Search

Background Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures has traditionally involved spinal instrumentation with fusion performed with standard open surgical techniques. Novel surgical strategies, including instrumentation without fusion and percutaneous instrumentation alone, have been considered less invasive and more efficient treatments. Objective To review the current literature and determine the role of fusion in instrumented fixation, as well as the role of percutaneous instrumentation, in the treatment of patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures. Methods The task force members identified search terms/parameters and a medical librarian implemented the literature search, consistent with the literature search protocol (see Appendix I), using the National Library of Medicine PubMed database and the Cochrane Library for the period from January 1, 1946 to March 31, 2015. Results A total of 906 articles were identified and 38 were selected for full-text review. Of these articles, 12 articles met criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Conclusion There is grade A evidence for the omission of fusion in instrumented fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures. There is grade B evidence that percutaneous instrumentation is as effective as open instrumentation for thoracolumbar burst fractures. Question Does the addition of arthrodesis to instrumented fixation improve outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar burst fractures? Recommendation It is recommended that in the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures, surgeons should understand that the addition of arthrodesis to instrumented stabilization has not been shown to impact clinical or radiological outcomes, and adds to increased blood loss and operative time. Strength of Recommendation: Grade A. Question How does the use of minimally invasive techniques (including percutaneous instrumentation) affect outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for thoracic and lumbar fractures compared to conventional open techniques? Recommendation Stabilization using both open and percutaneous pedicle screws may be considered in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures as the evidence suggests equivalent clinical outcomes. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_12.

Background Thoracic and lumbar burst fractures in neurologically intact patients are considered to be inherently stable, and responsive to nonsurgical management. There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal conservative treatment modality. The question remains whether external bracing is necessary vs mobilization without a brace after these injuries. Objective To determine if the use of external bracing improves outcomes compared to no brace for neurologically intact patients with thoracic or lumbar burst fractures. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using the National Library of Medicine PubMed database and the Cochrane Library for studies relevant to thoracolumbar trauma. Clinical studies specifically comparing external bracing to no brace for neurologically intact patients with thoracic or lumbar burst fractures were selected for review. Results Three studies out of 1137 met inclusion criteria for review. One randomized controlled trial (level I) and an additional randomized controlled pilot study (level II) provided evidence that both external bracing and no brace equally improve pain and disability in neurologically intact patients with burst fractures. There was no difference in final clinical and radiographic outcomes between patients treated with an external brace vs no brace. One additional level IV retrospective study demonstrated equivalent clinical outcomes for external bracing vs no brace. Conclusion This evidence-based guideline provides a grade B recommendation that management either with or without an external brace is an option given equivalent improvement in outcomes for neurologically intact patients with thoracic and lumbar burst fractures. The decision to use an external brace is at the discretion of the treating physician, as bracing is not associated with increased adverse events compared to no brace. Question Does the use of external bracing improve outcomes in the nonoperative treatment of neurologically intact patients with thoracic and lumbar burst fractures? Recommendation The decision to use an external brace is at the discretion of the treating physician, as the nonoperative management of neurologically intact patients with thoracic and lumbar burst fractures either with or without an external brace produces equivalent improvement in outcomes. Bracing is not associated with increased adverse events compared to not bracing. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_8.

Question 1 Are there classification systems for fractures of the thoracolumbar spine that have been shown to be internally valid and reliable (ie, do these instruments provide consistent information between different care providers)? Recommendation 1 A classification scheme that uses readily available clinical data (eg, computed tomography scans with or without magnetic resonance imaging) to convey injury morphology, such as Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Scale or the AO Spine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System, should be used to improve characterization of traumatic thoracolumbar injuries and communication among treating physicians. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B. Question 2 In treating patients with thoracolumbar fractures, does employing a formally tested classification system for treatment decision-making affect clinical outcomes? Recommendation 2 There is insufficient evidence to recommend a universal classification system or severity score that will readily guide treatment of all injury types and thereby affect outcomes. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_2.

