PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

NASS

Publications and source records attributed to NASS.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Management of postprocedural discitis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Fortunately, the incidence of postprocedural discitis is relatively uncommon. The paucity of physical examination findings behooves the spine care practitioner to have a high index of suspicion in any patient presenting with increasing back pain after an invasive spinal procedure. The diagnosis can often be established in a timely fashion based on the history, physical examination, laboratory studies (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein and blood cultures) and imaging studies (plain radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and radionuclide scanning). PURPOSE: To review the English literature on the subject of postprocedural discitis. The incidence, pathophysiology, laboratory markers and imaging findings are discussed. Recommendations on treatment strategies are presented along with long-term clinical outcomes of this postprocedure complication. METHODS: A contemporary English literature search of MEDLINE and PubMed on the topic of postoperative discitis was performed. RESULTS: The incidence of postprocedural discitis is approximately 0.2%. The most common etiologic agent is Staphylococcus aureus. The C-reactive protein is the most sensitive clinical laboratory marker to assess the presence of infection and effectiveness of treatment response. Magnetic resonance imaging is the imaging modality of choice in the diagnosis of spinal infection. The majority of patients are managed adequately with organism-specific antibiotics and spinal immobilization with good long-term outcomes. Operative intervention (open biopsy followed by antibiotic treatment and spinal immobilization or debridement and reconstruction) in patients who fail to respond to nonoperative treatment or in the presence of neurologic worsening has been demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Postprocedural discitis is a rare complication after any invasive spinal procedure. It is imperative for the treating surgeon to maintain a high index of suspicion. Appropriate laboratory and imaging studies are invaluable in establishing a timely diagnosis. In the majority of patients, antibiotic treatment along with spinal immobilization has been shown to produce good long-term outcomes. Operative intervention is rarely necessary in patients failing conservative treatment.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Lumbar discography.

STUDY DESIGN: A comprehensive review of the literature dealing with lumbar discography was conducted. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the review is to update the North American Spine Society position statement published in 1994 that addressed criticisms of lumbar discography, to identify indications for SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar discography remains a controversial diagnostic procedure. There are concerns about its safety and clinical value, although many support its use in specific applications. METHODS: Articles dealing with lumbar discography were reviewed and are summarized in this report. RESULTS: Most of the recent literature supports the use of discography in selected patients. Although not to be taken lightly, many of the serious complications and high complication rates reported before 1970 have decreased since then because of improvement in injection technique, imaging and contrast materials. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the current literature supports the use of discography in select situations. Indications for discography include, but are not limited to: (1) Further evaluation of demonstrably abnormal discs to help assess the extent of abnormality or correlation of the abnormality with the clinical symptoms. Such symptoms may include recurrent pain from a previously operated disc and lateral disc herniation. (2) Patients with persistent, severe symptoms in whom other diagnostic tests have failed to reveal clear confirmation of a suspected disc as the source of pain. (3) Assessment of patients who have failed to respond to surgical intervention to determine if there is painful pseudarthrosis or a symptomatic disc in a posteriorly fused segment and to help evaluate possible recurrent disc herniation. (4) Assessment of discs before fusion to determine if the discs within the proposed fusion segment are symptomatic and to determine if discs adjacent to this segment are normal. (5) Assessment of candidates for minimally invasive surgical intervention to confirm a contained disc herniation or to investigate dye distribution pattern before chemonucleolysis or percutaneous procedures. Lumbar discography should be performed by those well experienced with the procedure and in sterile conditions with a double-needle technique and fluoroscopic imaging for proper needle placement. Information assessed and recorded should include the volume of contrast injected, pain response, with particular emphasis on its locations and similarity to clinical symptoms, and the pattern of dye distribution. Frequently, discography is followed by axial computed tomography scanning to obtain more information about the condition of the disc.

Back Pain↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Intervertebral cages for degenerative spinal diseases.

Interbody fusion techniques have been used for many years for the treatment of a variety of lumbar spine diagnoses. Part of the interest in increasing methods of interbody fusion has stemmed from concern that posterior fusion alone may allow micro-motion, which may generate pain in a ruptured or degenerated disc. Stabilization of the anterior segment led to the development of interbody fusion cages. These devices were designed to stabilize the spine while bony ingrowth from the vertebrae to the bone graft occurred. There are a variety of techniques for cage insertion, including open and laparoscopic techniques anteriorly, and open posterior approach. A lateral approach for cage placement has also been reported. The purpose of this paper is to present a review of the literature on lumbar intervertebral fusion performed using interbody cages. The reported results for these procedures vary, but in general the majority of patients have had favorable results. The complications are similar to those encountered with traditional interbody fusion procedures using bone grafts. There is a learning curve associated with the procedures, particularly with the laparoscopic techniques. Appropriate training for the spine surgeon as well as the access surgeon is important. There is a great deal of disparity in reports on using the cages as stand-alone devices as well as on laparoscopic approaches. Overall, the use of interbody cages for fusion appears to be a viable treatment, yielding good results. Fusion cages appear to have a role in spine care; however, as with any procedure, patient selection and proper training of the surgeon are critical.

Humans↗