Search

Study Design: Retrospective quantitative analysis study., Objectives: Pelvic incidence has been established as central radiographic marker which determines patient-specific correction goals during surgery for adult spinal deformity. In cases with sacral doming or sacral osteotomy where the PI cannot be calculated, reliable radiographic parameters need to be established to determine surgical goals. We aim to determine multiple radiographic parameters and formulas that can be utilized when the S1 superior endplate is obscured., Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on 68 healthy volunteers without prior spine surgery with full-length radiographs. Pelvic incidence, sacral slope, and pelvic tilt were calculated for each patient. Additional measurements such as L4, L5, and S2 incidence, tilt, and slope were collected. A new radiographic parameter defined as the L4-Sciatic notch angle was measured. Regression analysis was performed on each value to determine its relationship with S1 based incidence, tilt, and slope., Results: Mean values for L5 incidence, L4 incidence, and L4 sciatic notch angle were 21.8° ± 8.9, 4.4° ± 8.1, and 44.4° ± 12, respectively. The linear regression analysis produced the following formulas which can be utilized to determine deformity correction goals when pelvic incidence can be calculated pre-operatively: L5i = .65*S1i-11.4, L4i = .44*S1i-18.6, and L4SNA = -.34*S1i + 66.5. In settings where pelvic incidence cannot be calculated, the following formulas can be utilized: L5i = .66*S2i-32.3 and L4SNA = -.02*S2i 2 + 1.1*S2i + 63.5. P -values for all regression analyses were <.001., Conclusion: This study provides target radiographic alignment values that can be utilized for patients with either pre-operative altered S1 endplates or in cases with intraoperative alteration of S1 (sacral osteotomy)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of and risk factors for persistent opioid use after elective cervical and lumbar spine procedures and to quantify postoperative healthcare utilization in this patient population., Methods: Patients were retrospectively identified who underwent elective spine surgery for either cervical or lumbar degenerative pathology between November 1, 2013, and September 30, 2018, at a single academic center. Patients were split into 2 cohorts, including patients with and without opioid use at 180-days postoperatively. Baseline patient demographics, underlying comorbidities, surgical variables, and preoperative/postoperative opioid use were assessed. Health resource utilization metrics within 1 year postoperatively (ie, imaging studies, emergency and urgent care visits, hospital readmissions, opioid prescriptions, etc.) were compared between these 2 groups., Results: 583 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 16.6% had opioid persistence after surgery. Opioid persistence was associated with ASA score ≥3 (P = .004), diabetes ( P = .019), class I obesity ( P = .012), and an opioid prescription in the 60 days prior to surgery ( P = .006). Independent risk factors for opioid persistence assessed via multivariate regression included multi-level lumbar fusion (RR = 2.957), cervical central stenosis (RR = 2.761), and pre-operative opioid use (RR = 2.668). Opioid persistence was associated with higher rates of health care utilization, including more radiographs ( P < .001), computed tomography (CT) scans (.007), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies ( P = .014), emergency department (ED) visits (.009), pain medicine referrals (P < .001), and spinal injections ( P = .003)., Conclusions: Opioid persistence is associated with higher rates of health care utilization within 1 year after elective spine surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Study Design: Systematic literature review., Objective: It is estimated that one third of the world population is overweight and 20% of adults have some low back symptoms at some point of their lives. The association of obesity and low back pain and physical deterioration has been well established. We designed this study to evaluate the role of bariatric surgery (BS) for lumbar spine symptoms in obese patients., Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed database identifying lumbar spine symptoms (pain, functional status, disability index) and/or complications of lumbar spine surgery before and after BS. Study quality was assessed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine., Results: Ten studies were identified. Nine evaluated the role of BS in low back pain and/or functional status before and after surgery: all reported that bariatric surgery had a positive impact in improving low back pain symptoms and decreasing disability in severely obese patients. One study evaluated the role of posterior lumbar surgery in patients who were obese at the time of surgery and those who had a previous bariatric procedure: bariatric surgery decreased postoperative surgical complications. The level of the evidence was low (III and IV)., Conclusions: Bariatric surgery in severely obese patients decreases the intensity of low back symptoms and also decreases disability secondary to back problems. Additionally, bariatric surgery may be advantageous for patients who need a posterior lumbar surgery and are severely obese. Prospective studies with longer follow-up are necessary to confirm this conclusion., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Alpesh A. Patel discloses the following: Consulting: Zimmer Biomet, DePuy Synthes, nView, Amedica, Kuros Biosciences; Product Design/Royalties: Nuvasive, Zimmer Biomet, Amedica; Stock options/Ownership (<1%): Amedica, Vital5, Nocimed, Cytonics, Tissue Differentiation Intelligence, Endoluxe, nView; Institutional Fellowship Program Support: NuVasive, AO Spine North America; Board of Directors (non-financial): Cervical Spine Research Society, Lumbar Spine Research Society Editorial Board; and Contemporary Spine