Agnita Stadhouder

Are existing outcome instruments suitable for assessment of spinal trauma patients

OBJECT Valid outcome assessment tools specific for spinal trauma patients are necessary to establish the efficacy of different treatment options. So far, no validated specific outcome measures are available for this patient population. The purpose of this study was to assess the current state of outcome measurement in spinal trauma patients and to address the question of whether this group is adequately served by current disease-specific and generic health-related quality-of-life instruments. METHODS A number of widely used outcome measures deemed most appropriate were reviewed, and their applicability to spinal trauma outcome discussed. An overview of recent movements in the theoretical foundations of outcome assessment, as it pertains to spinal trauma patients has been attempted, along with a discussion of domains important for spinal trauma. Commonly used outcome measures that are recommended for use in trauma patients were reviewed from the perspective of spinal trauma. The authors further sought to select a number of spine trauma-relevant domains from the WHOs comprehensive International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a benchmark for assessing the content coverage of the commonly used outcome measurements reviewed. RESULTS The study showed that there are no psychometrically validated outcome measurements for the spinal trauma population and there are no commonly used outcome measures that provide adequate content coverage for spinal trauma domains. CONCLUSIONS Spinal trauma patients are currently followed either as a subset of the polytrauma population in the acute and early postacute setting or as a subset of neurological injury in the long-term revalidation medicine setting.

The Effects of Single-Level Instrumented Lumbar Laminectomy on Adjacent Spinal Biomechanics

Study Design Biomechanical study. Objective Posterior instrumentation is used to stabilize the spine after a lumbar laminectomy. However, the effects on the adjacent segmental stability are unknown. Therefore, we studied the range of motion (ROM) and stiffness of treated lumbar spinal segments and cranial segments after a laminectomy and after posterior instrumentation in flexion and extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). These outcomes might help to better understand adjacent segment disease (ASD), which is reported cranial to the level on which posterior instrumentation is applied. Methods We obtained 12 cadaveric human lumbar spines. Spines were axially loaded with 250 N for 1 hour. Thereafter, 10 consecutive load cycles (4 Nm) were applied in FE, LB, and AR. Subsequently, a laminectomy was performed either at L2 or at L4. Thereafter, load-deformation tests were repeated, after similar preloading. Finally, posterior instrumentation was added to the level treated with a laminectomy before testing was repeated. The ROM and stiffness of the treated, the cranial adjacent, and the control segments were calculated from the load-displacement data. Repeated-measures analyses of variance used the spinal level as the between-subject factor and a laminectomy or instrumentation as the within-subject factors. Results After the laminectomy, the ROM increased (+19.4%) and the stiffness decreased (−18.0%) in AR. The ROM in AR of the adjacent segments also increased (+11.0%). The ROM of treated segments after instrumentation decreased in FE (−74.3%), LB (−71.6%), and AR (−59.8%). In the adjacent segments after instrumentation, only the ROM in LB was changed (−12.9%). Conclusions The present findings do not substantiate a biomechanical pathway toward or explanation for ASD.

Single level lumbar laminectomy alters segmental biomechanical behavior without affecting adjacent segments

BACKGROUND Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis causes neurological symptoms due to neural compression. Lumbar laminectomy is a commonly used treatment for symptomatic degenerative spinal stenosis. However, it is unknown if and to what extent single level laminectomy affects the range of motion and stiffness of treated and adjacent segments. An increase in range of motion and a decrease in stiffness are possible predictors of post-operative spondylolisthesis or spinal failure. METHODS Twelve cadaveric human lumbar spines were obtained. After preloading, spines were tested in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Subsequently, single level lumbar laminectomy analogous to clinical practice was performed at level lumbar 2 or 4. Thereafter, load-deformation tests were repeated. The range of motion and stiffness of treated and adjacent segments were calculated before and after laminectomy. Untreated segments were used as control group. Effects of laminectomy on stiffness and range of motion were tested, separately for treated, adjacent and control segments, using repeated measures analysis of variance. FINDINGS Range of motion at the level of laminectomy increased significantly for flexion and extension (7.3%), lateral bending (7.5%), and axial rotation (12.2%). Range of motion of adjacent segments was only significantly affected in lateral bending (-7.7%). Stiffness was not affected by laminectomy. INTERPRETATION The increase in range of motion of 7-12% does not seem to indicate the use of additional instrumentation to stabilize the lumbar spine. If instrumentation is still considered in a patient, its primary focus should be on re-stabilizing only the treated segment level.

The Clay Shoveler's Fracture: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND A clay-shovelers fracture is a very rarely occurring stress-type avulsion fracture of the lower cervical or upper thoracic spinous processes owing its name to the clay shovelers of past times. Currently, this type of injury is mainly encountered in individuals practicing sports involving rotational movements of the upper spine. CASE REPORT We present a case of a man sustaining a clay-shovelers injury during his work in a horse-riding school. Treatment consisted of a period of rest and analgesics, followed by mobilization as was tolerated. We give a brief historical account of clay shovelers fractures. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Clay-shovelers fractures are frequently overlooked due to their rareness; however, they have specific clinical features that should alert an attending physician to set the correct diagnosis. This report describes a typical case of a clay-shovelers fracture, relates to the historical entity of clay-shovelers fractures, and summarizes existing literature on this topic.

