Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:55:40.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spinal surgery in older people: indications, techniques and outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2011

ADL Baker  and
P Sanderson
ADL Baker*
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopaedic Spine Surgery, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
P Sanderson
Affiliation:
Department of Orthopaedic Spine Surgery, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr ADL Baker, Department of Orthopaedic Spine Surgery, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This article provides an overview of spine surgery in older people and reviews outcome and novel techniques. Improvements in pain, disability, and quality of life can be expected following surgery and demand for surgery of this type is likely to increase as the mean age of the population increases. Novel techniques and improved intsrumentation offer surgical treatments for conditions that were previously untreatable and show encouraging early results.

Keywords

spine surgeryspinal stenosisvertebroplastydegenerative spondylolisthesiscervical myelopathy
Type
Clinical geriatrics
Information
Reviews in Clinical Gerontology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 277 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Aebi, M, Gunzburg, R, Szpalski, M. The aging spine. Eur Spine J 2003; 12: (suppl 2): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Weinstein, JN et al. Trends in spine surgery. Spine 2006; 31: 2207–14.Google ScholarPubMed
3Boos, N, Weissbach, S, Rohrbach, H, Weiler, C, Spratt, KF, Nerlich, AG. Classification of age related changes in intervertebral discs. Spine 2002; 27: 2631–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Roberts, S, Caterson, B, Menage, J, Evans, EH, Jaffray, DC, Eisenstein, SM. Matrix metalloproteinases and agrecanase: their role in disorders of the human intervertebral disc. Spine 2000; 25: 3005–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Aebi, M, Arlet, V, Webb, J. AO Spine Manual. Thieme, 2007. ISBN 1588905578.Google Scholar
6Frymoyer, J. The Adult Spine: Principles and Practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2nd edn, 1997. ISBN 0781703298.Google Scholar
7Nadeau, M, Arellano, P, Gurr, K et al. The reliability of differentiating neurogenic claudication from vascular claudication based on symptomatic presentation. Can J Surg 2010; 53 (suppl): S26–48.Google Scholar
8Sanderson, P, Wood, P. Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in old people. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1993; 75B: 393–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Weinstein, JN, Lurie, JD, Tosteson, TD, Zhao, W, Blood, EA, Tosteson, AN, Birkmeyer, N, Herkowitz, H, Longley, M, Lenke, L, Emery, S, Hu, SS. Surgical compared with non-operative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2009; 91: 1295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Emery, SE, Bohlman, HH, Bolesta, MJ, Jones, PK. Anterior cervical decompression and arthrodesis for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Two to seventeen year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1998; 80: 941–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Matsuda, Y, Shibata, T, Oki, S, Kawatani, Y, Mashima, N, Oishi, H. Outcomes of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy in patients more than 75 years of age. Spine 1999; 24: 529–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Murrey, D, Janssen, M, Delamarter, R, Goldstein, J, Zigler, J, Tay, B, Darden, B. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter 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 2009; 9: 275–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Weinstein, JN, McLain, DF. Primary tumors of the spine. Spine 1987; 12: 843–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Abe, E, Kobayashi, T, Murai, H, Suzuki, T, Chiba, M, Okuyama, K. Total spondylectomy for primary malignant, aggressive benign and solitary metastatic bone tumors of the thoracolumbar spine. J Spinal Disorder 2001; 14: 237–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Constans, JP, De Divittiis, E, Donzelli, R. Spinal metastisis with neurological complications. Review of 600 cases. J Neurosurg 1983; 59: 111–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Tokuhashi, Y, Matsuzaki, H, Toriyama, S, Kawano, H, Ohsaka, S. Scoring system for the preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine 1990; 15: 1110–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Galibert, P, Deramond, H, Rosat, P, Le Gars, D. Note préliminaire sur le traitement des angiomes vertébraux par vertébroplastie acrylique percutanée. Neurochirurgie 1987; 33: 166–68.Google Scholar
18Bekoff, SM, Maroney, M, Fenton, DC, Matthis, J. An in vitro biomechanical evaluation of bone cements used in percutaneous vertebroplasty. Bone 1999; 25 (suppl 2): 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Thielen, K, Kallmes, D. Vertebroplasty in multiple myeloma: outcomes in a large patient series. Am J Neuroradiol 2008; 29: 642–48.Google Scholar
20Layton, KF, Theilen, KR, Kallmes, DF. Vertebroplasty, first 1000 levels of a single centre: evaluation of outcomes and complications. Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 683–89.Google ScholarPubMed
21Dreinhöfer, KE, Féron, JM, Herrera, A, Hube, R, Johnell, O, Lidgren, L, Miles, K, Panarella, L, Simpson, H, Wallace, WA. Orthopaedic surgeons and fragility fractures: a survey by the Bone and Joint Decade and the International Osteoporosis Foundation. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2004; 86: 958–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Buchbinder, R, Osborne, RH, Ebeling, PR, Wark, JD, Mitchell, P, Wriedt, C, Graves, S, Staples, MP, Murphy, B. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 557–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Kallmes, DF, Comstock, BA, Heagerty, PJ et al. A randomised trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 569–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Clark, W, Lyon, S, Burnes, J. Trials of vertebroplasty for vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 2097–100.Google ScholarPubMed
25Maynard, A, Jensen, M, Kallmes, DF. Value of bone scan imaging in predicting pain relief from percutaneous vertebroplasty in osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Am J Neuroradiol 2000; 21: 1807–12.Google ScholarPubMed
26Klazen, CA, Lohle, PN, de Vries, J, Jansen, FH, Tielbeek, AV, Blonk, MC, Venmans, A, van Rooij, WJ, Schoemaker, MC, Juttmann, JR, Lo, TH, Verhaar, HJ, Van Der Graaf, Y, van Everdingen, KJ, Muller, AF, Elgersma, OE, Halkema, DR, Fransen, H, Janssens, X, Buskens, E, Mali, WP. Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 1085–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar