Search

BACKGROUND A high degree of vigilance is warranted for a spinal infection, particularly in a patient who has undergone an invasive procedure such as a spinal injection. The average delay in diagnosing a spinal infection is 2-4 mo. In our patient, the diagnosis of a spinal infection was delayed by 1.5 mo. CASE SUMMARY A 60-year-old male patient with a 1-year history of right-sided lumbar radicular pain failed conservative treatment. Six weeks to prior to surgery he received a spinal injection, which was followed by increasing lumbar radicular pain, weight loss and chills. This went unnoticed and surgery took place with right-sided L4-L5 combined microdiscectomy and foraminotomy via a posterior approach. The day after surgery, the patient developed left-sided lumbar radicular pain. Blood cultures grew Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus). Magnetic resonance imaging showed inflammatory aberrations, revealing septic arthritis of the left-sided L4/L5 facet joint as the probable cause. Revision surgery took place and S. aureus was isolated from bacteriological samples. The patient received postoperative antibiotic treatment, which completely eradicated the infection. CONCLUSION The development of postoperative lower back pain and/or lumbar radicular pain can be a sign of a spinal infection. A thorough clinical and laboratory work-up is essential in the preoperative evaluation of patients with spinal pain.

Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols aim to reduce the physiological stress induced by surgery. These protocols are persistently associated with improved outcomes and reduced costs in several orthopaedic subspecialties. Recently, spine surgery has been explored in the literature as a potential and beneficial domain for ERAS protocols. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term postoperative spine surgery follow-up between patients who underwent the ERAS protocol and those who recovered conventionally. Hypothesis The ERAS protocol developed in our department since 2016 is beneficial to patients undergoing spinal surgery. Patients and methods A retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively was performed to include all patients who underwent spinal surgery and went through the ERAS protocol in our clinic between January 2017 and January 2018. A control group was paired using a propensity score. Length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, rate of readmissions, postoperative pain, function and satisfaction were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 193 patients received the ERAS protocol during the study period. After pairing, 193 couples were selected resulting in a final database of 386 patients for the analysis. There was a significant difference in mean LOS, defined as the average number of days spent in hospital, between the two groups (ERAS group, mean LOS = 2.6 days [median 2 days, range 1–7], control group mean LOS = 4.4 days [median 4 days, range 2–14]; p Discussion The ERAS protocol decreased hospital LOS, without resulting in additional adverse events after spinal surgery. These findings support the application of our ERAS protocol after spinal surgery. Level of evidence III, retrospective analysis.

Low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (ISPL) is generally treated by circumferential fusion with interbody graft, although there is no consensus on technique.The various interbody fusion strategies provide satisfactory fusion rates and clinical results.A multicenter retrospective study analyzed lumbar interbody fusion for low-grade ISPL performed between March 2016 and March 2019. Techniques comprised: circumferential fusion on a posterior or a transforaminal approach (PLIF, TLIF: n=57), combined anterior (ALIF) + posterolateral fusion (ALIF+PLF: n=60), and ALIF + percutaneous posterior fixation (ALIF+PPF: n=55). Function was assessed on a lumbar and a radicular visual analog scale (AVS-L, VAS-R, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Short Form 12 (SF12).85.3% of the 129 patients showed fusion (Lenke 1 or 2), with no significant differences between the ALIF-PLF or ALIF-PPF groups and the PLIF or TLIF groups (p=0.3). Likewise, there was no difference in fusion rates between the ALIF-PPF and ALIF-PLF subgroups (p=0.28). VAS-L (p0.001) and VAS-R (p0.0001), ODI (p0.001) and SF12 physical (PCS) (p0.01) and mental component sores (MCS) (p0.001) all showed significant improvement at 12 months. Combined approaches provided greater clinical efficacy than TLIF or PLIF for lumbar (p0.0001) and radicular pain (p0.05), ODI (p0.0001) and SF12 PCS (p0.01). At 12 months, there was no clinical difference between the ALIF-PPF and ALIF-PLF subgroups. However, patents with interbody non-union (Lenke 3 or 4) had lower SF12 PCS scores (p0.004) and VAS-L ratings (p0.001) than Lenke 1-2 patients.Low-grade ISPL treated by circumferential arthrodesis and interbody graft showed 85.3% consolidation at 2 years, with equivalent outcomes between anterior and posterior techniques. Successful fusion was associated with better clinical results.IV.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing one-level oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with posterolateral fusion (PLF) with pedicle screws for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Patients who underwent combined OLIF and PLF between March 2013 and December 2019 were considered for study eligibility. Patients were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) (physical PCS, mental MCS), self-evaluation of pain with a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and walking distance. Compensation and sagittal balance were assessed using the Gille classification by full spine stereoradiography (EOS Imaging, Paris, France). Mechanical complications were also collected. Results: A total of 131 patients were included (mean (SD) age: 64.2 ± 10.4 years), and 127 patients were evaluated after a mean follow-up of 22 ± 12.3 months. The mean ODI at the last follow-up was 13.8 ± 12.9% (gain of 32.3 ± 15.5%; p 40 mm) had a significant improvement in SVA of 19.8 ± 32 mm (p = 0.025). Sagittal imbalance (Gille type 3) was not associated with a change in postoperative functional score (p = 0.52). Conclusions: OLIF improved functional scores at 1 year, with excellent outcomes in 80% of our patients with a low morbidity. Sagittal imbalance did not adversely affect the clinical outcomes. Level of evidence: 4 (cohort study).

Cage impactions (CI) of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) appear to be a frequent mechanical complication with a potential functional impact.To determine the rate of CI occurrence, their risk factors and clinical implications in the case of combined single-level arthrodesis.A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. All our patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis initially underwent OLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation (PSF). Intraoperative control with an image intensifier and a standard radiograph in the immediate postoperative period made it possible to assess the occurrence of CI, depending on the position of the implant. Secondary subsidence was sought on the standing radiological examination using EOS biplanar radiography during follow-up. The pelvic parameters were analyzed, as well as the occurrence of bone fusion. The clinical evaluation was made at≥1 year, by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the walking distance (WD) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).In all, 130 patients out of the 131 included were analyzed. A CI occurred in 25.3% (n=33) of cases and of these, 94% (n=32) occurred intraoperatively. Postmenopausal women had more CI with an odds ratio (OR) of 5.8 (P=0.034). The "CI" group had a 9.5% lower ODI score than the "non-CI" group (P=0.0040), but both provided excellent ODI gains of 30.8±16 and 32.9±15.5% (P0.0001). An "anterior" position of the implant allowed a greater gain in lumbar lordosis (P0.001) but was associated with greater CI occurrence (P0.001), with an OR of 6.75 (P=0.0018).The occurrence of intraoperative cage impaction is a frequent event when performing OLIF. Postmenopausal women have an approximately 6 times greater risk of impaction than men, and patients with an "anterior" implant placement have a 7 times greater risk than with central placement. The negative impact of cage impactions on the clinical score (ODI) was significant after one year of follow-up.IV, non-comparative cohort study.

Objectives: To assess early clinical outcomes of stand-alone minimally invasive ALIF for patients with DDD at L4-L5 and determine whether the procedure affects spino-pelvic parameters. Methods: The authors reviewed the records of all patients with DDD that underwent stand-alone minimally invasive ALIF at L4-L5 using the self-locking SynFix cage (DePuy Synthes, PA, USA). Patients were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 12, and lower back and legs pain on Visual Analog Scale. Spino-pelvic parameters were measured from whole-spine standing radiographs. Results: From the initial cohort of 48 patients, 3 could not be reached, and 4 were reoperated due to pseudarthrosis using posterior instrumentation with bone graft, leaving 41 for clinical and radiologic evaluation. At a follow-up of 18.2 ± 7.3 months, all 5 clinical scores improved from pre-operative values. Multi-variable regressions revealed no significant associations between independent variables and ODI. Comparing pre- and post-operative radiographs: global lumbar lordosis increased by 3.6 ± 7.7° (p = 0.001), L4-L5 lordosis increased by 7.4 ± 6.1° (p

Background This is a Phase IV, national, multicentre, retrospective study to observe the real-world use of rhBMP-2 in France. Hypothesis There was no statistical hypothesis, the statistical analyses were descriptive in nature. Patients and methods Data was collected from patient medical files in 10 French spinal centres. Primary objectives were to understand which patients were treated with rhBMP-2, commercialised in Europe as InductOs™ and how rhBMP-2 was used during spinal fusion surgery in France between 2011 and 2012. Results Four hundred patients (634 levels) treated with rhBMP-2 were included in the analysis. The most frequent primary diagnostic indication for rhBMP-2 use was degenerative disc disease (DDD; 129/400; 32.3% of patients) followed by spondylolisthesis (119/400; 29.8%), deformity (59/400; 14.8%) and pseudoarthrosis (29/400; 7.3%). The most frequently treated level was L4–L5 (33.8% of levels in 53.5% of patients); followed by L5–S1 (29.8%, 47.3%), L3–L4 (16.7%, 26.5%), and L2–L3 (7.3%, 11.5%), all other levels (less than 5% of patients). No interbody fusion device was used in 42.7% of levels. Wetted matrix of rhBMP-2 was placed in the interbody space in 58.4% of levels (370/634). The most common procedure for rhBMP-2 treatment was posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) (221/634; 34.9% of levels), followed by anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) (188/634; 29.7%), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (111/634; 17.5%), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) (106/634; 16.7%), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) (4/634; 0.6%) and ‘other’ (4/634; 0.6%). Thirty-one adverse events of Interest (AEI) were recorded in 27 patients. One AEI was considered related to rhBMP-2. Unplanned secondary spine interventions at index level treated with rhBMP-2 were required in 4 patients. Discussion In years 2011 and 2012 when the surgeries captured in this retrospective study were done, rhBMP-2 was indicated for single level (L4–S1) anterior lumbar spine fusion as a substitute for autogenous bone graft in adults with DDD. The most common procedure for the treatment with rhBMP-2 was PLF (off-label use), followed by ALIF (on-label use). The safety findings confirm a predictable and manageable safety profile. Level of evidence IV.