Posts

Presumptive Long Rod Technique (PLRT) for Revision Extension Instrumented Spine Surgery: A Technical Note

/in /by

Volume 3 | Issue 2 | October 2022-March 2023 | page: 119-124 | Ajay Krishnan, Shivakumar A Bali, Devanand Degulmadi, Shivanand Mayi, Ravi Ranjan, Vatsal Parmar, Pranav Charde, Vikrant Chauhan, Mirant B Dave, Denish Patel, Preety A Krishnan, Bharat R Dave

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.2022.v03i02.050

Authors: Ajay Krishnan [1], Shivakumar A Bali [1], Devanand Degulmadi [1], Shivanand Mayi [1], Ravi Ranjan [1], Vatsal Parmar [1], Pranav Charde [1], Vikrant Chauhan [1], Mirant B Dave [1], Denish Patel [1], Preety A Krishnan [2], Bharat R Dave [1]

[1] Department of Spine Surgery, Stavya Spine Hospital & Research Institute, Mithakhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
[2] Department of Radiology, Stavya Spine Hospital & Research Institute, Mithakhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Ajay Krishnan,
Spine Surgeon, Department of Spine Surgery, Stavya Spine Hospital & Research Institute, Mithakhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
E-mail: drajaykrishnan@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: Revision spine surgery needing extension of fixation either require complete exposure of previously operated levels for rod exchange or can be managed by linking the new surgical construct (NSC) to primary surgical construct (PSC) with dominos. Presumptive long rod technique (PLRT) provides additional length of rod for domino placement.
Case report: 80-year male on conservative management developed acute cauda equina syndrome retention due to pre-existing multilevel lumbar stenosis and acute big sequestrated disc prolapse at L12. Emergent surgical intervention in form of L1 to L4 pedicle screw fixation with postero-lateral bone grafting and fragmentectomy was done. Peri-operative period was uneventful. He was started on Teriperatide 20mcg daily with progressive mobilization and physiotherapy. At 4 months of follow-up, he developed L1 osteoporotic fracture with proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). Patient underwent T12-L1 interbody fusion with extension of fixation to T10 which required complete opening up of previous incision as it was an Indian implant set. A domino of larger foot print couldn’t be accommodated in the space available between L1- L2 screws. Owing to severe osteoporosis and degenerative changes at proximal levels, presumptive oversized rods were inserted with extra lengths of the rods left at proximal ends. This technique is labelled PLRT(presumptive long rod technique) at our institute. At 6 months of follow up, patient developed T10 osteoporotic fracture with PJK and patient was planned for extension of fixation upto T4. Since the extra lengths of rods were available at proximal ends, only the planned operative levels were exposed and it was connected to previous construct using the larger footprint domino. Patient improved clinically and was ambulatory. The patient expired at 18 months due to cardio-respiratory arrest unrelated to the spinal events.
Conclusion: Additional rod lengths intentionally left at adjacent levels during primary surgery where there is anticipation of PJK and adjacent segment disease (ASD) can be a boon when there is need for extension of fixation. These extra lengths of rod can be used to place dominos and connect PSC to NSC without the need for exposure of PSC levels for rod exchange, preventing complications especially in setups with economic constraints.
Keywords: Complex, Adult Spinal Deformity, Adjacent Segment, Junctional Kyphosis, Osteoporosis, Revision, Surgery, Multirod.

