Dataset Information

Revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction: review article.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As the number of cervical spine procedures performed continues to increase, the need for revision surgery is also likely to increase. Surgeons need to understand the etiology of post-surgical changes, as well as have a treatment algorithm when evaluating these complex patients.

Questions/purposes

This study aims to review the rates and etiology of revision cervical spine surgery as well as describe our treatment algorithm.

Methods

We used a narrative and literature review. We performed a MEDLINE (PubMed) search for "cervical" and "spine" and "revision" which returned 353 articles from 1993 through January 22, 2014. Abstracts were analyzed for relevance and 32 articles were reviewed.

Results

The rates of revision surgery on the cervical spine vary by the type and extent of procedure performed. Patient evaluation should include a detailed history and review of the indication for the index procedure, as well as lab work to rule out infection. Imaging studies including flexion/extension radiographs and computed tomography are obtained to evaluate potential pseudarthrosis. Magnetic resonance imaging is helpful to evaluate the disc, neural elements, soft tissue, and to differentiate scar from infection. Sagittal alignment should be corrected if necessary.

Conclusions

Recurrent or new symptoms after cervical spine reconstruction can be effectively treated with revision surgery after identifying the etiology, and completing the appropriate workup.

SUBMITTER: Koerner JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4342401 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction: review article.

Koerner John D JD Kepler Christopher K CK Albert Todd J TJ

HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20140725 1

<h4>Background</h4>As the number of cervical spine procedures performed continues to increase, the need for revision surgery is also likely to increase. Surgeons need to understand the etiology of post-surgical changes, as well as have a treatment algorithm when evaluating these complex patients.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>This study aims to review the rates and etiology of revision cervical spine surgery as well as describe our treatment algorithm.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a narrative and literatu ...[more]

PMID: 25737662

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study Design Review. Objective Postoperative oropharyngeal dysphagia is one of the most common complications following anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS). We review and summarize recent literature in order to provide a general overview of clinical signs and symptoms, assessment, incidence and natural history, pathophysiology, risk factors, treatment, prevention, and topics for future research. Methods A search of English literature regarding dysphagia following anterior cervical spine surgery was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar. The search was focused on articles published since the last review on this topic was published in 2005. Results Patients who develop dysphagia after ACSS show significant alterations in swallowing biomechanics. Patient history, physical examination, X-ray, direct or indirect laryngoscopy, and videoradiographic swallow evaluation are considered the primary modalities for evaluating oropharyngeal dysphagia. There is no universally accepted objective instrument for assessing dysphagia after ACSS, but the most widely used instrument is the Bazaz Dysphagia Score. Because dysphagia is a subjective sensation, patient-reported instruments appear to be more clinically relevant and more effective in identifying dysfunction. The causes of oropharyngeal dysphagia after ACSS are multifactorial, involving neuronal, muscular, and mucosal structures. The condition is usually transient, most often beginning in the immediate postoperative period but sometimes beginning more than 1 month after surgery. The incidence of dysphagia within one week after ACSS varies from 1 to 79% in the literature. This wide variance can be attributed to variations in surgical techniques, extent of surgery, and size of the implant used, as well as variations in definitions and measurements of dysphagia, time intervals of postoperative evaluations, and relatively small sample sizes used in published studies. The factors most commonly associated with an increased risk of oropharyngeal dysphagia after ACSS are: more levels operated, female gender, increased operative time, and older age (usually >60 years). Dysphagic patients can learn compensatory strategies for the safe and effective passage of bolus material. Certain intraoperative and postoperative techniques may decrease the incidence and/or severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia after ACSS. Conclusions Large, prospective, randomized studies are required to confirm the incidence, prevalence, etiology, mechanisms, long-term natural history, and risk factors for the development of dysphagia after ACSS, as well as to identify prevention measures. Also needed is a universal outcome measurement that is specific, reliable and valid, would include global, functional, psychosocial, and physical domains, and would facilitate comparisons among studies. Results of these studies can lead to improvements in surgical techniques and/or perioperative management, and may reduce the incidence of dysphagia after ACSS.

Dataset Information

Revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction: review article.

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Revision surgery for failed cervical spine reconstruction: review article.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets