Spinal fusion and instrumentation for XXXX : retrospective review.

@entity1 @entity4094 @entity1516 @entity16 @entity1635 @entity1555 @entity281 @entity2057 @entity121 @entity293 @entity306
PURPOSE: A retrospective study was conducted to review the surgical results among 24 @entity1 with @entity4094 , who were treated with spinal instrumentation and fusion at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore between March 1993 and December 1998. METHODS: We examined complete hospital records of @entity1 who had @entity1635 due to aetiologies such as @entity2057 , @entity306 , @entity1555 , and @entity121 . The mean age of @entity1 was 10.6 years (range, 6-14 years) and the mean follow-up duration was 5.5 years. RESULTS: 18 @entity1 had posterior surgery alone, whereas 4 had an anterior release with posterior instrumentation, and 2 had an anterior fusion with instrumentation. The mean length of stay in the intensive care unit was 2 days and the mean duration of hospital stay was 11 days. The mean correction in @entity1635 angle ranged from 75.6 degrees to 25.7 degrees. All @entity1 could at least sit without support postoperatively. The one-second forced expiratory volume and forced vital capacity were, in general, maintained throughout the follow-up. There were 2 major complications and 2 minor ones; these were @entity1516 with rod breakage requiring revision, deep @entity281 necessitating hardware removal, superficial @entity281 that responded to antibiotics, and @entity293 requiring 3 weeks of antibiotic treatment. There were no deaths or any @entity16 after instrumentation. CONCLUSION: Spinal stabilisation and fusion in @entity1 with @entity4094 is a safe and effective treatment modality. The effect of surgery on long-term pulmonary function, however, remains controversial and needs to be addressed.
