The outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation removal for ongoing low back pain following posterolateral lumbar fusion.
BACKGROUND
Our aim was to determine whether patients derived benefit from removal of pedicle screw instrumentation for axial pain without other cause using our surgical technique and patient selection. A secondary aim was to investigate factors that were associated with poorer outcomes for this procedure as well as complication rate in this cohort.


METHODS
Theater records from a single spinal surgeon's practice were reviewed to identify patients that had undergone lumbar fusion for discogenic back pain with subsequent pedicle screw instrumentation removal (Expedium, DePuy Synthes) in the preceding 3 years with a minimum of 18 months follow-up. Inclusion criteria were persisting midline axial back pain with computed tomography (CT)-confirmed solid fusion with non-radicular symptoms and nil other potential causes found, e.g., infection. Case note review along with pre- and post-operative Oswestry disability index (ODI) questionnaires and visual analog scores (VAS) were assessed for all patients. Surgical technique included re-use of previous midline posterior incision and the Wiltse approach with removal of implants, confirmation of a solid fusion mass, washout and bone grafting of removal sites.


RESULTS
From 50 consecutive patients who underwent removal of posterolateral instrumentation for an index elective lumbar fusion for discogenic back pain, 34 patients were identified that met the criteria with a mean follow-up of 25 months (range, 18-36 months). The VAS and ODI improved in 22/34 (65%) of participants. The mean cohort VAS score was 6.6 pre-surgery and 4.3 post-surgery (P=0.04). Preoperative and postoperative mean Oswestry disability scores were 64 and 41, respectively (P=0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients with poorer compared to satisfactory outcomes with regards to compensable status, preoperative grade II opioid use and shorter time between fusion and removal procedure. Complications were one postoperative hematoma and one superficial wound infection, both of which settled without re-operation.


CONCLUSIONS
Approximately two thirds of patients were satisfied with removal of instrumentation for treatment of residual low back pain (LBP) following elective lumbar fusion and recorded reduced VAS and grade II opioid use. A subset of patients remained that did not derive benefit and were associated with compensable status, preoperative grade II opioid use and a shorter time between fusion and removal procedure. A prospective cohort study with preoperative diagnostic injections and standardized imaging and microscopic techniques would strengthen future studies. However, this study suggests that removal of instrumentation is safe and provides modest benefit as a palliative procedure for a subset of patients with significant disability from chronic LBP without an underlying cause following lumbar fusion.
Spinal Injuries Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia ;
Mario G
MG
Zotti
Spinal Injuries Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia ;
Oscar P
OP
Brumby-Rendell
Spinal Injuries Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia ;
Ben
B
McDonald
Calvary Healthcare, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia .
Tom
T
Fisher
Spinal Injuries Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia ;
Christovalantis
C
Tsimiklis
Spinal Injuries Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5001, Australia ;
Wai Weng
WW
Yoon
Calvary Healthcare, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia .
Orso L
OL
Osti
Lumbar back pain; instrumentation; lumbar fusion; metal removal; outcomes; pedicle screw
Pain Med. 2002 Sep;3(3):200-14; discussion 214-7
15099254
Mod Healthc. 2003 Nov 10;33(45):30-2
14666550
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Jan 1;33(1):8-13
18165742
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999 May 15;24(10 ):946-51
10332783
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Oct;123(8):414-8
14574600
Biomaterials. 1984 Jan;5(1):11-8
6375744
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Feb;80(2):268-82
9486734
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Apr 15;34(8):832-9
19365253
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Jun;20(4):271-7
17538350
J Pediatr Orthop B. 2006 Sep;15(5):320-3
16891957
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2008 Mar;43(3):139-42
19096621
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Jun;18(3):247-51
15905769
Contact Dermatitis. 1993 Jan;28(1):15-25
8428439
Pain Med. 2002 Mar;3(1):18-22
15102214
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2004 Jun;15(3):181-6
15193324
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Oct 15;28(20):S125-38
14560184
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Apr 1;27(7):776-86
11923673
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Apr 1;23(7):814-20
9563113
Orthop Clin North Am. 2003 Apr;34(2):309-24
12914270
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986 Jan;68(1):142-3
2934399
Pain Med. 2011 May;12(5):732-9
21481166
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978 Jul-Aug;(134):196-201
365411
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996 May;(326):71-9
8620661
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Mar 1;39(5):E360-2
24299726
Physiotherapy. 1980 Aug;66(8):271-3
6450426
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Aug 15;25(16):2047-51
10954635
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010 Jan;130(1):119-23
19727780
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Feb 15;25(4):463-8
10707392