Search

Pierce D Nunley,1 Vikas V Patel,2 Douglas G Orndorff,3 William F Lavelle,4 Jon E Block,5 Fred H Geisler6 1Spine Institute of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, 2The Spine Center, University of Colorado Hospital, Denver, CO, 3Spine Colorado, Mercy Regional Hospital, Durango, CO, 4Upstate Bone and Joint Center, East Syracuse, NY, 5Independent Consultant, San Francisco, CA, 6Independent Consultant, Chicago, IL, USA Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis is the most common indication for spine surgery in older adults. Interspinous process decompression (IPD) using a stand-alone spacer that functions as an extension blocker offers a minimally invasive treatment option for intermittent neurogenic claudication associated with spinal stenosis.Methods: This study evaluated the 5-year clinical outcomes for IPD (Superion®) from a randomized controlled US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) noninferiority trial. Outcomes included Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) symptom severity (ss), physical function (pf), and patient satisfaction (ps) subdomains, leg and back pain visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).Results: At 5 years, 84% of patients (74 of 88) demonstrated clinical success on at least two of three ZCQ domains. Individual ZCQ domain success rates were 75% (66 of 88), 81% (71 of 88), and 90% (79 of 88) for ZCQss, ZCQpf, and ZCQps, respectively. Leg and back pain success rates were 80% (68 of 85) and 65% (55 of 85), respectively, and the success rate for ODI was 65% (57 of 88). Percentage improvements over baseline were 42%, 39%, 75%, 66%, and 58% for ZCQss, ZCQpf, leg and back pain VAS, and ODI, respectively (all P1.0; all P

Vikas V Patel,1 Pierce D Nunley,2 Peter G Whang,3 Thomas R Haley,4 W Daniel Bradley,5 Raphael P Davis,6 Jon E Block,7 Fred H Geisler8 1The Spine Center, University of Colorado Hospital, Denver, CO, 2Spine Institute of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, 3Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, 4Performance Spine and Sports Physicians, PC, Pottstown, PA, 5Texas Back Institute, Denton, TX, 6Department of Neurological Surgery, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, 7Jon Block, Ph.D. San Francisco, CA, 8McLaren Hospital, Petoskey, MI, USA Purpose: This report provides the 3-year clinical outcomes from the randomized, controlled US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial of the Superion® for the treatment of moderate degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Patients and methods: The Superion® was evaluated in the treatment of subjects aged 45 years or older suffering from symptoms of intermittent neurogenic claudication, secondary to a confirmed diagnosis of moderate degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two contiguous levels from L1 to L5. Patients were treated between June 2008 and December 2011 at 31 investigational sites. Three hundred ninety-one subjects were included in the randomized study group consisting of 190 Superion® and 201 X-STOP® control subjects. The primary composite endpoint was individual patient success based on four components: improvement in two of three domains of the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, no reoperations at the index level, no major implant/procedure-related complications, and no clinically significant confounding treatments. Results: At 3 years, the proportion of subjects achieving the primary composite endpoint was greater for Superion® (63/120, 52.5%) than for X-STOP® (49/129, 38.0%) (P=0.023) and the corresponding success rates exceeded 80% for each of the individual components of the primary endpoint in the Superion® group (range: 81%–91%). Improvements in back and leg pain severity as well as back- and disease-specific functional outcomes were also maintained through 36 months. Conclusion: The 3-year outcomes from this randomized controlled trial demonstrate durable clinical improvement consistently across all clinical outcomes for the Superion® in the treatment of patients with moderate degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Keywords: InterSpinous Spacer, lumbar spinal stenosis, Superion®, neurogenic claudication

Study Design. Finite element model.Objectives. To estimate the effect of lumbar mobile-core and fixed-core artificial disc design and placement on the loading of the facet joints, and stresses on the polyethylene core. Summary of Background Data. Although both mobile-core and fixed-core lumbar artificial disc designs have been used clinically, the effect of their design and the effect of placement within the disc space on the structural element loading, and in particular the facets and the implant itself, have not been investigated.Methods. A 3D nonlinear finite element model of an intact ligamentous L4-L5 motion segment was developed and validated in all 6 df based on previous experiments conducted on human cadavers. Facet loading of a mobile-core TDR and a fixed-core TDR were estimated with 4 different prosthesis placements for 3 different ranges of motion.Results. Placing the mobile-core TDR anywhere within the disc space reduced facet loading by more than 50%, while the fixed-core TDR increased facet loading by more than 10% when compared with the intact disc in axial rotation. For central (ideal) placement, the mobile- and fixed-core implants were subjected to compressive stresses on the order of 3 MPa and 24 MPa, respectively. The mobile-core stresses were not affected by implant placement, while the fixed-core stresses increased by up to 40%.Conclusion. A mobile-core artificial disc design is less sensitive to placement, and unloads the facet joints, compared with a fixed-core design. The decreased core stress may result in a reduced potential for wear in a mobile-core prosthesis compared with a fixed-core prosthesis, which may increase the functional longevity of the device. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A prospective, randomized, multicenter, FDA-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial. Objectives: To analyze the incidence of, and reasons for, reoperation in all patients (treatment and control) enrolled in the IDE study. Summary Of Background Data: This is the first report of the incidence and nature of reoperations following lumbar TDR as part of a controlled, prospective, multicenter trial. Methods: A total of 688 patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in one of three arms of the study at 14 centers across the United States. This cohort includes 71 nonrandomized cases, 205 randomized cases, and 313 continued access cases, all receiving the CHARITE Artificial Disc, as well as 99 randomized cases in the control group (ALIF with threaded fusion cages and autograft). A detailed analysis was performed of clinical chart notes, operative notes, and adverse event reports for all patients requiring reoperation following their index surgery. Results: Of the 589 patients with TDR, 52 (8.8%) required reoperation. Of the 99 patients with lumbar fusion, 10 (10.1%) required reoperation, and an additional 2 required surgery for adjacent level disease (P = 0.7401). There were 24 TDR patients who underwent a repeated anterior retroperitoneal approach, with 22 (91.7%) having had a successful removal of the prosthesis. Seven of the 24 TDR prostheses requiring removal were revised to another CHARITE Artificial Disc. The mean time to reoperation in all patients was 9.7 months. A total of 29 patients (4.9%) in the TDR group required posterior instrumentation and fusion as did 10 (10.1%) in the control group (P = 0.0562). At 2 years or more follow-up, 93.9%(553/589 = 93.9%) of patients receiving TDR with the CHARITE Artificial Disc had a successfully functioning prosthesis with a mean of over 7 degrees of flexion-extension mobility. Conclusions: Lumbar TDR with the CHARITE Artificial Disc did not preclude any further procedures at the index level during primary insertion, with nearly one third being revisable to a new motion-preserving prosthesis and just over two thirds being successfully converted to ALIF and/ or posterior pedicle screw arthrodesis, the original alternative procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Radiographs were measured by four independent observers and remeasured by three of the observers.Objectives: To assess the reliability of a new computer-aided measurement technique.Summary Of Background Data: Many studies have reported sagittal-plane distance and angle measurements in the cervical spine. Common measurement methods involve manual line drawing on lateral radiographs with manual or computer-aided distance and angle computation. In patients with anterior cervical fusion, changes in bony geometry could present difficulties for many existing methods.Methods: Digitized lateral cervical radiographs are imported into a graphics software package. Outlines of the vertebral bodies and spinous processes are traced on the best-quality film and transformed to match the bony geometry on each remaining radiograph from the same patient. Intervertebral distance and angulation are calculated from centers of mass of the outlined elements. Segmental measurements were collected for 27 lateral radiographs from nine patients with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Intraclass and interclass correlation coefficients were calculated and used to compute standard errors of measurement.Results: High intraclass and interclass correlations (ICCs) and low measurement errors were calculated for both distance and angle measurements. Intraexaminer mean ICCs were 0.92 for interbody distance and 0.93 for segmental angle, with standard errors of measurement (SEMs) of 3.26% interbody distance (approximately 0.65 mm) and 1.20 degrees sagittal-plane rotation. Mean interexaminer ICCs were 0.91 for interbody distance and 0.86 for segmental angle, with SEMs of 3.58% interbody distance (approximately 0.72 mm) and 1.77 degrees sagittal-plane rotation.Conclusions: The measurement method is reliable for both interbody distance and segmental angles within and among examiners. Whereas many existing measurement methods require normal radiographs to locate specific anatomic points, given intact spinous processes, the present method functions even with various radiographic abnormalities and in the presence of surgical decompression, degenerative disease, and cervical hardware. Because it does not rely on specific anatomic points, the present method is robust with respect to changes in the bony anatomy over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the last decades, medical research fields studying rare conditions such as spinal cord injury (SCI) have made extensive efforts to collect large-scale data. However, most analysis methods rely on complete data. This is particularly troublesome when studying clinical data as they are prone to missingness. Often, researchers mitigate this problem by removing patients with missing data from the analyses. Less commonly, imputation methods to infer likely values are applied., Objective: Our objective was to study how handling missing data influences the results reported, taking the example of SCI registries. We aimed to raise awareness on the effects of missing data and provide guidelines to be applied for future research projects, in SCI research and beyond., Methods: Using the Sygen clinical trial data (n = 797), we analyzed the impact of the type of variable in which data is missing, the pattern according to which data is missing, and the imputation strategy (e.g. mean imputation, last observation carried forward, multiple imputation)., Results: Our simulations show that mean imputation may lead to results strongly deviating from the underlying expected results. For repeated measures missing at late stages (> = 6 months after injury in this simulation study), carrying the last observation forward seems the preferable option for the imputation. This simulation study could show that a one-size-fit-all imputation strategy falls short in SCI data sets., Conclusions: Data-tailored imputation strategies are required (e.g., characterisation of the missingness pattern, last observation carried forward for repeated measures evolving to a plateau over time). Therefore, systematically reporting the extent, kind and decisions made regarding missing data will be essential to improve the interpretation, transparency, and reproducibility of the research presented., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: Methylprednisolone (MP) to treat acute traumatic spinal cord injury (ATSCI) remains controversial since the release of the second National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Study (NASCIS2) in 1990. As two historical studies, NASCIS2 and Sygen in ATSCI, used identical MP dosages, it was possible to construct a new case-level pooled ATSCI data set satisfying contemporary criteria and able to clarify the effect of MP., Methods: The new pooled data set was first modernized by excluding patients with injury levels caudal to T10, lower-extremity American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor scores (LEMSs) ≥ 46, Glasgow Coma Scale scores ≤ 11, and age < 15 or > 75 years, and then standardized to the ASIA grading and scoring format. A new updated NASCIS2 data set from this pooled data set contained 31.6% fewer patients than the 1990 NASCIS2 data set., Results: In the new pooled data set, recovery of LEMSs from baseline to 26 weeks, the primary outcome variable, was separated statistically into five different injury severity cohorts (p < 0.0001). The severity cohorts contained groups with severe floor (62.9%) and ceiling (10.7%) effects, which do not contribute to drug effects. The new NASCIS2 data set duplicated the p value for MP versus placebo in the sub-subgroup analysis of MP initiated ≤ 8 hours (the subgroup) and recovery of motor function on only the right side of the body (a further subgroup within the ≤ 8-hour subgroup), presented as the positive MP effect in the original NASCIS2 reporting. However, current statistical interpretation considers results seen only in post hoc sub-subgroups, without multi-test corrections, to be random effects without clinical significance. The combined case-level pooled data set from the NASCIS2 and Sygen studies increased the MP group from 106 to 431 patients, creating a new MP combined group. This new data set served as a surrogate for a contemporary MP study and found that administration of MP did not enhance ASIA motor score improvement in the lower extremities at 26 weeks. Secondary analysis of descending ASIA motor and sensory cervical neurological levels in cervical ATSCI patients at 26 weeks also found no MP drug effect., Conclusions: Analysis of both the new updated NASCIS2 data set and the new case-matched pooled data set from two historical ATSCI studies revealed that administration of MP after spinal cord injury did not demonstrate any enhancement in neurological recovery at 26 weeks. The results of this analysis warrant review by clinical guideline groups.

