Search

Study Design: This is a cross-sectional survey., Objective: The aim was to assess the reliability of a proposed novel classification system for thoracic disc herniations (TDHs)., Summary of Background Data: TDHs are complex entities varying substantially in many factors, including size, location, and calcification. To date, no comprehensive system exists to categorize these lesions., Methods: Our proposed system classifies 5 types of TDHs using anatomic and clinical characteristics, with subtypes for calcification. Type 0 herniations are small (≤40% of spinal canal) TDHs without significant spinal cord or nerve root effacement; type 1 are small and paracentral; type 2 are small and central; type 3 are giant (>40% of spinal canal) and paracentral; and type 4 are giant and central. Patients with types 1 to 4 TDHs have correlative clinical and radiographic evidence of spinal cord compression. Twenty-one US spine surgeons with substantial TDH experience rated 10 illustrative cases to determine the system's reliability. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were determined using the Fleiss kappa coefficient. Surgeons were also surveyed to obtain consensus on surgical approaches for the various TDH types., Results: High agreement was found for the classification system, with 80% (range 62% to 95%) overall agreement and high interrater and intrarater reliability (kappa 0.604 [moderate to substantial agreement] and kappa 0.630 [substantial agreement], respectively). All surgeons reported nonoperative management of type 0 TDHs. For type 1 TDHs, most respondents (71%) preferred posterior approaches. For type 2 TDHs, responses were roughly equivalent for anterolateral and posterior options. For types 3 and 4 TDHs, most respondents (72% and 68%, respectively) preferred anterolateral approaches., Conclusions: This novel classification system can be used to reliably categorize TDHs, standardize description, and potentially guide the selection of surgical approach. Validation of this system with regard to treatment and clinical outcomes represents a line of future study., Competing Interests: J.S.U. receives consulting fees and royalties from NuVasive, Inc, and is a consultant for Misonix, Inc, and SI-BONE, Inc. J.D.T. receives consulting fees and royalties from NuVasive, Inc. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: A consecutive series of patients who underwent minimally invasive spinal surgery by a single surgeon at a high-volume academic medical center were studied., Objective: The objective of this study was to identify the prevalence, radiographic features, and clinical characteristics of patients who require unplanned secondary decompressive laminectomy or foraminotomy after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF)., Summary of Background Data: LLIF indirectly decompresses the spinal canal, lateral recess, and neural foramen when properly performed. However, indirect decompression relies on endplate integrity, reasonable bone quality, and sufficient contralateral release so that ligament distraction can occur. Some patients have insufficient decompression, resulting in persistent axial low back pain or radiculopathy., Methods: Patients undergoing LLIF for radiculopathy or refractory low back pain were enrolled in a prospective registry. Preoperative and postoperative imaging, clinical presentation, and operative reports were reviewed from this registry., Results: During registry collection, 122 patients were enrolled (220 lumbar levels treated), with nearly even representation between men (64/122, 52.5%) and women (58/122, 47.5%). Overall, right-sided lumbar spinal approaches (74/122, 60.7%) were more common. Ultimately, 4.1% (five of 122) of patients required unplanned direct decompressive laminectomy or foraminotomy because of refractory radiculopathy and persistent radiographic evidence of compression at the index LLIF level. All patients for whom indirect decompression failed were men who underwent stand-alone LLIF and had radiculopathy contralateral to the side of the LLIF approach. Most patients (59.8%, 73/122) had evidence of graft subsidence (grade 0 or 1) or osteoporosis., Conclusion: We report a 4.1% rate of return to the operating room for failed indirect decompression after LLIF for refractory radiculopathy. Graft subsidence and osteoporosis were common in these patients. All five patients who required secondary decompressive laminectomy or foraminotomy underwent stand-alone primary LLIF, and the persistent radiculopathy was consistently contralateral to the initial side of the LLIF approach.Level of Evidence: 4., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Design: Expert opinion-modified Delphi study., Objective: We used a modified Delphi approach to obtain consensus among leading spinal deformity surgeons and their neuroanesthesiology teams regarding optimal practices for obtaining reliable motor evoked potential (MEP) signals., Summary of Background Data: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of transcranial MEPs provides the best method for assessing spinal cord integrity during complex spinal surgeries. MEPs are affected by pharmacological and physiological parameters. It is the responsibility of the spine surgeon and neuroanesthesia team to understand how they can best maintain high-quality MEP signals throughout surgery. Nevertheless, varying approaches to neuroanesthesia are seen in clinical practice., Methods: We identified 19 international expert spinal deformity treatment teams. A modified Delphi process with two rounds of surveying was performed. Greater than 50% agreement on the final statements was considered "agreement"; >75% agreement was considered "consensus.", Results: Anesthesia regimens and protocols were obtained from the expert centers. There was a large amount of variability among centers. Two rounds of consensus surveying were performed, and all centers participated in both rounds of surveying. Consensus was obtained for 12 of 15 statements, and majority agreement was obtained for two of the remaining statements. Total intravenous anesthesia was identified as the preferred method of maintenance, with few centers allowing for low mean alveolar concentration of inhaled anesthetic. Most centers advocated for <150 μg/kg/min of propofol with titration to the lowest dose that maintains appropriate anesthesia depth based on awareness monitoring. Use of adjuvant intravenous anesthetics, including ketamine, low-dose dexmedetomidine, and lidocaine, may help to reduce propofol requirements without negatively effecting MEP signals., Conclusion: Spine surgeons and neuroanesthesia teams should be familiar with methods for optimizing MEPs during deformity and complex spinal cases. Although variability in practices exists, there is consensus among international spinal deformity treatment centers regarding best practices., Level of Evidence: 5.

Study Design: Human cadaveric biomechanical study., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the biomechanics of lumbar motion segments instrumented with the CD HORIZON Spire Z plate system (Spire Z), a posterior supplemental fixation spinous process plate, alone and with additional fixation systems., Summary of Background Data: Plates and pedicle screw/rod and facet screw implants are adjuncts to fusion. The plate limits motion, improving segmental stability and the fusion microenvironment. However, the degree to which the plate contributes to overall stability when used alone or in conjunction with additional instrumentation has not been described., Methods: Standard nondestructive flexibility tests were performed in 7 L2-L5 human cadaveric spines. Spinal stability was determined as mean range of motion (ROM) in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Paired comparisons were made between five conditions: (1) intact/control; (2) Spire Z; (3) Spire Z with unilateral pedicle screw/rod system (Spire Z+UPS); (4) Spire Z with unilateral facet screw system (Spire Z+UFS); and (5) Spire Z with bilateral facet screw system (Spire Z+BFS). Stiffness and ROM data were compared using one-way analysis of variance, followed by repeated-measures Holm-Šidák tests., Results: Spire Z was most effective in limiting flexion (20% of normal) and extension (24% of normal), but less effective in reducing lateral bending and axial rotation. In lateral bending, Spire Z+BFS and Spire Z+UPS constructs were not significantly different and demonstrated greater ROM reduction compared with Spire Z+UFS and Spire Z (P < 0.001). Spire Z+BFS demonstrated greatest stiffness in axial rotation compared with Spire Z+UPS (P = 0.025), Spire Z+UFS (P = 0.001), and Spire Z (P < 0.001). Spire Z+UPS was not significantly different from Spire Z+UFS (P = 0.21), and superior to Spire Z (P = 0.013)., Conclusion: The Spire Z spinous process plate provides excellent immediate fixation, particularly for flexion and extension. While the hybrid Spire Z+BFS screw construct afforded the greatest stability, Spire Z+UPS demonstrated considerable promise., Level of Evidence: N/A.