Search

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Author JJJ is an editorial board member for Children. Editor in Chief, Acra SA. Author CAM reports being a consultant for Stryker, Augmedics, DePuy Synthes, and Kuros Biosciences. Author BP consults for Pacira Biosciences and is an external advisor for McKinsey & Company. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interests or disclosures. All authors declare that this report was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare the likelihood of missing a scheduled telemedicine and in-person appointments for spine patients. The secondary objective is to assess the impact of socioeconomic status on missed telemedicine and in-person appointments., Methods: Patients with scheduled outpatient appointments with orthopedic spine faculty between 2019 and 2021 were divided by appointment type: telemedicine (N = 4,387) and in-person (N = 3810). Socioeconomic status was assessed using Area Deprivation Index (ADI) stratified based on percentile: low (<25), medium (25-75), and high (>75) levels of socioeconomic disadvantage. The primary outcome measure was missed clinic appointments, which was defined as having at least one appointment that was cancelled or labeled "no show.", Results: Patients with in-person appointments missed appointments more often than patients with telemedicine visits (51.3% vs 24.7%, P < .001). Patients with high ADI missed their in-person appointments more often than patients with medium and low ADI (59.5% vs 52.2% and 47.5%, P < .001). There was no difference in missed telemedicine visits between patients with high, medium, and low ADI (27.6% vs 24.8% vs 23.8%, P = .294). Patients that missed an appointment were 41.9% more likely to be high ADI (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.20-1.68, P < .001) and 13.4% more likely to be medium ADI (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.26, P = .015) compared with low ADI patients., Conclusions: Telemedicine may serve a role in reducing disparity in appointment attendance. While further studies are needed to validate these findings, spine surgeons should consider offering telemedicine as an option to patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objectives: This study aims to analyze outcomes and complications of patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures in the setting of ankylosing spinal disorders (ASD) treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS)., Methods: The operative logs from 2012 to 2019 from one academic, Level I trauma center were reviewed for cases of thoracic and lumbar spinal fractures in patients with ASD treated with a MIS approach. Variables were compared between patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH), and advanced spondylosis., Results: A total of 48 patients with ASD and concomitant thoracic or lumbar spinal fracture managed with an MIS approach were identified. A total of 11 patients were identified with AS, 21 with DISH, and 16 with advanced spondylosis. A total of 27 (56.3%) patients experienced complications. Complications differed between groups; DISH patients experienced a greater number of post-operative complications compared to AS and advanced spondylosis patients ( P = .009). There was no significant difference in length of surgery, estimated blood loss, length of stay, readmission, and reoperation rates between AS and DISH patients. There were 3 mortalities unrelated to the surgery., Conclusion: Percutaneous stabilization of patients with ankylosing spinal disorder fractures remains a viable management method. Operative characteristics were similar between AS, DISH, and advanced spondylosis patients; however, DISH patients experienced a greater number of post-operative complications.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: As hospital compensation becomes increasingly dependent on pay-for-performance and bundled payment compensation models, hospitals seek to reduce costs and increase quality. To our knowledge, no reported data compare these measures between hospital settings for elective lumbar procedures. The study compares hospital-reported outcomes and costs for elective lumbar procedures performed at a tertiary hospital (TH) versus community hospitals (CH) within a single health care system., Methods: Retrospective review of a physician-maintained, prospectively collected database consisting of 1 TH and 4 CH for 3 common lumbar surgeries from 2015 to 2016. Patients undergoing primary elective microdiscectomy for disc herniation, laminectomy for spinal stenosis, and laminectomy with fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Patients were excluded for traumatic, infectious, or malignant pathology. Comparing hospital settings, outcomes included length of stay (LOS), rates of 30-day readmissions, potentially preventable complications (PPC), and discharge to rehabilitation facility, and hospital costs., Results: A total of 892 patients (n = 217 microdiscectomies, n = 302 laminectomies, and n = 373 laminectomy fusions) were included. The TH served a younger patient population with fewer comorbid conditions and a higher proportion of African Americans. The TH performed more decompressions ( P < .001) per level fused; the CH performed more interbody fusions ( P = .007). Cost of performing microdiscectomy ( P < .001) and laminectomy ( P = .014) was significantly higher at the TH, but there was no significant difference for laminectomy with fusion. In a multivariable stepwise linear regression analysis, the TH was significantly more expensive for single-level microdiscectomy ( P < .001) and laminectomy with single-level fusion ( P < .001), but trended toward significance for laminectomy without fusion ( P = .052). No difference existed for PPC or readmissions rate. Patients undergoing laminectomy without fusion were discharged to a facility more often at the TH ( P = .019)., Conclusions: We provide hospital-reported outcomes between a TH and CH. Significant differences in patient characteristics and surgical practices exist between surgical settings. Despite minimal differences in hospital-reported outcomes, the TH was significantly more expensive., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr Gelb is a board member and fellowship committee chair for AOSpine NA. He receives payment for lectures and for development of educational presentations from AOSpine NA. He receives royalties from DePuy Synthes Spine and Globus Medical. He has stock in the American Society for Investigative Pathology. Dr Koh receives payment for consultancy from Biomet. His institution receives RO1 grant money from the National Institutes of Health. Dr Ludwig is a board member for Globus Medical, the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, the American Orthopaedic Association, the Cervical Spine Research Society, and the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. He is a paid consultant for DePuy Synthes, K2M, and Globus Medical. He receives payment for lectures and travel accommodations from DePuy Synthes and K2M. He receives payment for patents and royalties from DePuy Synthes and Globus Medical. He has stock in Innovative Surgical Designs and the American Society for Investigative Pathology. He receives research support from AO Spine North America Spine Fellowship support, Pacira Pharmaceutical, and AOA Omega Grant. He is a board member of Maryland Development Corporation. He receives royalties from Thieme, Quality Medical Publishers. He is on the governing board of Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, The Spine Journal, and Contemporary Spine Surgery. The authors have no further potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Study Design: Meta-analysis of evidence level I to IV studies., Objective: To compare decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion in the treatment of grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS)., Methods: Following established guidelines, we systematically reviewed 3 electronic databases to assess studies evaluating patients with grade I DS. We stratified all patients into 2 cohorts; the first cohort underwent a decompression-type surgery, and the second cohort underwent decompression plus fusion. We noted clinical outcomes, complications, reoperations, and surgical details such as blood loss. Descriptive statistics and random-effects models were used to determine the specified outcome metrics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: In both cohorts, the pain (legs and lower back) significantly decreased and the physical component of the Short Form 36 showed better patient clinical outcomes. The decompression cohort had a 5.8% complication rate (95% CI = 1.7-2.1), and the decompression plus fusion cohort had an 8.3% complication rate (95% CI = 5.5-11.6). The reoperation rate was higher in the decompression-only cohort (8.5%; 95% CI = 2.9-17.0) compared with the decompression plus fusion cohort (4.9%; 95% CI = 2.5-7.9)., Conclusions: There does not appear to be any advantage of one procedure over the other. Patients undergoing decompression alone tended to be older with a higher percentage of leg pain, whereas patients additionally undergoing fusion tended to be younger with more lower back pain. The decompression-only cohort had fewer complications but a higher revision rate., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Steven Ludwig: American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inc, Board member; American Orthopaedic Association, Board member; AO Spine North America, Spine Fellowship Support, research support; ASIP, ISD, stock; Cervical Spine Research Society, Board member; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company, IP royalties, paid consultant, paid speaker; Globus Medical, paid consultant, research support; Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques, Editorial Board; K2M Spine, research support; K2Medical, paid consultant; OMEGA, research support; Pacira, research support; SMISS, Board member; Synthes, paid consultant, paid speaker; Thieme, QMP, publishing royalties, financial or material support. Daniel Gelb: Advanced Spinal Intellectual Property, stock; DePuy-Synthes Spine, IP royalties, paid speaker; Globus Medical, IP royalties. Eugene Koh: Biomet, paid consultant; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company, paid speaker. Kelley Banagan: Johnson & Johnson, employee; Orthofix, Inc, material support. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Meniscal allograft transplant (MAT) is a salvage procedure for young patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency. Although many studies report good outcomes, MAT remains controversial, and an optimal fixation technique for the meniscus roots is debated., Purpose: To assess the overall outcome of MAT and compare the results of different meniscal root fixation techniques., Study Design: Meta-analysis., Methods: Following specific guidelines, we systematically evaluated all current literature for studies reporting on the outcomes of patients who underwent MAT. Using random effect models of proportions, we determined the tear and failure rates. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated to determine the improvement in clinical outcomes and pain level. Data were then stratified by root fixation method into 2 groups: fixation that preserved the graft's root insertions on the allograft bone (bone fixation group) and suture fixation of the root soft tissue without the allograft bone (soft tissue suture group)., Results: A total of 38 studies (1637 MATs, 81% men) involving subjects with a mean age of 34 years (range, 20-48 years) and a mean follow-up of 60 months (range, 25-168 months) met inclusion criteria. This overall cohort had significant improvements in Lysholm scores (from 57.8 to 81.4 points; SMD 1.5, P < .001) and pain level (visual analog scale [VAS], from 56 to 21 points; SMD 1.8, P < .001). The cohort had a tear rate of 9% and a failure rate of 12.6%. No significant differences were found between the soft tissue suture (485 MATs) and bone fixation (489 MATs) groups in terms of meniscal allograft tear rates (13.4% vs 14.9%), failure rates (17.6% vs 18.8%), Lysholm scores (from 52.3 to 82.4, SMD 2.0, and from 60.7 to 82.9, SMD 1.7; respectively), and VAS scores (from 65 points to 18 points, SMD 2.6, and from 63 points to 13 points, SMD 3.1; both P < .001). Meniscal extrusion was similar, with a weighted mean percentage of extrusion of 40.2% in the soft tissue suture group and 43.1% in the bone fixation group., Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated significant improvements in clinical outcomes for MAT patients with low tear and failure rates. The data do not demonstrate a difference between soft tissue suture and bone fixation for MAT root fixation. This suggests that the technique of root fixation may not have an appreciable influence on clinical outcome, pain reduction, extrusion, or MAT longevity. Further prospective trials are needed.

Background: Scaphoid fractures progress to nonunion rates of up to 15% when non-displaced, and are even more frequent when the fracture is displaced. Standard treatment in these cases is surgery; however, individuals unable to undergo this operation, or for those who wish to try more conservative measures, there may be benefit from nonoperative options. Of these, low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) has been shown to improve fracture nonunion healing. The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of relevant literature to determine success of the use of LIPUS for treatment of scaphoid nonunion. Methods: Utilizing PubMed, Embase, and Ovid databases, we performed a literature search using key terms for scaphoid nonunions. A total of 686 studies met initial search criteria. Studies reporting fewer than 5 cases, those not published in English, those not related to LIPUS nonoperative scaphoid nonunion treatment, and those without sufficient data were excluded. Five studies met these criteria, and statistical analysis was performed to determine overall union rates. Results: The use of LIPUS on 166 nonunions reported a mean healing index of 78.6%. The average time to union following LIPUS treatment was 4.2 months. Conclusions: While surgical intervention is still the standard, our results show that LIPUS may serve as a nonoperative alternative to scaphoid nonunion in certain cases. The results are encouraging in which these challenging fracture a nonunions can heal without further surgical intervention in the majority of patients.