Question 1 Does routine screening for deep venous thrombosis prevent pulmonary embolism (or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-associated morbidity and mortality) in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? Recommendation 1 There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for deep venous thrombosis in preventing pulmonary embolism (or VTE-associated morbidity and mortality) in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient. Question 2 For patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures, is one regimen of VTE prophylaxis superior to others with respect to prevention of pulmonary embolism (or VTE-associated morbidity and mortality)? Recommendation 2 There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific regimen of VTE prophylaxis to prevent pulmonary embolism (or VTE-associated morbidity and mortality) in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient. Question 3 Is there a specific treatment regimen for documented VTE that provides fewer complications than other treatments in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? Recommendation 3 There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against a specific treatment regimen for documented VTE that would provide fewer complications than other treatments in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient. Recommendation 4 Based on published data from pooled (cervical and thoracolumbar) spinal cord injury populations, the use of thromboprophylaxis is recommended to reduce the risk of VTE events in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Consensus Statement by the Workgroup The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_7.

Cervical spondylosis can lead to clinical symptoms of both cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy or a combination of the two. Clinical decision-making is based on a foundation of a detailed history and physical examination, combined with the appropriate imaging studies, such as plain static and dynamic radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and, occasionally, myelography with post-myelography CT imaging. However, in certain situations, additional diagnostic testing may be required. The clinician may decide to use additional studies such as electromyography with nerve conduction studies, motor or sensory evoked potentials, diagnostic selective nerve root blocks, or other less frequently used diagnostic tools in order to guide clinical decision-making. This chapter will delineate the basics of these alternative diagnostic tools in the preoperative setting.

Question 1 Does the surgical treatment of burst fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine improve clinical outcomes compared to nonoperative treatment? Recommendation 1 There is conflicting evidence to recommend for or against the use of surgical intervention to improve clinical outcomes in patients with thoracolumbar burst fracture who are neurologically intact. Therefore, it is recommended that the discretion of the treating provider be used to determine if the presenting thoracic or lumbar burst fracture in the neurologically intact patient warrants surgical intervention. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient. Question 2 Does the surgical treatment of nonburst fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine improve clinical outcomes compared to nonoperative treatment? Recommendation 2 There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of surgical intervention for nonburst thoracic or lumbar fractures. It is recommended that the decision to pursue surgery for such fractures be at the discretion of the treating physician. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_1.

QUESTION Does early surgical intervention improve outcomes for patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? RECOMMENDATIONS There is insufficient and conflicting evidence regarding the effect of timing of surgical intervention on neurological outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient It is suggested that "early" surgery be considered as an option in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures to reduce length of stay and complications. The available literature has defined "early" surgery inconsistently, ranging from

QUESTION 1 Which neurological assessment tools have demonstrated internal reliability and validity in the management of patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures (ie, do these instruments provide consistent information between different care providers)? RECOMMENDATION 1 Numerous neurologic assessment scales (Functional Independence Measure, Sunnybrook Cord Injury Scale and Frankel Scale for Spinal Cord Injury) have demonstrated internal reliability and validity in the management of patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Unfortunately, other contemporaneous measurement scales (ie, American Spinal Cord Injury Association Impairment Scale) have not been specifically studied in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade C. QUESTION 2 Are there any clinical findings (eg, presenting neurological grade/function) in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures that can assist in predicting clinical outcomes? RECOMMENDATION 2 Entry American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade, sacral sensation, ankle spasticity, urethral and rectal sphincter function, and AbH motor function can be used to predict neurological function and outcome in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures (Table I https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_4_table1). Strength of Recommendation: Grade B The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_4.

Question Does the choice of surgical approach (anterior, posterior, or combined anterior-posterior) improve clinical outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? Recommendations In the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures, physicians may use an anterior, posterior, or a combined approach as the selection of approach does not appear to impact clinical or neurological outcomes. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B With regard to radiologic outcomes in the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar fractures, physicians may utilize an anterior, posterior, or combined approach because there is conflicting evidence in the comparison among approaches. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient With regard to complications in the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar fractures, physicians may use an anterior, posterior, or combined approach because there is conflicting evidence in the comparison among approaches. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_11.

Question Does the administration of a specific pharmacologic agent (eg, methylprednisolone) improve clinical outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures and spinal cord injury? Recommendation There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation; however, the task force concluded, in light of previously published data and guidelines, that the complication profile should be carefully considered when deciding on the administration of methylprednisolone. Strength of recommendation: Grade Insufficient The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_5.

