Lomber Omurga Cerrahisinde Revizyon Cerrahisi Nedenleri ve Sonuçları:

Omurga cerrahisinde revizyon operasyonları cansıkıcı bir konu olup başarı şansı ile ilgili değişik literatürverileri mevcuttur. Revizyon cerrahisi gereksinimininaltında yatan çeşitli nedenler tanımlanmıştır. Buçalışmada, lomber bölgeye yönelik revizyon cerrahisiuygulama ile ilgili iki merkezli bir çalışmanın sonuçlarınınirdelenmesi amaçlanmıştır.Yöntem: İki farklı sağlık merkezinde lomber bölge içinrevizyon cerrahisi geçiren 72 hasta retrospektif olarakdeğerlendirilmiştir. Hastalar revizyon cerrahisigereksinimine göre beş alt gruba ayrılmıştır. Hastalarınyaşı, cinsiyeti, daha önceki operasyon nedenleri ve sayıları,revizyon cerrahisine kadar geçen süre, daha öncekioperasyonlarının nerede yapıldığı, revizyon cerrahisiolarak ne operasyonu yaptığımız, intraoperatifkomplikasyon gelişip gelişmediği ve sonraki takip süresinot edildi.Bulgular: Hastalardan 30'si (%41.66) kadın 42 (58.34%)tanesi ise erkek idi. Hastaların ortalama yaşı 40.2 (min 18-max 86). Revizyon cerrahisi sonrası minimum takip süresi4 ay maksimum takip süresi ise 2 yıl 10 aydır. Toplam 14(%19.44) hastada radiküler ağrı geçmesine rağmen inatçıbel ağrısı devam etti. Sonuç: Re-operasyon geçiren hastalarda ilerleyendönemde muhtemel tekrarlayan paraspinal kassıyrılmasına bel ağrısı gelişimi ender değildir. Re-operasyon öncesi hastaların bu konuda özelliklebilgilendirilmesi önem arz etmektedir.

The Causes and the Results of Revision Surgery in Lumbar Spine: Experience with 72 Consecutive Cases

Objective: Re-operation in spine surgery is a boring topic and literature contains different results about its success rate. Several underlying causes have been defined in the etiology of revision surgery. In the presenting study, we aimed to evaluate the results of revision surgery that was performed for lumbar spine in two different health centers.Method: A total of 72 consecutive cases who were operated in two different health centers were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into five groups according to the etiology of revision surgery. Age, gender, the number and cause of prior operations, the time interval between the prior operation and revision surgery, the health center where the prior operations performed, that we did as revision surgery, the occurrence of intraoperative complication, and time interval after revision surgery were noted. Results: Amongst the patients, 30 (41.66%) were female and the remaining 42 (58.34%) were male. The mean age of the patients was 40.2 years. Follow up time was changed between four months (minimum) and thirty four (maximum) months after revision surgery. 14 (19.44%) patients suffered persistent back pains despite the healing of radicular pain. Conclusion: The development of back pain, after revision surgery for lumbar spine, probably due to recurrent muscle stripping, is not a rare pathology. Giving information about this topic to the patients before revision surgery is crucial.

PDF

___

1. Wong C-B, Chen W-J, Chen L-H, Niu C-C, Lai P-L. Clinical outcomes of revision lumbar spinal surgery: 124 patients with a minimum of two years follow-up. Chang Gung Med J 2001;25:175-82.
2. Cauchoix J, Ficat C, Girard B. Repeat surgery after disc excision. Spine 1978;3:256-259.
3. Crock HV. Observation on the management of failed spinal operations. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1976;58:193-199.
4. Stavridis SI, Bücking P, Schaeren S, Jeanneret B, Schnake KJ. Implant removal after posterior stabilization of the throcolumbar spine. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010; 130(1): 119-123.
5. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GB, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman HH. Radioculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81(4):519-528.
6. Lehmann TR, Spratt KF, Tozzi JE, Weinstein JN, Reinarz SJ, el-Khouryg GY, Colby H. Long- term follow-up of lower lumbar fusion patients. Spine 1987; 12(2):97-104.
7. Kaner T. Füzyon cerrahisinin dezavantajları, olası komplikasyonlar ve tedavisi. http://www.turknorosirurji.org.tr/TNDData/Bo oks/196/fuzyon-cerrahisinin-dezavantajlari- olasi-komplikasyonlari-ve-tedavisi.pdf. 02.02.2015
8. Börcek AO, Suner HI, Emmez H, Kaymaz M, Aykol S, Paşaoğlu A. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar spine with conventional open technique. Turk Neurosurg 2014; 24(3): 398-402.
9. Cinotti G, Gumina S, Giannicola G, Postachini F. Contrlateral recurrent lumbar disc herniation; results of discectomy compared with those in primary herniation. Spine 1999; 24: 800-806.
10.Cinotti G, Roysam S, Eisenstein SM, Postachini F. Ipsilateral recurrent disc herniation; prospective, controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 825-832.
11.Suk KS, Lee HM, Moon SH, Kim NH. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: results of operative management. Spine 2001;26: 672- 676.
12. Ebstein JA, Lavine LS, Epstein BS. Recurrent herniation of the lumbar intervertebral disc. Clin Orthop 1967; 52: 169-178.
13. Herron L. Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: results of repeat laminectomy and discectomy. J Spinal Disord 1994; 7: 161-166.
14.Fristch EW, Heisel J, Rupp S. The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long term results: a report of 182 operative treatments, Spine 1996; 21: 626- 633.
15.Elias WJ, Simmons NE, Kaptain GJ, Chadduck JB, Whitehill R. Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device. J Neurosurg 2000; 93 (1 Suppl): 45-52.