Search

Study Design: Narrative review.Objective: The prevalence of adult spinal deformity (ASD) has been cited anywhere between 2-32%, while the prevalence in the elderly population has been estimated at 68%. Neurologic complications following ASD surgery remains a concern. Previous literature reported incidence of neurologic complications varied between 1-10%, while non-neurologic complications reported were as high as 50%. To assess the incidence of neurologic deficits, complications, and outcomes following ASD surgery, an international group of spine deformity surgeons initiated a prospective, multicenter, international, observational study: Scoli-RISK-1.Methods: Two hundred seventy-two patients were enrolled from 15 centers with ASD having primary or revision surgery with a major Cobb≥80°, revision including an osteotomy, and/or a complex 3-column osteotomy. Patients had lower extremity muscle strength (LEMS) exams performed preoperatively and at specific time points through 2-year follow-up.Results: Preoperatively, 203 patients (74.9%) had no LEMS impairment (normal) and 68 (25.1%) had a LEMS of <50 (abnormal). Compared with baseline, 23.0% of all patients experienced a LEMS decline at discharge, with this rate decreasing to 17.1% at 6-weeks and to 9.9% at 6-months and remaining stable at 10.0% at 2-years.Conclusion: This study revealed that a decline in LEMS after complex ASD surgery is common and more frequent than previously reported. We identified such a decline in 23.0% of patients at discharge, with neurologic function recovering over time to a decline of 10.0% at 2-years postoperatively. The Scoli-RISK-1 study revealed valuable information regarding the incidence, natural history, and prognosis of neurologic and non-neurologic complications following ASD surgery and provides useful information for patient counseling.

Study Design: A narrative review of the literature.Objective: This article reviews the general principles of treatment and investigation for primary bone tumors of the spine. Furthermore, it explores the emerging alternatives.Methods: A review was performed using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases.Results: Primary bone tumors of the spine are rare entities that general spine surgeons may encounter only a few times in their career. The treatment algorithm of these complex tumors is filled with nuances and is evolving constantly. For these reasons, patients should be referred to experienced tertiary or quaternary centers who can offer a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach. For most malignant spinal bone tumors, surgery remains the cornerstone of treatment. Respecting oncologic principles has been associated with improved survival and decreased local recurrence in multiple settings. However, even in experienced centers, these surgeries carry a significant risk of adverse events and possible long-term neurologic impairment. The associated morbidity of these procedures and the challenges of local recurrence have encouraged professionals caring for these patients to explore alternatives or adjuncts to surgical treatment.Conclusions: Over the past few years, several advances have occurred in medical oncology, radiation oncology and interventional radiology, changing the treatment paradigm for some tumors. Other advances still need to be refined before being applied in a clinical setting.

Study Design: Systematic review.Objective: To review, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence on use of cell therapy for intervertebral disc repair.Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted for literature published through October 31, 2018 and EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.govdatabases through April 13, 2018 comparing allogenic or autologous cell therapy for intervertebral disc (IVD) repair in the lumbar or cervical spine. In the absence of comparative studies, case series of ≥10 patients were considered.Results: From 1039 potentially relevant citations, 8 studies across 10 publications on IVD cell therapies in the lumbar spine met the inclusion criteria. All studies were small and primarily case series. For allogenic cell sources, no difference in function or pain between mesenchymal cell treatment and sham were reported in 1 small randomized controlled trial; 1 small case series reported improved function and pain relative to baseline but it was unclear if the change was clinically significant. Similarly for autologous cell sources, limited data across case series suggest pain and function may be improved relative to baseline; whether the changes were clinically significant was not clear. Safety data was sparse and poorly reported. The need for subsequent surgery was reported in 3 case-series studies ranging from 6% to 80%.Conclusions: The overall strength of evidence for efficacy and safety of cell therapy for lumbar IVD repair was very low primarily due to substantial risk of bias, small sample sizes and lack of a comparator intervention. Methodologically sound studies comparing cell therapies to other treatments are needed.

Study Design: Mixed-method consensus process.Objectives: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition that arises when mechanical stress damages the spinal cord as a result of degenerative changes in the surrounding spinal structures. RECODE-DCM (REsearch Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) aims to improve efficient use of health care resources within the field of DCM by using a multi-stakeholder partnership to define the DCM research priorities, to develop a minimum dataset for DCM clinical studies, and confirm a definition of DCM.Methods: This requires a multi-stakeholder partnership and multiple parallel consensus development processes. It will be conducted via 4 phases, adhering to the guidance set out by the COMET (Core Outcomes in Effectiveness Trials) and JLA (James Lind Alliance) initiatives. Phase 1 will consist of preliminary work to inform online Delphi processes (Phase 2) and a consensus meeting (Phase 3). Following the findings of the consensus meeting, a synthesis of relevant measurement instruments will be compiled and assessed as per the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) criteria, to allow recommendations to be made on how to measure agreed data points. Phase 4 will monitor and promote the use of eventual recommendations.Conclusions: RECODE-DCM sets out to establish for the first time an index term, minimum dataset, and research priorities together. Our aim is to reduce waste of health care resources in the future by using patient priorities to inform the scope of future DCM research activities. The consistent use of a standard dataset in DCM clinical studies, audit, and clinical surveillance will facilitate pooled analysis of future data and, ultimately, a deeper understanding of DCM.

Study Design: Narrative review.Objectives: To describe the current AOSpine Trauma Classification system for spinal trauma and highlight the value of patient-specific modifiers for facilitating communication and nuances in treatment.Methods: The classification for spine trauma previously developed by The AOSpine Knowledge Forum is reviewed and the importance of case modifiers in this system is discussed.Results: A successful classification system facilitates communication and agreement between physicians while also determining injury severity and provides guidance on prognosis and treatment. As each injury may be unique among different patients, the importance of considering patient-specific characteristics is highlighted in this review. In the current AOSpine Trauma Classification, the spinal column is divided into 4 regions: the upper cervical spine (C0-C2), subaxial cervical spine (C3-C7), thoracolumbar spine (T1-L5), and the sacral spine (S1-S5, including coccyx). Each region is classified according to a hierarchical system with increasing levels of injury or instability and represents the morphology of the injury, neurologic status, and clinical modifiers. Specifically, these clinical modifiers are denoted starting with M followed by a number. They describe unique conditions that may change treatment approach such as the presence of significant soft tissue damage, uncertainty about posterior tension band injury, or the presence of a critical disc herniation in a cervical bilateral facet dislocation. These characteristics are described in detail for each spinal region.Conclusions: Patient-specific modifiers in the AOSpine Trauma Classification highlight unique clinical characteristics for each injury and facilitate communication and treatment between surgeons.

Study Design: Literature review.Objective: To provide an overview of the recent advances in spinal oncology, emphasizing the key role of the surgeon in the treatment of patients with spinal metastatic tumors.Methods: Literature review.Results: Therapeutic advances led to longer survival times among cancer patients, placing significant emphasis on durable local control, optimization of quality of life, and daily function for patients with spinal metastatic tumors. Recent integration of modern diagnostic tools, precision oncologic treatment, and widespread use of new technologies has transformed the treatment of spinal metastases. Currently, multidisciplinary spinal oncology teams include spinal surgeons, radiation and medical oncologists, pain and rehabilitation specialists, and interventional radiologists. Consistent use of common language facilitates communication, definition of treatment indications and outcomes, alongside comparative clinical research. The main parameters used to characterize patients with spinal metastases include functional status and health-related quality of life, the spinal instability neoplastic score, the epidural spinal cord compression scale, tumor histology, and genomic profile.Conclusions: Stereotactic body radiotherapy revolutionized spinal oncology through delivery of durable local tumor control regardless of tumor histology. Currently, the major surgical indications include mechanical instability and high-grade spinal cord compression, when applicable, with surgery providing notable improvement in the quality of life and functional status for appropriately selected patients. Surgical trends include less invasive surgery with emphasis on durable local control and spinal stabilization.

Study Design: Narrative review.Objectives: To provide an updated overview of the management of acute traumatic central cord syndrome (ATCCS).Methods: A comprehensive narrative review of the literature was done to identify evidence-based treatment strategies for patients diagnosed with ATCCS.Results: ATCCS is the most commonly encountered subtype of incomplete spinal cord injury and is characterized by worse sensory and motor function in the upper extremities compared with the lower extremities. It is most commonly seen in the setting of trauma such as motor vehicles or falls in elderly patients. The operative management of this injury has been historically variable as it can be seen in the setting of mechanical instability or preexisting cervical stenosis alone. While each patient should be evaluated on an individual basis, based on the current literature, the authors’ preferred treatment is to perform early decompression and stabilization in patients that have any instability or significant neurologic deficit. Surgical intervention, in the appropriate patient, is associated with an earlier improvement in neurologic status, shorter hospital stay, and shorter intensive care unit stay.Conclusions: While there is limited evidence regarding management of ATCCS, in the presence of mechanical instability or ongoing cord compression, surgical management is the treatment of choice. Further research needs to be conducted regarding treatment strategies and patient outcomes.