international journal of surgery case reportsstaff.ui.ac.id/system/files/users/rahyussalim71/... ·...

GI

Pd

AQ1

AaQ2Q3Ib

Ic

1

a

ARR2AA

KPNIS

1

Q4dsaSsnw

DK

(

h2c

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

ModelJSCR 2133 1–6 CASE REPORT – OPEN ACCESS

International Journal of Surgery Case Reports xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Surgery Case Reports

journa l h omepage: www.caserepor ts .com

edicle screw position changing policy for nerve injury problemsuring screw insertion on thoracolumbar compression fractures

hmad Jabir Rahyussalim a,∗, Ifran Saleh a, M. Fajrin Armin a, Tri Kurniawati b,hmad Yanuar Safri c

Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, 10320,ndonesiaStem Cell and Tissue Engineering Cluster, MERC Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, 10320,

ndonesiaNeurophysiology Division of Neurology Departement, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta,0320, Indonesia

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 27 June 2016eceived in revised form0 September 2016ccepted 20 September 2016vailable online xxx

eywords:edicle screw placementerve injury

ntra operative monitoringSEP

a b s t r a c t

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) had important role related to thecomplications in spinal surgery. Somatosensory Evoked Potential (SSEP), Transcranial electric MuscleEvoked Potentials (tceMEPs), and free run EMG are parameters used to asses functional integrity of thenervous system during surgical procedures. Once warning signal was recognized, surgeon have to makea precise decision to overcome that problem.PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present a 47-year old male with back pain due to compression fracture ofthoracic vertebra T12 and lumbar vertebrae L1. While stabilizing through the posterior approach on theT11 and 12 as well as L2 and L3, the SSEP monitor showed 50% reduction in the waveform as the pediclescrew was inserted at the left side of T12. The instrumentation was changed into vertebra thoracal T10,T11, and vertebrae lumbar L2, L3. The SSEP normalized and post operatively pain decreased. After surgerythere was no neurological deficit.DISCUSSION: Acute trauma as a result of spine instrumentation may provoke significant edema, withmass effect causing neurophysiological dysfunction. Administration of intravenous steroid would do at
this stage, followed by constant infusion for following 24–48 h, may help ameliorating the mass effectand improving the neurologic outcome. Alternatively, immediate pedicle screw changing policy showedabsolute recovery of nerve injury.CONCLUSION: Insertion of pedicle screw in spinal surgery has a risk of complication that could be treatedby pedicle screw changing policy.
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IJS Publishing Group Ltd. This is an openhe CC

Q5

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

access article under t

. Introduction

Pedicle screw placement is a common procedure. It has a greateveloping technique that is used for fixation and fusion in spineurgery. It was firstly introduced by Harrington and Tullos in 1969nd then in late 1980′s developed by Roy Camille et al., Louis, andteffe. It had already become the leading instrumentation in spinal

Please cite this article in press as: A.J. Rahyussalim, et al., Pedicle screwinsertion on thoracolumbar compression fractures, Int J Surg Case Rep

urgery until nowadays. It could be applied in degenerative, trauma,eoplastic, infectious and malformation cases that had a problemith axial instability [1].

∗ Correspondence to: Dr. Rahyussalim, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia,epartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatolgy, Jalan Salemba 6, Kelurahan Kenari,ecamatan Senen, Jakarta Pusat, DKI Jakarta, 10320, Indonesia.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. Rahyussalim).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032210-2612/© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IJS Publishing

reativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

43

44

45

46

47

48

BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Despite its usefullness, pedicle screw placement maneuvers hadsome complications. Nerve root, spinal cord injury, vascular injury,cerebrospinal fluid leak, visceral injury, pedicle fracture were somecomplications that mostly related to pedicle screw malpositioning.Among those complications, the nerve injury due to pedicle screwmalpostioning was a common complication that was faced by spine

surgeons [2,3].Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) has an

important role in spinal surgery. There were a various neurophysi-ologic techniques used to assess functional integrity of the nervoussystem during surgical procedures. It was useful by providing realtime evaluation and immediate feedback to the surgeon at a pointwhere intervention with any doubt taken. This real time feedback

position changing policy for nerve injury problems during screw (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032

would be a guide for surgeon to determine the precise decision inpreventing irreversible neural damage [3,4].

