Cement Salvage of Instrumentation-Associated XXXX .

@entity1 @entity174 @entity5 @entity532 @entity3814 @entity615 @entity3 @entity1344 @entity158
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spinal instrumentation plays a key role in the treatment of @entity1344 in @entity1 with @entity3 . Poor bone quality, radiation, and diffuse @entity5 involvement present significant challenges to spinal stabilization with instrumentation and occasionally result in post instrumentation compression @entity174 . Vertebral cement augmentation has been effective in the treatment of @entity158 . Our objective was to describe cement augmentation options in the treatment of @entity3814 associated with spinal instrumentation in @entity1 with @entity3 . MATERIALS AND METHODS: @entity1 who underwent percutaneous vertebral cement augmentation in the treatment of instrumentation-associated @entity3814 between 2005 and 2011 were included in the analysis. Only @entity174 that occurred within the construct or at an adjacent level were included. The change in Visual Analog Scale and need for further surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: Eleven @entity1 met the inclusion criteria, with 8 @entity5 located in the thoracic spine and 3 @entity5 in the lumbar spine. The median time between instrumented surgery and vertebral augmentation was 5 months (1-48 months) and the median follow-up after cement augmentation was 24 months (4-59 months). A total of 22 vertebrae that were either within or immediately adjacent to the surgical instrumentation underwent vertebral augmentation. All @entity1 reported a decrease in their @entity158 scores (mean decrease: 6 Visual Analog Scale points; P < .003). One @entity1 required reoperation after cement augmentation. None of the @entity1 experienced @entity532 . CONCLUSIONS: Vertebral cement augmentation represents a safe and effective treatment option in @entity1 with recurrent or progressive @entity615 and instrumentation-associated @entity3814 .
