Search

3D-printing technology has revolutionized spinal implant manufacturing, particularly in developing personalized and custom-fit titanium interbody fusion cages. These cages are pivotal in supporting inter-vertebral stability, promoting bone growth, and restoring spinal alignment. This article reviews the latest advancements in 3D-printed titanium interbody fusion cages, emphasizing their relevance in modern personalized surgical spine care protocols applied to common clinical scenarios. Furthermore, the authors review the various printing and post-printing processing technologies and discuss how engineering and design are deployed to tailor each type of implant to its patient-specific clinical application, highlighting how anatomical and biomechanical considerations impact their development and manufacturing processes to achieve optimum osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties. The article further examines the benefits of 3D printing, such as customizable geometry and porosity, that enhance osteointegration and mechanical compatibility, offering a leap forward in patient-specific solutions. The comparative analysis provided by the authors underscores the unique challenges and solutions in designing cervical, and lumbar spine implants, including load-bearing requirements and bioactivity with surrounding bony tissue to promote cell attachment. Additionally, the authors discuss the clinical outcomes associated with these implants, including the implications of improvements in surgical precision on patient outcomes. Lastly, they address strategies to overcome implementation challenges in healthcare facilities, which often resist new technology acquisitions due to perceived cost overruns and preconceived notions that hinder potential savings by providing customized surgical implants with the potential for lower complication and revision rates. This comprehensive review aims to provide insights into how modern 3D-printed titanium interbody fusion cages are made, explain quality standards, and how they may impact personalized surgical spine care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (RVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. An international team of endoscopic spine surgeons conducted a study, endorsed by several spine societies, analyzing the learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and estimated work RVUs of endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression compared with other common lumbar spine surgeries. Methods: A survey comparing CPT 62380 to 10 other comparator CPT codes reflective of common spine surgeries was developed to assess the work RVUs in terms of learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and work effort using a paired Rasch method. Results: The survey was sent to 542 spine specialists. Of 322 respondents, 150 completed the survey for a 43.1% completion rate. Rasch analysis of the submitted responses statistically corroborated common knowledge that the learning curve with lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery is steeper and more complex than with traditional translaminar lumbar decompression surgeries. It also showed that the psychological stress and mental and work effort with the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery were perceived to be higher by responding spine surgeons compared with posterior comparator decompression and fusion surgeries and even posterior interbody and posterolateral fusion surgeries. The regression analysis of work effort vs procedural difficulty showed the real-world evaluation of the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery described in CPT code 62380 with a calculated work RVU of 18.2464. Conclusion: The Rasch analysis suggested the valuation for the endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery should be higher than for standard lumbar surgeries: 111.1% of the laminectomy with exploration and/or decompression of spinal cord and/or cauda equina (CPT 63005), 118.71% of the laminectomy code (CPT 63047), which includes foraminotomy and facetectomy, 152.1% of the hemilaminectomy code (CPT 63030), and 259.55% of the interlaminar or interspinous process stabilization/distraction without decompression code (CPT 22869). This research methodology was endorsed by the Interamerican Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SICCMI), the Mexican Society of Spinal Surgeons (AMCICO), the International Society For Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (ISMISS), the Brazilian Spine Society (SBC), the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), the Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (KOMISS), and the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS). Clinical Relevance: This study provides an updated reimbursement recommendation for endoscopic spine surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the growing prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis, endoscopic surgery, which incorporates techniques such as transforaminal, interlaminar, and unilateral biportal (UBE) endoscopy, is increasingly considered. However, the patient selection criteria are debated among spine surgeons. Objective: This study used a polytomous Rasch analysis to evaluate the factors influencing surgeon decision-making in selecting patients for endoscopic surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Methods: A comprehensive survey was distributed to a representative sample of 296 spine surgeons. Questions encompassed various patient-related and clinical factors, and responses were captured on a logit scale graphically displaying person-item maps and category probability curves for each test item. Using a Rasch analysis, the data were subsequently analyzed to determine the latent traits influencing decision-making. Results: The Rasch analysis revealed that surgeons' preferences for transforaminal, interlaminar, and UBE techniques were easily influenced by comfort level and experience with the endoscopic procedure and patient-related factors. Harder-to-agree items included technological aspects, favorable clinical outcomes, and postoperative functional recovery and rehabilitation. Descriptive statistics suggested interlaminar as the best endoscopic spinal stenosis decompression technique. However, logit person-item analysis integral to the Rasch methodology showed highest intensity for transforaminal followed by interlaminar endoscopic lumbar stenosis decompression. The UBE technique was the hardest to agree on with a disordered person-item analysis and thresholds in category probability curve plots. Conclusion: Surgeon decision-making in selecting patients for endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis is multifaceted. While the framework of clinical guidelines remains paramount, on-the-ground experience-based factors significantly influence surgeons' selection of patients for endoscopic lumbar spinal stenosis surgeries. The Rasch methodology allows for a more granular psychometric evaluation of surgeon decision-making and accounts better for years-long experience that may be lost in standardized clinical guideline development. This new approach to assessing spine surgeons' thought processes may improve the implementation of evidence-based protocol change dictated by technological advances was endorsed by the Interamerican Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SICCMI), the International Society for Minimal Intervention in Spinal Surgery (ISMISS), the Mexican Spine Society (AMCICO), the Brazilian Spine Society (SBC), the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), the Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Society (KOMISS), and the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proving clinical superiority of personalized care models in interventional and surgical pain management is challenging. The apparent difficulties may arise from the inability to standardize complex surgical procedures that often involve multiple steps. Ensuring the surgery is performed the same way every time is nearly impossible. Confounding factors, such as the variability of the patient population and selection bias regarding comorbidities and anatomical variations are also difficult to control for. Small sample sizes in study groups comparing iterations of a surgical protocol may amplify bias. It is essentially impossible to conceal the surgical treatment from the surgeon and the operating team. Restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria may distort the study population to no longer reflect patients seen in daily practice. Hindsight bias is introduced by the inability to effectively blind patient group allocation, which affects clinical result interpretation, particularly if the outcome is already known to the investigators when the outcome analysis is performed (often a long time after the intervention). Randomization is equally problematic, as many patients want to avoid being randomly assigned to a study group, particularly if they perceive their surgeon to be unsure of which treatment will likely render the best clinical outcome for them. Ethical concerns may also exist if the study involves additional and unnecessary risks. Lastly, surgical trials are costly, especially if the tested interventions are complex and require long-term follow-up to assess their benefit. Traditional clinical testing of personalized surgical pain management treatments may be more challenging because individualized solutions tailored to each patient's pain generator can vary extensively. However, high-grade evidence is needed to prompt a protocol change and break with traditional image-based criteria for treatment. In this article, the authors review issues in surgical trials and offer practical solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]