Question Does the active maintenance of arterial blood pressure after injury affect clinical outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? Recommendations There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of active maintenance of arterial blood pressure after thoracolumbar spinal cord injury. Grade of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient However, in light of published data from pooled (cervical and thoracolumbar) spinal cord injury patient populations, clinicians may choose to maintain mean arterial blood pressures >85 mm Hg in an attempt to improve neurological outcomes. Consensus Statement by the Workgroup The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_6.

Minimally invasive spine surgery has its roots in the mid-twentieth century with a few surgeons and a few techniques, but it has now developed into a large field of progressive spinal surgery. A wide range of techniques are now called “minimally invasive,” and case reports are submitted constantly with new “minimally invasive” approaches to spinal pathology. As minimally invasive spine surgery has become more mainstream over the past ten years, in this paper we discuss its history and development.

Object Postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) have been reported after 2–6% of spinal surgeries in most large series. The incidence of SSI can be < 1% after decompressive procedures and > 10% after instrumented fusions. Anecdotal evidence has suggested that there is a lower rate of SSI when minimally invasive techniques are used. Methods A retrospective review of prospectively collected databases of consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive spinal surgery was performed. Minimally invasive spinal surgery was defined as any spinal procedure performed through a tubular retractor system. All surgeries were performed under standard sterile conditions with preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The databases were reviewed for any infectious complications. Cases of SSI were identified and reviewed for clinically relevant details. The incidence of postoperative SSIs was then calculated for the entire cohort as well as for subgroups based on the type of procedure performed, and then compared with an analogous series selected from an extensive literature review. Results The authors performed 1338 minimally invasive spinal surgeries in 1274 patients of average age 55.5 years. The primary diagnosis was degenerative in nature in 93% of cases. A single minimally invasive spinal surgery procedure was undertaken in 1213 patients, 2 procedures in 58, and 3 procedures in 3 patients. The region of surgery was lumbar in 85%, cervical in 12%, and thoracic in 3%. Simple decompressive procedures comprised 78%, instrumented arthrodeses 20%, and minimally invasive intradural procedures 2% of the collected cases. Three postoperative SSIs were detected, 2 were superficial and 1 deep. The procedural rate of SSI for simple decompression was 0.10%, and for minimally invasive fusion/fixation was 0.74%. The total SSI rate for the entire group was only 0.22%. Conclusions Minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques may reduce postoperative wound infections as much as 10-fold compared with other large, modern series of open spinal surgery published in the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Surgery for thoracolumbar deformity can lead to significant muscle injury, excessive blood loss, and severe postoperative pain. The aim of the following studies was to determine the feasibility of minimally invasive posterior thoracic corpectomy and thoracolumbar osteotomy techniques for deformity in human cadavers and select clinical cases. METHODS: Human cadaveric specimens were procured for thoracic corpectomy and Smith-Petersen and pedicle subtraction osteotomy using a minimally invasive approach. Post-procedural computed tomography was used to assess the degree of decompression following corpectomy and the extent of bone resection after osteotomy. Pre and post-osteotomy closure Cobb angles were measured to evaluate the degree of correction achieved. RESULTS: The minimally invasive lateral extracavitary approach for thoracic corpectomy provided adequate exposure and allowed excellent spinal canal decompression while minimizing tissue disruption. Nearly complete osteotomies of both types could be achieved through a tubular retractor with a modest change in Cobb angle. CONCLUSION: These techniques may play a role in deformity surgery for select cases with further technological advancements.

Objectives To understand that young athletes have a higher incidence of pars interarticularis defects than the general population. This may be due to an immature spine put under higher stress loads at an early age. Traditionally, surgery was reserved for those who failed conservative therapy, and consisted of open exposure, bone grafting and placement of pedicle screws. This leads to a long recovery period and limited ability to return to competitive sport. Methods Four collegiate and professional level athletes, three high school athletes, and one member of the National Guard presented with back pain from spondylolysis without spondylolisthesis. All underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to directly repair the pars defect, for a total of sixteen pars defects repaired in eight patients. Described is an application of a MIS pars repair technique that has not previously been reported, which recreates the normal anatomy rather fusing across a motion segment. Results Five patients were discharged the day following surgery and three were discharged on postoperative day 2. Six of the patients returned to their previous level of competitiveness. Two were unable to achieve the same level of play, both of whom failed to fuse the spondylolysis. Patients all initially reported clinical improvement postoperatively and there was overall mean improvement on patient reported outcome measures (SF36 physical and mental component scores, visual analog scale, and Oswestry disability index). Conclusion MIS advantages include less muscle tissue disruption and restoration of the natural anatomy. This leads to a more rapid recovery, decreased perioperative pain, minimal blood loss, earlier mobilization and decreased hospital length of stay. Overall this allows the athlete to start therapy earlier and return to competition sooner and at his/her pre-operative competitive level. The described MIS repair technique outcomes are similar to those that have been reported in the literature and have allowed a high rate of return to athletics in high performing patients; critical to their quality of life.

Posterior cervical microendoscopic foraminotomy and discectomy is an effective minimally invasive approach to cervical radiculopathy caused by foraminal osteophytes or lateral disc herniations. This article reviews the technique in detail as well as the advantages over open approaches. Nuances of the technique, including complications and their management, are also explored.

Object The authors undertook a retrospective cohort study of patients with T11–L2 thoracolumbar burst fractures who underwent decompression and the placement of instrumentation via the anterolateral or posterior approach. Methods There were 63 thoracolumbar burst fractures in 45 male and 18 female patients. The instrumentation was placed posteriorly in 25 patients and anterolaterally in 38. The mean follow-up duration after discharge from the hospital was 1.8 years (range 6 months–8 years). The mean preoperative Frankel scores in the anterolateral and posterior groups were 3.7 ± 1.1 and 3.5 ± 1.4, respectively (p = 0.4155). Preoperative angular deformity in the anterolateral and posterior groups measured 11.9 ± 9.7 and 4.1 ± 7.1°, respectively (p = 0.0007). Postoperatively, angular deformity had been corrected to 2.0 ± 7.9 and 3.4 ± 7.5° in both groups, respectively (p = 0.565). The follow-up Frankel scores had improved to 4.2 ± 0.8 and 4.0 ± 1.4 (p = 0.461). At the latest follow-up examination, angular deformity had progressed to 4.5 ± 9.3° in the anterolateral group and to 9.8 ± 9.4° in the posterior group (p = 0.024). Although surgeons’ fees were significantly (p = 0.0024) higher for patients who underwent anterolateral procedures ($27,940 ± 4390) than for those who underwent posterior surgery ($18,270 ± 6980), there was no intergroup difference in total cost of hospitalization. Conclusions Rigid guidelines for the selection of anterior or posterior approaches are lacking. Evaluation of the authors’ results and those of others shows that angular deformity is more successfully corrected and maintained when the anterior approach is used.

Object. The authors compared the biomechanical performance of the human cadaveric spine implanted with a metallic ball-and-cup artificial disc at L4–5 with the spine's intact state and after anterior discectomy. Methods. Seven human L2—S1 cadaveric spines were mounted on a biomechanical testing frame. Pure moments of 0, 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 Nm were applied to the spine at L-2 in six degrees of motion (flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation). The spines were tested in the intact state as well as after anterior L4–5 discectomy. The Maverick disc was implanted in the discectomy defect, and load testing was repeated. The artificial disc created greater rigidity for the spine than was present after discectomy, and the spine performed biomechanically in a manner comparable with the intact state. Conclusions. The results indicate that in an in vitro setting, this model of artificial disc stabilizes the spine after discectomy, restoring motion comparable with that of the intact state.

Object Significant controversy exists over the most appropriate treatment for patients with metastatic disease of the vertebral column. Treatment options include surgical intervention, radiotherapy, or a combination of the two; nevertheless, a standard of care that yields the best survival, outcome, and quality of life has not been established. The purpose of this review was to determine the foundation in the literature of views favoring surgical intervention for spinal metastatic disease. Methods A search of the English-language literature published between 1964 and 2003 was performed for the subject of spinal metastatic disease. Papers were selected based on the inclusion criteria described, and evidentiary information was compiled and graded using previously described methods. Conclusions Although there is insufficient evidence to support a standard for surgical treatment in patients with metastatic spinal disease, the authors present guidelines and recommendations based on the evidence provided by the current literature.

Surgical treatment for symptomatic cervical and lumbar spondylosis has become prevalent in recent years. With this increased intervention, increasing numbers of patients experience persistent symptoms and require revision spinal surgery. Although many aspects of the workup and operation are similar for both primary and revision surgery, there are special considerations that must be examined when determining if a patient is a candidate for revision surgery. Preoperative workup should include evaluation for spinal instability. Intraoperatively, scar tissue may complicate the procedure, and care must be taken to avoid incidental durotomy. The prognosis for a revision surgery can be predicted best by the patient's outcome after the primary surgery. As with any surgical procedure, patient selection is imperative for successful outcome.

We present the case of an otherwise asymptomatic patient with a rare congenital airway abnormality of the tracheobronchial tree, who developed a complete airway obstruction after being placed in the prone position. The tracheal bronchus, accessory bronchus arising from the trachea superior to its bifurcation at the carina, was identified by fiberoptic bronchoscopic examination. An endotracheal tube can migrate into a tracheal bronchus causing pulmonary atelectasis, hypoxia, or both.

Objective To present operative details and clinical follow-up of a series of patients with thoracic disk herniation treated with the minimally invasive technique of thoracic microendoscopic diskectomy (TMED). Methods TMED was performed in 16 consecutive patients (age range, 18–79 years old) with 18 thoracic disk herniations. One patient with a calcified herniation in a direct ventral location was not included in this series. Patients were positioned prone, and a tubular retractor system was placed through a muscle dilating approach. The procedure was performed with endoscopic visualization. Outcomes were assessed using modified McNab criteria. Results There were no complications, and no case required conversion to an open procedure. The mean operative time was 153 minutes per level, and mean blood loss was 69 mL per level. Mean hospital stay was 21 hours. At a mean follow-up of 24 months (median, 22 months), 13 patients (81%) had excellent or good outcomes, 1 patient (6%) had a fair outcome, and 2 patients (13%) had poor outcomes. The two patients with poor outcomes had neurologic diagnoses (multiple sclerosis and multiple systems atrophy) that were ultimately found to be responsible for their symptoms and deficits. Conclusions TMED is a safe and effective minimally invasive posterolateral approach for the treatment of thoracic disk herniations that lacks the morbidity associated with traditional approaches.

Study Design A cadaver study comparing 3 different minimally invasive approaches to the anterior thoracic spine. Objective To assess the feasibility of minimally invasive thoracic corpectomy from a posterolateral approach and to compare surgical results from 3 approaches. Summary of Background Data Traditional posterolateral approaches to the thoracic spine are effective but are associated with a high rate of operative morbidity. Methods Thoracic corpectomies were performed using a modified tubular retractor starting at 3, 6, and 9 cm off of midline. Postoperative computed tomography scans were performed and analyzed to assess the extent of corpectomy and ventral decompression. Results From 3 to 6 to 9 cm, a significant difference in extent of corpectomy (65.8%, 81.5%, and 82.6%, P=0.02) and ventral decompression (83.6%, 90.4%, 94.6%, P=0.05) was noted between 3 cm and the more lateral approaches. The 9 cm approach required more rib resection and average working distances of 8.4 to 11.3 cm, which made the procedure more difficult technically and less suited to the length of standard instruments. Conclusions Minimally invasive thoracic corpectomy is feasible and a 6 cm approach off of midline appears optimal.

Postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) have been reported after 2-6% of spinal surgeries in most large series. The incidence of SSI can be1% after decompressive procedures and10% after instrumented fusions. Anecdotal evidence has suggested that there is a lower rate of SSI when minimally invasive techniques are used.A retrospective review of prospectively collected databases of consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive spinal surgery was performed. Minimally invasive spinal surgery was defined as any spinal procedure performed through a tubular retractor system. All surgeries were performed under standard sterile conditions with preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The databases were reviewed for any infectious complications. Cases of SSI were identified and reviewed for clinically relevant details. The incidence of postoperative SSIs was then calculated for the entire cohort as well as for subgroups based on the type of procedure performed, and then compared with an analogous series selected from an extensive literature review.The authors performed 1338 minimally invasive spinal surgeries in 1274 patients of average age 55.5 years. The primary diagnosis was degenerative in nature in 93% of cases. A single minimally invasive spinal surgery procedure was undertaken in 1213 patients, 2 procedures in 58, and 3 procedures in 3 patients. The region of surgery was lumbar in 85%, cervical in 12%, and thoracic in 3%. Simple decompressive procedures comprised 78%, instrumented arthrodeses 20%, and minimally invasive intradural procedures 2% of the collected cases. Three postoperative SSIs were detected, 2 were superficial and 1 deep. The procedural rate of SSI for simple decompression was 0.10%, and for minimally invasive fusion/fixation was 0.74%. The total SSI rate for the entire group was only 0.22%.Minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques may reduce postoperative wound infections as much as 10-fold compared with other large, modern series of open spinal surgery published in the literature.

