Search Results
Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Portugal
Search for other papers by Bruno Direito-Santos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Guilherme França in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jóni Nunes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by André Costa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Eurico Bandeira Rodrigues in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by A. Pedro Silva in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, University of Minho, Portugal
Search for other papers by Pedro Varanda in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Acetabular retroversion (AR) consists of a malorientation of the acetabulum in the sagittal plane. AR is associated with changes in load transmission across the hip, being a risk factor for early osteoarthrosis. The pathophysiological basis of AR is an anterior acetabular hyper-coverage and an overall pelvic rotation.
-
The delay or the non-diagnosis of AR could have an impact in the overall management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). AR is a subtype of (focal) pincer deformity.
-
The objective of this review was to clarify the pathophysiological, diagnosis and treatment fundaments inherent to AR, using a current literature review.
-
Radiographic evaluation is paramount in AR: the cross-over, the posterior wall and ischial spine signs are classic radiographic signs of AR. However, computed tomography (CT) evaluation permits a three-dimensional characterization of the deformity, being more reliable in its recognition.
-
Acetabular rim trimming (ART) and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) are the best described surgical options for the treatment of AR.
-
The clinical outcomes of both techniques are dependent on the correct characterization of existing lesions and adequate selection of patients.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:595-603. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180015
Search for other papers by Tiago P Barbosa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ana Rita Raposo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Paulo Diogo Cunha in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nuno Cruz Oliveira in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Armanda Lobarinhas in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pedro Varanda in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bruno Direito-Santos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
The total number of spine surgeries is increasing, with a variable percentage of patients remaining symptomatic and functionally impaired after surgery. Rehabilitation has been widely recommended, although its effects remain unclear due to lack of research on this matter. The aim of this comprehensive review is to resume the most recent evidence regarding postoperative rehabilitation after spine surgery and make recommendations.
-
The effectiveness of cervical spine surgery on the outcomes is moderate to good, so most physiatrists and surgeons agree that patients benefit from a structured postoperative rehabilitation protocol and despite best timing to start rehabilitation is still unknown, most programs start 4–6 weeks after surgery.
-
Lumbar disc surgery has shown success rates between 78% and 95% after 2 years of follow-up. Postoperative rehabilitation is widely recommended, although its absolute indication has not yet been proven. Patients should be educated to start their own postoperative rehabilitation immediately after surgery until they enroll on a rehabilitation program usually 4–6 weeks post-intervention.
-
The rate of lumbar interbody fusion surgery is increasing, particularly in patients over 60 years, although studies report that 25–45% of patients remain symptomatic. Despite no standardized rehabilitation program has been defined, patients benefit from a cognitive-behavioral physical therapy starting immediately after surgery with psychological intervention, patient education and gradual mobilization. Formal spine rehabilitation should begin at 2–3 months postoperatively.
-
Rehabilitation has benefits on the recovery of patients after spine surgery, but further investigation is needed to achieve a standardized rehabilitation approach.
Search for other papers by Paulo Diogo Cunha in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Tiago P Barbosa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Guilherme Correia in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rafaela Silva in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nuno Cruz Oliveira in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Life and Health Science Research Institute, University of Minho, Portugal
Search for other papers by Pedro Varanda in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Life and Health Science Research Institute, University of Minho, Portugal
Search for other papers by Bruno Direito-Santos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Patient positioning on the surgical table is a critical step in every spine surgery. The most common surgical positions in spine surgery are supine, prone and lateral decubitus.
-
There are countless lesions that can occur during spine surgery due to patient mispositioning. Ulnar nerve and brachial plexus injuries are the most common nerve lesions seen in malpositioned patients. Devastating complications due to increased intraocular pressure or excessive abdominal pressure can also occur in prone decubitus and are real concerns that the surgical team must be aware of.
-
All members of the surgical team (including surgeons, anesthesiologists and nurses) should know how to correctly position the patient, identify possible positioning errors and know how to avoid them in order to prevent postoperative morbidity.
-
This work pretends to do a review of the most common positions during spine surgery, alert to errors that can happen during the procedure and how to avoid them.