Surgery: Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (Deputy Editor)., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Study Design: Systematic literature review., Objectives: To evaluate risk factors, diagnosis, and management of sacral and pelvic fractures (SPFs) after instrumented fusions., Methods: A systematic review following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed using the PubMed database. Articles with patients with an SPF after a lumbar instrumented fusion were included. The articles addressing specifically proximal junctional kyphosis were excluded. Eleven small cases series (level of evidence IV) were reviewed., Results: The incidence of SPF was 1.86% in one study. The risk factors reported were elderly patients, multilevel surgery, long fusions stopping at L5 or S1 instead of the ilium, osteoporosis, obesity, and sagittal imbalance. Computed tomography scan was the preferential image modality for diagnosing. Nonsurgical treatment may be used in patients with tolerable pain and nondisplaced fracture. Persistent pain was an indication for surgery, as well as fracture displacement. The most common surgical treatment reported was an extension of the fusion to the iliac using iliac screws., Conclusion: SPFs after lumbar instrumented fusion are rare but clinically meaningful complications. The risk factors, diagnosis, and management of SPFs are described in our review., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Study Design: Systematic literature review., Objectives: Many studies have provided evidence that short-segment posterior fixation (SSPF-1 level above and 1 below) with screws at the fracture level (SFL) are enough to achieve stability in some injury patterns, such as burst fractures, avoiding the need for circumferential reconstruction and long-segment instrumented fusion (LSIF-at least 2 levels above and 2 below). Given the potential benefits of avoiding unnecessary fusion in mobile healthy spinal segments, we performed a systematic review of biomechanical studies comparing different spinal reconstruction techniques for fractures of the thoracolumbar spine., Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in the PubMed and OVID databases of biomechanical studies comparing biomechanical differences between techniques of spine reconstructions., Results: Eight studies were included and evaluated. Five of 6 studies reported stiffness improvement with SSPF and SFL, even comparable to circumferential fusion for a burst fracture. Two studies reported that LSPF has higher stiffness and restricts range of motion better than SSPF, but inclusion of screws in the fracture level is similar to LSPF (1 study). Finally, although SSPF is less stiff than anterior reconstruction, adding a SFL in SSPF results in similar stiffness than circumferential fusion for unstable burst fractures., Conclusions: Biomechanical studies analyzed generally suggested that SFL in SSPF may improve construction stiffness, and can even be compared with long-segment fixation or circumferential reconstruction in some scenarios. This construct option may be used to enhance stiffness in selected injury patterns, avoiding the needs of an additional anterior approach., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Study Design: Prospective randomized study., Objectives: To define the impact of an inexpensive, user-friendly, and reproducible lumbar pedicle screw instrumentation bioskills training module and evaluation protocol., Methods: Participants were randomized to control (n = 9) or intervention (n = 10) groups controlling for level of experience (medical students, junior resident, or senior resident). The intervention group underwent a 20-minute bioskills training module while the control group spent the same time with self-directed study. Pre- and posttest performance was self-reported (Physician Performance Diagnostic Inventory Scale [PPDIS]). Objective outcome scores were obtained from a blinded fellowship-trained attending orthopedic spine surgeon using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Objective Pedicle Instrumentation Score metrics. In addition, identification of pedicle breach and breach anatomic location was measured pre- and posttest in lumbar spine models., Results: The intervention group showed a 30.8% improvement in PPDIS scores, compared with 13.4% for the control group ( P = .01). The intervention group demonstrated statistically significant 66% decrease in breaches ( P = .001) compared with 28% decrease in the control group ( P = .06). Breach identification demonstrated no change in accuracy of the control group (incorrect identification from 32.2% pre- to posttest 35%; P = .71), whereas the intervention group's improvement was statistically significant (42% pre- to posttest 36.5%; P = .0047)., Conclusions: We conclude that a concise lumbar pedicle screw instrumentation bioskills training session can be a useful educational tool to augment clinical education., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Study Design: Randomized, prospective study within an orthopedic surgery resident program at a large urban academic medical center., Objectives: To develop an inexpensive, user-friendly, and reproducible lumbar laminectomy bioskills training module and evaluation protocol that can be readily implemented into residency training programs to augment the clinical education of orthopedic and neurosurgical physicians-in-training., Methods: Twenty participants comprising senior medical students and orthopedic surgical residents. Participants were randomized to control (n = 9) or intervention (n = 11) groups controlling for level of experience (medical students, junior resident, or senior resident). The intervention group underwent a 40-minute bioskills training module, while the control group spent the same time with self-directed study. Pre- and posttest performance was self-reported by each participant (Physician Performance Diagnostic Inventory Scale [PPDIS]). Objective