Search

Background: Bibliometric analyses are a proficient method for understanding the dynamics of publications. Unstable thoracolumbar injuries are a prevalent topic in neurosurgery and orthopedic research. Methodology: Web of Science was searched for the 100 most-cited articles on unstable thoracolumbar injuries. A number of citations, article title, first author's name, year and journal of publication and its impact factor (IF), specialty, affiliation, country of the first author, and type of the article were retrieved. Results: The articles were published in 32 different journals from 1977 to 2020. Spine (38 articles in the top 100 and 3694 citations) was the journal with the greatest number of articles and citations, and the highest number of primary research papers (31 articles, accounting for 2915 citations). The United States was the country with the most articles (45) and citations (4541). The University of California (5 articles, 6 primary research, and 781 citations) was the institution with the highest number of citations, articles, and primary research articles. Orthopedic was the specialty with the most significant number of publications and the most cited (77 articles and 7197 citations). The first author with the greatest number of publications and primary research articles was R. F. McLain (4 articles, being 3 primary research, and 646 citations), while the most cited was A. R. Vaccaro (3 articles and 695 citations). Eighty publications were primary and 20 were secondary research. Conclusions: The unstable thoracolumbar research field is prominent in North America and has been more frequently published in orthopedic journals, after 1995. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria is the property of Thieme Medical Publishing Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Study design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Objective: Surgical alternatives to treat lumbar spinal stenosis and instability include indirect (ALIF, OLIF, and LLIF) and direct (TLIF or posterior lumbar interbody fusion) decompression and fusion interventions. Although both approaches have proven to be effective in reducing symptoms, it is unknown if there is any difference in effectiveness between them. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate postoperative pain and disability in patients treated whit indirect vs direct decompression and fusion approaches. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature consulting several databases and identified studies that enrolled patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and instability treated with indirect or direct decompression and fusion techniques. Our primary endpoints were the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and the Japanese Orthopedics Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire 1 year after the procedure. Secondary outcomes included complication rate, blood loss, and surgical time. Results: Nine retrospective and comparative studies were included enrolling a total of 1004 participants. Both surgical strategies had satisfactory clinical outcomes with no significant difference at 1 year. Although the complication rate was similar for both groups, the profile of the adverse events was different. In addition, patients treated with indirect decompression and fusion had significantly less blood loss and operative times. Conclusions: Indirect and direct decompression and fusion techniques are similarly effective in treating patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and instability. The ID group had significantly lower intraoperative blood loss and surgical time values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey. Objectives: Assessment of subaxial cervical facet injuries using the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System is based on CT scan findings. However, additional radiological evaluations are not directly considered. The aim of this study is to determine situations in which spine surgeons request additional radiological exams after a facet fracture. Methods: A survey was sent to AO Spine members from Latin America. The evaluation considered demographic variables, routine use of the Classification, as well as the timepoint at which surgeons requested a cervical MRI, a vascular study, and/ or dynamic radiographs before treatment of facet fractures. Results: There was 229 participants, mean age 42.9 ± 10.2 years; 93.4% were men. Orthopedic surgeons 57.6% with 10.7 ± 8.7 years of experience in spine surgery. A total of 86% used the Classification in daily practice. An additional study (MRI/vascular study/and dynamic radiographs) was requested in 53.3%/9.6%/43.7% in F1 facet injuries; 76.0%/20.1%/50.2% in F2; 89.1%/65.1%/28.4% in F3; and 94.8%/66.4%/16.6% in F4. An additional study was frequently required: F1 72.5%, F2 86.9%, F3 94.7%, and F4 96.1%. Conclusions: Spine surgeons generally requested additional radiological evaluations in facet injuries, and MRI was the most common. Dynamic radiographs had a higher prevalence for F1/F2 fractures; vascular studies were more common for F3/F4 especially among surgeons with fewer years of experience. Private hospitals had a lower spine trauma cases/year and requested more MRI and more dynamic radiographs in F1/F2. Neurosurgeons had more vascular studies and dynamic radiographs than orthopedic surgeons in all facet fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Disseminated histoplasmosis involving the central nervous system occurs in 5-10% of cases. However, intramedullary spinal cord lesions are extremely rare. Here, 45-year-old female with a T8-9 intramedullary lesion did well following surgical extirpation. Case Description: For 2 weeks, a 45-year-old female experienced progressive lower back pain, paresthesias, and paraparesis. The magnetic resonance imaging showed an intramedullary expansive lesion at the T8-T9 level that markedly enhanced with contrast. Surgery, consisting of T8-T10 laminectomies performed using neuronavigation, an operating microscope, and intraoperative monitoring, revealed a well-demarcated lesion that proved to be a focus of histoplasmosis; it was readily completely excised. Conclusion: Surgery is the gold