Browsing by Author "Saciloto, Bruno"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Unplanned Readmission Following Early Postoperative Complications After Fusion Surgery in Adult Spine Deformity: A Multicentric Study
    (2021) Camino, Gastón; Guiroy, Alfredo; Servidio, Mariano; Astur, Nelson; Nin, Fernando; Álvarado, Fernando; Daher, Murilo; Saciloto, Bruno; Ono, Allan; Letaif, Olavo; Zarate, Baron; Yurac, Ratko; Vialle, Emiliano; Valacco, Marcelo
    Study design: Multicentric retrospective study, Level of evidence III. Objective: The objective of this multicentric study was to analyze the prevalence and risk factors of early postoperative complications in adult spinal deformity patients treated with fusion. Additionally, we studied the impact of complications on unplanned readmission and hospital length of stay. Methods: Eight spine centers from 6 countries in Latin America were involved in this study. Patients with adult spinal deformity treated with fusion surgery from 2017 to 2019 were included. Baseline and surgical characteristics such as age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, number of levels fused, number of surgical approaches were analyzed. Postoperative complications at 30 days were recorded according to Clavien-Dindo and Glassman classifications. Results: 172 patients (120 females/52 males, mean age 59.4 ± 17.6) were included in our study. 78 patients suffered complications (45%) at 30 days, 43% of these complications were considered major. Unplanned readmission was observed in 35 patients (20,3%). Risk factors for complications were: Smoking, previous comorbidities, number of levels fused, two or more surgical approaches and excessive bleeding. Hospital length of stay in patients without and with complications was of 7.8 ± 13.7 and 17 ± 31.1 days, respectively (P 0.0001). Conclusion: The prevalence of early postoperative complications in adult spinal deformity patients treated with fusion was of 45% in our study with 20% of unplanned readmissions at 30 days. Presence of complications significantly increased hospital length of stay.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System
    (2022) Sheen Kweh, Barry Ting; Wee Tee, Jin; Muijs, Sander; Oner, Cumhur; Schnake, Klaus John; Benneker, Lorin Michael; Neves Vialle, Emiliano; Kanziora, Frank; Rajasekaran, Shanmuganathan; Schroeder, Gregory; Vaccaro, Alexander R.; AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System Validation Group; Grin, Andrey; Abdelgawaad, Ahmed Shawky; Zubairi, Akbar Jaleel; Castillo, Alejandro; Vernengo Lezica, Alejo; Ramieri, Alessandro; Guiroy, Alfredo; Grundshtein, Alon; Godinho Jr., Amauri; Henine, Amin; Pershin, Andrei A.; Athanasiou, Alkinoos; Zarate-Kalfopulos, Baron; Benzarti, Sofien; Bernucci, Claudio; Rebholz, Brandon J.; Direito-Santos, Bruno; Lourenço Costa, Bruno; Saciloto, Bruno; Majer, Catalin; Tannoury, Chadi; Cheng, Cristina; Yin Cheung, Jason Pui; Konrads, Christian; Jetjumnong, Chumpon; Chung, Chun Kee; Popescu, Eugen Cezar; Kilinçer, Cumhur; Yurac, Ratko
    OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.

Implementado por OpenGeek Services