Search

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: The aim was to investigate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement by freehand technique and to compare revision surgery rates among three different imaging verification pathways. Summary of Background Data: Studies comparing different imaging modalities in freehand screw placement surgery are limited. Materials and Methods: A single-institution retrospective chart review identified adult patients who underwent freehand pedicle screw placement in the thoracic, lumbar or sacral levels. Patients were stratified into three cohorts based on the intraoperative imaging modality used to assess the accuracy of screw position: intraoperative X-rays (cohort 1); intraoperative O-arm (cohort 2); or intraoperative computed tomography (CT)-scan (cohort 3). Postoperative CT scans were performed on all patients in cohorts 1 and 2. Postoperative CT scan was not required in cohort 3. Screw accuracy was assessed using the Gertzbein-Robbins grading system. Results: A total of 9179 pedicle screws were placed in the thoracic or lumbosacral spine in 1311 patients. 210 (2.3%) screws were identified as Gertzbein-Robbins grades C-E on intraoperative/postoperative CT scan, 137 thoracic screws, and 73 lumbar screws (P <0.001). Four hundred and nine patients underwent placement of 2754 screws followed by intraoperative X-ray (cohort 1); 793 patients underwent placement of 5587 screws followed by intraoperative O-arm (cohort 2); and 109 patients underwent placement of 838 screws followed by intraoperative CT scan (cohort 3). Postoperative CT scans identified 65 (2.4%) and 127 (2.3%) malpositioned screws in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Eleven screws (0.12%) were significantly malpositioned and required a second operation for screw revision. Nine patients (0.69%) required revision operations: eight of these patients were from cohort 1 and one patient was from cohort 2. Conclusion: When compared to intraoperative X-ray, intraoperative O-arm verification decreased the revision surgery rate for malpositioned screws from 0.37% to 0.02%. In addition, our analysis suggests that the use of intraoperative O-arm can obviate the need for postoperative CT scans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective Review.Objective: The aim of this study was to determine medical, radiographic, and surgical risk factors for the development of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion.Summary Of Background Data: ASD is a recognized outcome of spinal fusion that leads to increased costs and debilitating symptoms for patients. However, a comprehensive understanding of risk factors for the development of this surgical outcome does not exist.Methods: The medical records of patients who received their first lumbar fusion for any indication were retrospectively examined for preoperative medical comorbidities and medications, as well as surgical approach and perioperative complications. A blinded reviewer assessed radiographs for each patient to examine sagittal alignment after fusion. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the risk of developing ASD on the basis of one or more predictors.Results: A total of 137 patients fit the inclusion criteria; 9% required a follow-up operation for degeneration at segments adjacent to the fusion. The ASD group had a mean follow-up of 21.1 months prior to revision surgery and an overall follow-up of 41.0 months. The average follow-up in the control group was 14.0 months. Statistically significant independent predictors of developing ASD included antidepressant use [odds ratio (OR) = 5.4], diagnosis of degenerative scoliosis (OR = 34.2), fusion of L4-S1 (OR = 56.5), having no decompressions adjacent to the fusion, and low sacral slope (OR = 0.9). No patient who developed ASD received a decompression adjacent to the fusion such that an OR could not be generated for this independent predictor.Conclusion: This study is the first to use a combination of medical, surgical, and postoperative sagittal balance as risk factors for the development of adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. The awareness of these risk factors may allow for better patient selection and surgical technique to decrease the probability of acquiring this adverse outcome.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Electronic survey.Objective: To identify the surgical treatment patterns for low back pain (LBP), among U.S. spine surgeons. Specifically determine (1) differences in surgical treatment responses based on various demographic variables; (2) probability of disagreement based on surgeon subgroups.Summary Of Background Data: Multiple surgical and nonsurgical treatments exist for LBP. Without strong evidence or clear guidelines for the indications and optimal treatments, there is substantial variability in surgical treatments used.Methods: A total of 445 U.S. spine surgeons completed a survey of clinical and radiographic case scenarios on patients with mechanical LBP, no leg pain, and concordant discograms. Surgical treatment options included no surgery, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws, transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF), etc. Statistical significance was set at 0.01 to account for multiple comparisons.Results: There was substantial clinical equipoise (∼75% disagreement) among surgeons on the approach to treat patients with LBP. Disagreement was highest in the southwest and lowest in the Midwest (82% vs. 69%, respectively); there was significantly lower disagreement among those in academic practices versus those in private/hybrid practices (56% vs.79%, respectively). Those in academic practices had approximately four times greater odds of choosing no surgery as compared to those in hybrid and private practices, who were more likely to choose ALIF or PLIF/TLIF. Those with fellowship training had approximately two times greater odds of selecting no surgery and four times greater odds of selecting ALIF as compared to those without fellowship training who were more likely to select TLIF/PLIF.Conclusion: Significant differences exist among U.S. spine surgeons in the treatment of LBP. These differences stem from geographical location of the practice, specialty, practice type, and fellowship training. Recognizing the substantial variability underlies the importance of additional studies aimed at identifying the proper indications and most cost-effective treatments for LBP.Level Of Evidence: 3. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To evaluate literature comparing fusion rates in anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) with and without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Summary of Background Data. rhBMP-2 is used for the FDA-approved indication of single-level ALIF with LT-Cage and off-label for PLIF/TLIF, and PLF. Due to recent controversies, it is essential to evaluate the literature for its effects on fusion rates to evaluate whether benefits outweigh potential complications. Methods. A Medline search was performed of clinical studies published between May 2000 and May 2012 comparing fusion rates after ALIF, PLIF/TLIF, and PLF surgery with versus without rhBMP-2. Only studies with a control arm were reviewed. Results. 16 studies were reviewed (1794 patients, 995 treated with rhBMP-2 and 799 without). 5 of 5 studies for PLIF/TLIF (including 301 of 301 patients), 1 of 4 for ALIF (including 279 of 589 patients), and 3 of 7 for PLF (including 272 of 904 patients) reported no significant improvement in fusion rates with rhBMP-2 compared with those without rhBMP-2 at longest follow-up investigated. Average fusion rate 24 months after surgery was 97.8% for ALIF (n = 316), 95.7% for PLIF/TLIF (n = 141), and 93.6% for PLF (n = 422) with rhBMP-2 and 88.2% (n =228), 89.5% (n =86), and 83.1% (n =372) without rhBMP-2, for ALIF, PLIF/TLIF, and PLF, respectively. Odds ratio of fusion were calculated as 7.08 (95% CI: 1.54-32.7) in ALIF, 1.98 (95% CI: 0.39-10.1) in PLIF/TLIF, and 3.06 (95% CI: 1.61-5.80) in PLF with rhBMP-2 as compared with without rhBMP-2. Conclusion. Although numerous studies did not show statistically significant improvement in fusion rates with rhBMP-2 use, analysis of combined studies revealed significant improvement in fusion rate with rhBMP-2 in ALIF and PLF patients. Notably, even when pooling data from several studies, rhBMP-2 did not result in statistically significantly improved fusion rates in PLIF/TLIF. However, heterogeneity of rhBMP-2 dosing, surgical techniques, and quality of papers reviewed may limit the validity of conclusions drawn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design. Systematic review. Objective. To summarize and critically review the economic literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness of minimal access surgery (MAS) compared with conventional open procedures for the cervical and lumbar spine. Summary of Background Data. MAS techniques may improve perioperative parameters (length of hospital stay and extent of blood loss) compared with conventional open approaches. However, some have questioned the clinical efficacy of these differences and the associated cost-effectiveness implications. When considering the long-term outcomes, there seem to be no significant differences between MAS and open surgery. Methods. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration database, University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (NHS-EED and HTA), and the Tufts CEA Registry were reviewed to identify full economic studies comparing MAS with open techniques prior to December 24, 2013, based on the key questions established a priori. Only economic studies that evaluated and synthesized the costs and consequences of MAS compared with conventional open procedures (i.e., cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or cost-utility) were considered for inclusion. Full text of the articles meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed by 2 independent investigators to obtain the final collection of included studies. The Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument was scored by 2 independent reviewers to provide an initial basis for critical appraisal of included economic studies. Results. The search strategy yielded 198 potentially relevant citations, and 6 studies met the inclusion criteria, evaluating the costs and consequences of MAS versus conventional open procedures performed for the lumbar spine; no studies for the cervical spine met the inclusion criteria. Studies compared MAS tubular discectomy with conventional microdiscectomy, minimal access transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and multilevel hemilaminectomy via MAS versus open approach. Conclusion. Overall, the included cost-effectiveness studies generally supported no significant differences between open surgery and MAS lumbar approaches. However, these conclusions are preliminary because there was a paucity of high-quality evidence. Much of the evidence lacked details on methodology for modeling, related assumptions, justification of economic model chosen, and sources and types of included costs and consequences. The follow-up periods were highly variable, indirect costs were not frequently analyzed or reported, and many of the studies were conducted by a single group, thereby limiting generalizability. Prospective studies are needed to define differences and optimal treatment algorithms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A consecutive retrospective cohort study from 2008 to 2013 at a single tertiary-care institution was conducted.Objective: The aim of the study was to characterize recovery from pain and neurologic deficit after surgery for vertebral osteomyelitis (VO), and identify incidence of postoperative adverse events.Summary Of Background Data: A minority of patients with VO require surgery. Although prior studies have characterized outcomes after medical management, the morbidity after surgery is poorly defined.Methods: The primary outcome was change from baseline in a Modified McCormick Scale (MMS, 1-5 scale), whereas secondary outcomes included reoperation and change in self-reported pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS, 0-10 scale). MMS and VAS were collected throughout the postoperative course as surrogates for neurologic function and degree of pain. Intraoperative, short-term postoperative (<30 d), and long-term neurologic complications were recorded. New-onset neurologic deficits in the postoperative period were considered neurologic complications.Results: Fifty patients were included; a majority (52%) presented with a neurologic deficit. The median length of follow-up was 18 months. A statistically significant improvement in MMS was observed by 12 months postoperatively, whereas an improvement in VAS was observed by 3 months. The mean improvement in MMS at last follow-up was 0.35, whereas the mean improvement in VAS was 3.40. One quarter of patients required reoperation. At 24 months postoperatively, 10% died, 26% underwent reoperation, 42% experienced a neurologic complication, and 60% experienced at least one of these 3 adverse events.Conclusion: This is the first study to investigate neurologic complications, reoperation, and pain in a longitudinal manner after surgery for VO. We observed statistically significant improvements in MMS and VAS in the postoperative period. Despite these improvements, the 24-month incidence of overall adverse events was 60%. Patients and clinicians should be aware of the clinical improvement but high incidence of adverse events after surgical management of VO.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY DESIGN: Case series. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if the thoracolumbar injury classification and severity score (TLICS) system is effective in evaluating low lumbar injuries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The TLICS classification has been used by spine traumatologists since its introduction in 2006. The classification is predictable and consistent when dealing with thoracolumbar injuries. It is not known if the classification is effective in dealing with low lumbar injuries that tend to behave differently than thoracolumbar injuries. TLICS is yet to be clinically validated. There are no reports of its use for low lumbar injuries alone. METHODS: For this case series, 20 low lumbar injuries were graded using the TLICS system by 15 fellowship-trained orthopedic spine and neurosurgeons. Interobserver reliability was graded using [kappa] values. The reviewers were also asked 4 clinical questions regarding diagnosis and treatment of these injuries. RESULTS: When using the TLICS system for low lumbar injuries, there was 'fair' reliability among the reviewers. Concerning the final TLICS score, there was 28% agreement with a [kappa] of 0.245. Concerning fracture morphology, there was 58% agreement with a [kappa] value of 0.394. When evaluating the posterior ligamentous complex, there was 56% agreement with a [kappa] value of 0.328. The reviewers did agree consistently on determining the patient's neurological status. The data showed 94% agreement with a [kappa] of 0.818. When looking at L3 injuries by themselves, the reliability of TLICS improved significantly. CONCLUSION: The authors think that there are factors involved in treating low lumbar injuries that are not inclusive to the TLICS system. Overall, there was only 'fair' reliability for low lumbar injuries. The maintenance of lordosis and global sagittal alignment is paramount when dealing with low lumbar injuries and not considered in TLICS. L3 injuries tend to behave like thoracolumbar injuries but there is a wide variation in classification between L4-L5 and thoracolumbar injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Morphometric and volumetric analyses and virtual screw placement. Objective: The aim of the study was to (1) define the morphometric and volumetric dimensions of the laminae of C3-C7 and (2) analyze the feasibility of unilateral and bilateral translaminar screw placement at C3-C7. Summary Of Background Data: Previous studies on translaminar screw fixation have primarily focused on upper cervical and thoracic fixation. Most studies have been conducted on the subaxial cervical vertebrae in the pediatric population and a few in the adult population. In this study, we used computed tomographic (CT) scans to calculate the spatial anatomical environment for translaminar screws at C3-C7. We also determined the feasibility of translaminar screw placement at C3-C7 for clinical applicability. Methods: Morphometric and volumetric analyses were performed on CT scans of the C3-C7 laminae in 25 male and 25 female patients. A total of 2000 morphometric and 1000 volumetric measurements were performed. The feasibility analysis was performed using unilateral and bilateral virtual screw placement via BrainLAB software (BrainLAB AG, Heimstetten, Germany) on the same CT scans. Results: Male patients had significantly (P < 0.05) longer translaminar lengths (C5-C7), sagittal-diagonal measurements (C3-C7), and larger volumes (C6-C7) than female patients. Unilaterally, C7 showed 3.5-mm translaminar screw acceptance rates of 100%, C6 showed high acceptance rates (>64%), and C3-C5 showed lower acceptance rates (<52%). C7 accepted bilateral placement at a high rate (96% men, 84% women). C3 and C6 accepted bilateral screws at low placement rates (8%-24%). C4 and C5 never accepted bilateral translaminar screw placement. Conclusion: Subaxial cervical unilateral translaminar screw placement is a potentially safe and effective technique to use in conjunction with preoperative CT scanning for all vertebral levels. The same is true for bilateral placement at C7 but not at C3-C6. A prospective study to evaluate the long-term outcomes of translaminar fixation at all vertebral levels is currently underway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]