Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: William F. Lavelle x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

William F. Lavelle, Nathaniel R. Ordway, Ali Araghi, Rudolph A. Buckley and Amir H. Fayyazi

OBJECTIVE

This purpose of this study was to objectively evaluate and assess the efficacy and efficiency of discectomy and endplate preparation during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using traditional manual instrumentation versus a novel suction discectomy curette. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is the most widely used approach for lumbar arthrodesis, and its success depends on the ability to achieve fusion. Complete preparation of intervertebral disc space (removal of the nucleus, endplate cartilage, and margin of inner annulus) is the surgical goal. Performing an adequate discectomy requires numerous instrument passes, increasing surgical time and the risk of complications.

METHODS

Four experienced spinal surgeons performed transforaminal discectomies from T-12 to S-1 on 5 whole-body cadavers. Each level (n = 26) was randomly assigned to either a control group using traditional instruments (12 levels) or to a suction curette group (14 levels). The time required to perform the discectomy and the number of passes through the annulus were recorded. Motion segments were dissected and analyzed by digital photogrammetric analysis. The intervertebral disc and the discectomy cross-sectional areas were measured on both superior and inferior images of each dissected surgical level. Areas were divided into 4 quadrants based on a midsagittal and midcoronal axis and analyzed for regional efficiency. In addition, a cross-sectional area of bony endplate (the area still covered with cartilage) and an area of endplate perforation were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in surgical time between the techniques (7:51 ± 2:43 minutes in the manual discectomy [MD] group and 7:06 ± 3:33 minutes in the suction curette discectomy [SD] group). There were significantly fewer (p < 0.01) instrument passes in the SD group (13 passes) compared with the MD group (43 passes). For both techniques, the amount of disc removed depended upon the anatomical region, with the posterior-contralateral side having the least amount of disc material removed. There was significantly less (p < 0.01) disc material removed in the MD group (38%) compared with the SD group (48%). The amount of disc material removed was significantly more (p < 0.05) in each quadrant when comparing the SD and MD groups, with the anterior regions showing the largest difference. For both techniques, the preparation of the endplate within the discectomy area resulted in a mostly cartilaginous interface (50% MD, 48% SD); a smaller amount of bony interface area (31% MD, 38% SD); and a smaller amount of perforation to the interface area (19% MD, 13% SD). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of endplate preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

The improved discectomy observed with the suction curette device could potentially improve the clinical fusion rate.

Free access

Daniel B. Herrick, Joseph E. Tanenbaum, Marc Mankarious, Sagar Vallabh, Eitan Fleischman, Swamy Kurra, Shane M. Burke, Marie Roguski, Thomas E. Mroz, William F. Lavelle, Jeffrey E. Florman and Ron I. Riesenburger

OBJECTIVE

Use of surgical site drains following posterior cervical spine surgery is variable, and its impact on outcomes remains controversial. Studies of drain use in the lumbar spine have suggested that drains are not associated with reduction of reoperations for wound infection or hematoma. There is a paucity of studies examining this relationship in the cervical spine, where hematomas and infections can have severe consequences. This study aims to examine the relationship between surgical site drains and reoperation for wound-related complications following posterior cervical spine surgery.

METHODS

This study is a multicenter retrospective review of 1799 consecutive patients who underwent posterior cervical decompression with instrumentation at 4 tertiary care centers between 2004 and 2016. Demographic and perioperative data were analyzed for associations with drain placement and return to the operating room.

RESULTS

Of 1799 patients, 1180 (65.6%) had a drain placed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified history of diabetes (OR 1.37, p = 0.03) and total number of levels operated (OR 1.32, p < 0.001) as independent predictors of drain placement. Rates of reoperation for any surgical site complication were not different between the drain and no-drain groups (4.07% vs 3.88%, p = 0.85). Similarly, rates of reoperation for surgical site infection (1.61% vs 2.58%, p = 0.16) and hematoma (0.68% vs 0.48%, p = 0.62) were not different between the drain and no-drain groups. However, after adjusting for history of diabetes and the number of operative levels, patients with drains had significantly lower odds of returning to the operating room for surgical site infection (OR 0.48, p = 0.04) but not for hematoma (OR 1.22, p = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

This large study characterizes current practice patterns in the utilization of surgical site drains during posterior cervical decompression and instrumentation. Patients with drains placed did not have lower odds of returning to the operating room for postoperative hematoma. However, the authors’ data suggest that patients with drains may be less likely to return to the operating room for surgical site infection, although the absolute number of infections in the entire population was small, limiting the analysis.