Browse

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • User-accessible content x
  • By Author: Bydon, Ali x
  • By Author: Clarke, Michelle J. x
Clear All
Full access

Michelle J. Clarke, Patricia L. Zadnik, Mari L. Groves, Daniel M. Sciubba, Timothy F. Witham, Ali Bydon, Ziya L. Gokaslan and Jean-Paul Wolinsky

OBJECT

Recently, aggressive surgical techniques and a push toward en bloc resections of certain tumors have resulted in a need for creative spinal column reconstruction. Iatrogenic instability following these resections requires a thoughtful approach to adequately transfer load-bearing forces from the skull and upper cervical spine to the subaxial spine.

METHODS

The authors present a series of 7 cases in which lateral mass reconstruction with a cage or fibular strut graft was used to provide load-bearing support, including 1 case of bilateral cage placement.

RESULTS

The authors discuss the surgical nuances of en bloc resection of high cervical tumors and explain their technique for lateral mass cage placement. Additionally, they provide their rationale for the use of these constructs throughout the craniocervical junction and subaxial spine.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral mass reconstruction provides a potential alternative or adjuvant method of restoring the load-bearing capabilities of the cervical spine.

Full access

Michelle J. Clarke, Patricia L. Zadnik, Mari L. Groves, Hormuzdiyar H. Dasenbrock, Daniel M. Sciubba, Wesley Hsu, Timothy F. Witham, Ali Bydon, Ziya L. Gokaslan and Jean-Paul Wolinsky

Object

Traditionally, hemisacrectomy and internal hemipelvectomy procedures have required both an anterior and a posterior approach. A posterior-only approach has the potential to complete an en bloc tumor resection and spinopelvic reconstruction while reducing surgical morbidity.

Methods

The authors describe 3 cases in which en bloc resection of the hemisacrum and ilium and subsequent lumbopelvic and pelvic ring reconstruction were performed from a posterior-only approach. Two more traditional anterior and posterior staged procedures are also included for comparison.

Results

In all 3 cases, an oncologically appropriate surgery and spinopelvic reconstruction were performed through a posterior-only approach.

Conclusions

The advantage of a midline posterior approach is the ability to perform a lumbosacral reconstruction, necessary in cases in which the S-1 body is iatrogenically disrupted during tumor resection.