Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 3163   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 51-55

Early results of two methods of posterior spinal stabilization in Nigerians


1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria
2 Department of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Correspondence Address:
A A Adeolu
Department of Neurological Surgery, University College Hospital, Ibadan
Nigeria
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.122838

Rights and Permissions

Background: In this study, early outcomes of the spinous process wiring with vertical strut (SPWVS) were compared with that of standard pedicle screw and rod (PSR) in our patients. Materials and Methods: We obtained patients' bio-data, diagnosis, investigations, cost of implant, operative circumstances, complications, and outcomes from clinical documentation. Outcome measures, including postoperative infection and persistent/recurrent instabilities, implant related problems, operative blood loss and time and cost, were compared in the two groups of patients. Results: Forty one (M:F-0.9:1) patients had PSR and 35 (M:F-2.2:1) had SPWVS. There was no difference in the occurrence of post-operative instability ( P = 0.630), surgical site infection ( P ≥ 0.416), neurological deficits ( P ≥ 0.461) and implant related complications ( P ≥ 0.461) in the two groups of patients. Cost of implant in the PSR group range from N138,000 (for 2 level fusion) (1USD = N159) to N246,000 (for 4 level fusion) with an average of N192,000 (Standard deviation [SD] N44,090.81) depending on the number of level fused while the cost of implant for SPWVS was N8,000 irrespective of the number of level of fusion being carried out ( P = 0.000). Mean estimated blood loss intra-operatively was higher for PSR (761.33 [SD 396.24] ml) than SPWVS (524.58 [SD 504.70] ml) ( P = 0.005). Mean operation time was 397.17 (SD 122.183) min and 249.44 (SD 130.31) min PSR and SPWVS ( P = 0.000). Conclusion: SPWVS appears to be a good alternative to PSR, especially in our resource limited environment, in view of similar post-operative infection rate, implant complication, stability and post-operative neurological deterioration as well as shorter operation time, less estimated blood loss and much cheaper cost of implant in the former.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1500    
    Printed35    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded332    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal