Traditional outcome after spine
reconstruction surgery may be measured based on symptomatic
relief and the presence of a solid bony fusion. Contrary
to intuitive thinking though, the presence of a solid
fusion does not necessarily correlate completely with
the resolution of symptoms. Such factors as the correct
primary diagnosis as well as technical considerations
about the surgery may improve the overall results over
the short term.
Short term resolution of symptoms though
should not be the complete criteria by which spinal reconstruction
surgery is judged. Also, symptoms may be relieved for
a short period of time by adequate fusion surgery and
results may degrade over time if the reconstruction is
not performed in a way which either recreates or corrects
sagittal plane imbalance. |
A
physician trained specifically in spine surgery may
be better adapted to adhere to certain principles than
his counterpart who have either trained as a general
neuro or orthopedic surgeon. Careful handling of nerve
tissue which will ultimately reduce postoperative scarring
and reduce the chances of intraoperative tissue damage
are more likely for the individual who is well versed
in the use of micro-instruments techniques and visualization
with illumination. Most spine surgeons now agree that
the use of high powered magnification either through
a microscope or special magnifying glasses is essential
for handling tissue around the spine. The well trained
spine surgeon will also have at his disposal a complete
array of techniques which can be individualized to patients.
A surgeon which utilizes a narrow range of techniques
applied to all spine pathology should be viewed with
suspicion. Every patient presenting with a spine problem
necessitating surgery will have some unique quality which
will require adaptation of all known surgical techniques