The outcomes of cervical incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI) are heterogeneous. This study sought to dissociate subgroups of cervical incomplete SCI patients with distinct longitudinal temporal profiles of recovery in upper limb motor function. Patients with cervical incomplete SCI (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS] B-D; C1-C8) were identified from four prospective, multi-center SCI datasets. A group-based trajectory model was fit to longitudinal upper extremity motor scores out to 1 year. Multi-variable multinomial logistic regression was performed to identify features that characterize each trajectory group. A classification system for predicting trajectory group at baseline was developed by recursive partitioning. In total, 801 patients were eligible. Four distinct trajectory groups were identified: 1) "Poor outcome": Severe injury, very minimal recovery; 2) "Moderate recovery": Moderate-to-severe injury, moderate recovery; most recovery occurs by 6 months, with mild, gradual recovery continuing thereafter; 3) "Good recovery": Moderate injury, good recovery; most recovery occurs by 3 months, with mild, gradual recovery continuing thereafter; and 4) "Excellent outcome": Mild injury, recovery to normal/near-normal by 3 months. On adjusted analyses, older age was associated with lower likelihood of "excellent outcome" ( p  = 0.020). AIS C and D injuries were associated with "moderate recovery," "good recovery," and "excellent outcome" ( p  < 0.001). Mid-cervical injuries occurred more frequently in "moderate recovery," "good recovery," and "excellent outcome" ( p  < 0.001) groups. Early surgical decompression (< 24 h) was associated with increased propensity for "good recovery" ( p  = 0.039) and "excellent outcome" ( p  = 0.048). A classification model based on recursive partitioning could predict trajectory group using age, AIS grade, and neurological level with an area under the curve of 0.81. Patients with cervical incomplete SCI demonstrate distinct temporal profiles of recovery in upper limb motor function. The trajectory a patient is likely to follow may be predicted at baseline with fair accuracy.

Importance: The optimal clinical management of central cord syndrome (CCS) remains unclear; yet this is becoming an increasingly relevant public health problem in the face of an aging population., Objective: To provide a head-to-head comparison of the neurologic and functional outcomes of early (<24 hours) vs late (≥24 hours) surgical decompression for CCS., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients who underwent surgery for CCS (lower extremity motor score [LEMS] - upper extremity motor score [UEMS] ≥ 5) were included in this propensity score-matched cohort study. Data were collected from December 1991 to March 2017, and the analysis was performed from March 2020 to January 2021. This study identified patients with CCS from 3 international multicenter studies with data on the timing of surgical decompression in spinal cord injury. Participants were included if they had a documented baseline neurologic examination performed within 14 days of injury. Participants were eligible if they underwent surgical decompression for CCS., Exposures: Early surgery was compared with late surgery., Main Outcomes and Measures: Propensity scores were calculated as the probability of undergoing early compared with late surgery using the logit method and adjusting for relevant confounders. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio by an optimal-matching technique. The primary end point was motor recovery (UEMS, LEMS, American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] motor score [AMS]) at 1 year. Secondary end points were Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor score and complete independence in each FIM motor domain at 1 year., Results: The final study cohort consisted of 186 patients with CCS. The early-surgery group included 93 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.8 [16.8] years; 66 male [71.0%]), and the late-surgery group included 93 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.0 [15.5] years; 75 male [80.6%]). Early surgical decompression resulted in significantly improved recovery in upper limb (mean difference [MD], 2.3; 95% CI, 0-4.5; P = .047), but not lower limb (MD, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.8 to 3.0; P = .30), motor function. In an a priori-planned subgroup analysis, outcomes were comparable with early or late decompressive surgery in patients with ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade D injury. However, in patients with AIS grade C injury, early surgery resulted in significantly greater recovery in overall motor score (MD, 9.5; 95% CI, 0.5-18.4; P = .04), owing to gains in both upper and lower limb motor function., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found early surgical decompression to be associated with improved recovery in upper limb motor function at 1 year in patients with CCS. Treatment paradigms for CCS should be redefined to encompass early surgical decompression as a neuroprotective therapy.

Background: Spinal cord injury (SCI) leads to various degrees of lifelong functional deficits. Most individuals with incomplete SCI experience a certain degree of functional recovery, especially within the first-year postinjury. However, this is difficult to predict, and surrogate biomarkers are urgently needed., Objective: We aimed to (1) determine if routine blood chemistry parameters are related to neurological recovery after SCI, (2) evaluate if such parameters could predict functional recovery, and (3) establish cutoff values that could inform clinical decision-making., Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of routine blood chemistry parameters in patients with traumatic SCI (n = 676). Blood samples were collected between 24 and 72 hours as well as at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 52 weeks postinjury. Linear mixed models, regression analysis, and unbiased recursive partitioning (URP) of blood chemistry data were used to relate to and predict walking recovery 1 year postinjury., Results: The temporal profile of platelet counts and serum levels of albumin, alkaline phosphatase, and creatinine differentiated patients who recovered walking from those who remained wheelchair bound. The 4 blood chemistry parameters from the sample collection 8 weeks postinjury predicted functional recovery observed 1 year after incomplete SCI. Finally, URP defined a cutoff for serum albumin at 3.7 g/dL, which in combination with baseline injury severity differentiates individuals who regain ambulation from those not able to walk. Specifically, about 80% of those with albumin >3.7 g/dL recovered walking., Conclusions: Routine blood chemistry data from the postacute phase, together with baseline injury severity, predict functional outcome after incomplete SCI.

Background: Although there is a strong biological rationale for early decompression of the injured spinal cord, the influence of the timing of surgical decompression for acute spinal cord injury (SCI) remains debated, with substantial variability in clinical practice. We aimed to objectively evaluate the effect of timing of decompressive surgery for acute SCI on long-term neurological outcomes., Methods: We did a pooled analysis of individual patient data derived from four independent, prospective, multicentre data sources, including data from December, 1991, to March, 2017. Three of these studies had been published; of these, only one study previously specifically analysed the effect of the timing of surgical decompression. These four datasets were selected because they were among the highest quality acute SCI datasets available and contained highly granular data. Individual patient data were obtained by request from study authors. All patients who underwent decompressive surgery for acute SCI within these datasets were included. Patients were stratified into early (<24 h after spinal injury) and late (≥24 h after spinal injury) decompression groups. Neurological outcomes were assessed by American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA), or International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI), examination. The primary endpoint was change in total motor score from baseline to 1 year after spinal injury. Secondary endpoints were ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade and change in upper-extremity motor, lower-extremity motor, light touch, and pin prick scores after 1 year. One-stage meta-analyses were done by hierarchical mixed-effects regression adjusting for baseline score, age, mechanism of injury, AIS grade, level of injury, and administration of methylprednisolone. Effect sizes were summarised by mean difference (MD) for sensorimotor scores and common odds ratio (cOR) for AIS grade, with corresponding 95% CIs. As a secondary analysis, change in total motor score was regressed against time to surgical decompression (h) as a continuous variable, using a restricted cubic spline with adjustment for the same covariates as in the primary analysis., Findings: We identified 1548 eligible patients from the four datasets. Outcome data at 1 year after spinal injury were available for 1031 patients (66·6%). Patients who underwent early surgical decompression (n=528) experienced greater recovery than patients who had late decompression surgery (n=1020) at 1 year after spinal injury; total motor scores improved by 23·7 points (95% CI 19·2-28·2) in the early surgery group versus 19·7 points (15·3-24·0) in the late surgery group (MD 4·0 points [1·7-6·3]; p=0·0006), light touch scores improved by 19·0 points (15·1-23·0) vs 14·8 points (11·2-18·4; MD 4·3 [1·6-7·0]; p=0·0021), and pin prick scores improved by 18·3 points (13·7-22·9) versus 14·2 points (9·8-18·6; MD 4·0 [1·5-6·6]; p=0·0020). Patients who had early decompression also had better AIS grades at 1 year after surgery, indicating less severe impairment, compared with patients who had late surgery (cOR 1·48 [95% CI 1·16-1·89]; p=0·0019). When time to surgical decompression was modelled as a continuous variable, there was a steep decline in change in total motor score with increasing time during the first 24-36 h after injury (p<0·0001); and after 36 h, change in total motor score plateaued., Interpretation: Surgical decompression within 24 h of acute SCI is associated with improved sensorimotor recovery. The first 24-36 h after injury appears to represent a crucial time window to achieve optimal neurological recovery with decompressive surgery following acute SCI., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction:  The use of interspinous process devices are less invasive surgical methods designed to manage mild to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms. Symptomatic relief may not be seen in all patients undergoing this procedure. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters have been used to predict the success of clinical outcomes in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis for decompressive surgeries. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using nerve root sedimentation sign to predict mid- to long-term clinical outcomes of patients treated with interspinous spacers for lumbar spinal stenosis., Methods: This was a retrospective study using prospective multicenter Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption (FDA IDE) trial (Superion™ and X-STOP®) data. Inclusion criteria were patients treated with interspinous spacers, aged 45 or older with lumbar spinal stenosis at one or more contiguous levels from L1 to L5 and symptoms of neurogenic claudication. Preoperative axial T2 weighted MRI images were used to determine nerve root sedimentation sign. Preoperative, six-week, one- and two-year postoperative clinical outcomes were measured using Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Clinical outcomes were compared between positive and negative nerve root sedimentation sign groups; p ≤0.05 was considered significant., Results: This study included n=374 patients; 40 excluded; 334 included (113=positive nerve root sedimentation sign (NRSS) (34%) and 221=negative NRSS (66%)). At six weeks, significant postoperative ODI correction was noted in both groups (p<0.001). No significant differences in ODI scores were identified between groups. A subgroup analysis with MRI image quality grade 3 and certainty determination grade 5, six-week postoperative ODI correction was significant in both groups. Six-week, one- and two-year postoperative ODI scores were greater by 6 points in the positive nerve root sedimentation sign group compared to the negative nerve root sedimentation sign group., Conclusions:  Although satisfactory postoperative improvement occurred in both groups, there were statistically significant differences noted in certain sub-categories. The subgroup analysis indicated MRI image quality and nerve root sedimentation sign certainty of determination may be factors that may aid with planning the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis., Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section., (Copyright © 2020, Badve et al.)

Microbeam radiation therapy (MRT) utilizes highly collimated synchrotron generated x-rays to create narrow planes of high dose radiation for the treatment of tumors. Individual microbeams have a typical width of 30-50 µm and are separated by a distance of 200-500 µm. The dose delivered at the center of the beam is lethal to cells in the microbeam path, on the order of hundreds of Grays (Gy). The tissue between each microbeam is spared and helps aid in the repair of adjacent damaged tissue. Radiation interactions within the peak of the microbeam, such as the photoelectric effect and incoherent (atomic Compton) scattering, cause some dose to be delivered to the valley areas adjacent to the microbeams. As the incident x-ray energy is modified, radiation interactions within a material change and affect the probability of interactions, as well as the directionality and energy of ionizing particles (electrons) that deposit energy in the valley regions surrounding the microbeam peaks. It is crucial that the valley dose between microbeams be minimal to maintain the effectiveness of MRT. Using a monochromatic x-ray source with x-ray energies ranging from 30 to 150 keV, a detailed investigation into the effect of incident x-ray energy on the dose profiles of microbeams was performed using samarium doped fluoroaluminate (FA) glass as the medium. All dosimetric measurements were carried out using a purpose-built fluorescence confocal microscope dosimetric technique that used Sm-doped FA glass plates as the irradiated medium. Dose profiles are measured over a very a wide range of x-ray energies at micrometer resolution and dose distribution in the microbeam are mapped. The measured microbeam profiles at different energies are compared with the MCNP6 radiation transport code, a general transport code which can calculate the energy deposition of electrons as they pass through a given material. The experimentally measured distributions can be used to validate the results for electron energy deposition in fluoroaluminate glass. Code validation is necessary for using transport codes in future treatment planning for MRT and other radiation therapies. It is shown that simulated and measured micro beam-profiles are in good agreement, and micrometer level changes can be observed using this high-resolution dosimetry technique. Full width at 10% of the maximum peak (FW@10%) was used to quantify the microbeam width. Experimental measurements on FA glasses and simulations on the dependence of the FW@10% at various energies are in good agreement. Simulations on energy deposited in water indicate that FW@10% reaches a local minimum around energies 140 keV. In addition, variable slit width experiments were carried out at an incident x-ray energy of 100 keV in order to determine the effect of the narrowing slit width on the delivered peak dose. The microbeam width affects the peak dose, which decreases with the width of the microbeam. Experiments suggest that a typical microbeam width for MRT is likely to be between 20-50 µm based on this work.

Gangliosides are cell membrane components, most abundantly in the central nervous system (CNS) where they exert among others neuro-protective and -restorative functions. Clinical development of ganglioside replacement therapy for several neurodegenerative diseases was impeded by the BSE crisis in Europe during the 1990s. Nowadays, gangliosides are produced bovine-free and new pre-clinical and clinical data justify a reevaluation of their therapeutic potential in neurodegenerative diseases. Clinical experience is greatest with monosialo-tetrahexosyl-ganglioside (GM1) in the treatment of stroke. Fourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in overall >2,000 patients revealed no difference in survival, but consistently superior neurological outcomes vs. placebo. GM1 was shown to attenuate ischemic neuronal injuries in diabetes patients by suppression of ERK1/2 phosphorylation and reduction of stress to the endoplasmic reticulum. There is level-I evidence from 5 RCTs of a significantly faster recovery with GM1 vs. placebo in patients with acute and chronic spinal cord injury (SCI), disturbance of consciousness after subarachnoid hemorrhage, or craniocerebral injuries due to closed head trauma. In Parkinson's disease (PD), two RCTs provided evidence of GM1 to be superior to placebo in improving motor symptoms and long-term to result in a slower than expected symptom progression, suggesting disease-modifying potential. In Alzheimer's disease (AD), the role of gangliosides has been controversial, with some studies suggesting a "seeding" role for GM1 in amyloid β polymerization into toxic forms, and others more recently suggesting a rather protective role in vivo . In Huntington's disease (HD), no clinical trials have been conducted yet. However, low GM1 levels observed in HD cells were shown to increase cell susceptibility to apoptosis. Accordingly, treatment with GM1 increased survival of HD cells in vitro and consistently ameliorated pathological phenotypes in several murine HD models, with effects seen at molecular, cellular, and behavioral level. Given that in none of the clinical trials using GM1 any clinically relevant safety issues have occurred to date, current data supports expanding GM1 clinical research, particularly to conditions with high, unmet medical need.

