Search

BackgroundAs of May 4, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected >3.5 million people and touched every inhabited continent. Accordingly, it has stressed health systems worldwide, leading to the cancellation of elective surgical cases and discussions regarding health care resource rationing. It is expected that rationing of surgical resources will continue even after the pandemic peak and may recur with future pandemics, creating a need for a means of triaging patients for emergent and elective spine surgery.MethodsUsing a modified Delphi technique, a cohort of 16 fellowship-trained spine surgeons from 10 academic medical centers constructed a scoring system for the triage and prioritization of emergent and elective spine surgeries. Three separate rounds of videoconferencing and written correspondence were used to reach a final scoring system. Sixteen test cases were used to optimize the scoring system so that it could categorize cases as requiring emergent, urgent, high-priority elective, or low-priority elective scheduling.ResultsThe devised scoring system included 8 independent components: neurologic status, underlying spine stability, presentation of a high-risk postoperative complication, patient medical comorbidities, expected hospital course, expected discharge disposition, facility resource limitations, and local disease burden. The resultant calculator was deployed as a freely available Web-based calculator (https://jhuspine3.shinyapps.io/SpineUrgencyCalculator/).ConclusionsWe present the first quantitative urgency scoring system for the triage and prioritizing of spine surgery cases in resource-limited settings. We believe that our scoring system, although not all encompassing, has potential value as a guide for triaging spine surgical cases during the COVID pandemic and post-COVID period.

Background: Robotic platforms have increased in sophistication for pedicle screw placement. Here, we review our institutional experience using ExcelsiusGPS to assess the accuracy rate of pedicle screw placement throughout the spine and characterize predictors of placement inaccuracy. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Patients from 2017 to 2022 undergoing spinal fusion surgery with ExelsiusGPS-assisted screw implantation at a single tertiary center were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, and operative details were collected. Postoperative computed tomography was used to classify screw placement accuracy according to the Gertzbein and Robbins scale (GRS). A stepwise multivariable ordered logistic regression analysis determined independent risk factors for clinically inaccurate screws (GRS C/D/E). Results: One hundred and seventeen patients were included. Mean age was 60.6 ± 13.2 years, with 57% men, 72% white, and mean body mass index of 29.9 ± 6.4 kg/m2. Seven hundred and twenty-eight screws were placed, predominantly in the thoracic (29.5%) and lumbar (52.6%) regions. Accuracy classification indicated 670 GRS A, 31 GRS B, 22 GRS C, 4 GRS D, and 1 GRS E screws. The clinically acceptable screw placement rate (GRS A/B) was 96%. Male gender (odds ratio [OR]: 2.12, P = 0.03), revision surgery (OR: 2.43, P = 0.02), and thoracic level screw insertion (OR: 2.33, P = 0.01) were independently associated with inaccurate screw placement and explained 8.7% of the variability seen. Of the 728 screws placed, 3 required revision after postoperative imaging revealed loosening or pedicle breach. Conclusion: ExcelsiusGPS-assisted screw insertion has high placement accuracy and low revision rates. Identification of predictors of inaccuracy illustrates that similar variables, such as placement in the thoracic spine and revision surgery status, apply to both freehand and robotic screw placement. Clinical Relevance: Robotic spine surgery is an accurate, reliable tool that can improve patient outcomes. Factors like male gender, thoracic screw placement, and revision surgery status are associated with lower screw placement accuracy, and these factors should inform surgical decision-making when using robotic assistance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: International survey. Objectives: C5 palsy (C5P) is a neurological complication affecting 5-10% of patients after cervical decompression surgery. Most cases improve with conservative treatment; however, nearly 20% of patients may be left with residual deficits. Guidelines are lacking on C5P management and timing of surgical intervention. Therefore, we sought to survey peripheral nerve surgeons on their management of C5P. Methods: An online survey was distributed centered around a patient with C5P after posterior cervical decompression and fusion. Questions included surgeon demographics, diagnostic modalities, and