Myelographic Evaluation of Cervical Spondylosis: Patient Tolerance and Complications

Dr. Kingsley R. Chin of the Less Institute medical research

Scientific Paper

Chin KR1Eiszner JRHuang JLHuang JIRoh JSBohlman HH.

Interested medical professionals can read the full paper, as published in Clinical Spine Surgery, here.

Study Design

Retrospective chart review of documented adverse events in 637 consecutive patients after computed tomogram myelography and follow-up interview of the most recent 100 of these patients.

Objective

This study assessed documented prevalence of adverse events after diagnostic myelography in cervical spondylotic patients and compared with perceived adverse events and satisfaction in a subset of the same cohort of patients.

Summary of Background Data

There are some data that suggest complimentary benefits of myelography to magnetic resonance imaging. However, given the invasive nature of myelography, there are little data documenting the adverse events and patient experience with myelography to guide informed consent and physician choice of this study.

Methods

We analyzed the records of 637 consecutive patients (364 males and 273 females) after myelography. Five hundred forty-four patients (group 1) had a cervical approach and 93 (group 2) had a lumbar approach. The last 100 consecutive patients (85 in group 1 and 15 in group 2) were asked questions that addressed patient perceived adverse reactions, pain levels, and satisfaction.

Results

There was a 4.4% (28/637) prevalence of documented abnormal reactions. Group 1 had a 4.9% (25/506) prevalence of adverse reactions compared with 3.4% (3/89) in group 2. Overall 6.6% (42/637) had to have their myelographic procedures converted. Group 1 had 7% (38/544) converted to the lumbar approach group 2 had 4.3% (4/93) converted to the cervical approach. Thirty percent of the 100 patients interviewed felt they had an unexpected reaction (28 group 1 and 2 group 2). When interviewed, 14% of patients had maximum pain scores of 10 during the procedure and 8% (all group 1) felt worse pain after the procedure was completed. Six group 1 and 2 group 2 patients would not have the procedure again even when recommended by the surgeon. There was no statistically significant difference between complication rates, conversion rates, or patient perceived unexpected reactions between the 2 groups (beta=0.90).

Conclusion

This paper demonstrated the discrepancy between documented adverse events with computed tomogram myelography and patient reported tolerance as recorded by telephone follow-up. The cervical approach had a greater degree of patient perceived discomfort and a trend toward higher documented and patient reported adverse events and rate of approach conversion to a lumbar approach (P>0.5). When choosing myelography to evaluate patients with cervical spondylosis, the surgeon should consider the low patient tolerance and frequent adverse reactions that often go undocumented.

About Author Dr. Kingsley R. Chin

Dr. Kingsley R. Chin, founder of philosophy and practice of The LES Society and The LESS Institute
Dr. Kingsley R. Chin, founder of philosophy and practice of The LES Society and The LESS Institute

Dr. Kingsley R. Chin is a board-certified Harvard-trained orthopedic spine surgeon and professor with copious business and information technology experience. He sees a niche opportunity where medicine, business and information technology meet and is uniquely experienced at the intersection of these three professions. He currently serves as Professor of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences at the Charles E. Schmidt School of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University and Professor of Clinical Orthopaedic Surgery at the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University and has experience as Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School and Visiting Professor at the University of the West Indies.

Learn more about Dr. Chin here and connect via LinkedIn.

About Less Exposure Surgery

Less Exposure Surgery (LES) is based on a new philosophy of performing surgery, leading the charge to prove through bench and clinical outcomes research that LES treatment options are the best solutions – to lowering the cost of healthcare, improving outcomes and increasing patient satisfaction. Learn more at LESSociety.org.

The LES Society philosophy: “Tailor treatment to the individual aiding in the quickest recovery and return to a pain-free lifestyle, using LES® techniques that lessen exposure, preserve unoffending anatomy and utilize new technologies which are safe, easy to adopt and reproducible. These LES®techniques lessen blood loss, surgical time and exposure to radiation and can be safely performed in an outpatient center. Less is more.” – Kingsley R. Chin, MD

About The LESS Institute

The LESS Institute is the world leader center of excellence in Less Exposure Surgery. Our safe, effective outpatient treatments help patients recover quickly, avoid expensive hospital stays and return home to their family the same day. Watch our patient stories, follow us on Facebook and visit TheLESSInstitute.com to learn more.

About SpineFrontier

The above study utilized LES Technology from SpineFrontier – leading provider of LES Technologies and instruments – offering surgeons and patients superior technology and services.

Scientific Paper Author & Citation Details

Authors

Chin KR1Eiszner JRHuang JLHuang JIRoh JSBohlman HH.

Author information

  1. Division of Spine Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, PA 19104, USA. kingsleychin@hotmail.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *