ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2024
Management of a periaortic spinal pedicle screw in a patient with adult presentation thoracic scoliosis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Vascular injury due to direct contact with malpositioned pedicle screws is perhaps the most devastating complication associated with screw instrumentation. While frank perforation of major vessels warrants urgent open or endovascular repair, the management of pedicle screws in close vicinity of large vessels is unclear. We present a systematic multi-disciplinary approach to manage a patient with a periaortic pedicle screw. Case Report: A 20-year-old female underwent posterior scoliosis correction and spinal fusion for an adult thoracic scoliosis with spinal instrumentation extending from T3-T12. In the immediate post-operative period, an episode of acute desaturation prompted a computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) to rule out pulmonary embolism. While CTPA demonstrated an enlarged right side of the heart (corresponding to a large atrial septal defect as evident on 2D-ECHO), an incidental lateral breech at the left T10 pedicle screw level was also identified with the screw tip in close proximity to the aorta. At this time, cardiac management was prioritized and a successful atrial septal defect repair procedure was performed. After recovery from the cardiac procedure, a plan was formulated with a multidisciplinary team to remove the pedicle screw. To determine the exact position of the screw tip in relation to the aorta, an angiogram and an intravascular ultrasound were done which showed no evidence of intra-luminal extension of the screw tip. In addition, a transesophageal ultrasound was performed and this ruled out any extra-luminal contact with the aorta. Subsequently, the spinal instrumentation was removed safely with the vascular surgeon and interventional radiologist being on standby. Conclusion: The authors suggest the removal of spinal pedicle screws in proximity to major vessels and describe an algorithm for this. Thorough pre-operative planning and detailed vascular imaging, as well as a multidisciplinary approach resulting in a clear surgical plan are critical to allow safe removal of such implants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.