Sách chuyên ngành Y Dược: Best Evidence for Spine Surgery (Những bằng chứng tốt nhất để Phẫu thuật cột sống)

RAHUL JANDIAL - STEVEN R. GARFIN

BEST EVIDENCE FOR SPINE SURGERY

(NHỮNG BẰNG CHỨNG TỐT NHẤT ĐỂ PHẪU THUẬT CỘT SỐNG)

PUBLISHER: ELSEVIER SAUNDERS (PHILADELPHIA, US - 2012)

THÔNG TIN CHUNG:

Tên sách: Best Evidence for Spine Surgery (tạm dịch: Những bằng chứng tốt nhất để Phẫu thuật cột sống).

Tác giả: Rahul Jandial - Steven R. Garfin.

NXB: Elsevier Saunders (2012).

Thông số: 262 trang - 20 chương chính.

Việc chẩn đoán và đưa ra quyết định phẫu thuật đòi hỏi trình độ chuyên môn cao của người bác sĩ, đặc biệt trong những vấn đề liên quan đến cột sống, tủy sống, v.v.. .. Cuốn sách được cấu trúc đặc biệt sẽ đi sâu vào mô tả những dấu hiệu tốt nhất trong chẩn đoán để đưa ra đúng quyết định trong phẫu thuật cột sống. Các ví dụ minh họa bằng hình ảnh rõ nét, trình bày kết cấu khoa học, sách bản đẹp và mục lục tự động.

INTRODUCTION (GIỚI THIỆU):

Clinical practice based on “evidence“ would seem an objective both clearly defined and easily attained, but in its application to surgical decision making essential nuances are often lacking. In the construction of this text, presenting the elusive subtleties has been a priority. By selecting cases that require a synthesis of diverse surgical knowledge and technical skill, we aim to provide insights that can be extended both to the specialized case and to the general practice of spine surgery.

For pedagogical reasons, the chapters comprising this book are titled after commonly debated topics in professional meetings and grand-rounds worldwide. Accordingly, the chapters have been designed to present decision making from the available evidence regarding two competing treatment options for a single dis-ease entity. We believe this approach is ideal for dissecting the layers of ”best evi-dence” through which the decision making between surgeon and patient can be personalized.

For broad appeal to both developing and veteran surgeons, each chapter opens with a brief Case Presentation followed by Surgical Options and a crisply illustrated section on Fundamental Technique. A Discussion of Best Evidence provides read-ers with the necessary knowledge to criticize as well as defend competing surgical interventions, thereby equipping them with the best evidence. In lieu of a summary, each chapter presents a Commentary from the senior author, who shares with read-ers a personal synthesis of the topic.

The credibility of a text that aims to reveal the leading edge of evolving surgi-cal practice rests almost entirely on the strength of expert voices. Undoubtedly both neurosurgery and orthopaedics fundamentally contribute to the craft of spine surgery, and the collection of senior authors presented in Best Evidence for Spine Surgery, in our opinion, includes many of the best.

Our hope is that this book functions to improve both the art and expertise with which you practice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS (MỤC LỤC):

Front Matter

Dedication

Contributors

Preface

Acknowledgments

1. Cervical Disk Herniation: Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion Versus Arthroplasty

2. Multilevel Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion: Bone-Grafting Options

3. Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: Anterior Versus Posterior Approach

4. Minimally Invasive Approaches to Thoracic Disk Herniations

5. Lumbar Disk Herniation with Mild Neurologic Deficit: Microdiskectomy Versus Conservative Treatment

6. Cervical Spondylosis–Spinal Stenosis: Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion

7. Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease: Fusion Versus Artificial Disk

8. Degenerative Spondylolisthesis with Radicular Pain: Decompression-Only Versus Decompression and Fusion

9. Asymptomatic Intradural Schwannoma: Surgery Versus Radiosurgery Versus Observation

10. Pseudotumor: Transoral Versus Posterior Fusion

11. Odontoid Fracture in the Elderly: Odontoid Screws Versus Posterior Fusion

12. C1-C₂ Fusion: Transarticular Screws Versus Harms/Melcher Procedure

13. Multilevel Cervical Corpectomy: Anterior-Only Versus Circumferential Instrumentation

14. Cervical Jumped Facets and Incomplete Neurologic Deficit: Closed Reduction Versus Urgent Surgery

15. Laminectomy Across the Cervicothoracic Junction: Fusion Versus Nonfusion

16. Vertebral Metastases: Ventral and Dorsal Approach Versus Lateral Extracavitary Transpedicular Approach

17. Degenerative Scoliosis: Anterior and Posterior Fusion Versus Posterior Fusion

18. Sagittal Imbalance: Multiple Smith-Petersen Osteotomies Versus Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomies

19. L1-S1 Fusion: When to Extend to T12 and Pelvis and When to Include L5-S1 Anterior Grafting

20. High-Grade Spondylolisthesis: Reduction and Fusion Versus In Situ Fusion

REFERENCES (TÀI LIỆU THAM KHẢO):

1. Polston DW: Cervical radiculopathy, Neurol Clin 25: 373–385,2007.

2. Matz PG, Anderson PA, Holly LT, et al: The natural history of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, J Neurosurg Spine 11: 104–111,2009.