References

1. Welke B, Schwarze M, Hurschler C, Nebel D, Bergmann N, Daentzer D. In vitro investigation of two connector types for continuous rod construct to extend lumbar spinal instrumentation. Eur Spine J. 2018 Aug;27(8):1895-1904. doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5664-3. Epub 2018 Jun 12. PMID: 29948326.
2. Chow DH, Luk KD, Evans JH, Leong JC. Effects of short anterior lumbar interbody fusion on biomechanics of neighboring unfused segments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Mar 1;21(5):549-55. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199603010-00004. PMID: 8852308.
3. Park P, Garton HJ, Gala VC, Hoff JT, McGillicuddy JE. Adjacent segment disease after lumbar or lumbo¬sacral fusion: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:1938-44.
4. Wang MY. Improvement of sagittal balance and lumbar lordosis following less invasive adult spinal deformity surgery with expandable cages and percutaneous instrumentation. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:4–12.
5. Eichholz KM, Ryken TC. Complications of revision spinal surgery. Neurosurg Focus 2003;15:E1.
6. Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, KreuterW, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA 2010;303: 1259–65.
7. Nasser R, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Harrop JS, Anderson DG, Vaccaro AR, et al. Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:144–57.
8. Hashimoto K, Aizawa T, Kanno H, Itoi E. Adjacent segment degeneration after fusion spinal surgery-a systematic review. Int Orthop. 2019 Apr;43(4):987-993. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4241-z. Epub 2018 Nov 23. PMID: 30470865.
9. Yagi M, Akilah KB, Boachie-Adjei O. Incidence, risk factors and classification of proximal junctional kyphosis: surgical outcomes review of adult idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:E60e8
10. Ogawa H, Hori H, Oshita H, Akaike A, Koyama Y, Shimizu T, Yamada K, Ishimaru D. Sublaminar wiring stabilization to prevent adjacent segment degeneration after lumbar spinal fusion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Jul;129(7):873-8. doi: 10.1007/s00402-008-0725-4. Epub 2008 Aug 22. PMID: 18719930.
11. Hassanzadeh H, Gupta S, Jain A, El Dafrawy MH, Skolasky RL, Kebaish KM. Type of Anchor at the Proximal Fusion Level Has a Significant Effect on the Incidence of Proximal Junctional Kyphosis and Outcome in Adults After Long Posterior Spinal Fusion. Spine Deform. 2013 Jul;1(4):299-305. doi: 10.1016/j.jspd.2013.05.008. Epub 2013 Aug 2. PMID: 27927362.
12. Kanayama M, Hashimoto T, Shigenobu K et al (2001) Adjacentsegment morbidity after Graf ligamentoplasty compared with posterolateral lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg 95:5–10
13. Strauss PJ, Novotny JE, Wilder DG et al (1994) Multidirectional stability of the Graf system. Spine 19:965–972
14. Orthofix (2019).Connector system operative technique. https://www.orthofix.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Connector-System-Operative-Technique.pdf
15. Zimmer biomet. Polaris spinal system domino rod connectors surgical technique guide. https://www.zimvie.com/content/dam/zimvie-corporate/en/products/specialties/spine/polaris-deformity-system/0328.1-GLBL-en-REV0318-Polaris-Domino-STG.pdf
16. Tatsumi rl, yoo ju, liu q, hart ra. Mechanical comparison of posterior instrumentation constructs for spinal fixation across the cervicothoracic junction. Spine (phila pa 1976). 2007;32: 1072-1076.
17. Tan QC, Huang JF, Bai H, Liu ZX, Huang XY, Zhao X, Yang Z, Du CF, Lei W, Wu ZX. Effects of Revision Rod Position on Spinal Construct Stability in Lumbar Revision Surgery: A Finite Element Study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Jan 5;9:799727. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.799727. PMID: 35071208; PMCID: PMC8766337.
18. Chechik O, Fishkin M, Wientroub S, Ovadia D. A new pelvic rod system for the surgical correction and fixation of pelvic obliquity in pediatric neuromuscular scoliosis. J Child Orthop. 2011 Feb;5(1):41-8. doi: 10.1007/s11832-010-0318-y. Epub 2010 Dec 14. PMID: 22295048; PMCID: PMC3024490.
19. Senatus P, Chinthakunta SR, Vazifeh P, Khalil S. Biomechanical evaluation of a novel posterior integrated clamp that attaches to an existing posterior instrumentation for use in thoracolumbar revision. Asian Spine J. 2013 Mar;7(1):1-7. doi: 10.4184/asj.2013.7.1.1. Epub 2013 Mar 6. PMID: 23508231; PMCID: PMC3596578
20. Hohn EA, Chu B, Martin A, Yu E, Telles C, Leasure J, Lynch TL, Kondrashov D. The Pedicles Are Not the Densest Regions of the Lumbar Vertebrae: Implications for Bone Quality Assessment and Surgical Treatment Strategy. Global Spine J. 2017 Sep;7(6):567-571. doi: 10.1177/2192568217694141. Epub 2017 Apr 11. PMID: 28894687; PMCID: PMC5582706.
21. El Dafrawy MH, Adogwa O, Wegner AM et al (2020) Comprehensive classification system for multirod constructs across three column osteotomies: a reliability study. J Neurosurg Spine. https://doi. org/ 10. 3171/ 2020.6. SPINE 20678
22. Krishnan A, Raj A, Meena U, Degulmadi D, Rai RR, Mayi S, Dave M, Dave BR. RCC (reinforced criss-cross construct): an easy and effective multi-rod thoraco-lumbar posterior reconstruction technique. Spine Deform. 2022 Apr 9. doi: 10.1007/s43390-022-00504-w. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35397069.
23. Rathjen K, Wood M, McClung A, Vest Z. Clinical and radiographic results after implant removal in idio¬pathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007;32:2184- 8.
24. Pattanayak S. Expenditure Control: Key Features, Stages, and Actors.IMF 2016 March. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/tnm/2016/tnm1602a.pdf

