Search

Background Indications and outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease are notoriously heterogenous. Selected subsets of patients show remarkable benefit. However, their objective identification is often difficult. Decision-making may be improved with reliable prediction of long-term outcomes for each individual patient, improving patient selection and avoiding ineffective procedures. Methods Clinical prediction models for long-term functional impairment [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)], back pain, and leg pain after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease were developed. Achievement of the minimum clinically important difference at 12 months postoperatively was defined as a reduction from baseline of at least 15 points for ODI, 2.2 points for COMI, or 2 points for pain severity. Results Models were developed and integrated into a web-app (https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/fuseml/) based on a multinational cohort [N = 817; 42.7% male; mean (SD) age: 61.19 (12.36) years]. At external validation [N = 298; 35.6% male; mean (SD) age: 59.73 (12.64) years], areas under the curves for functional impairment [0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59–0.74], back pain (0.72, 95%CI: 0.64–0.79), and leg pain (0.64, 95%CI: 0.54–0.73) demonstrated moderate ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from surgery. Models demonstrated fair calibration of the predicted probabilities. Conclusions Outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease remain difficult to predict. Although assistive clinical prediction models can help in quantifying potential benefits of surgery and the externally validated FUSE-ML tool may aid in individualized risk–benefit estimation, truly impacting clinical practice in the era of “personalized medicine” necessitates more robust tools in this patient population.

Introduction The conventional microscope has the disadvantage of a potentially unergonomic posture for the surgeon, which can affect performance. Monitor-based exoscopes could provide a more ergonomic posture, as already shown in pre-clinical studies. The aim of this study was to test the usability and comfort of a novel head-mounted display (HMD) based exoscope on spinal surgical approaches in a simulated OR setting. Methods A total of 21 neurosurgeons naïve to the device were participated in this prospective trial. After a standardized training session with the device, participants were asked to perform a single-level thoracolumbar decompression surgery on human cadavers using the exoscope. Subsequently, all participants completed a comfort and safety questionnaire. For the objective evaluation of the performance, all interventions were videotaped and analyzed. Results 12 men and 9 women with a mean age of 34 (range: 24–57) were participating in the study. Average time for decompression was 15 min (IqR 9.6;24.2); 3 participants (14%) terminated the procedure prematurely. In these dropouts, a significantly higher incidence of back/neck pain (p=0.002 for back, p=0.046 for neck pain) as well as an increased frequency of HMD readjustments (p=0.045) and decreased depth perception (p=0.03) were documented. Overall, the surgeons’ satisfaction with the exoscope was 84% (IqR 75; 100). Conclusion Using a standardized, pre-interventional training, it is possible for exoscope-naïve surgeons to perform sufficient spinal decompression using the HMD-based exoscope with a high satisfaction. However, inaccurate HMD-setup prior to the start of the procedure may lead to discomfort and unsatisfactory results.

Purpose Lumbar discogenic diffuse pain is still not understood. Authors describe the sinuvertebral nerve (SVN) as one possible cause. Body-donor studies are rare and controversial. Therefore, the aim was to revisit the origin, course and distribution in a body-donor study. Methods Six lumbar blocks (3 female, 3 male) aged between 59 and 94 years were dissected. After removal of the back muscles, lamina, dura mater and cauda equina, the anterior vertebral venous plexus, spinal artery and SVN were exposed and evaluated. Results 43 nerves out of 48 levels could be evaluated. The origin of the SVN was constituted by two roots: a somatic and a sympathetic branch arising from the rami communicantes. In 4/48 intervertebral canals studied (8.3%), we found two SVN at the same level. In 35/48 cases, one SVN was found. In 9/48 cases, no SVN was found. The SVN had a recurrent course below the inferior vertebral notch; in the vertebral canal it showed different patterns: ascending branch (31/43, 72.1%), common branch diverging into two branches (10/43, 23.3%), double ascending branch (1/43, 2.3%) finalizing two levels above and a descending branch (1/43, 2.3%). In 12/43 cases (27.9%) the SVN had ipsilateral connections with another SVN. The distribution ended in the middle of the vertebral body supplying adjacent structures. Conclusion A thorough understanding of the anatomy of the SVN might lead to significant benefits in therapy of discogenic low back pain. We suggest blocking the SVN at the level of the inferior vertebral notch of two adjacent segments. Level of evidence I Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding

Instrumented stabilization with intersomatic fusion can be achieved by open (O-TLIF) or minimally invasive (MIS-TLIF) transforaminal surgical access. While less invasive techniques have been associated with reduced postoperative pain and disability, increased manipulation and insufficient decompression may contradict MIS techniques. In order to detect differences between both techniques in the short-term, a prospective, controlled study was conducted. Thirty-eight patients with isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis or degenerative disk disease were included in this prospective, controlled study (15 MIS-TLIF group vs. 23 O-TLIF group) after failed conservative treatment. Patients were examined preoperatively, on the first, third, and sixth postoperative day as well as after 2, 4, and 12 weeks postoperatively. Outcome parameters included blood loss, duration of surgery, pre- and postoperative pain (numeric rating scale [NRS], visual analog scale [VAS]), functionality (Timed Up and Go test [TUG]), disability (Oswestry Disability index [ODI]), and quality of life (EQ-5D). Intraoperative blood loss (IBL) as well as postoperative blood loss (PBL) was significantly higher in the O-TLIF group ([IBL O-TLIF 528 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 213 ml, p = 0.001], [PBL O-TLIF 322 ml vs. MIS-TLIF 30 ml, p = 0.004]). The O-TLIF cohort showed significantly less leg pain postoperatively compared to the MIS-TLIF group ([NRS leg 3rd postoperative day, p = 0.027], [VAS leg 12 weeks post-op, p = 0.02]). The MIS group showed a significantly better improvement in the overall ODI (40.8 ± 13 vs. 56.0 ± 16; p = 0.05). After 3 months in the short-term follow-up, the MIS procedure tends to have better results in terms of patient-reported quality of life. MIS-TLIF offers perioperative advantages but may carry the risk of increased nerve root manipulation with consecutive higher radicular pain, which may be related to the learning curve of the procedure.

Purpose Approaches for lumbar corpectomies can be roughly categorized into anterolateral (AL) and posterolateral (PL) approaches. It remains controversial to date whether one approach is superior to the other, and no comparative studies exist for the two approaches for lumbar corpectomies. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed through a MEDLINE/PubMed search. Studies and case reports describing technique plus outcomes and possible complications were included. Thereafter, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of operation (LOO), utilized implants, neurological outcomes, complication rates, and reoperation rates were analyzed. Results A total of 64 articles reporting on 702 patients including 513 AL and 189 PL corpectomies were included in this paper. All patients in the PL group were instrumented via the same approach used for corpectomy, while in the AL group the majority (68.3%) of authors described the use of an additional approach for instrumentation. The EBL was higher in the AL group (1393 ± 1341 ml vs. 982 ± 567 ml). The LOO also was higher in the AL group (317 ± 178 min vs. 258 ± 93 min). The complication rate (20.5% vs. 29.1%, p = 0.048) and the revision rate (3.1% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.004) were higher in the PL group. Neurological improvement rates were 43.8% (AL) vs. 39.2% (PL), and deterioration was only noted in the AL group (6.0%), while 50.2% (AL) and 60.8% (PL) showed no change from initial presentation to the last follow-up. Conclusion While neurological outcomes of both approaches are comparable, the results of the present review demonstrated lower complication and revision rates in anterolateral corpectomies. Nevertheless, individual patient characteristics must be considered in decision-making.

Objective The severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) crisis led to many restrictions in daily life and protective health care actions in all hospitals to ensure basic medical supply. This questionnaire-based study among spinal surgeons in central Europe was generated to investigate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and consecutively the differences in restrictions in spinal surgery units. Methods An online survey consisting of 32 questions on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related restrictions on spinal surgery units was created. Surgical fellows and consultants from neurosurgical, orthopedic, and trauma departments were included in our questionnaire-based study with the help of Austrian, German, and Swiss scientific societies. Results In a total of 406 completed questionnaires, most participants reported increased preventive measurements at daily clinical work (split-team work schedule [44%], cancellation of elective and/or semielective surgeries [91%]), reduced occurrence of emergencies (91%), decreased outpatient work (45%) with increased telemedical care (73%) and a reduced availability of medical equipment (75%) as well as medical staff (30%). Although most physicians considered the political restrictive decisions to be not suitable, most considered the medical measures to be appropriate. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in comparable restrictive measures for spinal surgical departments in central Europe. Elective surgical interventions were reduced, providing additional resources reserved for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2–positive patients. Although similar restrictions were introduced in most participants' departments, the supply of personal protective equipment and the outpatient care remained insufficient and should be re-evaluated intensively for future global health care crises.

Monostotic fibrous dysplasia (MFD) of the lumbar spine represents an exceedingly rare lesion. A 26-year-old patient presented with a progressive osteolytic lesion of the vertebral body L2 and the diagnosis of MFD. A minimally invasive left-sided eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) approach with resection of the vertebral body L2 with placement of a mesh cage was performed. No complications were observed perioperatively and the symptoms rapidly improved. Minimally invasive piecemeal resection with a combined dorsolateral approach showed a favorable clinical and radiological outcome and seems to be a safe and reliable technique for MFD.