenuation, Hounsfield units (HU). Schreiber has shown that patients having spinal HU greater than 140 have normal bone mineral density (BMD), those between 100 and 130 are osteope­nic, and those less than 100 are likely osteopo­rotic [12]. Patients with neurologic deficits require MRI for a more thorough evaluation of the soft tissue and neuro-elements. MRI is useful to determine the age of a fracture, and it is always indicated when it is believed that spinal metasta­sis is the etiology of the fracture. If the fracture has occurred with low-energy mechanism, a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan should also be considered to evaluate patient’s future risk of fracture.
Most patients with vertebral compression fractures should initially be treated nonopera­tively. Patients who have intractable pain and are unable to mobilize should be considered for operative intervention. Pain is poorly controlled in 20–30% of osteoporotic and metastatic frac­tures [13, 14]. Radiotherapy oftentimes can help the lytic pain due to spinal metastasis-related fractures, but can take 1 month to have any pain­related benefits and 2–6 months to show any bony reinforcement, subjecting patients to high risk of further instability during this time period.
The ideal candidate for vertebral augmenta­tion is a patient with intractable pain localized to an acute fracture level that has an intact pos­terior cortex, who is neurologically intact after the fracture, and who has failed conservative management. Relative contraindications to treatment include vertebra plana, comminuted burst fracture, spinal canal compromise greater than 20%, epidural tumor extension, myelopa­thy, and coagulopathy.

Tumor and Metastatic Disease

Spinal metastasis is involved in over two-thirds of patients who die of metastatic disease. These bone lesions are in themselves very painful and
18 Anterior Spinal Column Augmentation Techniques
oftentimes result in vertebral body fractures in 10–20% of cases. The most common sites of disease are the thoracic vertebrae (60–80%), followed by the lumbar (20%) and cervical (10%) spine [15].
Spinal metastasis is a painful process involv­ing intrinsic pain to the vertebra through bony erosion and propensity toward fracture. Many of these patients have multiple metastases and will need to undergo chemotherapy and radiation which would be delayed from open surgery due to wound healing issues. Still, these patients live with substantial pain, oftentimes for the remain­der of their lives. Vertebral column augmentation has been shown to provide quick relief in these patients without delaying their primary cancer treatments [16]. It can provide palliative relief in a variety of tumor and fracture patterns. The mechanism of pain relief is believed to be from stabilization of the fractures and through thermo­chemical ablation of pain fibers in the bone through the exothermic chemical reaction of PMMA.
Classically, vertebroplasty was indicated for neoplastic disease in patients having single-level compression fractures, without posterior wall compromise and without [1]epidural compres­sion. These indications have recently been chal­lenged. Liu and colleagues described 104 spinal levels in 28 patients all treated with VP and all in single operations. Patient pain levels were decreased prior to pre-op and maintained these levels as well as vertebral body height for 12 months [15]. Cianfoni treated patients with posterior wall erosion and epidural invasion, showing low clinically significant, perioperative adverse events with good pain relief scores [17]. They did recommend that the technique requires careful attention to detail in these high-risk patients. Although less common, cervical cement augmentation has been shown to be an option if no open procedure is available [
18]. These proce-
dures can also be performed in the setting of mul­tiple myeloma-related fractures. Due to the diversity of cancer-related pain and expanding indications for these procedures, vertebral aug­mentation is an essential part of the spine sur­geon’s armamentarium.

An Adjunct to Open Surgery

Recently PMMA along with other biologics cements such as calcium phosphate and calcium sulfate has been used to augment fixation in open surgery [ to improve fixation have been developed includ­ing expandable and hydroxyapatite-coated screws. In biomechanical models of osteoporo­sis, both expandable and hydroxyapatite-coated screws show greater pullout resistance when fur­ther augmented with PMMA [19, 20]. Pullout strength was noted to be 1.5 times that of equiva­lent segments in one study [21]. Screw pullout strength was the only parameter tested, and more complex torsional and directional forces still need to be evaluated. Some studies suggest a greater amount of bone cement to a point of increasing screw pullout strength, and it has been suggested that pretreating with kyphoplasty pro­vides the best pullout strength with reduced tog­gle [21]. The differing screw augmentation techniques are shown in Fig. 18.1. Interestingly, augmented pedicle screws can be removed if revision is necessary without catastrophic dam­age to the vertebral body or pedicle.
augmentation is the cannulated and fenestrated pedicle screw. A number of modifications of the fenestrated screw are available, but no known differences in efficacy have been established. This screw allows pedicle screw placement and then vertebroplasty to be performed through the screw fenestrations using a fitted cannulated plungerFenestrated pedicle screw technique (Fig. 18.2). The PMMA is injected into the body as the fenestrations are near the tip, and this can be performed minimally invasively or through an open incision. All screws should be tapped. Prefilling the tapped holes may provide an addi­tional benefit in resistance to toggle and pullout strength [ safe as Klingler reported 157 cannulated and fenestrated pedicle screws placed in this manner had no cement- or vascular-related complica­tions [
is the treatment of burst fractures in a combined
33, 34]. In addition, screw modifications
One strategy for providing screw PMMA
19, 20, 22]. This technique appears
19, 20, 22].
Another indication for vertebral augmentation
I.K. White et al.
Fig. 18.1 Elder and colleagues described the pullout strength using different strategies for cement augmenta­tion in fenestrated screws [21]. From left to right: no aug­mentation, cement down the pedicle track, cement through
Fig. 18.2 Fenestrated pedicle screw technique with fenestrations at the tip of the screw similar to that seen in Fig. 18.1. Once the screw is inserted in the standard technique, a cannula is inserted through the screw to the end, and a plunger pushes the cement out the fenestrations into the anterior aspect of the vertebral body
open procedure. Posterior fixation with pedicle screws can improve lordosis and sometimes indi­rectly reduce the retropulsed fragment but often will not correct the vertebral collapse and wedg­ing. Balloon-assisted end plate reduction restores vertebral body height and provides for better anterior column support. Oner and colleagues reported 20 consecutive patients treated by poste­rior pedicle screw fixation and balloon-assisted reduction of the vertebral body and PMMA aug­mentation. Reduction of kyphosis from 11 degrees to 1.6 and an average vertebral body height restoration from 66% to 81% occurred.
the screw fenestrations, vertebroplasty with cement down the pedicle and in the vertebral body, and kyphoplasty augmentation with cement down the pedicle and in the vertebral body
This correction was maintained over a 17-month period. No patients experienced clinically related extravasation complications [
23].

Timing

The timing of vertebral augmentation is contro­versial. The majority of compression fractures improve with time, thus making the role of imme­diate intervention contraindicated in most patients [ ods ranging from 6 weeks to 1 year [2426].
32]. Some authors advocate time peri-