How to Cite this Article: Krishnan A, Bali SA, Degulmadi D, Mayi S, Ranjan R, Parmar V, Charde P, Chauhan V, Dave MB, Patel D, Krishnan PA, Dave BR | Presumptive Long Rod Technique (PLRT) for Revision Extension Instrumented Surgery: A Technical Note | Back Bone: The Spine Journal | October 2022-March 2023; 3(2): 119-124. https://doi.org/10.13107/bbj.2022.v03i02.050

(Abstract Text HTML)      (Download PDF)

.

Inter-relation of Hypocalcemia with Established Osteoporosis and DXA Analysis – A Prospective Study of 100 Indian Subjects

/in /by

Volume 1 | Issue 1 | October 2020-March 2021 | page: 19-22  | Bharat R. Dave, Himanshu Kulkarni, Devanand Degulmadi, Shivanand Mayi, Ravi Ranjan Rai, Kirit Jadav, Ajay Krishnan

Authors: Bharat R. Dave [1], Himanshu Kulkarni [1], Devanand Degulmadi [1], Shivanand Mayi [1], Ravi Ranjan Rai [1], Kirit Jadav [1], Ajay Krishnan [1]

[1] Stavya Spine Hospital and Research Institute, Near Nagari Eye Hospital, Mithakhali, Ellisbrige, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India .

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Ajay Krishnan,
Stavya Spine Hospital and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India .
E-mail: drajaykrishnan@gmail.com

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to screen the presence of hypocalcemia and clinical signs specific to hypocalcemia in dual-emission X-ray absorptiometry proven osteoporotic patients and also to analyze variations of T scores at specific anatomical regions in lumbar spine and hip.
Type: Prospective cohort.
Materials and Methods: One hundred patients who had T score of <−2.5 at any of the lumbar levels or in total lumbar T score were selected. Ionic calcium levels (normal – 1.1–1.135 mmol/L) of each patient were calculated. Trousseau’s sign and Chvostek’s sign were checked. Analysis of T scores was done for each patient.
Results: Twelve out of 100 patients had hypocalcemia. Out of whom, only one patient had positive Trousseau’s sign and none had Chvostek’s sign present. In normocalcemic patients (n = 88), seven patients had positive Trousseau’s sign and three had Chvostek’s sign present. Average total lumbar T score of 100 patients was −3.0 (±1.1 SD). After calculating the averages, the L3 had least T score of −3.3 (±0.9 SD) and L1 had highest T score of −2.5 (±1.3 SD), respectively. Twenty-seven patients had total hip T scores <−2.5 and 72 patients had T scores <−2.5 at Ward’s triangle. Similarly, average total hip T score of 100 patients was −2.0 (±1.6 SD); average T score at Ward’s angle was much lower at −2.9 (±1.4SD).
Conclusion: L3 vertebra and Ward’s triangle are most sensitive indicators of osteoporosis. Although theoretically unlikely, hypocalcemia can be present in osteoporotic patients. Trousseau’s sign and Chvostek’s sign may be present in patients with established hypocalcemia; however, their absence does not rule out the diagnosis.
Keywords: Osteoporosis, hypocalcemia, T score, ward’s triangle.

