Search

Study designRetrospective cohort study of prospectively accrued data.ObjectiveTo evaluate a large, prospective, multicentre dataset of surgically treated degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) cases on the contemporary risk of C5 palsy with surgical approach.Summary of background dataThe influence of surgical technique on postoperative C5 palsy after decompression for DCM is intensely debated. Comprehensive, covariate-adjusted analyses are needed using contemporary data.MethodsPatients with moderate to severe DCM were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter, randomized, Phase III CSM-Protect clinical trial and underwent either anterior or posterior decompression between Jan 31, 2012 and May 16, 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative C5 palsy, defined as the onset of muscle weakness by at least one grade in manual muscle test at the C5 myotome with slight or absent sensory disruption after cervical surgery. Two comparative cohorts were made based on the anterior or posterior surgical approach. Multivariate hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for C5 palsy.ResultsA total of 283 patients were included, and 53.4% underwent posterior decompression. The total incidence of postoperative C5 palsy was 7.4% and was significantly higher in patients who underwent posterior decompression compared with anterior decompression (11.26% vs. 3.03%, P =0.008). After multivariable regression, the posterior approach was independently associated with greater than four times the likelihood of postoperative C5 palsy ( P =0.017). Rates of C5 palsy recovery were comparable between the two surgical approaches.ConclusionThe odds of postoperative C5 palsy are significantly higher after posterior decompression compared to anterior decompression for DCM. This may influence surgical decision-making when there is equipoise in deciding between anterior and posterior treatment options for DCM.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level-II.

Study Design: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of surgically treated adjacent segment disease (ASDis) following ACDF with either anterior plate construct (APC) or stand-alone anchored spacers (SAAS). Method: Multiple databases were searched until December 2022 for pertinent studies. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life outcomes [JOA, NDI, and VAS], whereas, the secondary outcomes included operative characteristics [estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time (OT)], radiological outcomes [C2-C7 Cobb angle, disc height index (DHI) changes, fusion rate], and complications. Results: A total of 5 studies were included, comprising 210 patients who had been surgically treated for cervical ASDis. Among them, 113 received APC, and 97 received SAAS. Postoperative dysphagia was significantly higher in the APC group [47% vs 11%, OR = 7.7, 95% CI = 3.1-18.9, P <.05]. Similarly, operative time and blood loss were higher in the APC group compared to the SAAS group; [MD = 16.96, 95% CI = 7.87-26.06, P <.05] and [MD = 5.22, 95% CI =.35 - 10.09, P <.05], respectively. However, there was no difference in the rate of prolonged dysphagia and clinical outcomes in terms of JOA, NDI, and VAS. Furthermore, there was no difference in the radiological parameters including the C2-7 Cobb angle and DHI as well as the fusion rate. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that both surgical techniques (APC and SAAS) are effective in treating ASDis. However, with low certainty of the evidence, considering patients are at high risk of dysphagia following revision cervical spine surgery SAAS may be the preferred choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study design: An ambispective, observational study of the prospective, institutional adult spine deformity (ASD) database. Objectives: The study investigates the clinical and radiographic fusion rates with lateral interbody approach and rhBMP-2 in multiple-level lumbar fusion in the ASD population. Previous studies have reported over 10% pseudoarthrosis rate with multiple segment fusions. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) allows multiple-level, less-invasive access to the anterior lumbar spine. We hypothesized that fusion rates with lateral approach with rhBMP-2 use are superior to the published data on lumbar fusion in ASD patients. Methods: The institutional ASD database was searched to identify eligible patients with two or more levels of LLIF (T12-L5), >4 levels of posterior instrumentations and >2 years of follow-up between the years 2010 and 2018. Antero-posterior and lateral 36-inch standing radiographs for each patient and computed tomography scans in select patients were studied to ascertain fusion status and patients were divided into two groups based on fusion status. Results: The study included 179 patients with a mean age of 65.3 years and 74% female patients. The median number of interbody fusions was performed at 3 (IQR 3-4) levels. The mean follow-up duration was 4.4 years (SD = 1.9). 169 patients (94.5%) had successful arthrodesis, while 10 patients (5.5%) had radiological pseudoarthrosis at one level. Of the 10 patients, 8 (4.4%) were either clinically asymptomatic or had manageable back pain. Two patients (1.1%) required revision surgery for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. Conclusion: This is the largest known series of ASD patients investigating the fusion rates with multiple-level LLIFs. LLIF along with rhBMP-2 can achieve high fusion success across interbody fusion levels in multi-segmental ASD surgeries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: We evaluated the effectiveness of minimally invasive (MIS) tubular discectomy in comparison to conventional open surgery among patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). Methods: We performed an observational analysis of data that was prospectively collected. We implemented Minimum Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs), and we adjusted for potential confounders with multiple logistic regression. Adverse events were collected according to the Spinal Adverse Events Severity (SAVES) protocol. Results: Three hundred thirty-nine (62%) patients underwent MIS tubular discectomy and 211 (38%) underwent conventional open discectomy. There were no significant differences between groups for improvement of leg pain and disability, but the MIS technique was associated with reduced odds of achieving the MCID for back pain (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99, P < 0.05). We identified statistically significant differences in favor of MIS for each of operating time (MIS mean (SD) 72.2 minutes (30.0) vs open 93.5 (40.9)), estimated blood loss (MIS 37.9 mL (36.7) vs open 76.8 (71.4)), length of stay in hospital (MIS 73% same-day discharge vs open 40%), rates of incidental durotomy (MIS 4% vs open 8%), and wound-related complications (MIS 3% vs open 9%); but not for overall rates of reoperation. Conclusions: Open and MIS techniques yielded similar improvements of leg pain and disability at up to 12 months of follow-up, but MIS patients were less likely to experience improvement of associated back pain. Small differences favored MIS for operating time, blood loss, and adverse events but may have limited clinical importance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Uncontrolled retrospective observational study. Objectives: Surgery for patients with back pain and degenerative disc disease is controversial, and studies to date have yielded conflicting results. We evaluated the effects of lumbar fusion surgery for patients with this indication in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). Methods: We analyzed data that were prospectively collected from consecutive patients at 11 centers between 2015 and 2019. Our primary outcome was change in patient-reported back pain at 12 months of follow-up, and our secondary outcomes were satisfaction, disability, health-related quality of life, and rates of adverse events. Results: Among 84 patients, we observed a statistically significant improvement of back pain at 12 months that exceeded the threshold of Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) (mean change -3.7 points, SD 2.6, p < 0.001, MCID = 1.2; 77% achieved MCID), and 81% reported being "somewhat" or "extremely" satisfied. We also observed improvements of Oswestry Disability Index (-17.3, SD 16.6), Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary (10.3, SD 9.6) and Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary (3.1, SD 8.3); all p < 0.001). The overall rate of adverse events was 19%. Conclusions: Among a highly selective group of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease, most experienced a clinically significant improvement of back pain as well as significant improvements of disability and health-related quality of life, with high satisfaction at 1 year of follow-up. These findings suggest that surgery for this indication may provide some benefit, and that further research is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]