Thoracic disc herniations present the spine surgeon with a distinctive set of challenges with regard to patient selection, surgical anatomy, and potential complications. The reported incidences of thoracic disc herniations range from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 1,000,0001–3 and are decreased in comparison with those of their cervical and lumbar counterparts; this is likely a result of the increased rigidity of the thoracic cage, which results in a reduction in the flexion, extension, and rotation of the thoracic spine.4,5 Notwithstanding this decreased incidence and the even smaller number of patients who ultimately require surgical intervention, patients with thoracic disc herniations may present with a wide variety of symptoms. Furthermore, a multitude of surgical approaches have been developed to treat these patients, including posterior (laminectomy), posterolateral (costotransversectomy, transfacet pedicles-sparing discectomy, transpedicular discectomy, and transversoartropediculectomy), lateral (extracavitary, rachiotomy), transthoracic (transpleural, extrapleural, and transsternal), and thoracoscopic approaches. This wide spectrum of therapeutic options, coupled with the relatively low incidence of operable pathologies, is a testament to the difficulty a spine surgeon faces when attempting to treat patients with thoracic disc herniations.

Vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty are two percuta-neous surgical options for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCF) that have become increasingly utilized since their development in the mid 1980s. These well-described techniques can also address VCF caused by metastatic lesions, multiple myeloma, and hemangiomas. Physicians from several disciplines including neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and radiology now perform vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty as a routine part of their practice. The surgical goals of vertebroplasty are to stabilize the fractured vertebral body and provide relief from pain. Pain is thought to be alleviated from bonding and strengthening the fractured vertebral body, as well as from the thermal reaction that occurs during the curing of the polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement. Balloon kyphoplasty has similar goals, but also aims at partially correcting the deformity by restoring the vertebral body height. However, controversy does exist over whether the pain is relieved from fracture stabilization, the PMMA thermal reaction, or from the restoration of vertebral height. Recent developments have included using an arc osteotome, which is placed through a percutaneous transpedicular approach, for cavity creation prior to filling the defect with PMMA cement. This chapter summarizes the indications, techniques, and complications for both the vertebroplasty with and without cavity creation.

Many types of degenerative cervical spine disease can be treated with well-established posterior decompressive procedures.1–4 Even as anterior cervical procedures have gained prominence, posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy still provides symptomatic relief in 92–97% of patients with radiculopathy from foraminal stenosis or lateral herniated discs.3, 5 Similarly, posterior cervical decompression for cervical stenosis achieves neurological improvement in 62.5–83% of myelopathic patients undergoing either laminectomy or laminoplasty.4, 6–8 Moreover, these operations avoid the complications attendant to anterior approaches to the cervical spine, namely, esophageal injury, vascular injury, recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis, dysphagia, and accelerated degeneration of adjacent motion segments after fusion.9–11