 

References

1. Mithal A, Dhingra V, Lau E, Stenmark J, Nauroy L. The Asian Audit: Epidemiology, Costs and Burden of Osteoporosis in Asia. Nyon, Swizterland: International Osteoporosis Foundation; 2009.
2. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. NIH Consens Statement 2000;17:1-45.
3. Kanis JA. Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis: Synopsis of a WHO report. WHO study group Osteoporos Int 1994;4:368-81.
4. Blake GM, Fogelman I. The role of DXA bone density scans in the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. Postgrad Med J 2007;83:509-17.
5. Boden SD, Kaplan FS. Calcium homeostasis. Orthop Clin North Am 1990;21:31-42.
6. Peacock M. Calcium metabolism in health and disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;5:S23-30.
7. Li Z, Kong K, Qi W. Osteoclast and its roles in calcium metabolism and bone development and remodeling. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2006;343:345-50.
8. Sava L, Pillai S, More U, Sontakke A. Serum calcium measurement: Total versus free (ionized) calcium. Indian J Clin Biochem 2005;20:158-61.
9. Urbano FL. Signs of hypocalcemia: Chvostek’s and Trousseau’s signs. Hosp Physician 2000;36:43-5.
10. Shoback D, Marcus R, Bikle D. Metabolic bone disease. In: Greenspan FS, Gardner DG, editors. Basic and Clinical Endocrinology. 3rd ed. Los Altos, CA: Lange Medical Publications; 2004. p. 324.
11. Schaaf M, Payne CA. Effect of diphenylhydantoin and phenobarbital on overt and latent tetany. N Engl J Med 1966;274:1228-33.
12. Watts NB. Postmenopausal osteoporosis: A clinical review. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2018;27:1093-6.
13. Garg MK, Kharb S. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry: Pitfalls in measurement and interpretation of bone mineral density. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2013;17:203-10.
14. Ramos RL, Armán JA, Galeano NA, Hernández AM, Gómez JG, Molinero JG. Absorciometría con rayos X de doble energía. Fundamentos, metodologia y aplicaciones clínicas. Radiologia 2012;54:410-23.
15. Blake GM, Fogelman I. An update on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Semin Nucl Med 2010;40:62-73.
16. Duboeuf F, Pommet R, Meunier PJ, Delmas PD. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry of the spine in anteroposterior and lateral projections. Osteoporos Int 1994;4:110-6.
17. Yoshihashi AK, Drake AJ, Shakir KM. Ward’s triangle bone mineral density determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry is a sensitive indicator of osteoporosis. Endocr Pract 1998;4:69-72.
18. Liu X, Qian ZY, Feng YS, Li HL, Xu YJ. Comparison of differences between hip and lumbar bone mineral density in dual energy X-ray absorptiometric data. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2013;93:191-4.
19. Ma XH, Zhang W, Wang Y, Xue P, Li YK. Comparison of the spine and hip BMD assessments derived from quantitative computed tomography. Int J Endocrinol 2015;2015:675340.

How to Cite this Article: Dave BR, Kulkarni H, Degulmadi D, Mayi S, Rai RR, Jadav K, Krishnan A| Inter-relation of Hypocalcemia with Established Osteoporosis and DXA Analysis – A Prospective Study of 100 Indian Subjects | Back Bone: The Spine Journal | October 2020-March 2021; 1(1): 19-22.

 

(Abstract) (Full Text HTML)      (Download PDF)

.