Translate this page into:
Evaluation of spinous process wiring techniques for accidental canal penetration
This article was originally published by Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd. and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher; therefore Scientific Scholar has no control over the quality or content of this article.
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Background and Objective: Accidental canal penetration with attendant complications constitutes one of the reasons for abandoning the use of wires for posterior spinal fusion techniques. However, there is dearth of information on this risk when the wire is introduced through the base of spinous process as against sublaminar passage. This study was designed to evaluate hardware‑related postoperative complications, especially canal penetration, in our patients who had spinal process wiring in two types of posterior wiring techniques. Materials and Methods: Patients who had either of two spinous process wiring techniques formed the population for the study. The clinical records were reviewed and the following data were extracted: Age, sex, diagnosis, operation (fusion type), preoperative neurological status, postoperative neurologic deterioration, other postoperative complication and radiologic evidence of canal encroachment. Results: One hundred and seventy four spinous processes were instrumented in 42 patients. The age of the patients ranged from 11 to 78 years while male to female ratio was 2.5:1. Majority of the spinal wiring were for trauma (29 patients; 69.0) while the remaining were tumor (6; 14.3%), degenerative diseases (4; 9.5%) and infections (3; 7.1%). The Rogers technique was performed in 16 (38.1%) patients while 26 (61.9%) underwent Adeolu et al. technique. One patient (2.3%) had neurologic deterioration while 5 patients (11.1%) had varying type of complications from wound infection to fracture of spinous processes. There was no patient with radiological or clinical evidence of canal compromise. Conclusion: Spinous process wiring techniques for posterior spinal stabilization appears to be safe as demonstrated in this study.
Keywords
Canal penetration
spinous process
wiring
Conflict of Interest
None declared
References
- J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:948-51.Neurological deterioration after posterior wiring of the cervical spine.
- [Google Scholar]
- Eur Spine J. 1996;5:161-6.Neurological complications in segmental spinal instrumentation: Analysis of 750 patients.
- [Google Scholar]
- Surg Neurol. 1985;23:629-35.Complications of sublaminar wiring.
- [Google Scholar]
- Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13:503-9.Depth of intraspinal wire penetration during passage of sublaminar wires.
- [Google Scholar]
- J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71:742-50.Factors influencing the penetration of wires into the neural canal during segmental wiring.
- [Google Scholar]
- J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1942;24:245-48.Treatment of Fracture-dislocation of the cervical spine.
- [Google Scholar]
- J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:406-8.The technique of using rigid vertical strut and spinal process wire for posterior spinal stabillization.
- [Google Scholar]
- Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1985;105:378-84.Segmental spinal instrumentation without spinal instrumentation.
- [Google Scholar]
- Orthop Trans. 1985;9:142.The triple wire fixation technique for stabilization of acute cervical fracture-dislocations: A biomechanical analysis.
- [Google Scholar]