Department of Spinal Surgery, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No. 10, Tieyi Road, Yangfangdian street, Haidian District, Beijing, 10038, People's Republic of China.
Department of Spinal Surgery, Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical College, No. 717, Jinbu Street, Yantai, Shandong, 264000, People's Republic of China.
BMC Surg. 2023 Jun 6;23(1):152. doi: 10.1186/s12893-023-02063-x.
The removal of spinal implants is needed in revision surgery or in some cases whose fracture had healed or fusion had occurred. The slip of polyaxial screw or mismatch of instruments would make this simple procedure intractable. Here we introduce a simple and practical method to address this clinical dilemma.
This is a retrospective study. The patients underwent new technique for retrieving the implants from July 2019 to July 2022 were labeled as group A, while the patients underwent traditional implants retrieval technique from January 2017 to January 2020 were labeled as group B. Patients in each group were subdivided into revision surgery group (r group) and simple implants removal group (s group) according to the surgery fashion. For the new technique, the retrieved rod was cut off to a proper length which was matched with the size of tulip head, and was replaced into the tulip head. After tightened with nut, a monoaxial screw-rod "construct" was formed. Then the "construct" can be retrieved by a counter torque. The operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, post-operative bacteria culture, hospital stay and costs were analyzed.
A total of 116 polyaxial screws with difficult retrieval (43 screws in group A, 73 screws in group B) in 78 patients were recorded, in which 115 screws were successfully retrieved. Significant differences were found in the mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss when comparing the r group in group A and B, as well as the s group in group A and B (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in hospital stay and costs between group A and B. Three patients were found positive bacteria culture of drainage tube/tape in group A (3/30), while 7 patients in group B (7/48). The most prevalent bacteria was Propionibacterium acnes.
This technique is practical and safe in retrieving tulip head poly-axial screw. Reduced operation duration and intraoperative bloods loss may potentially alleviate the hospitalization burden of patients. Positive bacterial cultivation results are common after implants removal surgery, but they rarely represent an organized infection. A positive culture with P. acnes or S. epidermidis should be interpreted with caution.
在翻修手术或某些骨折愈合或融合发生的情况下,需要取出脊柱植入物。多轴螺钉的滑动或器械不匹配会使这个简单的手术变得棘手。在这里,我们介绍一种简单实用的方法来解决这个临床难题。
这是一项回顾性研究。2019 年 7 月至 2022 年 7 月,采用新技术取出植入物的患者被标记为 A 组,而 2017 年 1 月至 2020 年 1 月采用传统植入物取出技术的患者被标记为 B 组。根据手术方式,每组患者进一步分为翻修手术组(r 组)和单纯植入物取出组(s 组)。对于新技术,将取出的棒切割成与 tulip 头尺寸匹配的适当长度,并将其插入 tulip 头中。用螺母拧紧后,形成一个单轴螺钉-棒“结构”。然后可以通过反向扭矩取出“结构”。分析手术时间、术中失血量、术后细菌培养、住院时间和费用。
共记录了 78 例 116 例(A 组 43 例,B 组 73 例)多轴螺钉取出困难的患者,其中 115 例螺钉成功取出。A 组和 B 组 r 组、A 组和 B 组 s 组的平均手术时间和术中失血量比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A 组和 B 组的住院时间和费用比较差异无统计学意义。A 组有 3 例(3/30)引流管/带的细菌培养阳性,B 组有 7 例(7/48)。最常见的细菌是痤疮丙酸杆菌。
该技术在取出 tulip 头多轴螺钉时实用且安全。缩短手术时间和减少术中失血量可能会减轻患者的住院负担。植入物取出手术后,细菌培养阳性结果很常见,但很少代表有组织感染。对于痤疮丙酸杆菌或表皮葡萄球菌的阳性培养结果,应谨慎解释。