Search

Study Design: Survey Objective: In March of 2020, an original study by Louie et al investigated the impact of COVID-19 on 902 spine surgeons internationally. Since then, due to varying government responses and public health initiatives to the pandemic, individual countries and regions of the world have been affected differently. Therefore, this follow-up study aimed to assess how the COVID-19 impact on spine surgeons has changed 1 year later. Methods: A repeat, multi-dimensional, 90-item survey written in English was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide via email to the AO Spine membership who agreed to receive surveys. Questions were categorized into the following domains: demographics, COVID-19 observations, preparedness, personal impact, patient care, and future perceptions. Results: Basic respondent demographics, such as gender, age, home demographics, medical comorbidities, practice type, and years since training completion, were similar to those of the original 2020 survey. Significant differences between groups included reasons for COVID testing, opinions of media coverage, hospital unemployment, likelihood to be performing elective surgery, percentage of cases cancelled, percentage of personal income, sick leave, personal time allocation, stress coping mechanisms, and the belief that future guidelines were needed (P<.05). Conclusion: Compared to baseline results collected at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, significant differences in various domains related to COVID-19 perceptions, hospital preparedness, practice impact, personal impact, and future perceptions have developed. Follow-up assessment of spine surgeons has further indicated that telemedicine and virtual education are mainstays. Such findings may help to inform and manage expectations and responses to any future outbreaks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New innovations within spine surgery continue to propel the field forward. These technologies improve surgeons' understanding of their patients and allow them to optimize treatment planning both in the operating room and clinic. Additionally, changes in the implants and surgeon practice habits continue to evolve secondary to emerging biomaterials and device design. With ongoing advancements, patients can expect enhanced preoperative decision-making, improved patient outcomes, and better intraoperative execution. Additionally, these changes may decrease many of the most common complications following spine surgery in order to reduce morbidity, mortality, and the need for reoperation. This article reviews some of these technological advancements and how they are projected to impact the field. As the field continues to advance, it is vital that practitioners remain knowledgeable of these changes in order to provide the most effective treatment possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Cross-sectional, anonymous, international survey. Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine in spine surgery. This study sought to determine the extent of adoption and global perspectives on telemedicine in spine surgery. Methods: All members of AO Spine International were emailed an anonymous survey covering the participant's experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses. Responses were compared among regions. Results: 485 spine surgeons participated in the survey. Telemedicine usage rose from <10.0% to >39.0% of all visits. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least one telemedicine visit. The format of "telemedicine" varied widely by region: European (50.0%) and African (45.2%) surgeons were more likely to use phone calls, whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used video (P < 0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). 81.9% of all providers "agreed/strongly agreed" telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to "agree" that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. Conclusion: Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine adoption and the platform of telemedicine utilized. The results suggest a significant increase in telemedicine utilization, particularly in North America. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Emerging Technologies within Spine Surgery" published in the journal Life. The correction addresses a mistake in Figure 1 of the original publication, where the plumb line for calculating the cervical sagittal vertical axis was incorrectly drawn. The corrected figure shows the correct placement of the line. The authors assure that this correction does not affect the scientific conclusions of the article. The original publication has been updated to reflect this correction. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many surgeons to adopt "virtual medicine" practices, defined as telehealth services for patient care and online platforms for continuing medical education. The purpose of this study was to assess spine surgeon reliance on virtual medicine during the pandemic and to discuss the future of virtual medicine in spine surgery.Methods: A comprehensive survey addressing demographic data and virtual medicine practices was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide between March 27, 2020, and April 4, 2020.Results: 902 spine surgeons representing seven global regions responded. 35.6% of surgeons were identified as "high telehealth users," conducting more than half of clinic visits virtually. Predictors of high telehealth utilization included working in an academic practice (OR = 1.68, p = 0.0015) and practicing in Europe/North America (OR 3.42, p < 0.0001). 80.1% of all surgeons were interested in online education. Dedicating more than 25% of one's practice to teaching (OR = 1.89, p = 0.037) predicted increased interest in online education. 26.2% of respondents were identified as "virtual medicine surgeons," defined as surgeons with both high telehealth usage and increased interest in online education. Living in Europe/North America and practicing in an academic practice increased odds of being a virtual medicine surgeon by 2.28 (p = 0.002) and 1.15 (p = 0.0082), respectively. 93.8% of surgeons reported interest in a centralized platform facilitating surgeon-to-surgeon communication.Conclusion: COVID-19 has changed spine surgery by triggering rapid adoption of virtual medicine practices. The demonstrated global interest in virtual medicine suggests that it may become part of the "new normal" for surgeons in the post-pandemic era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bone density in the lumbar spine is variable by level and can impact surgical strategy. In the cervical spine, low Hounsfield units (HU) have been associated with cage subsidence. The distribution of HU in the cervical spine has not been established. To define level-specific cervical HU reference values and the relationship between cervical bone density, age, BMI, comorbidities and alignment. Retrospective review at a single center from May 2015 to December 2019. A total of 224 patients, 18 excluded for previous hardware and 5 for known osteoporosis. Hounsfield units. Patients who presented with neck symptoms and had a cervical spine CT for evaluation of pathology or surgical planning were included. Exclusions were hardware on CT, osteoporosis, or cervical deformity. Measurements were performed in 5 regions of each vertebral body (VB) (C2-T1; mid-axial, anterior-axial, posterior-axial, mid-coronal, and mid-sagittal) and 2 regions of the lateral masses (LMs) (C3-C6; mid-cor, mid-sag). The VB measurements were averaged at each level to obtain a composite value of each vertebral body (TotalVB), similarly the mid-cor and mid-sag values were averaged at each LM (TotalLatM). Outliers were excluded pairwise. To evaluate reliability, 6 observers each measured 355 HU values (71 over 5 patients), inter-relater reliability assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Correlations of composite HU with age, BMI, Charlston Comorbidity Index (CCI) and cervical alignment were evaluated. Average age 57±12 years, mean BMI 28±6 kg/m2, 63.5% male, 90.1% white. Diagnoses included radiculopathy (45.8%), myelopathy (37.9%) and facet arthropathy (46.3%). ICC for HU measurements were as follows: VB, 0.82 mid-axial, 0.59 ant-axial, 0.77 post-axial, 0.88 mid-cor, 0.88 mid-sag; LM, 0.46 mid-sag, 0.61 mid-cor. C4 VB and C4 LM had the highest HU (383.6±71.9 and 480.0±103, respectively) while T1 VB and C6 LM had the lowest (232.3±46.5 and 398.3±98.2, respectively). No significant correlations were found between LM HU and age, BMI, CCI, or alignment. Increased kyphosis was weakly correlated with VB HU at all levels (except C2) strongest correlations at C7 (0.25) and weakest correlation at C3 (0.16). Age and CCI showed weak-moderate correlations with VB HU at all levels (age, r= -0.20 to -0.35; CCI r= -0.28 [C2, C7, T1] to -0.17 [C4]). Our level-specific cervical HU values may be referenced when evaluating cervical BMD. The most reliable measurement technique is on the mid-sag or mid-cor VB, measurement of LMs is less reliable. Bone is least dense in the lower cervical spine, which may influence instrumentation strategies. This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Telehealth use in spine surgery has become widespread due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The degree of global adoption remains unknown. To our knowledge, this is the first global survey to directly evaluate provider perspectives surrounding telemedicine use-cases. To elicit the extent of adoption of international spine telehealth. We aimed to explore telemedicine platform used, ease of use, and acceptable use-cases. Cross-sectional email survey, international. Spine Surgeons. Perspectives and practices of spine telemedicine. An anonymous, cross-sectional email survey was sent to the members of AO Spine. Survey questions covered provider experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses and responses were compared amongst regions. A total of 485 spine providers responded to the survey. As of May 2020, telemedicine usage comprised >39.0% of all visits — up from <10.0% of visits pre-pandemic. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least 1 telemedicine visit. The format of "telemedicine" varied widely by region: African (45.2%) and European (50.0%) providers were more likely to use phone calls (no video), whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used audio-visual telemedicine (p<0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). There were 81.9% of all providers who "agreed/strongly agreed" telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to "agree" that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine usage and the platform of telemedicine utilized. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit. This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hounsfield units (HU), typically measured at L1-L2, have been identified as a surrogate marker for lumbar Bone Mineral Density (BMD). However, concern remains that L1-L2 BMD may not fully capture BMD differences throughout the lumbosacral spine and inadvertently provide inaccurate assessment. To evaluate the impact of age, gender and BMI on lumbar HU, compare the conventional L1-L2 HU measurements with the common levels of degenerative pathology, compare HU measurements among different vertebral levels and evaluate the distribution of HU within the individual vertebral bodies. Cross sectional study. Consecutive patients presenting to a spine clinic between April2017 and January 2019 who underwent lumbar CT were selected. Previous lumbar surgery, tumor, fracture or infection were excluded. HU measurements performed in 7 regions of each vertebral body: Mid-sagittal; Axial–Superior, Waist, Inferior; Axial at the waist–Anterior, Middle, Posterior. Association with age and BMI was evaluated using Pearson product-moment correlation. The difference between L1-L2 and L4 and L5 HU was assessed. Comparison of HU amongst levels and within each level was performed using ANOVA and paired t-tests. A total of 100 patients (mean age=56years, BMI=26.4 kg/m2, 48% males) were included. Age showed a negative correlation with HU in all regions at all levels (p<0.0001). BMI and gender did not show an association with HU. Conventional L1-L2 HU overestimated L4 and L5 HU by at least 10 units in 32–67% of patients, depending on the region. S1 demonstrated higher HU than L3 (p=0.025) and L4 (p=0.029) in the mid-sagittal plane, and higher HU than all other levels in the Superior (p<0.0001) and Waist [overall (p<0.0001), and anterior (p<0.0001), middle (p<0.0001) and posterior (p<0.0001 to p=0.016)] regions in the axial plane, with no other between-level differences. From L1 to L4, HU in the Superior region was significantly lower than that in the Inferior region (p<0.0001 to p=0.003). The opposite was seen at S1, with a decrease in HU from Superior to Waist to Inferior (p<0.0001). At all levels, HU was lower in the Posterior region compared to the Anterior and Middle (p<0.001), with no difference between Anterior and Middle (p>0.05). Although BMD at L1-L2 is often used as a marker of lumbosacral BMD, it may overestimate BMD of other levels. Furthermore, all levels demonstrated differences among various regions. These findings suggest the need for more detailed BMD estimation, especially in patients undergoing spinal instrumentation in whom variations in local BMD can be used to guide surgical planning and could potentially impact clinical outcomes. This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]