Case Report

Stand-Alone Rod Augmentation for Instrumentation Failure after Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy: A Case Report with a 2-Year Follow-up

Abstract

Background: Revision surgery of spine can be a complex procedure and has known complications. It involves hardware revision, removal of scar/callus tissue, realignment of sagittal balance, and anterior augmentation. However, through this report, we aim to demonstrate that a stand-alone rod augmentation at the failure site without removal of scar/callus tissue and/or anterior fixation can achieve excellent results in select cases.

 

Case Report: A 66-year-old woman underwent L2 pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) + T9-iliac fixation for fixed sagittal imbalance and osteoporotic collapse of L3. One year later, she developed progressive axial lumbar pain and difficulty in mobilization. The patient was diagnosed with pseudoarthrosis and instrumentation failure and underwent revision spine surgery with stand-alone rod augmentation. She had an uneventful rehabilitation and showed complete radiographic union and excellent clinical outcome in the 2-year follow-up.

 

Conclusion: Stand-alone rod augmentation can provide stable posterior construct to prevent future pseudoarthrosis and/or instrumentation failure after revision spine surgery in selected cases. Anterior augmentation or resection dural scar tissue or dissection through callus tissue is not always necessary.

 

1. Charosky S, Moreno P, Maxy P. Instability and instrumentation failures after a PSO: A finite element analysis. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(11):2340-9. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3295-x. [PubMed: 24748413].

2. Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Ames CP, Demakakos J, Fu KM, Keshavarzi S, et al. Assessment of symptomatic rod fracture after posterior instrumented fusion for adult spinal deformity. Neurosurgery. 2012;71(4):862-7. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182672aab. [PubMed: 22989960].

3. Smith JS, Sansur CA, Donaldson WF 3rd, Perra JH, Mudiyam R, Choma TJ, et al. Short-term morbidity and mortality associated with correction of thoracolumbar fixed sagittal plane deformity: A report from the Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).

2011;36(12):958-64. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181eabb26.

[PubMed: 21192289].

4. Ikard RW. Methods and complications of anterior exposure of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Arch Surg. 2006;141(10):1025-34. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.141.10.1025. [PubMed: 17043282].

5. Scheer JK, Tang JA, Deviren V, Buckley JM, Pekmezci M, McClellan RT, et al. Biomechanical analysis of revision strategies for rod fracture in pedicle subtraction osteotomy. Neurosurgery. 2011;69(1):164-72. doi: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820f362a. [PubMed: 21336218].

6. Seyed Vosoughi A., Joukar A, Kiapour A, Parajuli D, Agarwal AK, Goel VK, et al. Optimal satellite rod constructs to mitigate rod

failure following pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO): A finite element study. Spine J. 2019;19(5):931-41. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.11.003. [PubMed: 30414992].

7. Yamato Y, Hasegawa T, Kobayashi S, Yasuda T, Togawa D, Arima H, et al. Calculation of the target lumbar lordosis angle for restoring an optimal pelvic tilt in elderly patients with adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(4):E211-E217. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001209. [PubMed: 26571165].

8. Bridwell KH, Lewis SJ, Lenke LG, Baldus C, Blanke K. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy for the treatment of fixed sagittal imbalance. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(3):454-63. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200303000-00009. [PubMed: 12637431].

9. Luca A, Ottardi C, Sasso M, Prosdocimo L, La Barbera L., Brayda-Bruno M, et al. Instrumentation failure following pedicle subtraction osteotomy: The role of rod material, diameter, and multi-rod constructs. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(3):764-70. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4859-8. [PubMed: 27858238].

10. Litrico S, Lonjon N, Riouallon G, Cogniet A, Launay O, Beaurain J, et al. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical interbody fusion: A multicenter retrospective study of 288 patients with long-term follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014; 100(6 Suppl):S305-S309. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.07.004. [PubMed: 25129704].

11. Eichholz KM, Ryken TC. Complications of revision spinal

surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2003;15(3):E1. doi:
10.3171/foc.2003.15.3.1. [PubMed: 15347219].

12. Ponnusamy KE, Iyer S, Gupta G, Khanna AJ. Instrumentation of
the osteoporotic spine: Biomechanical and clinical
considerations. Spine J. 2011;11(1):54-63. doi:

10.1016/j.spinee.2010.09.024. [PubMed: 21168099].

13. Aghdasi B, Li X, George J, Shen FH. Fixation techniques in revision spine surgery. Semin Spine Surg. 2019;31(2):87-95. doi: 10.1053/j.semss.2019.03.007.

14. Luca A, Ottardi C, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M, Villa T, Galbusera F. Anterior support reduces the stresses on the posterior instrumentation after pedicle subtraction osteotomy: A finite-element study. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(Suppl 4):450-6. doi: 10.1007/s00586-017-5084-9. [PubMed: 28456854].
Files
IssueVol 7, No 2 (2021) QRcode
SectionCase Report
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/jost.v7i2.7003
Keywords
: Spine; Revision Surgery; Treatment Failure; Subtraction Technique; Osteotomy
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Zarei M, Rostami M, Khan F. Stand-Alone Rod Augmentation for Instrumentation Failure after Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy: A Case Report with a 2-Year Follow-up. J Orthop Spine Trauma. 2021;7(2):61-3.