Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 8/2003

01-10-2003 | Original Article

Removal of lumbar instrumentation for the treatment of recurrent low back pain in the absence of pseudarthrosis

Authors: Alexander Wild, Manuel R. Pinto, Lisa Butler, Clayton Bressan, Jill M. Wroblewski

Published in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Issue 8/2003

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Removal of spine instrumentation for the treatment of recurrent low back pain remains controversial in the absence of pseudarthrosis and when no obvious pain generators are present. It is our practice to offer these patients surgical exploration and removal of instrumentation.

Materials and methods

Forty-five patients underwent an anterior and posterior lumbar spinal fusion. The removal of instrumentation was performed by the same surgeon and senior author of this paper (MRP). The reason for the revision surgery was recurrent low back and leg pain. All patients had a solid fusion based on a thorough surgical exploration of the fusion mass. Instrumentation was deemed either solid or loose at time of removal based on the purchase at the screw-bone interface. Final outcomes were determined using a functional and satisfactory questionnaire and compared between the two groups (Loose Instrumentation versus Solid Instrumentation).

Results

The majority of the patients in both groups would recommend the surgery to a family member (79% overall), would have the surgery again themselves (82%) and consider the surgery a success (77%). Pain was significantly decreased from pre-operatively to post-operatively and from pre-operative to final follow-up in both groups. The group of patients with loose instrumentation were significantly more likely to have a successful outcome than the group without loose instrumentation.

Conclusions

This study indicates that the removal of instrumentation in the absence of pseudarthrosis is beneficial in the relief of low back pain and leg pain symptoms. Increased success rates were noted in patients with loose instrumentation. However, this classification was based on inter-operative inspection. Further studies of the ability to diagnose and predict success prior to surgery needs to be done.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Brodzky AE, Kovalsky ES, Khalil MA (1991) Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploration. Spine 16 [6 Suppl]:261–265 Brodzky AE, Kovalsky ES, Khalil MA (1991) Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploration. Spine 16 [6 Suppl]:261–265
2.
go back to reference Cleveland M, Bosworth DM, Thompson FR (1948) Pseudarthrosis in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg 30A(2):302–312 Cleveland M, Bosworth DM, Thompson FR (1948) Pseudarthrosis in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg 30A(2):302–312
3.
go back to reference Darby AJ (1990) The histology of the failed implant. In: Older J (ed) Implant bone interface. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 51–57 Darby AJ (1990) The histology of the failed implant. In: Older J (ed) Implant bone interface. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 51–57
4.
go back to reference Deckey JE, Court C, Bradford DS (2000) Loss of Sagittal Plane Correction After Removal of Spinal Implants. Spine 25(19):2453–2460PubMed Deckey JE, Court C, Bradford DS (2000) Loss of Sagittal Plane Correction After Removal of Spinal Implants. Spine 25(19):2453–2460PubMed
5.
go back to reference DePalma AF, Rothman RH (1968) The nature of pseudarthrosis. Clin Orthop 59:113–118PubMed DePalma AF, Rothman RH (1968) The nature of pseudarthrosis. Clin Orthop 59:113–118PubMed
6.
go back to reference Flatley TJ, Derderian H (1985) Closed loop instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 196:273–278PubMed Flatley TJ, Derderian H (1985) Closed loop instrumentation of the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 196:273–278PubMed
7.
go back to reference Hume M, Capen DA, Nelson RW, Nagelberg S, Thomas JC (1996) Outcome after Wiltse pedicle screw removal. J Spinal Disord 9:121–124PubMed Hume M, Capen DA, Nelson RW, Nagelberg S, Thomas JC (1996) Outcome after Wiltse pedicle screw removal. J Spinal Disord 9:121–124PubMed
8.
go back to reference Mody DR, Esses SI, Hegeness MH (1994) A Histologic Study of Soft-Tissue Reactions to Spinal Implants. Spine 19(10):1153–1156PubMed Mody DR, Esses SI, Hegeness MH (1994) A Histologic Study of Soft-Tissue Reactions to Spinal Implants. Spine 19(10):1153–1156PubMed
9.
go back to reference Moore KR, Pinto MR, Butler LM (2002) Degenerative disc disease treated with combined anterior and posterior arthrodesis and posterior instrumentation. Spine 27(15):1680–1686CrossRefPubMed Moore KR, Pinto MR, Butler LM (2002) Degenerative disc disease treated with combined anterior and posterior arthrodesis and posterior instrumentation. Spine 27(15):1680–1686CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Nachemson A, Zdeblick TA, O'Brien JP (1996) Lumbar disc disease with discogenic pain. What surgical treatment is most effective? Spine 21(15):1835–1838 Nachemson A, Zdeblick TA, O'Brien JP (1996) Lumbar disc disease with discogenic pain. What surgical treatment is most effective? Spine 21(15):1835–1838
11.
go back to reference Picada R, Winter RB, Lonstein JE, Denis F, Pinto MR, Smith MD, Perra JH (2000) Postoperative deep wound infection in adults after posterior lumbosacral spine fusion with instrumentation: incidence and management. J Spinal Disord 13(1):42–45CrossRefPubMed Picada R, Winter RB, Lonstein JE, Denis F, Pinto MR, Smith MD, Perra JH (2000) Postoperative deep wound infection in adults after posterior lumbosacral spine fusion with instrumentation: incidence and management. J Spinal Disord 13(1):42–45CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Toms AD, Morgan-Jones RL, Spencer-Jones R (2002) Intramedullary femoral nailing: removing the nail improves subjective outcome. Injury 33(3):247–249CrossRefPubMed Toms AD, Morgan-Jones RL, Spencer-Jones R (2002) Intramedullary femoral nailing: removing the nail improves subjective outcome. Injury 33(3):247–249CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Removal of lumbar instrumentation for the treatment of recurrent low back pain in the absence of pseudarthrosis
Authors
Alexander Wild
Manuel R. Pinto
Lisa Butler
Clayton Bressan
Jill M. Wroblewski
Publication date
01-10-2003
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Issue 8/2003
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Electronic ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-003-0561-5

Other articles of this Issue 8/2003

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 8/2003 Go to the issue