4.3 Article

Minimally Invasive Scoliosis Correction in Parkinson Disease: Retrospective Case Series

Journal

OPERATIVE NEUROSURGERY
Volume 19, Issue 6, Pages 635-640

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ons/opaa187

Keywords

Scoliosis; Parkinson disease; Minimally invasive spine surgery; Minimally invasive surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Parkinson disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease in the United States. In the context of the disability inherent to PD, the additional physical challenges and pain from scoliosis can be debilitating for these patients. However, the magnitude of surgery required to correct the deformity combined with the medical comorbidities and frailty in this population of patients makes surgery very risky. OBJECTIVE: To investigate clinical presentations and outcomes of patients with PD that underwent minimally invasive long-segment fusion for scoliosis correction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed over the years 2007 to 2017 for patients diagnosed with PD undergoing long-segment spinal fusion (5 or more levels) with the use of circumferential minimally invasive spine surgery techniques. Data including age, sex, race, medical co-morbidities, presenting symptoms, radiographic findings, surgical procedure, case history, and complications were collected from the medical record. RESULTS: Retrospective chart review revealed three patients that met the inclusion criteria. They included 2 males and 1 female, with a mean age of 68.7 yr (range 63-75 yr). Ability to maintain upright posture, return to activities of daily living, and visual analog scale (VAS)-back improved in all patients at 1-yr follow-up. Results were durable at 2-yr follow-up. No medical complications were observed. CONCLUSION: The generally positive results suggest that minimally invasive technique could have significant benefits in this high-risk group of patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available