Browsing by Author "Caglar Y.S."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Aortic Injury by Thoracic Pedicle Screw. When Is Aortic Repair Required? Literature Review and Three New Cases
    (Elsevier Inc., 2019) Kayacı S.; Cakir T.; Dolgun M.; Cakir E.; Bozok Ş.; Temiz C.; Caglar Y.S.
    Purpose: Aortic injury by pedicle screw is rare but can cause serious complications. It has not been clearly determined when aortic repair is necessary in cases of screw impingement without perforation of the aortic wall. In this article, we review the treatment and clinical course of pedicle screw aortic impingement and attempt to clarify this issue. Methods: Cases of aortic injury during thoracic screw procedures were found using a MEDLINE search and analyzed together with 3 new cases that we present. Results: Nineteen cases collected from the literature and 3 new cases were included in the study. In 7 of the cases, aortic impingement by the pedicle screw was detected during postoperative follow-up (day 1) radiologic examinations. In the other cases, time to presentation of aortic impingement ranged between 2 weeks and 60 months after fixation. The main indications for thoracic spinal fixation were post-traumatic vertebral fracture and kyphoscoliosis/scoliosis. Repair of the aortic damage ranged from primary repair to stent and tube graft placement by the thoracic endovascular aortic repair method. Conclusions: In cases in which the screw impinges less than 5 mm into the aortic wall, hardware revision without aortic repair may be sufficient if recognized early and there are no sign of aortic leakage in vascular imaging. However, cases with more than 5 mm of screw impingement should undergo aortic repair first, even in the absence of aortic leakage, following by screw revision. © 2019
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Does the Extent of Rod Bending and Actual Lumbar Lordosis Mismatch Affect Quality of Life?
    (Elsevier Inc., 2024) Bayatli E.; Dogan I.; Özgüral O.; Kuzukiran Y.C.; Demiryurek S.; Mete E.B.; Ozalp Ates F.S.; Zaimoğlu M.; Eroglu U.; Kahilogulları G.; Ugur H.C.; Attar A.; Caglar Y.S.
    Background: To evaluate any mismatch between rod bending and actual lordosis during posterior lumbar instrumentation and its effects on the quality of life (QOL) of patients. Methods: Patient records for posterior lumbar fusion in 2018–2023 were retrospectively reviewed. The radiologic parameters consisted of pelvic incidence, sacral slope, L1S1 lumbar lordosis, lumbosacral angle, the distance between the posterior wall of the vertebra and the rod, lordosis of the rod. The postoperative QOL of patients was assessed using Oswestry Disability Index. The patients were grouped postoperative into Group-1 (minimal/moderate disability) and Group-2 (severe disability/crippled/bed bound). Results: Total of 133 patients were included; 99 women, 34 men. The difference was significant for patients with diabetes to be presented in the more disabled Group-2. The distance between the posterior vertebral wall and the rod was found to be short in Group-2. Preoperative and postoperative sagittal lumbar Cobb angles were significantly higher in Group-2. The changing degree of pain was found to score high in Group-2. The postoperative visual analog scale was high in Group-2. The difference between the preoperative and postoperative lumbar sagittal Cobb and rod Cobb-angles was found to be high in Group-2. Conclusions: The results of our study confirm the importance of considering the preoperative actual lumbar lordosis during bending and maintaining it as much as possible. To our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluated the effect of rod bending on quality of life (QOL) and supports that this might be affected in case of any mismatches. © 2023 Elsevier Inc.