Muschik Michael, Lück Wiebke, Schlenzka Dietrich
Seehospital Sahlenburg Orthopaedic Hospital and Center for Spinal Surgery, Nordheimstrasse 201, 27476, Cuxhaven, Germany.
Eur Spine J. 2004 Nov;13(7):645-51. doi: 10.1007/s00586-004-0694-4. Epub 2004 Jun 26.
A retrospective follow-up study of patients who, having undergone instrumented posterior spinal fusion for scoliosis, experienced late infection and then underwent either implant removal alone or implant removal and instrumented refusion. We conducted this study to determine whether it is possible to avoid loss of correction by a single-stage implant removal and reinstrumentation procedure. There have been a few reports of late-appearing infections after spinal instrumentation. Implant bulk, metallurgic reactions, and contamination with low-virulence microorganisms have been suggested as possible etiologic factors. The clinical symptoms include pain, swelling, redness, and spontaneous drainage of fluid. Complete instrumentation removal and systemic antibiotics is usually curative. We retrospectively reviewed 45 patients who underwent instrumented posterior spinal fusion for scoliosis and experienced development of late infections and, after a mean of 3 years after the initial procedure, either underwent implant removal alone [ n=35, instrumentation removal (HR) group] or additionally underwent reinstrumentation and fusion [ n=10, reinstrumentation and fusion (RI&F) group]. Three patients were reinstrumented 1.5 years after instrumentation removal, and seven underwent a one-stage rod removal and reinstrumentation/refusion procedure. Allergic predisposition, protracted postoperative fever, and pseudarthrosis appear to increase the risk of late-developing infection after posterior spinal fusion. All wounds in both groups healed uneventfully. Preoperative radiographic Cobb measurements showed no statistically significant between-group differences. At follow-up, however, outcome was clearly better in the RI&F group: Loss of correction was significantly smaller in reinstrumented patients. Thus, the thoracic Cobb angle was 28+/-16 degrees (range 0-55 degrees ) in the RI&F group versus 42+/-15 degrees (21-80 degrees ) in the HR group, and the lumbar Cobb angle was 22+/-11 degrees (10-36 degrees ) in the RI&F group versus 29+/-12 degrees (13-54 degrees ) in the HR group. The results of our study demonstrate that wound healing is usually uneventful after instrumentation removal for late infection, also when patients undergo instrumented refusion in a one-stage procedure. Reinstrumentation appears to achieve permanent correction of scoliosis.
一项回顾性随访研究,研究对象为接受脊柱后路器械融合术治疗脊柱侧弯后发生迟发性感染,随后单独进行内植物取出或内植物取出并再次进行器械融合术的患者。我们开展这项研究以确定通过单阶段内植物取出和重新植入手术是否有可能避免矫正丢失。已有一些关于脊柱内固定术后迟发性感染的报道。植入物体积、冶金反应以及低毒力微生物污染被认为是可能的病因。临床症状包括疼痛、肿胀、发红以及液体的自发引流。完全取出内固定器械并使用全身性抗生素通常可治愈。我们回顾性分析了45例接受脊柱后路器械融合术治疗脊柱侧弯并发生迟发性感染的患者,在初次手术后平均3年,其中35例单独进行了内植物取出(器械取出组,HR组),10例额外进行了重新植入和融合手术(重新植入和融合组,RI&F组)。3例患者在器械取出1.5年后进行了重新植入,7例接受了一期棒取出及重新植入/融合手术。过敏体质、术后长期发热和假关节似乎会增加脊柱后路融合术后迟发性感染的风险。两组患者的所有伤口均愈合良好。术前影像学Cobb角测量显示两组间无统计学显著差异。然而,在随访时,RI&F组的结果明显更好:重新植入患者的矫正丢失明显更小。因此,RI&F组的胸椎Cobb角为28±16度(范围0 - 55度),而HR组为42±15度(21 - 80度);RI&F组的腰椎Cobb角为22±11度(10 - 36度),而HR组为29±12度(13 - 54度)。我们的研究结果表明,对于迟发性感染进行器械取出术后,伤口愈合通常顺利,即使患者在一期手术中接受了器械融合。重新植入似乎能实现脊柱侧弯的永久矫正。