Search

Study Design Narrative review.Objectives Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly applied to the domain of spine surgery. We present a review of AI in spine surgery, including its use across all stages of the perioperative process and applications for research. We also provide commentary regarding future ethical considerations of AI use and how it may affect surgeon-industry relations.Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature review of peer-reviewed articles that examined applications of AI during the pre-, intra-, or postoperative spine surgery process. We also discussed the relationship among AI, spine industry partners, and surgeons.Results Preoperatively, AI has been mainly applied to image analysis, patient diagnosis and stratification, decision-making. Intraoperatively, AI has been used to aid image guidance and navigation. Postoperatively, AI has been used for outcomes prediction and analysis. AI can enable curation and analysis of huge datasets that can enhance research efforts. Large amounts of data are being accrued by industry sources for use by their AI platforms, though the inner workings of these datasets or algorithms are not well known.Conclusions AI has found numerous uses in the pre-, intra-, or postoperative spine surgery process, and the applications of AI continue to grow. The clinical applications and benefits of AI will continue to be more fully realized, but so will certain ethical considerations. Making industry-sponsored databases open source, or at least somehow available to the public, will help alleviate potential biases and obscurities between surgeons and industry and will benefit patient care.

Study Design Systematic Review.Objectives To evaluate which cervical deformity correction technique between anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) produces better clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes.Methods We conducted a meta-analysis comparing studies involving ACDF and ACCF. Adult patients with either original or previously treated cervical spine deformities were included. Two independent reviewers categorized extracted data into clinical, radiographic, and operative outcomes, including complications. Clinical assessments included patient-reported outcomes; radiographic evaluations examined C2-C7 Cobb angle, T1 slope, T1-CL, C2-7 SVA, and graft stability. Surgical measures included surgery duration, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications.Results 26 studies (25727 patients) met inclusion criteria and were extracted. Of these, 14 studies (19077 patients) with low risk of bias were included in meta-analysis. ACDF and ACCF similarly improve clinical outcomes in terms of JOA and NDI, but ACDF is significantly better at achieving lower VAS neck scores. ACDF is also more advantageous for improving cervical lordosis and minimizing the incidence of graft complications. While there is no significant difference between approaches for most surgical complications, ACDF is favorable for reducing operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay.Conclusions While both techniques benefit cervical deformity patients, when both techniques are feasible, ACDF may be superior with respect to VAS neck scores, cervical lordosis, graft complications and certain perioperative outcomes. Further studies are recommended to address outcome variability and refine surgical approach selection.