Lumbar spinal stenosis has been shown to negatively impact health-related quality of life. Interspinous process decompression (IPD) is a minimally invasive procedure that utilizes a stand-alone spacer to serve as a joint extension blocker to relieve neural compression in patients with spinal stenosis. Using the 5-year results from an FDA randomized controlled trial of IPD, the quality of life in 189 patients treated with the Superion® spacer was evaluated with the SF-12. Physical and mental component summary (PCS, MCS) scores were computed preoperatively and at annual intervals. For the PCS, mean scores improved from 29.4 ± 8.1 preoperatively to 41.2 ± 12.4 at 2 years (40%) and to 43.8 ± 11.6 at 5 years (49%) (p<0.001 for both comparisons). At 2 years, 81% (103 of 128) of subjects demonstrated maintenance or improvement in PCS scores. The mean MCS score improved from 50.0 ± 12.7 preoperatively to 54.4 ± 10.6 and 54.7 ± 8.6 at 2 and 5 years, respectively (p>0.10 for both comparisons). These results demonstrate that the significant impairment in physical well-being found in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis can be ameliorated, in large part, by IPD treatment.

Objective: To determine 4-year clinical outcomes in patients with moderate lumbar spinal stenosis treated with minimally invasive stand-alone interspinous process decompression using the Superion device., Methods: The 4-year Superion data were extracted from a randomized, controlled Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial. Patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication relieved with back flexion who failed at least 6 months of nonsurgical management were enrolled. Outcomes included Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) symptom severity (ss), physical function (pf) and patient satisfaction (ps) subdomains, leg and back pain visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). At 4-year follow-up, 89 of the 122 patients (73%) provided complete clinical outcome evaluations., Results: At 4 years after index procedure, 75 of 89 patients with Superion (84.3%) demonstrated clinical success on at least 2 of 3 ZCQ domains. Individual component responder rates were 83% (74/89), 79% (70/89), and 87% (77/89) for ZCQss, ZCQpf, and ZCQps; 78% (67/86) and 66% (57/86) for leg and back pain VAS; and 62% (55/89) for ODI. Patients with Superion also demonstrated percentage improvements over baseline of 41%, 40%, 73%, 69%, and 61% for ZCQss, ZCQpf, leg pain VAS, back pain VAS, and ODI. Within-group effect sizes all were classified as very large (>1.0): 1.49, 1.65, 1.42, 1.12, and 1.46 for ZCQss, ZCQpf, leg pain VAS, back pain VAS, and ODI., Conclusions: Minimally invasive implantation of the Superion device provides long-term, durable relief of symptoms of intermittent neurogenic claudication for patients with moderate lumbar spinal stenosis., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Interspinous process decompression is a minimally invasive implantation procedure employing a stand-alone interspinous spacer that functions as an extension blocker to prevent compression of neural elements without direct surgical removal of tissue adjacent to the nerves. The Superion® spacer is the only FDA approved stand-alone device available in the US. It is also the only spacer approved by the CMS to be implanted in an ambulatory surgery center. We computed the within-group effect sizes from the Superion IDE trial and compared them to results extrapolated from two randomized trials of decompressive laminectomy. For the ODI, effect sizes were all very large (>1.0) for Superion and laminectomy at 2, 3, and 4 years. For ZCQ, the 2-year Superion symptom severity (1.26) and physical function (1.29) domains were very large ; laminectomy effect sizes were very large (1.07) for symptom severity and large for physical function (0.80). Current projections indicate a marked increase in the number of patients with spinal stenosis. Consequently, there remains a keen interest in minimally invasive treatment options that delay or obviate the need for invasive surgical procedures, such as decompressive laminectomy or fusion. Stand-alone interspinous spacers may fill a currently unmet treatment gap in the continuum of care and help to reduce the burden of this chronic degenerative condition on the health care system.

Study Design: Prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial., Objective: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the PCM Cervical Disc compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in treatment of patients with symptomatic single-level degenerative spondylosis between C3-C4 and C7-T1 with or without prior cervical fusion., Summary of Background Data: The 2-year results of the PCM Cervical Disc trial have been reported previously. The current study reports the long-term results of the same trial., Methods: Patients with single-level cervical spondylosis and radiculopathy with or without myelopathy unresponsive to nonoperative treatment were enrolled. The per protocol patient sample at 5 years included 293 patients (163 PCM, 130 ACDF). Adverse events and secondary surgical procedures are reported on the cohorts through current follow-up, which include 110 patients (68 PCM, 42 ACDF) at 7 years., Results: At 5 years postoperative, all patient-reported outcomes-neck and arm pain visual analogue scale score, neck disability index, and general health (36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component scores: physical component summary, mental component summary)-were significantly improved from baselines in both groups, and mean scores were significantly better in the PCM group for neck disability index (P=0.001), neck pain (P=0.002), general health (Pphysical component summary=0.014; Pmental component summary=0.004), and patient satisfaction (P=0.005). PCM patients trended toward fewer 2- to 7-year device-related serious adverse events (1/214, 0.5% PCM; 2/190, 1.1% ACDF) and secondary surgical procedures (7/211, 3.3% PCM; 14/290, 7.6% ACDF). Adjacent-level degeneration was radiographically more frequent after ACDF (33.1% PCM, 50.9% ACDF; P=0.006) and was the primary indication for the increase in late-term secondary surgical procedures after ACDF., Conclusion: The long-term results show good clinical outcomes after ACDF and PCM arthroplasty. PCM patients showed greater improvement in neck disability index and neck pain scores with a lower rate of radiographical adjacent-level degeneration and a trend toward fewer secondary surgical procedures. These data support PCM arthroplasty to be a viable and sustainable alternative to ACDF., Level of Evidence: 1.

Study Design: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigational device exemption noninferiority trial., Objective: To determine 2-year outcomes in patients with intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) who were treated with the Superion interspinous process spacer., Summary of Background Data: Interspinous spacers are a less-invasive treatment alternative compared with surgical decompression for patients with LSS unresponsive to conservative care. High-quality comparative data with these devices are lacking., Methods: Patients presenting with intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate LSS who failed at least 6 months of nonsurgical management were randomly allocated to treatment with the Superion spacer or a control spacer (X-Stop) and followed for 2 years., Results: A total of 391 randomized patients were implanted with Superion (n = 190) or control (n = 201) spacers at 29 sites in the United States between August 2008 and December 2011. Implants were successfully implanted in 99.5% of patients with Superion and 99.0% of control patients. The primary composite endpoint of this study was met, which demonstrated that the Superion spacer was noninferior to the X-Stop spacer. Leg pain, the predominant patient complaint, decreased in severity by 70% during 2 years in each group. Most (77%) patients achieved leg pain clinical success (improvement ≥20 mm) at 2 years. Back pain clinical success (improvement ≥20 mm) was 68%, with no differences between groups. Oswestry Disability Index clinical success (≥15% point improvement) was achieved in 65% of patients. The rates of complications and reoperations were similar between groups., Conclusion: The Superion interspinous process spacer relieves symptoms of intermittent neurogenic claudication secondary to moderate LSS in the majority of patients through 2 years., Level of Evidence: 2.

Objective: To compare the two-year clinical outcomes of a prospective, randomized controlled trial of an FDA-approved interspinous spacer with the compilation of published findings from 19 studies of decompressive laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis., Methods: Back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) values were compared between spacer- and laminectomy-treated patients preoperatively and at 12 and 24 months., Results: Percentage improvements between baseline and 24 months uniformly favored patients treated with the spacer for back pain (65% vs. 52%), leg pain (70% vs. 62%), ODI (51% vs. 47%) and ZCQ symptom severity (37% vs. 29%) and physical function (36% vs. 32%)., Conclusion: Both treatments provide effective and durable symptom relief of claudicant symptoms. This stand-alone interspinous spacer offers the patient a minimally invasive option with less surgical risk.

