Search

Expandable vertebral body replacement cages (VBRs) have been widely used for reconstruction of the thoracolumbar spine following corpectomy. However, their use in the cervical spine is less common, and currently, no expandable cages on the market are cleared or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in the cervical spine. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review on the use of expandable cages in the treatment of cervical spine pathology with a focus on fusion rates, deformity correction, complications, and indications. A comprehensive Medline search was performed, and 24 applicable articles were identified and included in this review. The advantages of expandable cages include greater ease of implantation with less risk of damage to the end plate, less intraoperative manipulation of the device, and potentially greater control over lordosis. They may be particularly advantageous in cases with poor bone quality, such as patients with osteoporosis or metastatic tumors that have been radiated. However, there is a potential risk of overdistraction, which is increased in the cervical spine, their minimum height limits their use in cases with collapsed vertebra, and the amount of hardware in the expansion mechanism may limit the surface area available for fusion. The use of expandable VBRs are a valuable tool in the armamentarium for reconstruction of the anterior column of the cervical spine with an acceptable safety profile. Although expandable cervical cages are clearly beneficial in certain clinical situations, widespread use following all corpectomies is not justified due to their significantly greater cost compared to structural bone grafts or non-expandable VBRs, which can be utilized to achieve similar clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aortic injury is a rare, yet underreported and underestimated complication of spine surgery. Anatomical relation between the aorta and the spine changes under physiological (positional) as well as pathological (deformity) conditions, which puts the aorta at risk of injury during spine surgery. Clinical presentation of aortic injury ranges from asymptomatic perforation of the aorta to acute fatal bleeding. Although several diagnostic methods have been reported, CT-angiography remains an important diagnostic study. Several advancements in the open and the endovascular surgical management have been reported to be successfully used in the management of aortic injury following spine surgery. Management approach of malpositioned screws abutting the aorta is still controversial. Anatomical knowledge and understanding of the previously reported mechanisms of aortic injury are important to be integrated in the preoperative planning process. If the complication occurs, time-to- recognition and to-appropriate-management are important factors for predicting mortality. If unrecognized and untreated in the acutely injured patients, mortality can approach 100%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain following spine surgery is often difficult to control and can persist. Reduction of this pain requires a multidisciplinary approach that depends on contributions of both surgeons and anesthesiologists. The spine surgeon's role involves limiting manipulation of structures contributing to pain sensation in the spine, which requires an in-depth understanding of the specific anatomic etiologies of pain originating along the spinal axis. Anesthesiologists, on the other hand, must focus on preemptive, multimodal analgesic treatment regimens. In this review, we first discuss anatomic sources of pain within the spine, before delving into a specific literature-supported pain management protocol intended for use with spinal surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]