Patient satisfaction with implant removal after stabilization using percutaneous pedicle screws for traumatic thoracolumbar fracture

Takeshi Sasagawa; Yasutaka Takagi; Hiroyuki Hayashi; Kazuhiro Nanpo

doi:10.4103/ajns.AJNS_559_20

Asian Journal of Neurosurgery, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2021; 16(04): 765-769
DOI: 10.4103/ajns.AJNS_559_20

Original Article

Patient satisfaction with implant removal after stabilization using percutaneous pedicle screws for traumatic thoracolumbar fracture

Authors

Takeshi Sasagawa

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Toyama Prefectural Central Hospital, Toyama, Japan
Yasutaka Takagi

¹Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tonami General Hospital, Toyama, Japan
Hiroyuki Hayashi

¹Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tonami General Hospital, Toyama, Japan
Kazuhiro Nanpo

¹Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Tonami General Hospital, Toyama, Japan

Abstract

Context: There are no reports of patient satisfaction with implant removal after stabilization using percutaneous pedicle screws (PPS) for traumatic thoracolumbar fracture (TTF). Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate patient satisfaction with implant removal after stabilization using PPS for TTF. Settings and Design: A retrospective study. Subjects and Methods: The present study included data from 24 patients who underwent posterior stabilization using PPS for single-level TTF following implant removal. The degree of patient satisfaction was evaluated using a questionnaire. We investigated residuary back pain, using the numerical rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), and types of occupation. Patients were divided into groups of those with residuary back pain (Group P) and those without (Group N). We evaluated local kyphosis and disc degeneration after implant removal. We investigated whether residuary back pain or types of occupation affect patient satisfaction. Statistical Analysis Used: All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS statistics. Results: Patients were “extremely satisfied” in 13 cases (54%), “moderately satisfied” in eight cases (33%), and “neither” in three cases (13%). No patients answered “moderately dissatisfied” or “extremely dissatisfied.” The mean scores on the NRS and ODI in Group P were 1.8 ± 0.9 and 13.2 ± 9.3, respectively. Patient satisfaction, disc degeneration, and local kyphosis were not significantly different between Group P and Group N. Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the hard and light workgroups. Conclusions: Patient satisfaction with implant removal was high regardless of whether persistent back pain existed and did not depend on the type of occupation.

Key-words:

Implant removal - patient satisfaction - percutaneous pedicle screw - thoracolumbar fracture

Full Text

References

References
1 Sun XY, Zhang XN, Hai Y. Percutaneous versus traditional and paraspinal posterior open approaches for treatment of thoracolumbar fractures without neurologic deficit: A meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2017;26:1418-31.
2 Ko S, Jung S, Song S, Kim JY, Kwon J. Long-term follow-up results in patients with thoracolumbar unstable burst fracture treated with temporary posterior instrumentation without fusion and implant removal surgery: Follow-up results for at least 10 years. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e19780.
3 Smits AJ, den Ouden L, Jonkergouw A, Deunk J, Bloemers FW. Posterior implant removal in patients with thoracolumbar spine fractures: Long-term results. Eur Spine J 2017;26:1525-34.
4 Lee HD, Jeon CH, Chung NS, Seo YW. Cost-utility analysis of pedicle screw removal after successful posterior instrumented fusion in thoracolumbar burst fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017;42:E926-32.
5 Chou PH, Ma HL, Liu CL, Wang ST, Lee OK, Chang MC, et al. Is removal of the implants needed after fixation of burst fractures of the thoracolumbar and lumbar spine without fusion? A retrospective evaluation of radiological and functional outcomes. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:109-16.
6 Oh HS, Seo HY. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in thoracolumbar fractures: Comparison of results according to implant removal time. Clin Orthop Surg 2019;11:291-6.
7 XIX CONGRESSO NAZIONALE S.I.C.O.O.P. SOCIETA' ITALIANA CHIRURGHI ORTOPEDICI DELL'OSPEDALITA' PRIVATA ACCREDITATA; Proietti L, Perna A, Schirò GR, Noia G, Fumo C, et al. Residual mobility after removal of instrumentation in patient, with type a2-a3 vertebral fractures, treated with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2019;33:133-9.
8 Sadiqi S, Verlaan JJ, Lehr AM, Chapman JR, Dvorak MF, Kandziora F, et al. Measurement of kyphosis and vertebral body height loss in traumatic spine fractures: An international study. Eur Spine J 2017;26:1483-91.
9 Benneker LM, Heini PF, Anderson SE, Alini M, Ito K. Correlation of radiographic and MRI parameters to morphological and biochemical assessment of intervertebral disc degeneration. Eur Spine J 2005;14:27-35.
10 Ramond A, Bouton C, Richard I, Roquelaure Y, Baufreton C, Legrand E, et al. Psychosocial risk factors for chronic low back pain in primary care – A systematic review. Fam Pract 2011;28:12-21.
11 Axelsson P, Strömqvist B. Can implant removal restore mobility after fracture of the thoracolumbar segment? Acta Orthop 2016;87:511-5.
12 Chen JX, Xu DL, Sheng SR, Goswami A, Xuan J, Jin HM, et al. Risk factors of kyphosis recurrence after implant removal in thoracolumbar burst fractures following posterior short-segment fixation. Int Orthop 2016;40:1253-60.
13 Aono H, Ishii K, Takenaka S, Tobimatsu H, Nagamoto Y, Horii C, et al. Risk factors for a kyphosis recurrence after short-segment temporary posterior fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures. J Clin Neurosci 2019;66:138-43.
14 Hoppe S, Aghayev E, Ahmad S, Keel MJ, Ecker TM, Deml M, et al. Short posterior stabilization in combination with cement augmentation for the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures and the effects of implant removal. Global Spine J 2017;7:317-24.
15 Ntilikina Y, Bahlau D, Garnon J, Schuller S, Walter A, Schaeffer M, et al. Open versus percutaneous instrumentation in thoracolumbar fractures: Magnetic resonance imaging comparison of paravertebral muscles after implant removal. J Neurosurg Spine 2017;27:235-41.
16 Li S, Li Z, Hua W, Wang K, Li S, Zhang Y, et al. Clinical outcome and surgical strategies for late post-traumatic kyphosis after failed thoracolumbar fracture operation: Case report and literature review. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e8770.
17 Wood KB, Li W, Lebl DR, Ploumis A. Management of thoracolumbar spine fractures. Spine J 2014;14:145-64.
18 Fürderer S, Wenda K, Thiem N, Hachenberger R, Eysel P. Traumatic intervertebral disc lesion – Magnetic resonance imaging as a criterion for or against intervertebral fusion. Eur Spine J 2001;10:154-63.
19 Aono H, Ishii K, Tobimatsu H, Nagamoto Y, Takenaka S, Furuya M, et al. Temporary short-segment pedicle screw fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures: Comparative study with or without vertebroplasty. Spine J 2017;17:1113-9.
20 Wang J, Zhou Y, Zhang ZF, Li CQ, Zheng WJ, Liu J. Radiological study on disc degeneration of thoracolumbar burst fractures treated by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. Eur Spine J 2013;22:489-94.
21 Kerttula LI, Serlo WS, Tervonen OA, Pääkkö EL, Vanharanta HV. Post-traumatic findings of the spine after earlier vertebral fracture in young patients: Clinical and MRI study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:1104-8.