Background: Interspinous spacers are a minimally invasive surgical alternative for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) unresponsive to conservative care. The purpose of this prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was to compare 2-year clinical outcomes in patients with moderate LSS treated with the Superion(®) (Experimental) or the X-Stop(®), a FDA-approved interspinous spacer (Control)., Methods: A total of 250 patients with moderate LSS unresponsive to conservative care were randomly allocated to treatment with the Experimental (n = 123) or Control (n = 127) interspinous spacer and followed through 2 years post-treatment. Complication data were available for all patients and patient-reported outcomes were available for 192 patients (101 Experimental, 91 Control) at 2 years., Results: Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) Symptom Severity and Physical Function scores improved 34% to 36% in both groups through 2 years (all p < 0.001). Patient Satisfaction scores at 2 years were 1.8 ± 0.9 with Experimental and 1.6 ± 0.8 with Control. Axial pain decreased from 59 ± 26 mm at baseline to 21 ± 26 mm at 2 years with Experimental and from 55 ± 26 mm to 21 ± 25 mm with Control (both p < 0.001). Extremity pain decreased from 67 ± 24 mm to 14 ± 22 mm at 2 years with Experimental and from 63 ± 24 mm to 18 ± 23 mm with Control (both p < 0.001). Back function assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index similarly improved with Experimental (37 ± 12% to 18 ± 16%) and Control (39 ± 12% to 20 ± 16%) (both p < 0.001). Freedom from reoperation at the index level was 84% for Experimental and 83% for Control (log-rank: p = 0.38) at 2 years., Conclusions: Both interspinous spacers effectively alleviated pain and improved back function to a similar degree through 2 years in patients with moderate LSS who were unresponsive to conservative care., Trial Registration: NCT00692276.

Study Design: Prospective, multicenter, randomized Food and Drug Administration approved investigational device exemption clinical trial., Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the PCM Cervical Disc compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of patients with degenerative spondylosis and neurological symptoms at 1 level between C3-C4 and C7-T1., Summary of Background Data: Cervical disc arthroplasty in the treatment of symptomatic cervical spondylosis has been studied in other series. The PCM Cervical Disc is a nonconstrained motion-sparing alternative to ACDF., Methods: Patients 18 to 65 years of age with single-level symptomatic cervical spondylosis with radiculopathy and/or myelopathy unresponsive to nonoperative treatment were enrolled, including patients with prior nonadjacent or adjacent single-level fusions. The per-protocol patient sample at 2 years included 342 patients (189 PCM, 153 ACDF). Longitudinal outcomes were comparatively evaluated., Results: At 2 years postoperatively, clinical measures-neck and arm pain visual analogue scale, Neck Disability Index (NDI), SF-36, and neurological status-were significantly improved from preoperative baselines in both groups. Mean NDI score at 2 years was significantly lower in PCM group (P = 0.029). There were no statistical differences between groups in rates of surgery-related serious adverse events (5.6% PCM, 7.4% ACDF) or secondary surgical procedures (5.2% PCM, 5.4% ACDF). Patients with PCM reported lower dysphagia scores (8.8/100 vs. 12.1/100; P = 0.045) and higher patient satisfaction (82.8/100 vs. 81.4/100). Overall success, a composite endpoint including minimum 20% NDI improvement, no major complications, no neurological worsening, no secondary surgical procedures, and meeting radiographical criteria of motion for PCM and fusion for ACDF, was significantly greater in the PCM group (75.1% vs. 64.9%; P = 0.020)., Conclusion: The treatment of symptomatic single-level cervical spondylosis with PCM achieves clinical outcomes that are at least equivalent to ACDF while maintaining motion. At 2 years, patients with PCM had lower NDI scores, statistically lower rate of prolonged dysphagia, greater patient satisfaction, and superior overall success.

Study Design: Retrospective, longitudinal analysis of motor recovery data from individuals with cervical (C4-C7) sensorimotor complete spinal cord injury (SCI) according to the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI)., Objectives: To analyze the extent and patterns of spontaneous motor recovery over the first year after traumatic cervical sensorimotor complete SCI., Methods: Datasets from the European multicenter study about SCI (EMSCI) and the Sygen randomized clinical trial were examined for conversion of American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) grade, change in upper extremity motor score (UEMS) or motor level, as well as relationships between these measures., Results: There were no overall differences between the EMSCI and Sygen datasets in motor recovery patterns. After 1 year, up to 70% of subjects spontaneously recovered at least one motor level, but only 30% recovered two or more motor levels, with lesser values at intermediate time points. AIS grade conversion did not significantly influence motor level changes. At 1 year, the average spontaneous improvement in bilateral UEMS was 10-11 motor points. There was only moderate relationship between a change in UEMS and a change in cervical motor level (r(2)=0.30, P<0.05). Regardless of initial cervical motor level, most individuals recover a similar number of motor points or motor levels., Conclusion: Careful tracking of cervical motor recovery outcomes may provide the necessary sensitivity and accuracy to reliably detect a subtle, but meaningful treatment effect after sensorimotor complete cervical SCI. The distribution of the UEMS change may be more important functionally than the total UEMS recovered.

Study Design: Retrospective review of prospective database., Objective: To define the variability of neurologic examination and recovery after nonpenetrating complete thoracic spinal cord injuries (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] A)., Summary of Background Data: Neurologic examinations after spinal cord injury (SCI) can be difficult and inconsistent. Unlike cervical SCI patients, alterations in thoracic (below T1) complete SCI (ASIA A-based on the ASIA Impairment Scale [AIS]) patients' examinations are based only on sensory testing, thus changes in the neurologic level (NL) are determined only by sensory changes., Methods: A retrospective review of the placebo control patients in a multicenter prospective database used for the pharmacologic trial of Sygen. Patients were included if they had a complete thoracic SCI on initial evaluation, with completed ASIA examinations at follow-up weeks 4, 8, 16, 26, and 52. Specifically, pin prick (PP) and light touch (LT) were assessed and the absolute change was calculated as the number of spinal levels at a given observation time., Results: Three thousand one hundred sixty-five patients were initially screened for the Sygen clinical trial, of which 51 were the control placebo patients used in this analysis. Alterations from the baseline examination (PP and LT) were fairly consistent and the median change/recovery in neurologic examination was 1 spinal level. Across all observations postbaseline, the average change for PP was 1.48 +/- 0.13 (mean +/- SE), and for LT, 1.40 +/- 0.13. There were equal proportions of directional changes (none, improved, lost)., Conclusion: Changes in a thoracic complete (ASIA A) SCI patients ASIA examination as measured through sensory methods (PP/LT) are fairly uncommon. The overall examination had only 1- to 2-level variability across patients, indicating minimal change in the sensory examination over the follow-up period. Stability in the ASIA examination as measured through sensory methods has thus been demonstrated over time, making it an excellent tool to monitor changes in neurologic function.

Background Context: The CHARITE artificial disc, a lumbar spinal arthroplasty device, was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2004 based on two-year safety and effectiveness data from a multicenter, prospective, randomized investigational device exemption (IDE) study. No long-term, randomized, prospective study on the CHARITE disc or any other artificial disc has been published to date., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness at the five-year follow-up time point of lumbar total disc replacement using the CHARITE artificial disc (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA) with that of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with BAK cages and iliac crest autograft, for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease from L4 to S1, unresponsive to nonoperative treatment., Study Design/setting: Randomized controlled trial-five-year follow-up., Patient Sample: Ninety CHARITE patients and 43 BAK patients., Outcome Measures: Self-reported measures: visual analog scale (VAS); validated Oswestry disability index (ODI version 1.0); Short-Form 36 Questionnaire, and patient satisfaction. Physiologic measures: radiographic range of motion, disc height, and segmental translation. Functional measures: work status., Methods: Of the 375 subjects enrolled in the CHARITE IDE trial, 277 were eligible for the five-year study and 160 patients thereof completed the five-year follow-up. The completers included 133 randomized patients. Overall success was defined as improvement> or =15 pts in ODI vs. baseline, no device failure, absence of major complications, and maintenance or improvement of neurological status. Additional clinical outcomes included an ODI questionnaire as well as VAS, SF-36, and patient satisfaction surveys. Work status was tracked for all patients. Safety assessments included occurrence and severity of adverse events and device failures. Radiographic analyses such as index- and adjacent-level range of motion, segmental translation, disc height, and longitudinal ossification were also carried out., Results: Overall success was 57.8% in the CHARITE group vs. 51.2% in the BAK group (Blackwelder's test: p=0.0359, Delta=0.10). In addition, mean changes from baseline for ODI (CHARITE: -24.0 pts vs. BAK: -27.5 pts), VAS pain scores (CHARITE: -38.7 vs. BAK: -40.0), and SF-36 questionnaires (SF-36 Physical Component Scores [PCS]: CHARITE: 12.6 pts vs. BAK: 12.3 pts) were similar across groups. In patient satisfaction surveys, 78% of CHARITE patients were satisfied vs. 72% of BAK patients. A total of 65.6% patients in the CHARITE group vs. 46.5% patients in the BAK group were employed full-time. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.0403). Long-term disability was recorded for 8.0% of CHARITE patients and 20.9% of BAK patients, a difference that was also statistically significant (p=0.0441). Additional index-level surgery was performed in 7.7% of CHARITE patients and 16.3% of BAK patients. Radiographic findings included operative and adjacent-level range of motion (ROM), intervertebral disc height and segmental translation. At the five-year follow-up, the mean ROM at the index level was 6.0 degrees for CHARITE patients and 1.0 degrees for BAK patients. Changes in disc height were also similar for both CHARITE and BAK patients (0.7 mm for both groups, p=0.9827). Segmental translation was 0.4 and 0.8mm in patients implanted with CHARITE at L4-L5 vs. L5-S1, respectively, and 0.1mm in BAK patients., Conclusions: The results of this five-year, prospective, randomized multicenter study are consistent with the two-year reports of noninferiority of CHARITE artificial disc vs. ALIF with BAK and iliac crest autograft. No statistical differences were found in clinical outcomes between groups. In addition, CHARITE patients reached a statistically greater rate of part- and full-time employment and a statistically lower rate of long-term disability, compared with BAK patients. Radiographically, the ROMs at index- and adjacent levels were not statistically different from those observed at two-years postsurgery.

Background: Candidates for spinal arthrodesis or arthroplasty often present with a history of prior surgery such as laminectomy, laminotomy or discectomy. In this study, lumbar arthroplasty patients with prior surgery, and in particular patients with prior discectomy, were evaluated for their clinical outcomes at the 5-year time point., Methods: Randomized patients from the 5-year CHARITÉ investigational device exemption (IDE) study were divided as follows: 1) fusion prior surgery (excluding prior decompression with fusion) group (FSG); 2) fusion prior discectomy group (FDG); 3) fusion no prior surgery group (FNG); 4) arthroplasty prior surgery group (ASG); 5) arthroplasty prior discectomy group (ADG); and 6) arthroplasty no prior surgery group (ANG). The 5-year clinical outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), patient satisfaction, and work status., Results: In the arthroplasty group, all subgroups had statistically significant VAS improvements from baseline (VAS change from baseline: ASG = -36.6 ± 29.6, P < 0.0001; ADG = -40.2 ± 30.9, P = 0.0002; ANG = -36.5 ± 34.6, P < 0.0001). There was no statistical difference between subgroups (P = 0.5587). In the fusion group, VAS changes from baseline were statistically significant for the FNG and FSG subgroups, but not for the FDG patients (FNG = -46.3 ± 28.8, P < 0.0001; FSG = -24.2 ± 36.4, P = 0.0444; FDG = -26.7 ± 38.7, P = 0.2188). A trend of decreased VAS improvements was observed for FSG versus FNG (P = 0.0703) subgroups. Similar findings and trends were observed in ODI scores (Changes in ODI from baseline: ASG = -20.4 ± 23.8, P < 0.0001; ANG = -26.6±21.1, P < 0.0001; ADG= -17.6 ± 28.6, P = 0.0116; FSG = -14.5 ± 21.2, P = 0.0303; FNG= -32.5 ± 22.6, P < 0.0001; FDG = -10.7 ± 9.4, P = 0.0938). The greatest improvement in work status from preoperative to postoperative was seen in the ADG subgroup (28% increase in part- and full-time employment), while the FDG subgroup showed the greatest reduction in work status (17% decrease)., Conclusions: Arthroplasty patients with prior surgery or prior discectomy had similar clinical outcomes as arthroplasty patients without prior surgery, while fusion patients with prior surgery or prior discectomy showed trends of lowered clinical outcomes compared to fusion patients without prior surgery or discectomy.

Object: A secondary lumbar surgery at a previously surgically treated level is believed to result in minimal clinical improvement. The clinical results of the CHARITE Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study were analyzed to assess the effect of previous surgery on clinical outcomes following either total disc replacement with the CHARITE device or anterior lumbar interbody fusion with a BAK cage and iliac crest autograft., Methods: Patients with prior microdiscectomy, laminectomy, or minimal medial facetectomy were not excluded from enrollment in the CHARITE IDE study. Thus, the following 3 groups were analyzed: all patients treated with the CHARITE Artificial Disc, whether randomized or nonrandomized; only patients treated with CHARITE devices randomized against patients with BAK devices; and control patients with BAK devices. Each group was further subdivided based on the patients' medical history, whether they had undergone prior surgery (prior surgery group) or had not (no prior surgery group). For all groups, baseline demographics were collected and compared for any potential recruitment bias. Postoperative improvements based on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction scores were further collected and statistically analyzed., Results: For all 3 groups, there were no statistical differences in clinical improvement from 3 months to 2 years postoperatively as measured using ODI and VAS scores between the subgroups (those who had prior surgery and those who did not)., Conclusions: Patients indicated for 1-level lumbar arthroplasty with previous lumbar decompressive surgery can be expected to have similar clinical outcomes to patients undergoing arthroplasty without prior lumbar decompressive surgery. Similarly, candidates for anterior lumbar fusion with prior decompressive surgery may experience similar benefits from the surgical procedure as those without.

Object: Lumbar arthroplasty is approved in the US for the treatment of degenerative disc disease at 1 level in skeletally mature patients. However, a bias toward older patients (> 45 years of age) who are otherwise indicated for the procedure may exist. In this study, the clinical outcomes of patients from the Charité Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) study were analyzed on the basis of patient age., Methods: There were 276 patients enrolled in the IDE study of the Charité Artificial Disc who underwent 1-level arthroplasty at either L4-5 or L5-S1, including 71 nonrandomized and 205 randomized individuals. Patient data were analyzed based on age (18-45 years [217 patients, Group 1] compared with 46-60 years [59 patients, Group 2]). Statistical analyses were performed based on 2-year postoperative improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores (clinical outcome), as well as range of motion (radiographic outcome), and adverse events., Results: There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to level implanted, operative time, blood loss, changes in ODI and VAS scores or any of the 8 component scores of the SF-36, compared with baseline, at all time points throughout the 24-month follow-up period (p > 0.10). Patient satisfaction was equivalent at 24 months, with 87% satisfaction in Group 1 and 85% satisfaction in Group 2 (no statistical difference). In addition, no significant differences were identified with respect to adverse events including approach related, neurological, technique related, or reoperation., Conclusions: Although patients > 45 years of age may have comorbidities or contraindications for arthroplasty for a number of reasons, particularly osteopenia, this analysis demonstrates that patients who are indicated for 1-level arthroplasty experience similar clinical outcome, satisfaction, or adverse events compared with their younger counterparts.

Object: Patient selection is perhaps the most important factor in successful lumbar surgery. In this study, the authors analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients enrolled in the CHARITE investigational device exemption (IDE) trial who underwent revision surgery after primary total disc replacement with CHARITE or an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with placement of a BAK cage and iliac crest autograft. This revision surgery was either a supplemental posterior lumbar fixation or a 360 degrees fusion. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare clinical success in patients who underwent revision surgery with those who did not., Methods: The patients enrolled in the CHARITE IDE study were divided into 6 groups according to treatment and repeated operation status, and their Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores at the 2-year follow-up and at baseline were compared. The patients had received the following treatments by group: A) ALIF without reoperation; B) ALIF with conversion to 360 degrees fusion; C) arthroplasty (randomized) without repeated operation; D) arthroplasty with supplemental posterior lumbar fixation; E) arthroplasty (nonrandomized) without repeated operation; and F) arthroplasty (nonrandomized) with supplemental posterior lumbar fixation. Outcome scores in the groups of patients who required revision surgeries (Groups B, D, and F; 23 patients) were compared with the groups that did not require revision surgery (Groups A, C, and E; 299 patients)., Results: Patients who required revision surgery had a significantly lower level of clinical improvement than those who did not. The mean change in ODI score was -53.0% in Groups A, C, and E, but just -12.7% in Groups B, D, and F (p < 0.0001). The mean change in VAS score was -59.1% in Groups A, C, and E, compared to -23.4% in Groups B, D, and F (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were identified in analyzing absolute change in scores and the percentage change. A comparison of outcomes in patients who had undergone arthroplasty without reoperation (Groups C and E) with all patients who had undergone revision surgery (Groups B, D, and F) demonstrated similar results (p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: The 7.1% of patients who underwent a secondary stabilization procedure had poor clinical improvement. This finding may indicate that if the alternative treatment had been the initial treatment, these patients would not have benefited, and further implies a 7.1% rate of imprecision in preoperative evaluation.