Once warning signal was recognized by IONM, surgeon had tomake a precise decision to overcome that problem. Establishing

Group Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://

49

50

51

52

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22102612

http://www.casereports.com

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/










mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032











G ModelIJSCR 2133 1–6 CASE REPORT – OPEN ACCESS2 A.J. Rahyussalim et al. / International Journal of Surgery Case Reports xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Initial AP and lateral view X ray were showing kypotic deformity due to collapse of vertebrae thoracal T12 and lumbar L1. (The x ray image was taken on 23 June2015).

F ertebrt by po

tn

53

54

ig. 2. Sagittal and axial view of T2 weighted images were showing destruction vhoracal T12 (Fig. 2a). It also showed the compression of anterior part of spinal cord


he cause, mechanism and the pathology of injury associated witherve injury during spinal surgery were mandatory tools to sur-

al body of lumbar L1 and compression fracture on anterior part of vertebral bodysterior part vertebral body (Fig. 2b). (The MRI image was taken on 1 July 2015).


geon as consideration to make an appropriate decision [3]. In thisreview, a case of nerve entrapment problem after screw insertion

55

56

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032

G ModelIJSCR 2133 1–6 CASE REPORT – OPEN ACCESS

A.J. Rahyussalim et al. / International Journal of Surgery Case Reports xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

F as insf ew po

ooH

1

aw

wcLtsIcLo(

cprwrstdlr

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

ig. 3. During surgery: (a) Expose of thoracolumbar vertebrae, (b) Pedicle screw wrom T12 to T11 due to signal warning on T12, (d) Final result of operation with scr

n thoracolumbar compression fracture that recognized by intra-perative neurophysiologic monitoring at Ciptomangunkusumoospital was presented and correct management was discussed.

.1. Case presentation

A 47 year old male fell from his motorcycle following a trafficccident eleven years ago during which he landed on the asphaltith his buttocks. The motor and sensory functions were normal.

Seven month before hospital admission, patient had the painorse (VAS 4–5), but he could still move his both leg. Plane x ray

onfirmation showed that there was vertebral collapse on T12 and1. It raised kyphotic deformity. It also showed narrowing disc athe level involved (Fig. 1). MRI examination showed a compres-ion fracture at the level vertebrae thoracal T12 and lumbar L1.t showed also there was small fragment of bone come into theanal and compressed the anterior segment of spinal cord (Fig. 2).aboratory examination showed there is an increase in parameterf Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (52 mm/h), C-reactive protein50 mg/L) and Leucocyte count (12.200/L).

Surgery was performed with general anesthesia and underontinuous neurophysiology monitoring of MEP (motor evokedotentials), SSEP (somatosensory evoked potentials) and free-unning EMG (electromyography). SSEP of bilateral tibial nervesas performed with the stimulation at the ankle and scalp

ecording at Cz-Fz and C3′-C4′/C4′-C3′. MEP was performed withtimulatioan at M3-M4 or M1-M2 (best response) with single


rain stimulation of 7 pulses with 200.000 Hz frequency, 0.5 msuration and 0–100 mA intensity and recorded at abductor hal-

ucis brevis muscle and tibialis anterior bilateral muscle. Freeun EMG was recorded with the settting of 50 uv/division gain

erted to vertebrae thoracal T12 and disturb the signal, (c) Screw position changingsition with free signal warning.

and 100 ms/division sweep at rectus femoris muscle and tibialisanterior muscle bilateral to prevent radix iritation during instru-mentation.

Posterior lumbar approach was performed to reach vertebralstructure. It was performed the facet joint release and posteriorstabilization at the level vertebrae thoracal T11, T12 and lumbarL2, L3. Intra-operative accident was happened when the operatorinserted the pedicle screw at level left thoracal T12. SSEP moni-tor showed left tibial nerve amplitude (P40-N50) decrease morethan 50%. The surgeon then decided to pullout the pedicle screwand change the location of pedicle insertion to one level above,vertebrae thoracal T11 (Fig. 3). After changing the screw position,SSEP monitor showed that the nerve amplitude was corrected tothe acceptable value (Fig. 4). Final screw insertion was at T10, T11and L2, L3 on both side. Post-operative evaluation showed that thepain was decreased (VAS 1–2) and there was no deficit in motoricand sensoric function (Fig. 5).

2. Discussion

Iatrogenic spinal cord injury was still a feared complica-tion especially in deformity correction surgery such as scoliosis(idiopathic, congenital, neuromuscular, and related syndrome),exaggerated kyphosis, and lordosis. According to the scoliosisresearch society, the estimated incidence of neurological complica-tions for such surgery was 1%, and it would increase to 1.87% whena combined surgical approach is used [2].


Mechanisms that could have been responsible for neurologicinjury during spine procedure were [5]: (a) direct injury dueto surgical trauma, especially during spinal canal decompressionor placement of spinal implant; (b) traction and/or compression

111

112

113

114

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032

G ModelIJSCR 2133 1–6 CASE REPORT – OPEN ACCESS4 A.J. Rahyussalim et al. / International Journal of Surgery Case Reports xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

F rrow).c

arodcspIfr(

rcir

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

ig. 4. Deterioration of SSEP signal which was monitored at 15.23–15.45p.m. (red ahange (green arrow).

ffecting neural structure, that could be occured during spinalealignment and deformity correction using spinal instrumentationr as a result of epidural hematoma following corpectomy proce-ure; (c) ischemia resulting in decreased perfusion of the spinalord and/or nerve roots, resulting in ischemic injury to neurologictructures (e.g. following ligation of critical segmental vessels sup-lying the spinal cord or after an episode of sustained hypotension).

schemia was the most common mechanism that was responsibleor neurologic deficit during scoliosis surgery; (d) compressive neu-opathy as a result of patient positioning prior to or during surgerye.g. brachial plexus injury) [5].

The causes of iatrogenic neurologic sequelae were implant-elated damage, such as breach of a pedicle screw into the spinal


anal or foramen, and injury during correction maneuvers, includ-ng distraction, compressive force to correct deformity, and the rodotation technique to realign the vertebra [6]. But among those

And SSEP signal was improving closed to baseline at 15.50p.m. after screw position

causes the implant related damage was most common in clinicalpractice [7].

The ideal pedicle screw should have a maximum diameter andlength without breaching the pedicle’s cortical layer, the vertebralbody. And the direction of insertion should converge on both sideof one vertebrae. Lonstein et al., described that the most commontype of perforation wass anterior cortex (2.8%), and followed bylateral cortex (1.0%), inferior cortex (0,6%), medial cortex of pedicle(0,4%) and superior cortex (0,2%) [2].

Nevertheless, a satisfactory outcome could also be achieveddespite sub-optimal screw placement and vice versa. For exam-ple, a screw that just barely touches the lower border of the pediclemay cause a clinically apparent radiculopathy and it may require


revision. On the other hand, a screw that lies inside the spinal canalmay produce no symptoms at all. Therefore, the evaluation of suc-cessful fusion surgery should always include a clinical assessmentin addition to an appraisal of screw position [1].

144

145

146

147

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032

G ModelIJSCR 2133 1–6 CASE REPORT – O

A.J. Rahyussalim et al. / International Journal of

Fw

nifnAEPE

2

imrmapdaii(smintwbns(

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

ig. 5. AP and Lateral post-op x-rays of the patient showing posterior stabilizationith pedicle screw & rod system (The x ray image was taken on 5 July 2015).

Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) was a technique thatow widely accepted to reduce the risk of neurologic complications

n spinal surgery. Various IONM modalities allowed con-tinuousunctional assessment of the neuromuscular junction, peripheralerves, spinal cord, brainstem, and cortex during spinal surgery.mong the various IONM techniques available, Somatosensoryvoked Potentials (SSEP), Transcranial electric Muscle Evokedotentials (tceMEP), and Spontaneous electromyography (free–runMG) were most frequently used in clinical practice [7].

.1. Somatosensory evoked potential

A previous study reported that false negative SSEP monitor-ng occurred during surgery in only 0.063% of patients. A large

ulticenter study had reported that postoperative paraplegia waseduced more than 50%–60% with SSEP monitoring [7]. This was

odification of the basic electroencephalography (EEG) in which cortical or subcortical response to repetitive stimulation of aeripheral mixed nerve was recorded at sites cephalad and cau-ad to the operative field. Data including signal amplitude (height)nd latency (time of occurrence) were recorded continuously dur-ng surgery and compared with baseline data. SSEP provided directnformation about status of the ascending spinal cord sensory tractslocated in the dorsal medial columns of the spinal cord). There areome limitations such as: (a) SSEP provided only indirect infor-ation about the status of the spinal cord motor tracts (located

n the anterolateral columns of the spinal cord); (b) SSEP data didot provide real-time data regarding neurologic function becausehere was a slight delay (usually,1 min) while the SSEP responseas averaged for extraction from background noise; (c) SSEPs could

e unrecordable in patients with severe myelopathy, peripheral


europathy, or obesity. In addition, recording SSEP is not a sen-itive technique for monitoring individual nerve root function;d) SSEPs recording can be disturbed by operating room power

PEN ACCESSSurgery Case Reports xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

equipment (due to electrical interference), halogenated anestheticagents, nitrous oxide, hypothermia, and hypotension.

Warning signal was very importat to be introduce to surgeondruing surgery. The surgeon should be notified when SSEP showeda persistent unilateral or bilateral loss of amplitude 50% or greaterrelative to baseline amplitude. Changes in latency were commonand less significant, and spinal cord injury was unlikely if amplitudeis unchanged.

2.2. Transcranial electric muscle evoked potentials (tceMEP)

Transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials (tceMEP) wereneuroelectric impulses elicited by transcranial application of ahigh-voltage stimulus to electrodes placed over specific scalpregions to excite specific areas of the motor cortex. Thesedescending impulses stimulated corticospinal tract axons and weretypically recorded from electrodes placed over key upper andlower extremity peripheral muscles as a compound muscle actionpotential (CMAP). Motor-evoked potentials could also be recordeddirectly from the spinal cord (D- and I-waves) via electrodes placedpercutaneously or through a laminotomy.

The tceMEP could provide information about the functionalintegrity of the spinal cord motor tracts that could not be obtainedusing SSEP. They were extremely sensitive to alterations in spinalcord blood flow resulting from intraoperative hypotension orevolving vascular injury. In addition, alterations in tceMEP pre-sented earlier than changes in SSEP in patients with evolvingneurologic injury, which permits earlier initiation of correctiveaction to prevent permanent neurologic compromise. The tceMEPwere not a replacement for SSEP but were used in combinationwith SSEP to provide a direct measure of both spinal cord sensoryand motor tract function, thereby increasing the efficacy of spinalmonitoring.

Warning Signal for surgeon was very important. The surgeonshould be notified when tceMEP showed a persistent unilateralor bilateral loss of amplitude 65% or greater relative to baselineamplitude [2].

2.3. Spontaneous electromyography (free–run EMG)

Spontaneous or free-running electromyography (EMG) waswidely applied to monitor selective nerve root function duringspinal cord surgery. Unlike SEP and SSEP data, EMG was “real-time” recording from peripheral musculature. Spontaneous EMGcould help to prevent postoperative radiculopathy during spinalinstrumentation surgery, including pedicle screw placement. Thistechnique did not require stimulation and could be recorded con-tinuously from preselected muscle groups based on the nerve rootsat risk. One muscle group per nerve was generally consideredappropriate.

At baseline, no muscle activity was recorded from an intactnerve root. Surgical manipulations such as pulling, stretching orcompression of nerves provoked spikes or bursts of activity termedneurotonic discharges, resulting in activity in the correspondinginnervated muscle(s). Spontaneous EMG was quite sensitive to irri-tation of the nerve root, such as retraction of spinal cord or nerveroot, saline irrigation and manipulation during surgery. However,false spontaneous EMG activation commonly occured during irri-gation with cold water, cauterization and use of a high-speed drillbecause it was sensitive to temperature change.

2.4. Triggerd EMG


Intraoperative triggered EMG detected root irritation or the postinjury condition of the root after medial pedicle breach. An irritatedor damaged nerve root caused a decrease in electric threshold fol-

237

238

239

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032

G ModelI – O6 nal of

lme(lnmtt

ieeaorsemvi(ts(salwdstsuteInho

2

bhwt

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

OTpc

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

JSCR 2133 1–6 CASE REPORT A.J. Rahyussalim et al. / International Jour

owed by sudden appearance of CMAP of the specific muscles of theyotome after stimulation via the screw. Each pedicle screw was

lectrically stimulated with an increasing intensity from 5 to 30 mAduration, 0.2 ms; frequency, 0.8 Hz). Recordings were made at theevel of the lower limb muscles with or without the rectus abdomi-is muscles (depending on the root levels to test). The recording ofuscle activity at an intensity under 10 mA (the classically accepted

hreshold) argued in favor of a medial breach (close proximity ofhe screw to the nerve root) [8].