3. Rao R: Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: Pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical evaluation, Instr Course Lect 52: 479–488,2003.

4. Carette S, Fehlings MG: Clinical practice. Cervical radiculopathy, N Engl J Med 353: 392–399,2005.

5. An HS, Simpson JM, Glover JM, et al: Comparison between allograft plus demineralized bone matrix versus autograft in anterior cervical fusion. A prospective multicenter study, Spine 20: 2211–2216,1995.

6. Buchowski JM, Anderson PA, Sekhon L, et al: Cervical disc replacement compared with arthrodesis for the treatment of myelopathy. Surgical technique, J Bone Joint Surg Am 91 (Suppl 2): 223–232,2009.

7. Goldberg EJ, Singh K, Van U, et al: Comparing outcomes of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in workman’s versus non–workman’s compensation population, Spine J 2: 408–414,2002.

8. Chesnut RM, Abitbol JJ, Garfin SR: Surgical management of cervical radiculopathy. Indication, tech-niques, and results, Orthop Clin North Am 23: 461–474,1992.

9. Anderson PA, Subach BR, Riew KD: Predictors of outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A multivariate analysis, Spine 34: 161–166,2009.

10. Angevine PD, Zivin JG, McCormick PC: Cost-effectiveness of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical spondylosis, Spine 30: 1989–1997,2005.

11. Samartzis D, Shen FH, Matthews DK, et al: Comparison of allograft to autograft in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid plate fixation, Spine J 3: 451–459,2003.

12. Moreland DB, Asch HL, Clabeaux DE, et al: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with implantable titanium cage: Initial impressions, patient outcomes and comparison to fusion with allograft, Spine J 4: 184–191, discussion, 91; 2004.

13. Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, et al: Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adja-cent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis, J Bone Joint Surg Am 81: 519–528,1999. This classical study describes the incidence, prevalence, and radiographic progression of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease in a consecutive series of 374 patients over a minimum 10-year period. Symp-tomatic adjacent-segment disease occurred at a relatively constant incidence of 2.9% per year during the 10 years after the operation. Survivorship analysis predicted that 25.6% of the patients who had an anterior cervical arthrodesis would have new disease at an adjacent level within 10 years after the operation.

14. Bartolomei JC, Theodore N, Sonntag VK: Adjacent level degeneration after anterior cervical fusion: A clinical review, Neurosurg Clin N Am 16: 575–587, v 2005.

15. Park JB, Cho YS, Riew KD: Development of adjacent-level ossification in patients with an anterior cervical plate, J Bone Joint Surg Am 87: 558–563,2005. This study is a retrospective review of lateral radiographs of the cervical spine of 118 patients who had a solid fusion following an anterior cervical arthrodesis with a plate for the treatment of a degenerative cervical condition. There was a positive association between adjacent-level ossification following anterior cervical plate procedures and the plate-to-disk distance. The authors recommend that surgeons place anterior cervical plates at least 5 mm away from the adjacent disk spaces in order to decrease the likelihood of moderate-to-severe adjacent-level ossification.

16. Fehlings MG, Arvin B: Surgical management of cervical degenerative disease: The evidence related to indications, impact, and outcome, J Neurosurg Spine 11: 97–100,2009.

17. Lin EL, Wang JC: Total disk replacement, J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14: 705–714,2006.

18. Orr RD, Postak PD, Rosca M, et al: The current state of cervical and lumbar spinal disc replacement, J Bone Joint Surg Am 89 (Suppl 3): 70–75,2007.

19. Baaj AA, Uribe JS, Vale FL, et al: History of cervical disc replacement, Neurosurg Focus 27: E10,2009.

20. Traynelis VC: The Prestige cervical disc replacement, Spine J 4: 310S–314S, 2004.

21. Mummaneni PV, Robinson JC, Haid RW Jr: Cervical replacement with the Prestige LP cervical disc, Neurosurgery 60: 310–314, discussion, 4–5; 2007.

22. Sekhon LH, Duggal N, Lynch JJ, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging clarity of the Bryan, ProDisc-C, Prestige LP, and PCM cervical replacement devices, Spine 32: 673–680,2007.

23. Mummaneni PV, Burkus JK, Haid RW, et al: Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc replacement compared with allograft fusion: A randomized controlled clinical trial, J Neurosurg Spine 6: 198–209,2007. This is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study in which the results of cervical disk arthroplasty were compared with anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) In patients treated for symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disk disease (DDD). The PRESTIGE ST Cervi-cal Disc System maintained physiological segmental motion at 24 months after implantation and was associated with improved neurological success, improved clinical outcomes, and a reduced rate of secondary surgeries compared with ACDF.

24. Burkus JK, Haid RW, Traynelis VC, Mummaneni PV: Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of cervical disc replacement with the Prestige disc: Results from a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial, J Neurosurg Spine 13 (3): 308–318,2011.

25. Papadopoulos S: The Bryan cervical disc system, Neurosurg Clin N Am 16: 629–636, vi, 2005.

26. Heller JG, Sasso RC, Papadopoulos SM, et al: Comparison of Bryan cervical disc replacement with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: Clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, con-trolled, clinical trial, Spine 34: 101–107,2009.

27. Sasso RC, Anderson PA, Riew KD, Heller JG: Results of cervical arthroplasty compared with anterior discectomy and fusion: Four-year clinical outcomes in a prospective, randomized controlled trial, J Bone Joint Surg Am 93 (18): 1684–1692,2011.

28. Garrido BJ, Taha TA, Sasso RC: Clinical outcomes of Bryan cervical disc replacement: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single site trial with 48-month follow-up, J Spinal Disord Tech 23 (6): 367– 371,2010. This is a prospective, randomized, single-center study in which the results of cervical disk arthroplasty were compared with anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) In patients treated for symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disk disease (DDD). In this study, 47 patients were randomized to ACDF versus disk arthroplasty. At 48 months, cervical arthroplasty with the Bryan cervical disk prosthesis continued to compare favorably with ACDF. There was no degradation of functional outcomes from 24 to 48 months for NDI, VAS of neck and arm, and SF-36. There was a lower incidence of secondary surgeries for the Bryan arthroplasty cohort.

29. Chi JH, Ames CP, Tay B: General considerations for cervical replacement with technique for ProDisc-C, Neurosurg Clin N Am 16: 609–619, vi, 2005.

30. Bertagnoli R, Duggal N, Pickett GE, et al: Cervical total disc replacement, part two: Clinical results, Orthop Clin North Am 36: 355–362,2005.

31. Bertagnoli R, Yue JJ, Pfeiffer F, et al: Early results after ProDisc-C cervical disc replacement, J Neuro-surg Spine 2: 403–410,2005.

32. Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, et al: Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multi-center Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease, Spine J 9: 275–286,2009. This is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study in which the results of cervical disk arthroplasty were compared with anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) In patients treated for symptomatic single-level cervical degenerative disk disease (DDD). The results of this clinical trial demonstrate that ProDisc-C is a safe and effective surgical treat-ment for patients with disabling cervical radiculopathy because of single-level disease. By all primary and secondary measures evaluated, clinical outcomes after ProDisc-C implantation were either equiva-lent or superior to those same clinical outcomes after fusion.

33. Murrey D, Janssen ME, Delamarter RB, et al: Five-year results of the prospective, randomized, multi-center FDA Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) ProDisc C TDR clinical trial. Paper presented at the Cervical Spine Research Society annual meeting, Salt Lake City, 2009.

34. Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Brayda-Bruno M, et al: Biomechanical studies on cervical total disc replace-ment: A literature review, Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23: 1095–1104,2008.

35. Puttlitz CM, DiAngelo DJ: Cervical spine replacement biomechanics, Neurosurg Clin N Am 16: 589–594, v, 2005.

36. Sasso RC, Best NM: Cervical kinematics after fusion and Bryan disc replacement, J Spinal Disord Tech 21: 19–22,2008.

37. Daniels AH, Riew KD, Yoo JU, et al: Adverse events associated with anterior cervical spine surgery, J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16: 729–738,2008.

38. Mehren C, Suchomel P, Grochulla F, et al: Heterotopic ossification in total cervical artificial disc replacement, Spine 31: 2802–2806,2006.

39. Pickett GE, Sekhon LH, Sears WR, et al: Complications with cervical replacement, J Neurosurg Spine 4: 98–105,2006.

40. Cavanaugh DA, Nunley PD, Kerr EJ 3rd, et al: Delayed hyper-reactivity to metal ions after cervical disc replacement: A case report and literature review, Spine 34: E262–E265,2009.

41. Mummaneni PV, Kaiser MG, Matz PG, et al: Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, J Neurosurg Spine 11: 130–141,2009.

42. Barbagallo GM, Assietti R, Corbino L, et al: Early results and review of the literature of a novel hybrid surgical technique combining cervical arthrodesis and disc replacement for treating multilevel degenerative disc disease: Opposite or complementary techniques? Eur Spine J 18 (Suppl 1): 29–39,2009.

43. Phillips FM, Allen TR, Regan JJ, et al: Cervical disc replacement in patients with and without previ-ous adjacent level fusion surgery: A prospective study, Spine 34: 556–565,2009. This multicenter trial reports outcomes from patients with and without previous ACDF receiving the porous coated motion (PCM) Artificial cervical disk. In this trial, 126 patients who underwent disk replacement were com-pared with 26 patients who had disk replacement adjacent to a prior cervical fusion. The early clinical results of disk replacement adjacent to a prior fusion are good and comparable to the outcomes after primary disk replacement surgery. However, in view of the small study population and short-term follow-up, continued study is mandatory.

44. Pimenta L, McAfee PC, Cappuccino A, et al: Superiority of multilevel cervical replacement outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses, Spine 32: 1337–1344,2007.

45. Datta JC, Janssen ME, Beckham R, et al: Sagittal split fractures in multilevel cervical replacement using a keeled prosthesis, J Spinal Disord Tech 20: 89–92,2007.

Download Ebook:BEST EVIDENCE FOR SPINE SURGERY

========================