Object: One of the goals of lumbar arthroplasty is to restore and maintain range of motion (ROM) and to protect adjacent levels from abnormal motion, which may be a factor in transition syndrome following arthrodesis. In this study, in vitro ROM results were compared with in vivo, 2-year postoperative radiographic ROM evaluations., Methods: Radiographs of patients enrolled in the CHARITE investigational device exemption study were analyzed at baseline and at 2 years postoperatively. The ROM in flexion/extension at the implanted and adjacent levels was measured, normalized, and compared with ROM results obtained using cadaver (in vitro) evaluations., Results: Preoperative ROM distributions in patients enrolled for arthroplasty or fusion at the L4-5 level was as follows: 28% motion was observed at L3-4, 35% at L4-5 and 37% at L5-S1. Following a one-level arthroplasty at L4-5, the in vivo ROM distribution from L-3 to S-1 at the 2-year time point was 36% at L3-4, 30% at L4-5 and 35% at L5-S1. Following a one-level fusion with BAK and pedicle screws at L4-5, the in vivo ROM distribution from L-3 to S-1 at the 2-year time point was 45% at L3-4, 9% at L4-5 and 46% at L5-S1., Conclusions: The baseline as well as the 2-year in vivo data confirmed previously published in vitro data. One-level arthroplasty was shown herein to replicate the normal distribution of motion of the intact spine.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration approved the Charité artificial disc on October 26, 2004. This approval was based on an extensive analysis and review process; 20 years of disc usage worldwide; and the results of a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial that compared lumbar artificial disc replacement to fusion. The results of the investigational device exemption (IDE) study led to a conclusion that clinical outcomes following lumbar arthroplasty were at least as good as outcomes from fusion., Methods: The author performed a new analysis of the Visual Analog Scale pain scores and the Oswestry Disability Index scores from the Charité artificial disc IDE study and used a nonparametric statistical test, because observed data distributions were not normal. The analysis included all of the enrolled subjects in both the nonrandomized and randomized phases of the study., Results: Subjects from both the treatment and control groups improved from the baseline situation (P < .001) at all follow-up times (6 weeks to 24 months). Additionally, these pain and disability levels with artificial disc replacement were superior (P < .05) to the fusion treatment at all follow-up times including 2 years., Conclusions: The a priori statistical plan for an IDE study may not adequately address the final distribution of the data. Therefore, statistical analyses more appropriate to the distribution may be necessary to develop meaningful statistical conclusions from the study. A nonparametric statistical analysis of the Charité artificial disc IDE outcomes scores demonstrates superiority for lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion at all follow-up time points to 24 months.

Background: Previous reports of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) have described significant complications. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption (IDE) study of the Charité artificial disc represents the first level I data comparison of TDR to fusion., Methods: In the prospective, randomized, multicenter IDE study, patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio, with 205 patients in the Charité group and 99 patients in the control group (anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF] with BAK cages). Inclusion criteria included confirmed single-level degenerative disc disease at L4-5 or L5-S1 and failure of nonoperative treatment for at least 6 months. Complications were reported throughout the study., Results: The rate of approach-related complications was 9.8% in the investigational group and 10.1% in the control group. The rate of major neurological complications was similar between the 2 groups (investigational = 4.4%, control = 4.0%). There was a higher rate of superficial wound infection in the investigational group but no deep wound infections in either group. Pseudarthrosis occurred in 9.1% of control group patients. The rate of subsidence in the investigational group was 3.4%. The reoperation rate was 5.4% in the investigational group and 9.1% in the control group., Conclusions: The incidence of perioperative and postoperative complications for lumbar TDR was similar to that of ALIF. Vigilance is necessary with respect to patient indications, training, and correct surgical technique to maintain TDR complications at the levels experienced in the IDE study.

Background: Introduction of a new surgical technology may result in higher rates of adverse events compared with rates reported in the study performed to gain regulatory approval. The purpose of our study was to describe the incidence of reported adverse events during the first 18 months following US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the first lumbar arthroplasty device available in the United States and to discern data trends., Methods: Reports of adverse events submitted to the FDA in patients receiving the Charité artificial disc were reviewed and pooled by similarity. We analyzed 135 medical device reports filed with the FDA regarding the Charité artificial disc between October 26, 2004, and April 26, 2006. Sixteen reports were excluded for lack of information regarding cause or because described events were vague or unrelated to the procedure., Results: Rate of adverse events reported to the FDA as a percentage of devices of which the device manufacturer was aware had been dispensed at 6, 12, and 18 months following approval was 0.58%, 2.34%, and 2.13%, respectively. The adverse event reported most frequently through 18 months was anterior migration with reoperation (0.65%); other reported adverse events were, in decreasing order, sizing and malposition errors resulting in reoperation (0.36%), posterior element fracture resulting in reoperation (0.30%), major vascular injury requiring a blood transfusion (0.23%), and subsidence requiring reoperation (0.20%). Three non-device-related patient deaths were reported following FDA approval. The reported rate of sizing/malposition errors leading to reoperation of 0.36% was the same rate as that seen in the investigational device exemption (IDE) study of the Charité artificial disc. All other reported rates were lower than rates of the same events reported in the study., Conclusions: Medical device reporting is an important yet highly anecdotal and incomplete event-tracking process. However, it is the principal means available in the United States for obtaining information on the clinical performance of a device after its approval for sale and does provide some data, albeit imperfect, in this regard. The cumulative medical device reports through the 18 months following FDA approval, measured against the number of devices dispensed, suggests a rate of adverse events that either tracks or is somewhat less than that reported in the IDE study. This suggests that a repeat of the "cage rage," a "lumbar arthroplasty rage," has not yet occurred.

Background/objectives: To evaluate the relationship between the severity of cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] grade), presence of neurogenic shock, and timing of surgical intervention. This is a post-hoc analysis from the Sygen multicenter randomized controlled trial., Methods: Blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) data were collected when patients were first assessed in the emergency room (Time A) and at the time of randomization (Time B). Individuals were subdivided by ASIA grade and by the level of the systolic BP (SBP)., Results: Only individuals with cervical SCI from the Sygen trial (n = 577) were evaluated. Severe complete SCI (ASIA grade = A) was established in 57% of these patients. A total of 74 (13%) patients with neurogenic shock (SBP < 90 mmHg) at Time A were identified. The SBP increased significantly from Time A to Time B (P < 0.0001). The median time from SCI to surgical intervention, for ASIA A, was 80.9 hours for patients with initial SBP < 90 mmHg and 58 hours for patients with initial SBP > or = 90 mmHg (P = 0.025). Multivariable analysis after adjusting for confounders revealed a statistically significant difference in the time to surgical intervention based on SBP for ASIA A (P = 0.026), yet not for ASIA B or C/D., Conclusions: The presence of neurogenic shock was associated with a delay in the timing of surgical intervention in patients with cervical SCI. Detailed evaluation of autonomic dysfunctions following SCI including cardiovascular instability could improve our understanding of the complexities of clinical presentations and possible neurological outcomes.

Study Design: A prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of lumbar total disc replacement, using the CHARITE artificial disc (DePuy Spine, Raynham, MA), with anterior lumbar interbody fusion, for the treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease from L4-S1 unresponsive to nonoperative treatment., Summary of Background Data: Reported results of lumbar total disc replacement have been favorable, but studies have been limited to retrospective case series and/or small sample sizes., Methods: Three hundred four (304) patients were enrolled in the study at 14 centers across the United States and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with the CHARITE artificial disc or the control group, instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Data were collected pre- and perioperatively at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months following surgery. The key clinical outcome measures were a Visual Analog Scale assessing back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire, and the SF-36 Health Survey., Results: Patients in both groups improved significantly following surgery. Patients in the CHARITE artificial disc group recovered faster than patients in the control group. Patients in the CHARITE artificial disc group had lower levels of disability at every time interval from 6 weeks to 24 months, compared with the control group, with statistically lower pain and disability scores at all but the 24 month follow-up (P < 0.05). At the 24-month follow-up period, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the CHARITE artificial disc group expressed satisfaction with their treatment and would have the same treatment again, compared with the fusion group (P < 0.05). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CHARITE artificial disc group (P < 0.05). The complication rate was similar between both groups., Conclusions: This prospective, randomized, multicenter study demonstrated that quantitative clinical outcome measures following lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc are at least equivalent to clinical outcomes with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. These results support earlier reports in the literature that total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for the surgical treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration in properly indicated patients. The CHARITE artificial disc group demonstrated statistically significant superiority in two major economic areas, a 1-day shorter hospitalization, and a lower rate of reoperations (5.4% compared with 9.1%). At 24 months, the investigational group had a significantly higher rate of satisfaction (73.7%) than the 53.1% rate of satisfaction in the control group (P = 0.0011). This prospective randomized multicenter study also demonstrated an increase in employment of 9.1% in the investigational group and 7.2% in the control group.

Objective: To assess sacral and lower-extremity pinprick preservation as prognostic indicators for ambulation in motor complete, sensory incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI)., Design: Retrospective analysis., Setting: Twenty-eight tertiary care centers in the United States and Canada., Participants: Subjects (N=131; mean age, 31.6y) with motor complete, sensory incomplete SCI., Interventions: Not applicable., Main Outcome Measure: Ambulation at 26 and 52 weeks postinjury (modified Benzel scale)., Results: A higher percentage of subjects with sacral pinprick preservation at baseline were ambulating at 26 (39.4% vs 28.3%) and 52 weeks (53.6% vs 41.5%). This finding did not reach statistical significance. The presence of sacral pinprick preservation at 4 weeks postinjury was significant for predicting ambulation at 52 weeks postinjury (36.0% vs 4.4%, P =.011) and approached significance at 26 weeks (15.2% vs 0.0%, P =.056). Significant differences in ambulation rates were also observed between subjects, based on the presence of baseline lower-extremity pinprick preservation (>/=50% of lower-extremity L2-S1 dermatomes) at both 26 (50.0% vs 28.8%, P =.048) and 52 weeks (66.7% vs 40.3%, P =.023) after injury., Conclusions: Baseline lower-extremity pinprick preservation and sacral pinprick preservation at 4 weeks postinjury are associated with an improved prognosis for ambulation.

Lumbar artificial disc technology has been commercially available outside the United States for nearly 2 decades. With the Food and Drug Administration approval of the Charité Artificial Disc in October 2004, an entirely new spinal surgeon population will be able to offer this technology to their patients as a treatment option. As with other techniques in spinal surgery, indications for lumbar total disc replacement are paramount to the success of the procedure. The correct surgical technique is also important to a successful outcome. This article describes the technique for placement of the Charité Artificial Disc in indicated patients. The technique is similar to that of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure, but many differences between the techniques make lumbar total disc replacement a unique procedure in the spinal surgeon's armamentarium. Although this article is thorough in its description of the surgical technique for total disc replacement with the Charité Artificial Disc, it should not be used as a substitute for company-sponsored training.

Object: Arthrodesis is the gold standard for surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). Solid fusion, however, can cause stress and increased motion in the segments adjacent to the fused level. This may initiate and/or accelerate the adjacent-segment disease process. Artificial discs are designed to restore and maintain normal motion of the lumbar intervertebral segment. Restoring and maintaining normal motion of the segment reduces stresses and loads on adjacent level segments. A US Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemptions multicentered study of the Charité artificial disc was completed. The control group consisted of individuals who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion involving BAK cages and iliac crest bone graft. This is the first report of Class I data in which a lumbar artificial disc is compared with lumbar fusion., Methods: Of 304 individuals enrolled in the study, 205 were randomized to the Charité disc-treated group and 99 to the BAK fusion-treated (control) group. Neurological status was equivalent between the two groups at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. The number of patients with major, minor, or other neurological complications was equivalent. There was a greater incidence of both major and minor complications in the BAK fusion group at 0 to 42 days postoperatively. Compared with data reported in the lumbar fusion literature, the Charité disc-treated patients had equivalent or better mean changes in visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores., Conclusions: The Charité artificial disc is safe and effective for the treatment of single-level lumbar DDD, resulting in no higher incidence of neurological complications compared with BAK-assisted fusion and leading to equivalent or better outcomes compared with those obtained in the control group and those reported in the lumbar fusion literature.

Background Context: The prognostic value of injury severity and of anatomical region in acute spinal cord injury is strong, making it hard to evaluate other indicators or assess improvement without considering them., Purpose: This study documents issues and suggests a practical way to stratify., Study Design/setting: Retrospective analysis of data prospectively collected for the multicenter trial of GM-1., Patient Sample: A total of 760 patients were recruited at 28 centers in North America. Injuries were rostral to T10 and left at least one leg with an American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score less than 15 of 25. Patients were assessed at baseline using the ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS): Grade A, Grade B, and Grades C and D (combined). They were divided by injury region: cervical or thoracic., Outcome Measures: The endpoint was marked recovery (MR), defined as improvement of at least two grades from AIS at baseline to Modified Benzel Scale at Week 26. Other endpoints were changes in ASIA Motor, in light touch, and in pin prick scores., Methods: Data were verified onsite by a central team of monitors, the database was checked and standard statistical techniques were applied., Results: Recruitment was uneven. In 760 patients, 579 injuries were cervical, and 482 were complete. There were few incomplete thoracic injuries. The cervical group had more MR than the thoracic group (37.2% vs 15.9%, p< .0001). AIS Groups C and D had (p< .0001) more MR (84.0%) than Group B (46.6%), which recovered more than Group A (12.8%). The cervical group had an advantage in MR because it had more patients with AIS B, and still more AIS C and D. Within AIS Group A, the cervical subgroup had (p< .02) higher MR (15.5%) than the thoracic one (7.0%), but MR was nearly equal in the B and CD groups. This suggested a new stratification variable, "injury region/severity," to distinguish cervical (n=332, MR=15.5%) and thoracic (n=150, MR=7.0%) injuries within AIS A, but not in AIS B (n=131, MR=46.6%) or AIS CD (n=147, MR=84.1%). This variable is a significant predictor of MR (p< .0001)., Conclusions: AIS severity was the strongest predictor. Anatomical region was also strong but confounded with the severity effect, because the cervicals had fewer complete injuries, and because the cervical complete group did better than thoracic complete. The injury region/severity variable keeps the strong prognostic value of using both region and severity, but is simpler and more statistically economical.

Study Design: Consecutive case retrospective computerized analysis of lateral radiographs., Objectives: To investigate the time evolution of the geometry of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using a new computer-aided measurement technique., Summary of Background Data: Prior clinical studies have reported benefits and complications of anterior cervical plate stabilization, but have not comprehensively described changes in sagittal geometry following arthrodesis and plating. High fusion success rates have been reported for single-level discectomy and fusion, whereas multilevel procedures have demonstrated lower clinical success rates with increased hardware failure and pseudarthrosis rates., Methods: Sagittal alignment data were collected from lateral radiographs of 51 patients with 52 operations for single- or multiple-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, both with and without anterior cervical plate stabilization. Intervertebral angulation and separation at the operated segments before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at long-term follow-up were compared using a computer-aided technique., Results: Single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate stabilization lost 0.9 degrees of the operatively obtained lordosis after surgery compared to 7.5 degrees for single-level fusions with bone alone (P = 0.0001). In multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, the bottommost level of the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion construct was much more prone to collapse than the remaining levels (mean bottom-level loss of 4.0 degrees vs. mean 0.2 degrees increase at the remaining levels, P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Anterior cervical plate stabilization helps maintain operatively obtained segmental distraction and lordosis following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. In multilevel procedures, this study found that postoperative collapse is largely localized to the bottommost level, where hardware failure and pseudarthrosis have been observed most often by others.

Study Design: Multicenter, prospective equivalency trial with each patient serving as his/her own control., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a Grafton DBM gel composite with iliac crest autograft in posterolateral spine fusion., Summary of Background Data: While autograft remains the preferred graft material to facilitate spine fusion, the supply is limited and harvesting produces undesirable clinical consequences., Methods: A total of 120 patients underwent posterolateral spine fusion with pedicle screw fixation and bone grafting. Iliac crest autograft was implanted on one side of the spine and a Grafton DBM/autograft composite was implanted on the contralateral side in the same patient. An independent, blinded reviewer evaluated anteroposterior and lateral flexion-extension radiographs. The fusion mass lateral to the instrumentation on each side was judged fused or not, and the mineralization of the graft was rated absent, mild, moderate, or extensive. The degree of correspondence in outcomes between sides was estimated by computing the percentage agreement and kappa statistic., Results: Nearly 70% of patients (81 of 120) provided complete 24-month radiographic studies. The bone graft mass was fused in 42 cases (52%) on the Grafton DBMside and in 44 cases (54%) on the autograft side. The overall percentage agreement for fusion status between sides was approximately 75% (61 of 81), indicating moderately strong statistical correspondence (kappa = 0.51, P < 0.0001). Bone mineralization ratings also were similar between treated sides. Perfect agreement was realized in almost 60% of patients (48 of 81) with moderate statistical correspondence (weighted kappa = 0.54, P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Grafton DBM can extend a smaller quantity of autograft than is normally required to achieve a solid spinal arthrodesis. Consequently, a reduced amount of harvested autograft may be required, potentially diminishing the risk and severity of donor site complications.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the potential advantages and complications of a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach for anterior spinal exposure as compared with the open technique and to quantify differences in operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, analgesia, and morbidity. A retrospective review was performed on all patients undergoing access for anterior spinal procedures. Demographics, operation-related variables, complications, and estimated cost were analyzed. Categorical data were analyzed using the Fisher's exact test and continuous variables were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test. We performed a total of 65 anterior spinal access procedures between February 1997 and April 2001 at our institution. Forty-five operations were performed at the L5-S1 level: 31 using transperitoneal laparoscopic techniques and 14 using an open minilaparotomy. Mean follow-up was 12 months (range 1-50). No significant differences between the groups were found when comparing analgesia requirements, time to resumption of oral intake, length of hospitalization, and complication rates. Statistical analysis showed that laparoscopic procedures were associated with shorter operating room times (P = 0.08) and less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.029). The laparoscopic approach was estimated to cost $1,374 more than the open technique. Transperitoneal laparoscopic techniques for anterior spinal exposure are comparable to the standard open approach and offer no substantive advantages. The overall cost of laparoscopic spinal surgery is higher compared with conventional open procedures.