Although IONM generally referred to neurophysiological mon-toring, the Stagnara wakeup test, which provideed directvaluation of the patient’s motor functions without specializedquipment, was still used when necessary. When neuromonitoringlert (significant decrease or loss of neurophysiologic potentials)ccured during surgery, the surgeon and anesthesiologist shouldemain calm and communicate with the spinal monitoring per-onnel as the following steps are taken [2]: (a) check that thelectrodes had not become displaced; (b) elevate and maintain theean arterial blood pressure between 85 and 95 mmHg to pre-

ent spinal cord ischemia; (c) assess if there has been a changen anesthetic technique; (d) reverse any antecedent surgical evente.g. strut graft/cage placement; surgical maneuvers including dis-raction, compression, or translation); (e) inspect for an obviousource of neural compression (e.g. bone fragment, hematoma);f) elevate body temperature and irrigate the wound with warmaline; (g) send an arterial blood gas and laboratory tests tossess for an unrecognized metabolic abnormality or unrecognizedow hemoglobin; (h) if the tceMEP/SSEP data failed to recover, a

ake-up test and awake clinical examination are considered; (i)epending on the patient’s response to the wake-up test and thepecific spinal problem undergoing treatment, spinal instrumen-ation may require removal. The individual clinical scenario andtability of the spine must be considered in decision making; (j)sage of steroids (spinal injury protocol) was an option. Acuterauma as a result of spine instrumentation may result in significantdema, with mass effect causing neurophysiological dysfunction.mmediate administration of an intravenous bolus of methylpred-isolon, followed by constant infussion for following 24–48 h, mayelp ameliorating the mass effect and improving the neurologicutcome.

.5. Steroid injection

We were still considered for the protocol of steroid injection


ecause the protocol was still implemented and adopted in ourospital. The guideline was a modified guideline of NASCIS 2. Bute were not evaluated the benefit of the steroid injection related

o the spinal cord injury.

pen Accesshis article is published Open Access at sciencedirect.com. It is distribermits unrestricted non commercial use, distribution, and reproductredited.

PEN ACCESSSurgery Case Reports xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

2.6. Longer segment stabilization

The pedicle screw position changing policy had risk of longersegment stabilization. Thoracic area with the ribs has more rigidstructure compare to lumbar. The impact of longer segment stabi-lization for the thoracic area were less than the lumbar area.

In order to keep away the longer segment stabilization risk, wecan strengthen the other side by adding one more rod with rodconnector. By this technique we need to prepare the implant systembefore surgery.

3. Conclusion

Insertion of pedicle screw in spinal surgery had a risk ofcomplication that could prevent by usage of intraoperative neuro-physiological monitoring. Pedicle screw changing policy is usefulfor initial treatment of neurophysiologic disturbances. SSEP, tcMEPand free running EMG could detect the neurophysiological reac-tion of the spinal cord, therefore preventing undesired neurologicaldisturbance post-operatively.

Disclosure

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regard-ing the publication of this paper

References

1] O.P. Gautschi, B. Schatlo, K. Scachller, E. Tessitore, Clinically relevantcomplications related to pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgeryand their management: a literature review of 35.630 pedicle screws,Neurosurg. Focus 31 (2011) E8.

2] J. Lonstein, F. Denis, J. Perra, et al., Complication Associated with pediclescrews, J. Bone Joint Surg. 81A (1999) 1519–1528.

3] M.V. Simon, L. Borges, Intraoperative neurophysiology, Decompressive Surgeryof the Spine (2010) 219–220.

4] T.N. Pajewski, V. Arlet, L.H. Philips, Current approach on spinal cordmonitoring: the point of view of the neurologist, the anesthesiologist and spinesurgeon, Eur. Spine J. 16 (2007) 115–129.

5] R.H. Vaughan, V.J. Devlin, Spine secret plus, Intraoperative NeurophysiologicMonitoring During Spinal Procedures. 2012 (2016) 220–224.

6] A.J. Rahyussalim, I. Saleh, D. Purnaning, T. Kurniawati, Optimization correctionstrength using contra bending technique without anterior release procedure toachieve maximum correction on severe adult idiopathic scoliosis, Case Rep.Orthop. 2016 (2016) 7396853.

7] J.H. Park, S.J. Hyun, Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spinalsurgery, World J. Clin. Cases 3 (9) (2015) 757–860.

8] Y. Takata, T. Sakai, K. Higashino, et al., State of the art: intraoperativeneuromonitoring in spinal deformity surgery, J. Med. Invest. 62 (2015)


103–108.

uted under the IJSCR Supplemental terms and conditions, whichion in any medium, provided the original authors and source are

327

328

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2016.09.032

http://www.sciencedirect.com

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/723449/preface2

international journal of surgery case reportsstaff.ui.ac.id/system/files/users/rahyussalim71/... ·...

Documents