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the feasibility of and initial clinical experience with a novel minimally invasive posterolateral thoracic corpectomy technique. METHODS: Seven procedures were performed on 6 cadavers to determine the feasibility of thoracic corpectomy using a minimally invasive approach. The posterolateral thoracic corpectomies were performed with expandable 22 mm diameter tubular retractor paramedian incisions. The posterolateral aspects of the vertebral bodies were accessed extrapleurally, and complete corpectomies were performed. Intraprocedural fluoroscopy and postoperative computed tomography were used to assess the degree of decompression. In addition, 2 clinical cases ofT6 burst fracture, 1 T4-T5 plasmacytoma, and 1 T12 colon cancer metastasis were treated using this minimally invasive approach. RESULTS: In the cadaveric study, an average of 93% of the ventral canal and 80% of the corresponding vertebral body were removed. The pleura and intrathoracic contents were not violated. Adequate exposure was obtained to allow interbody grafting between the adjacent vertebral bodies. The procedures were successfully performed in the 4 clinical cases using a minimally invasive technique, and the patients demonstrated good outcomes. CONCLUSION: Based on this study, minimally invasive posterolateral thoracic corpectomy safely and successfully allows complete spinal canal decompression without the tissue disruption associated with open thoracotomy. This approach may improve the complication rates that accompany open or even thoracoscopic approaches for thoracic corpectomy and may even allow surgical intervention in patients with significant comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE: Symptomatic posttraumatic syringomyelia affects up to 10% of patients with spinal cord injuries and manifests in a delayed manner as progressive sensorimotor changes below the level of the syrinx. Syrinx shunting, and in particular syringosubarachnoid shunting (SSAS), provides neurological improvement or stabilization in at least 50% of these patients. Given the debilitated condition of many of these patients, a minimally invasive approach to the insertion of these devices is desirable. We provide the first report of an SSAS inserted in a minimally invasive fashion through a tubular retractor. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 27-year-old woman presented 4 years after C6 to C7 fracture dislocation and incomplete spinal cord injury with increasing pain and spasticity below the midthoracic region. Magnetic resonance imaging scan revealed a midthoracic syrinx that had enlarged on serial imaging. SSAS was inserted using a minimally invasive technique via the X-Tube retractor (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Memphis, TN). Through a 2.5-cm incision, hemilaminotomy was performed, and a midline durotomy and myelotomy were opened for SSAS insertion under microscopic visualization. RESULTS: Intraoperative ultrasonography revealed successful syrinx decompression after SSAS insertion. The operative time was 150 minutes and estimated blood loss was less than 100 mL. The patient was mobilized on post-operative Day 1 and was discharged 38.5 hours after surgery with resolution of her preoperative symptoms. Postoperative magnetic resonance imaging scan revealed excellent decompression of the syrinx, and through 1 year of follow-up, the patient has had no recurrence of her syrinx-related symptoms. CONCLUSION: This is the first report of minimal-access insertion of an SSAS. The minimally invasive technique appears to be a safe and effective means of implanting an SSAS. This approach allows for diminished blood loss and early mobilization and transfer to rehabilitation units for these patients.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylosis are major causes of morbidity among the elderly. Surgical decompression is an effective treatment, but many elderly patients are not considered as candidates for surgery based on age or comorbidities. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have recently been developed and used successfully for the treatment of lumbar spinal disease. Our objective was to examine the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive lumbar spinal surgery for elderly patients. METHODS: We reviewed demographic information, pre- and postoperative Visual Analog Scale pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, and Short-Form 36 scores of prospectively accrued patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression of lumbar degenerative disease at two institutions between January 2002 and December 2005. Data from patients who were at least 75 years old were selected. Statistical analysis methods included paired t test, multiple linear regression, and linear mixed effects modeling. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients with a mean age of 81 years met the study criteria (median follow-up period, 7 mo; mean follow-up period, 10 mo). No major complications or deaths occurred. Fifty patients had sufficient outcomes data for analysis. Visual Analog Scale pain scores decreased from 5.7 to 2.2 for back pain and from 5.7 to 2.3 for symptomatic leg pain (P < 0.05). Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased from 48 to 27; Short-Form 36 Body Pain and Physical Function scores also showed statistically significant improvements after surgery (P < 0.05). The longitudinal analysis demonstrated durability of the symptom relief. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive lumbar spine decompression is a safe and efficacious treatment for elderly patients with spinal stenosis and spondylosis. Elderly patients should be considered good candidates for lumbar surgical decompression using minimally invasive techniques.

Minimally invasive approaches to spinal tumors have evolved rapidly over the past 15 to 20 years as clinicians seek to avoid the morbidity and long-term dysfunction associated with traditional open surgical procedures. We review the noninvasive, percutaneous, and minimally invasive surgical techniques currently available for the treatment of spinal column and intradural spinal tumors, including minimal access thoracic corpectomy and minimal access intradural tumor surgery. The various advantages and limitations of these approaches as well as their appropriate indications and uses are also presented here. A measured understanding of surgical objectives and iatrogenic effects on patients' quality of life allows the surgeon to implement such minimally invasive approaches in the design of individualized treatment plans that range from pure palliation to definitive cure.

The modern era of minimally invasive spine surgery has its roots in percutaneous techniques developed in the mid-twentieth century. The widespread application of minimally invasive techniques seen today is predicated on technologic developments of only the past 10 years, however. This article reviews the development of minimally invasive spinal surgery as it has evolved for the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Each new development has sought to equal or improve on the effectiveness demonstrated by comparable open surgical techniques while reducing iatrogenic tissue trauma and resultant postoperative pain and disability, to produce overall better outcomes for patients.

Thoracic microendoscopic discectomy is a safe effective treatment for surgical removal of herniated thoracic intervertebral discs. This approach allows access through a minimally invasive muscle-splitting posterolateral approach that does not place the contents of the thoracic cavity at risk. In the lumbar spine, this approach has been proven effective, with a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, decreased blood loss, and shorter recovery time. These same advantages can be expected in the thoracic spine with appropriate patient selection and proper surgical technique.

Background context Extraforaminal lumbar disc herniations (ELDHs) at the lumbosacral junction are an uncommon cause of L5 radiculopathy. The surgical anatomy of the extraforaminal space at L5–S1 is uniquely challenging for the various open surgical approaches that have been described for ELDHs in general. Reports specifically describing minimally invasive surgical approaches to lumbosacral ELDHs are lacking. Purpose To report the novel use of a far lateral microendoscopic (FLMED) approach to lumbosacral ELDH. To better define the unique anatomical features of extraforaminal approaches to the lumbosacral junction as they apply to minimal access techniques. Study design/setting A cadaveric investigation and clinical case were performed at a single institution. A thorough review of the literature was conducted. Patient sample A single patient with an extraforaminal disc herniation at the lumbosacral junction underwent evaluation and surgery. Outcome measures The patient's self-reported pain levels were documented. Physiologic outcome was judged on pre- and postoperative motor and sensory examinations. Functional capacity was assessed by work status and ability to perform activities of daily living. Methods FLMED was performed in two fresh human cadavers at the lumbosacral junction. Qualitative assessments of the surgical anatomy were made, and intraoperative fluoroscopy and endoscopic photographs were obtained to document the findings. A patient with refractory pain and sensorimotor deficits from compression of the L5 nerve root by an ELDH underwent FLMED. The literature was carefully reviewed for the epidemiology of ELDHs at the lumbosacral junction and the surgical techniques used to treat them. Results The posterolateral surgical corridor to the lumbosacral disc was consistently constrained by the sacral ala and to a lesser extent the lateral facet and L5 transverse process. Resection of the superior ala exposed the exiting nerve root and provided ample access to the disc. In the clinical case, the patient enjoyed immediate pain relief, was discharged in 3 hours, and returned to full work and social activities. Follow-up neurological examination revealed no sensory or motor deficit. Conclusions FLMED offers a safe and efficacious approach to ELDHs at the lumbosacral junction by combining satisfactory visualization for adequate resection of the sacral ala with the benefits of reduced tissue injury and faster recovery times that accompany minimally invasive techniques.

Object. Thoracolumbar burst fractures frequently require surgical intervention. Although the use of either anterior or posterior instrumentation has advantages and disadvantages, there have been few studies in which these two approaches have been compared biomechanically. Methods. Ten human cadaveric spines were subjected to subtotal L-3 corpectomy. In five spines placement of L-3 wooden strut grafts with lateral L2–4 dual rod and screw instrumentation was performed. Five other spines underwent L1–5 pedicle screw fixation. The spines were fatigued between steps of the experiment. The spines were load tested with pure moments of 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 6 Nm in the intact state and after placement of instrumentation in six degrees of freedom (flexion, extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation). In axial rotation posterior instrumentation significantly increased spinal rigidity compared with that of the intact state, whereas anterior instrumentation did not. Combined anterior—posterior instrumentation did not significantly increase the rigidity of the spine when compared with anterior or posterior instrumentation alone. Posterior instrumentation alone provided a greater reduction in angular rotation compared with anterior instrumentation alone in all degrees of freedom; however, statistical significance was achieved only in extension at 6 Nm. Conclusions. The increased rigidity provided by pedicle screw instrumentation compared with the intact state or with anterior instrumentation is due to the longer construct spanning five levels and the three-column engagement of the pedicle screws. The decision to use anterior or posterior instrumentation should be based on the clinical necessity of canal decompression and correction of angulation.

Is the X STOP ® interspinous implant a safe and effective treatment for neurogenic intermittent claudication?