Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Soft-Tissue Reconstruction of Large Spinal Defects: A 12-Year Institutional Experience.

BACKGROUND: Spinal resections can lead to defects requiring soft-tissue reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to review the authors' institutional experience with reconstruction of spinal defects and identify risk factors predictive of wound complications, focusing on timing of reconstruction with ablative surgery.

METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent spinal resection and required soft-tissue reconstruction from 2002 to 2014. Logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for complications.

RESULTS: Of 289 reconstructions performed in 259 patients, 64 cases (22.1 percent) had major wound complications requiring reoperation. Lumbosacral defects were the most common location (43.6 percent) and paraspinous muscle flaps were the preferred reconstructive method used for all defect regions. A total of 224 reconstructions (77.5 percent) were performed immediately at the time of spinal surgery, and 65 (22.5 percent) were performed in delayed fashion as a result of wound complications from previous spinal surgery. Patients undergoing immediate reconstruction had significantly lower rates of instrumentation removal (0.9 percent versus 4.6 percent; p = 0.043), unplanned reoperations (0.5 versus 1.3; p < 0.001), and mortality (0.9 percent versus 9.2 percent; p < 0.001) compared with those undergoing delayed reconstruction. On logistic regression analysis, presence of instrumentation (OR, 3.2; p = 0.012), requirement for a free flap (OR, 9.0; p = 0.016), and spinal cord exposure (OR, 2.6; p = 0.036) were associated with increased odds of a major wound complication.

CONCLUSION: Spinal resections carry significant surgical-site morbidity, and selection of high-risk patients for immediate reconstruction with locoregional muscle flaps may be beneficial for improving wound-related outcomes.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app