standard for treating spinal cord compression attributed to intramedullary histoplasmosis unresponsive to medical management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spinal cord hemangioblastomas (HBs) account for 2-15% of all spinal cord neoplasms. They are the third most common primary intramedullary tumor (1-5%). Here, 72-year-old female presented with a thoracic intramedullary spinal HB that responded well to surgery. Case Description: A 72-year-old female presented with a 3-4 years of progressive paresthesias and paraparesis. On examination, she exhibited diffuse distal weakness of the lower extremities. The magnetic resonance scan showed an intramedullary expansive lesion at the T1-T2 level that markedly enhanced with contrast with both proximal and distal hydromyelia. Surgery included a C7 partial and T1-T2 total laminectomies performed under microscope visualization with intraoperative monitoring. At surgery, there was a well-documented cleavage plane between the tumor and the cord; excision was facilitated using the cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator device. Conclusion: Surgery is the gold standard treatment for treating/resecting HBs and should include utilization of an operating microscope and intraoperative monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A classification system was recently developed by the international association AO Spine for assessing subaxial cervical spine fractures. Significant variability exists between users of the facet component, which consists of four morphological types (F1–F4). The primary aims of this study were to assess the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of this new system's facet injury morphological classifications. Methods: A survey consisting of 16 computed tomography (CT) scans of patients with cervical facet fractures was distributed to spine surgeon members of AO Spine Latin America. To provide a gold standard diagnosis for comparison, all 16 injuries had been classified previously by six co-authors and only were included after total consensus was achieved. Demographic and surgical practice characteristics of all respondents were analyzed, and diagnostic accuracy calculated. Inter- and intra-observer agreement rates were calculated across two survey rounds, conducted one month apart. Results: A total of 135 surgeons completed both surveys, among whom the mean age was 41.6 years (range 26–71), 130 (96.3%) were men, and 83 (61.5%) were orthopedic surgeons. The mean time in practice as a spine surgeon was 9.7 years (1–30). The overall diagnostic accuracy of all responses was 65.4%. Inter-observer and intra-observer agreement rates for F1/F2/F3/F4 were 55.4%/47.6%/64.0%/94.7% and 60.0%/49.1%/58.0%/93.0%, respectively. Conclusion: This study evaluates the AO Spine Classification System specifically for facet injuries involving the subaxial cervical spine in a large sample of spine surgeons. There was significant variability in diagnostic accuracy for F1 through F3-type fractures, whereas almost universal agreement was achieved for F4-type injuries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Our aim was to evaluate differences in neurosurgeons versus orthopedists access to technologies needed to perform minimally invasive spine surgeries (MISS) in Latin America. Methods: We sent a survey to members of AO Spine Latin America (January 2020), and assessed the following variables; nationality, level of hospital (primary, secondary, and tertiary), number of spinal operations performed per year, spinal pathologies addressed, the number of minimally invasive spine operations performed/year, and differences in access to MISS spinal technology between neurosurgeons and orthopedists. Results: Responses were returned from 306 (25.6) members of AO Spine Latin America representing 20 different countries; 57.8% of respondents were orthopedic surgeons and 42.4% had over 10 years of experience. Although both specialties reported a lack of access to most of the technologies, the main difference between the two was greater utilization/access of neurosurgeons to operating microscope (e.g., 84% of the neurosurgeons vs. 39% of orthopedic spine surgeons). Conclusion: Although both specialties have limited access to MISS spinal technologies, orthopedic spine surgeons reported significantly lower access to operating microscopes versus neurosurgeons (P < 0.01). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study design: Systematic Review of the Literature. Objective: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review describing fusion rates for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using autograft vs various interbody devices augmented with different osteobiologic materials. Methods: A systematic review limited to the English language was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane library using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. Studies that evaluated fusion after ACDF using autografts and osteobiologics combined with PEEK, carbon fibre, or metal cages were searched for. Articles in full text that met the criteria were included in the review. The main outcomes evaluated were the time taken to merge, the definition of the fusion assessment, and the modality of the fusion assessment. The risk of bias of each article was assessed by the MINORS score or ROB 2.0 depending on the randomisation process. Results: The total number of references reviewed was six hundred and eighty-two. After applying the inclusion criteria, 54 were selected for the retrieval of the full text. Eight studies were selected and included for final analysis in this study. Fusion rates were reported between 83.3% and 100% for autograft groups compared to 46.5% and 100% for various interbody device/osteobiological combinations. The overall quality of the evidence in all radiographic fusion studies was considered insufficient due to a serious risk of bias. Conclusion: Mechanical interbody devices augmented with osteobiologics performed similarly to autografts in terms of reliability and efficacy. Their time to fusion and fusion rate were comparable to autografts at the end of the final follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]