Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Neuroanaesth Crit Care 2016; 03(04): S88-S96
DOI: 10.4103/2348-0548.174744
Conference Proceeding
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.

Improving outcomes in spinal surgery patients

Padmaja Durga
1   Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 May 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

INTRODUCTION

The number of patients submitted to major spine surgery is progressively increasing. Surgery on the spine can result in debilitating complications such as neurological deficits, mechanical instability and intractable pain. Outcome is the final output measured as morbidity, mortality and quality of life. Outcome is the result of many interventions during patient course, including economic costs and the importance of an appropriate treatment. Complications are the episodes that may affect patient outcome and may require intervention, further diagnostic tests or monitoring. Outcome assessment in spinal disorders is imperative to help monitor the safety and efficacy of the treatment in an effort to change the clinical practice and improve patient outcomes.

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Halpin RJ, Sugrue PA, Gould RW, Kallas PG, Schafer MF, Ondra SL. et al. Standardizing care for high-risk patients in spine surgery: The northwestern high-risk spine protocol. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35: 2232-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Salkind EM. A novel approach to improving the safety of patients undergoing lumbar laminectomy. AANA J 2013; 81: 389-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Stambough JL, Dolan D, Werner R, Godfrey E. Ophthalmologic complications associated with prone positioning in spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15: 156-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pierce V, Kendrick P. Ischemic optic neuropathy after spine surgery. AANA J 2010; 78: 141-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kempen PM. Perioperative ischemic optic neuropathy and spine surgery: Are we asking the right questions?. Anesthesiology 2012; 117: 431-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sodhi HB, Salunke P, Kaur S, Singh R. Missing the ‘window’ might shut the light forever: Central retinal artery occlusion following spine surgery. Surg Neurol Int 2015; 6: 86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Daniels AH, Riew KD, Yoo JU, Ching A, Birchard KR, Kranenburg AJ. et al. Adverse events associated with anterior cervical spine surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2008; 16: 729-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Patel NP, Wolcott WP, Johnson JP, Cambron H, Lewin M, McBride D. et al. Esophageal injury associated with anterior cervical spine surgery. Surg Neurol 2008; 69: 20-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wakao N, Takeuchi M, Nishimura M, Riew KD, Kamiya M, Hirasawa A. et al. Risks for vascular injury during anterior cervical spine surgery: Prevalence of a medial loop of vertebral artery and internal carotid artery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fehlings MG, Brodke DS, Norvell DC, Dettori JR. The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: Does it make a difference?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35 (Suppl. 09) Suppl S37-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gunnarsson T, Krassioukov AV, Sarjeant R, Fehlings MG. Real-time continuous intraoperative electromyographic and somatosensory evoked potential recordings in spinal surgery: Correlation of clinical and electrophysiologic findings in a prospective, consecutive series of 213 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004; 29: 677-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Malhotra NR, Shaffrey CI. Intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring in spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35: 2167-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Eager M, Shimer A, Jahangiri FR, Shen F, Arlet V. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM): Lessons learned from 32 case events in 2069 spine cases. Am J Electroneurodiagnostic Technol 2011; 51: 247-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bracken MB, Shepard MJ, Holford TR, Leo-Summers L, Aldrich EF, Fazl M. et al. Administration of methylprednisolone for 24 or 48 hours or tirilazad mesylate for 48 hours in the treatment of acute spinal cord injury. Results of the third national acute spinal cord injury randomized controlled trial. National acute spinal cord injury study. JAMA 1997; 277: 1597-604
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Frampton AE, Eynon CA. High dose methylprednisolone in the immediate management of acute, blunt spinal cord injury: What is the current practice in emergency departments, spinal units, and neurosurgical units in the UK?. Emerg Med J 2006; 23: 550-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Short DJ, El Masry WS, Jones PW. High dose methylprednisolone in the management of acute spinal cord injury – A systematic review from a clinical perspective. Spinal Cord 2000; 38: 273-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sagi HC, Beutler W, Carroll E, Connolly PJ. Airway complications associated with surgery on the anterior cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002; 27: 949-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sansalone CV, Soldano S, Poli C, Tripepi M, D'Aliberti GA, Rossetti O. Anterior approach to the spine. Role of the general surgeon, techniques and surgical complications. The 10-year experience of the Niguarda Hospitals. J Neurosurg Sci 2011; 55: 357-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fu ZQ, Zhang ZM, Jin DD, Chen JT, Qu DB. Complications of the anterior surgical approach for thoracolumbar spine tuberculosis: Causes and countermeasures. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 2009; 29: 1229-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cheung KM, Al Ghazi S. Approach-related complications of open versus thoracoscopic anterior exposures of the thoracic spine. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2008; 16: 343-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pitzen T, Kränzlein K, Steudel WI, Strowitzki M. Complaints and findings at the iliac crest donor site following anterior cervical fusion. Zentralbl Neurochir 2004; 65: 7-12
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Yanow JH, Lorenzo LD, Worosilo SC, Pappagallo M. Successful treatment of chronic donor site pain. Anesth Pain Med 2015; 5: e18777
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Chiono J, Bernard N, Bringuier S, Biboulet P, Choquet O, Morau D. et al. The ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for anterior iliac crest bone graft postoperative pain relief: A prospective descriptive study. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2010; 35: 520-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schairer WW, Pedtke AC, Hu SS. Venous thromboembolism after spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tominaga H, Setoguchi T, Tanabe F, Kawamura I, Tsuneyoshi Y, Kawabata N. et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism after spine surgery. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94: e466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Eskildsen SM, Moll S, Lim MR. An algorithmic approach to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in spine surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28: 275-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cox JB, Weaver KJ, Neal DW, Jacob RP, Hoh DJ. Decreased incidence of venous thromboembolism after spine surgery with early multimodal prophylaxis: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 21: 677-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Banczerowski P, Czigléczki G, Papp Z, Veres R, Rappaport HZ, Vajda J. Minimally invasive spine surgery: Systematic review. Neurosurg Rev 2015; 38: 11-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar