Thomas Kaulhausen

[Influencing factors on the length of stay in lumbar spine surgery : analysis of the German spine registry].

INTRODUCTION Spinal disc herniation, lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis are known to be leading causes of lumbar back pain. The cost of low back pain management and related operations are continuously increasing in the healthcare sector. There are many studies regarding complications after spine surgery but little is known about the factors predicting the length of stay in hospital. The purpose of this study was to identify these factors in lumbar spine surgery in order to adapt the postoperative treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS The current study was carried out as a post hoc analysis on the basis of the German spine registry. Patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery by posterior surgical access and with posterior fusion and/or rigid stabilization, whereby procedures with dynamic stabilization were excluded. Patient characteristics were tested for association with length of stay (LOS) using bivariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS A total of 356 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average age of all patients was 64.6 years and the mean LOS was 11.9 ± 6.0 days with a range of 2-44 days. Independent factors that were influencing LOS were increased age at the time of surgery, higher body mass index, male gender, blood transfusion of 1-2 erythrocyte concentrates and the presence of surgical complications. CONCLUSION Identification of predictive factors for prolonged LOS may allow for estimation of patient hospitalization time and for optimization of postoperative care. In individual cases this may result of a reduction in the LOS.

The Interspinous Spacer: A Clinicoanatomical Investigation Using Plastination

Purpose. The relatively new and less-invasive therapeutic alternative “interspinous process decompression device (IPD)” is expected to result in improved symptoms of neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of the study was to analyze IPD position particularly regarding damage originating from surgical implantation. Methods. Anatomic assessments were performed on a fresh human cadaver. For the anatomic examination, the lumbar spine was plastinated after implantation of the IPDs. After radiographic control, serial 4 mm thick sections of the block plastinate were cut in the sagittal (L1–L3) and horizontal (L3–L5) planes. The macroanatomical positioning of the implants was then analyzed. The insertion procedure caused only little injury to osteoligamentous or muscular structures. The supraspinous ligament was completely intact, and the interspinous ligaments were not torn as was initially presupposed. No osseous changes at the spinal processes were apparent. Contact of the IPD with the spinous processes was visible, so that sufficient biomechanical limitation of the spinal extension seems likely. Conclusions. Minimally invasive IPD implantation with accurate positioning in the anterior portion of the interspinous place is possible without severe surgical trauma.