timing and choice of operation. Responses were summarized and the chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were used to examine differences across specialties. Results: A total of 154 surgeons responded to the survey, of which 59 (38%) indicated that they manage C5P cases. Average time prior to operating was 4.5 ± 2.2 months for complete injuries and 6.6 ± 3.2 months for partial injuries, with neurosurgeons significantly more likely to wait longer periods for complete (P =.01) and partial injuries (P =.03). Foraminotomies were selected by 19% of surgeons, while 92% selected nerve transfers. Transfer of the ulnar nerve to the musculocutaneous nerve was the most common choice (81%), followed by transfer of the radial nerve to the axillary nerve (58%). Conclusion: Consensus exists among peripheral nerve surgeons on the use of nerve transfers for surgical treatment in cases with severe motor weakness failing to improve. Most surgeons advocate for early intervention in complete injuries. Disagreement concerns the type of nerve transfer employed, timing of surgery, and efficacy of foraminotomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study sought to compare screw placement accuracy and outcomes between freehand (FH) and AR-guided pelvic fixation. While pelvic fixation is a critical technique in spinal deformity surgery, S2-alar iliac (S2AI) screw placement poses challenges. Methods: We conducted a case-control study of 50 consecutive patients who underwent spinopelvic fixation at a single institution. AR guidance was performed using a head-mounted display (Xvision, Augmedics). Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, spinopelvic parameters, and screw breach grade were compared using univariate and multivariate statistics. Results: Pelvic fixation was performed FH in 21 patients (median age, 64; female, 38.1%; median BMI 32.3 kg/m2) and AR-guided in 29 patients (median age, 66; female, 51.7%; median BMI 28.4 kg/m2). Mean follow-up was longer in the FH group (28 mos vs 11 mos, P < 0.001). Pelvic fixation in the FH group was performed using either S2AI (90.5%) or dual S2AI (9.5%) screws. There were no significant differences in length of surgery (FH, 439 minutes; AR, 490 minutes; P = 0.1) or estimated blood loss (FH, 2.1L; AR, 1.9L; P = 0.7). Accuracy of FH pelvic fixation was 95.6% (43/45 screws) and accuracy of AR pelvic fixation was 96.5% (55/57 screws). Multivariable logistic regression for screw breach revealed no significant association with AR guidance when controlling for age, BMI, osteoporosis, and smoking. Conclusions: We present the first case-control study of AR-guided spinopelvic fixation, with findings suggesting parity between FH and AR-guidance, serving as foundation for prospective controlled studies with longitudinal follow-up to interrogate the benefits of AR-guidance in spinal deformity surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective Cohort Objective: Antiresorptive drugs are often given to minimize fracture risk for bone metastases, but data regarding optimal time or ability to reduce stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)-induced fracture risk is limited. This study examines the association between antiresorptive use surrounding spinal SBRT and vertebral compression fracture (VCF) incidence to provide information regarding effectiveness and optimal timing of use. Methods: Patients treated with SBRT for spinal metastases at a single institution between 2009-2020 were included. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare cumulative incidence of VCF for those taking antiresorptive drugs pre-SBRT, post-SBRT only, and none at all. Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray competing risk models were used to identify additional factors associated with VCF. Results: Of the 234 patients (410 vertebrae) analyzed, 49 (20.9%) were taking bisphosphonates alone, 42 (17.9%) were taking denosumab alone, and 25 (10.7%) were taking both. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a statistically significant lower VCF incidence for patients initiating antiresorptive drugs before SBRT compared to those taking none at all (4% vs 12% at 1 year post-SBRT, P =.045; and 4% vs 23% at 2 years, P =.008). On multivariate analysis, denosumab duration (HR:.87, P =.378) or dose (HR: 1.00, P =.644) as well as bisphosphonate duration (HR:.98, P =.739) or dose (HR:.99, P =.741) did not have statistical significance on VCF incidence. Conclusion: Initiating antiresorptive agents before SBRT may reduce the risk of treatment-induced VCF. Antiresorptive drugs are underutilized in patients with spine metastases and may represent a useful intervention to minimize toxicity and improve long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]