Background and objective: Accidental canal penetration with attendant complications constitutes one of the reasons for abandoning the use of wires for posterior spinal fusion techniques. However, there is dearth of information on this risk when the wire is introduced through the base of spinous process as against sublaminar passage. This study was designed to evaluate hardware-related postoperative complications, especially canal penetration, in our patients who had spinal process wiring in two types of posterior wiring techniques.
Materials and methods: Patients who had either of two spinous process wiring techniques formed the population for the study. The clinical records were reviewed and the following data were extracted: Age, sex, diagnosis, operation (fusion type), preoperative neurological status, postoperative neurologic deterioration, other postoperative complication and radiologic evidence of canal encroachment.
Results: One hundred and seventy four spinous processes were instrumented in 42 patients. The age of the patients ranged from 11 to 78 years while male to female ratio was 2.5:1. Majority of the spinal wiring were for trauma (29 patients; 69.0) while the remaining were tumor (6; 14.3%), degenerative diseases (4; 9.5%) and infections (3; 7.1%). The Rogers technique was performed in 16 (38.1%) patients while 26 (61.9%) underwent Adeolu et al. technique. One patient (2.3%) had neurologic deterioration while 5 patients (11.1%) had varying type of complications from wound infection to fracture of spinous processes. There was no patient with radiological or clinical evidence of canal compromise.
Conclusion: Spinous process wiring techniques for posterior spinal stabilization appears to be safe as demonstrated in this study.
Keywords: Canal penetration; spinous process; wiring.