Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
4 (
2
); 156-158
doi:
10.4103/0976-3147.112748

Evaluation of spinous process wiring techniques for accidental canal penetration

Department of Surgery, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Department of Neurological Surgery, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
Address for correspondence: Dr. Augustine A Adeolu Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan P.O. Box 40476, Dugbe, Ibadan Nigeria adeoluaa@yahoo.com
Licence
This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd. and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

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

  1. , , . Neurological deterioration after posterior wiring of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:948-51.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , . Neurological complications in segmental spinal instrumentation: Analysis of 750 patients. Eur Spine J. 1996;5:161-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , . Complications of sublaminar wiring. Surg Neurol. 1985;23:629-35.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , . Depth of intraspinal wire penetration during passage of sublaminar wires. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988;13:503-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , et al . Factors influencing the penetration of wires into the neural canal during segmental wiring. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71:742-50.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , . Treatment of Fracture-dislocation of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1942;24:245-48.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , . The technique of using rigid vertical strut and spinal process wire for posterior spinal stabillization. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:406-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . Segmental spinal instrumentation without spinal instrumentation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1985;105:378-84.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , . The triple wire fixation technique for stabilization of acute cervical fracture-dislocations: A biomechanical analysis. Orthop Trans. 1985;9:142.
    [Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
195

PDF downloads
179
View/Download PDF
Download Citations
BibTeX
RIS
Show Sections