A Novel Spinal Implant for Fusionless Scoliosis Correction: A Biomechanical Analysis of the Motion Preserving Properties of a Posterior Periapical Concave Distraction Device

Study Design: Biomechanical study. Objective: Recently, a posterior concave periapical distraction device for fusionless scoliosis correction was introduced. The goal of this study was to quantify the effect of the periapical distraction device on spinal range of motion (ROM) in comparison with traditional rigid pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. Methods: Using a spinal motion simulator, 6 human spines were loaded with 4 N m and 6 porcine spines with 2 N m to induce flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR). ROM was measured in 3 conditions: untreated, periapical distraction device, and rigid pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. Results: The periapical distraction device caused a significant (P < .05) decrease in ROM of FE (human, −40.0% and porcine, −55.9%) and LB (human, −18.2% and porcine, −17.9%) as compared to the untreated spine, while ROM of AR remained unaffected. In comparison, rigid instrumentation caused a significantly (P < .05) larger decrease in ROM of FE (human, −80.9% and porcine, −94.0%), LB (human, −75.0% and porcine, −92.2%), and AR (human, −71.3% and porcine, −86.9%). Conclusions: Although no destructive forces were applied, no device failures were observed. Spinal ROM was significantly less constrained by the periapical distraction device compared to rigid pedicle screw-rod instrumentation. Therefore, provided that scoliosis correction is achieved, a more physiological spinal motion is expected after scoliosis correction with the posterior concave periapical distraction device.

Is postoperative bracing after pedicle screw fixation of spine fractures necessary? Study protocol of the ORNOT study: a randomised controlled multicentre trial

Introduction The most common surgical treatment of traumatic spine fractures is through a posterior approach using pedicle screws and rods. Postoperative treatment protocols including the use of postoperative orthoses however differ between hospitals and surgeons. A three-point hyperextension orthosis is designed to support proper posture and unload the anterior column. Some motion remains when wearing an orthosis, and its main value in postoperative treatment is therefore believed to be pain relief and patient confidence. This could consequently shorten recovery time. On the other hand, an orthosis could also lead to muscle weakness and slow down recovery. Any orthosis-related complications might also be avoided. Additionally, recent studies on conservative fracture treatment show no difference in radiological outcomes with or without an orthosis. To date, no randomised studies have been performed on the use of postoperative orthoses. Methods and analysis Patients undergoing posterior fixation with pedicle screws for a traumatic thoracolumbar fracture (T7–L4) will be included in this randomised controlled multicentre non-inferiority trial. Forty-six patients will be randomised 1:1 to one of the two parallel groups; one group will wear a postoperative orthosis for 6 weeks followed by 6 weeks of weaning and one group will not wear an orthosis. The primary outcome is pain at 6 weeks reported on the Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes consist of pain on other moments, analgesic use, complications and length of hospital stay, quality of life (EuroQuol 5 Dimensions), back pain-related function (Oswestry Disability Index) and radiological outcomes with a follow-up of 1 year. Orthosis compliance is monitored weekly in the orthosis group. Ethics and dissemination The institutional review board (METc VUmc) approved this study on 11 October 2016 under case number 2016.389. After completion of the trial, the results will be offered to an international scientific journal for peer-reviewed publication. Trial registration number NCT03097081 and NTR6285; Pre-results.

Erratum: Risk Factors for Dystonia after Selective Dorsal Rhizotomy in Nonwalking Children and Adolescents with Bilateral Spasticity

1Department of Child Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 Child Neurology, Department of Neurology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands 3Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 4Department of Neurosurgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 5Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 6Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 7Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

The flying buttress construct for posterior spinopelvic fixation: a technical note

BackgroundPosterior fusion of the spine to the pelvis in paediatric and adult spinal deformity is still challenging. Especially assembling of the posterior rod construct to the iliac screw is considered technically difficult. A variety of spinopelvic fixation techniques have been developed. However, extreme bending of the longitudinal rods or the use of 90-degree lateral offset connectors proved to be difficult, because the angle between the rod and the iliac screw varies from patient to patient.MethodsWe adopted a new spinopelvic fixation system, in which iliac screws are side-to-side connected to the posterior thoracolumbar rod construct, independent of the angle between the rod and the iliac screw. Open angled parallel connectors are used to connect short iliac rods from the posterior rod construct to the iliac screws at both sides. The construct resembles in form and function an architectural Flying Buttress, or lateral support arches, used in Gothic cathedrals.Results and discussionThree different cases that illustrate the Flying Buttress construct for spinopelvic fixation are reported here with the clinical details, radiographic findings and surgical technique used.ConclusionThe Flying Buttress construct may offer an alternative surgical option for spinopelvic fixation in circumstances wherein coronal or sagittal balance cannot be achieved, for example in cases with significant residual pelvic obliquity, or in revision spinal surgery for failed lumbosacral fusion.