outcome scores were obtained from a blinded fellowship-trained attending orthopedic spine surgeon using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Objective Decompression Score metrics., Results: When compared with the control group, the intervention group yielded a significant mean improvement in OSATS ( P = .022) and PPDIS ( P = .0001) scores. The Objective Decompression Scores improved in the intervention group with a trend toward significance ( P = .058)., Conclusions: We conclude that a concise lumbar laminectomy bioskills training session can be a useful educational tool for to augment clinical education. Although no direct clinical correlation can be concluded from this study, the improvement in trainee's technical and procedural skills suggests that Sawbones training modules can be an efficient and effective tool for teaching fundamental spine surgical skills outside of the operating room., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Study Design Systematic literature review. Objective The Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score System (TLICS) is widely used to help guide the treatment of thoracolumbar spine trauma. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety of the TLICS in clinical practice. Methods Using the Medline database without time restriction, we performed a systematic review using the keyword "Thoracolumbar Injury Classification," searching for articles utilizing the TLICS. We classified the results according to their level of evidence and main conclusions. Results Nine articles met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. One article evaluated the safety of the TLICS based on its clinical application (level II). The eight remaining articles were based on retrospective application of the score, comparing the proposed treatment suggested by the TLICS with the treatment patients actually received (level III). The TLICS was safe in surgical and nonsurgical treatment with regards to neurologic status. Some studies reported that the retrospective application of the TLICS had inconsistencies with the treatment of burst fractures without neurologic deficits. Conclusions This literature review suggested that the TLICS use was safe especially with regards to preservation or improvement of neurologic function. Further well-designed multicenter prospective studies of the TLICS application in the decision making process would improve the evidence of its safety. Special attention to the TLICS application in the treatment of stable burst fractures is necessary.

Study Design Literature review. Objective To discuss the evaluation and management of fixed sagittal plane imbalance. Methods A comprehensive literature review was performed on the preoperative evaluation of patients with sagittal plane malalignment, as well as the surgical strategies to address sagittal plane deformity. Results Sagittal plane imbalance is often caused by de novo scoliosis or iatrogenic flat back deformity. Understanding the etiology and magnitude of sagittal malalignment is crucial in realignment planning. Objective parameters have been developed to guide surgeons in determining how much correction is needed to achieve favorable outcomes. Currently, the goals of surgery are to restore a sagittal vertical axis < 5 cm, pelvic tilt < 20 degrees, and lumbar lordosis equal to pelvic incidence ± 9 degrees. Conclusion Sagittal plane malalignment is an increasingly recognized cause of pain and disability. Treatment of sagittal plane imbalance varies according to the etiology, location, and severity of the deformity. Fixed sagittal malalignment often requires complex reconstructive procedures that include osteotomy correction. Reestablishing harmonious spinopelvic alignment is associated with significant improvement in health-related quality-of-life outcome measures and patient satisfaction.

Study Design Literature review. Objective To discuss the evaluation and management of subaxial cervical spine trauma (C3-7). Methods A literature review of the main imaging modalities, classification systems, and nonsurgical and surgical treatment performed. Results Computed tomography and reconstructions allow for accurate radiologic identification of subaxial cervical spine trauma in most cases. Magnetic resonance imaging can be utilized to evaluate the stabilizing discoligamentous complex, the nerves, and the spinal cord. The Subaxial Injury Classification (SLIC) is a new system that aids in injury classification and helps guide the decision-making process of conservative versus surgical treatment. Though promising, the SLIC system requires further validation. When the decision for surgical treatment is made, early decompression (less than 24 hours) has been associated with better neurologic recovery. Surgical treatment should be individualized based on the injury characteristics and surgeon's preferences. Conclusions The current state of subaxial cervical spine trauma is one of great progress. However, many questions remain unanswered. We need to continue to account for the individual patient, surgeon, and hospital circumstances that effect decision making and care.

We present a literature review of current approaches to craniocervical traumatic injuries. In an attempt to categorize the injuries that involve the upper cervical spine, we divide the injuries into two groups: (1) injuries affecting mainly bone structures and (2) predominantly ligamentous injury. This division is based on the principle that bone injuries have the potential to heal with conservative treatment whereas ligamentous injury would not heal properly, leading to an unstable spine. An accurate diagnosis and treatment are necessary to improve patient's outcome and avoid complications. As a general rule, ligamentous injuries are unstable lesions, requiring surgical treatment. Bony injuries can be conservatively treated, with surgery reserved for more unstable patterns (unstable C1 ring, displaced odontoid or C2 pars fractures).