PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-4 (4)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Massive lumbar disc herniation with complete dural sac stenosis 
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics  2013;47(3):244-249.
Background:
Large lumbar disc herniation (LDH) has been reported to have a greater tendency to resolve in clinical and pathomorphological evolutions. However, various definitions of large LDH have been used without validation, and the clinical symptoms of large LDH have not been fully elucidated. We conducted a retrospective analysis to determine the clinical characteristics and treatment outcome of massive LDH with complete dural sac stenosis
Materials and Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 33 cases of LDH with complete dural sac stenosis on magnetic resonance imaging. Complete dural sac stenosis was defined as no recognizable rootlet and cerebrospinal fluid signal on T2-weighed axial MR images. The clinical outcome parameters included back pain, leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and neurological dysfunction. The paired t-test and Wilcoxon's signed rank test were used to compare serial changes in back pain, leg pain and neurological dysfunction.
Results:
Mean duration of followup was 66 months (range 24 - 108 months). There were 24 male and 9 female. The mean age was 37 years (range 20 - 53 years). At presentation, mean visual analogue scales for back pain and leg pain were 75.3 ± 19.1 (range 12 - 100) and 80.2 ± 14.6 (range 0 -100), respectively. Mean ODI was 67.1 ± 18.8 (range 26 - 88). Neurological dysfunction was found in 9 patients (27.3%), and the bowel/bladder dysfunction was found in 2 patients (3.1%). Conservative treatment was performed in 21 patients (63.6%) with satisfactory results. Seven patients underwent decompressive surgery, and 5 underwent posterolateral fusion.
Conclusions:
A massive LDH with complete dural sac stenosis was found to be associated with severe back and leg pain at presentation, however surgical treatment can be deferred unless significant neurological symptoms occur.
doi:10.4103/0019-5413.111505
PMCID: PMC3687900  PMID: 23798754
Intervertebral disc; lumbar; massive disc herniation; MRI
2.  Radial head arthroplasty using a metatarsal osteochondral autograft 
International Orthopaedics  2012;36(12):2501-2506.
Purpose
Treatment of comminuted fractures of the radial head is controversial, and considerable effort has been made to restore optimal function of the elbows, either by surgical reconstruction or prosthetic replacement. This report presents our experiences in treatment of unreconstructable radial head or neck fractures using osteochondral autografts harvested from the base of the second metatarsal bones.
Methods
Five patients with radial head and one with a radial neck fracture underwent treatment with osteochondral autografts. After excision of the unreconstructable radial head, the second metatarsal base was harvested and transplanted to the radius using the intramedullary nailing technique.
Results
The reconstructed elbows were examined clinically and radiographically for a mean period of 44.8 months (range, 24–72 months). At the last follow-up, in flexion-extension, the mean elbow mobility was 130°/10°. In supination-pronation, the mean elbow mobility was 73.3°/66.7°, with a mean loss of supination of 19.2° and loss of pronation of 12.5°. Grip strength was 91%, compared with the contralateral limb. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 94.2. The mean score of AOFAS rating system to the lesser toe was 93.7 points.
Conclusion
Radial head arthroplasty with an osteochondral autograft from the second metatarsal base appears to be an effective alternative for treatment of unreconstructable radial head fractures. A larger group of patients and a longer follow-up period will be required in order to ease concerns regarding the donor site; however, none of the patients who underwent this procedure showed any complications during follow-up.
doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1666-7
PMCID: PMC3508048  PMID: 23052277
3.  The validity of ankle-brachial index for the differential diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease and lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with atypical claudication 
European Spine Journal  2011;21(6):1165-1170.
Purpose
Claudication is a typical symptom of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Differential diagnosis of PAD and LSS is often difficult due to the subjective natures of symptoms and atypical signs. The authors aimed to determine the usefulness of ankle-brachial index (ABI) measurement for the differential diagnosis of PAD and LSS when the etiology of claudication is uncertain.
Methods
Forty-two consecutive patients who had been referred by spine surgeons to a lower extremity vascular surgeon for atypical claudication were retrospectively analyzed. Atypical claudication was defined as claudication not caused by PAD, as determined by clinical manifestations, or by LSS, as determined by MR imaging. A final diagnosis of PAD was established by CT angiography (CTA) and of LSS by excluding PAD. Diagnostic validity of ABI for PAD in atypical presentation was assessed.
Results
Sixty-two legs of 42 atypical claudication patients were analyzed. Mean patient age was 65.8 ± 8.2 years (38–85) and 29 (69.0%) had diabetes mellitus. Mean ABI was 0.73 ± 0.14 (0.53–0.94) in the PAD group and 0.92 ± 0.18 (0.52–1.10) in the LSS group (P < 0.001). Of the 33 legs with a low ABI (ABI < 0.9), 29 legs were diagnosed as true positives for PAD by CTA and 4 were false positives, and of the 29 legs with a high ABI, 5 were false negatives and 24 were true negatives. The sensitivity and specificity of ABI for the diagnosis of PAD in patients with atypical claudication were 85.3 and 85.7%, respectively, and its positive and negative predictive values were 87.9 and 82.8%.
Conclusions
ABI is a recommended screening test for the differential diagnosis of lower leg claudication when clinical symptoms are atypical.
doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2072-3
PMCID: PMC3366123  PMID: 22105308
Claudication; Peripheral arterial disease; Lumbar spinal stenosis; Ankle-brachial index; Validity
4.  Factors affecting the accurate placement of percutaneous pedicle screws during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion 
European Spine Journal  2011;20(10):1635-1643.
We retrospectively evaluated 488 percutaneous pedicle screws in 110 consecutive patients that had undergone minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) to determine the incidence of pedicle screw misplacement and its relevant risk factors. Screw placements were classified based on postoperative computed tomographic findings as “correct”, “cortical encroachment” or as “frank penetration”. Age, gender, body mass index, bone mineral density, diagnosis, operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), level of fusion, surgeon’s position, spinal alignment, quality/quantity of multifidus muscle, and depth to screw entry point were considered to be demographic and anatomical variables capable of affecting pedicle screw placement. Pedicle dimensions, facet joint arthritis, screw location (ipsilateral or contralateral), screw length, screw diameter, and screw trajectory angle were regarded as screw-related variables. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine relations between these variables and the correctness of screw placement. The incidence of cortical encroachment was 12.5% (61 screws), and frank penetration was found for 54 (11.1%) screws. Two patients (0.4%) with medial penetration underwent revision for unbearable radicular pain and foot drop, respectively. The odds ratios of significant risk factors for pedicle screw misplacement were 3.373 (95% CI 1.095–10.391) for obesity, 1.141 (95% CI 1.024–1.271) for pedicle convergent angle, 1.013 (95% CI 1.006–1.065) for EBL >400 cc, and 1.003 (95% CI 1.000–1.006) for cross-sectional area of multifidus muscle. Although percutaneous insertion of pedicle screws was performed safely during MITLIF, several risk factors should be considered to improve placement accuracy.
doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1892-5
PMCID: PMC3175862  PMID: 21720727
Risk factor; Percutaneous; Pedicle screw; Minimally invasive; TLIF

Results 1-4 (4)