Search

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objective: Compilation of complication outcomes data from the surgical management of severe rigid kyphoscoliosis patients using VCR-based vs non-VCR-based corrective maneuvers is lacking. This meta-analysis aimed to compare complication outcomes between those classified osteotomy approaches. Methods: Thorough literature review and meta-analysis were conducted between January 2000 and September 2021. The selection criteria were studies: i) reporting major curve Cobb angle of ≥80° and flexibility of <25% or 30%; ii) comparing VCR or ≥ Type V Schwab osteotomy defined as VCR-based vs [non-VCR-based] techniques, (any osteotomy or technique other than VCR); iii) published in English with ≥10 patients; iv) reporting complication rates; and v) having minimum of 2-year follow-up. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Significance level was set at (P <.05). Results: Of the 174 patients included, 52.30% (n = 91) and 47.70% (n = 83) were VCR-based and non-VCR-based, respectively. The incidence of dural tears/nerve injuries/significant intraoperative-neuromonitoring changes was significantly higher; [OR = 6.78, CI= (1.75 to 26.17), I2 = 0%, (P =.006)] in the VCR-based group than the non-VCR-based group. The 'overall surgical and medical' complication rate was significantly higher in the VCR-based group, [OR = 1.94, CI= (1.02 to 3.67), I2 = 31%, (P =.04)]. Conclusion: Both VCR-based and non-VCR-based surgical techniques for management of severe rigid scoliosis and kyphoscoliosis patients pose comparable overall surgical complication rates, while a significantly higher perioperative neurological complication incidence was associated with VCR-based technique compared to the non-VCR-based techniques. The VCR-based technique was associated with 6.78 times higher incidence of neurological complications compared to non-VCR-based techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Modified Delphi study. Objective: The objective of this study was to establish expert consensus on the application of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) by using the modified Delphi study. Methods: From June 2019 to March 2020, Members of the Chinese Study Group for Lateral Lumbar Spine Surgery were selected to collect expert feedback using the modified Delphi method where 65 spine surgeons from all over China agreed to participate. Four rounds were performed: 1 face-to-face meeting and 3 subsequent survey rounds. The consensus was achieved with ≥a 70.0% agreement for each question. The recommendation of grade A was defined as ≥90.0% of the agreement for each question. The recommendation of grade B was defined as 80.0-89.9% of the agreement for each question. The recommendation of grade C was defined as 70.0-79.9% of the agreement for each question. Results: A total of 65 experts formed a panelist group, and the number of questionnaires collected was 63, 59, and 62 in the 3 rounds. In total, 5 sections, 71 questions, and 382 items achieved consensus after the Delphi rounds including summary; preoperative evaluation; application at the lumbar spinal stenosis, lumbar disc herniation, lumbar spondylolisthesis, adult degenerative scoliosis, postoperative adjacent segmental degeneration, and revision surgery; complications; and postoperative follow-up evaluation of LLIF. Conclusion: The modified Delphi method was utilized to ascertain an expert consensus from the Chinese Study Group for Lateral Lumbar Spine Surgery to inform clinical decision-making in the application of LLIF. The salient grade A recommendations of the survey are enumerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective case-control study. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the value of 3-dimensional printing (3DP) spine model in the surgical treatment of severe spinal deformity since the prosperous development of 3DP technology. Methods: Severe scoliosis or hyper-kyphosis patients underwent posterior fixation and fusion surgery using the 3DP spine models were reviewed (3DP group). Spinal deformity surgeries operated by free-hand screw implantation during the same period were selected as the control group after propensity score matching (PSM). The correction rate, pedicle screw accuracy, and complications were analyzed. Class A and B screws were defined as accurate according to Gertzbein and Robbins criteria. Results: 35 patients were enrolled in the 3DP group and 35 matched cases were included in the control group. The perioperative baseline data and deformity correction rate were similar between both groups (P >.05). However, the operation time and blood loss were significantly less in the 3DP group (296.14 ± 66.18 min vs. 329.43 ± 67.16 min, 711.43 ± 552.28 mL vs. 1322.29 ± 828.23 mL, P <.05). More three-column osteotomies (Grade 3-6) were performed in the 3DP group (30/35, 85.7% vs. 21/35, 60.0%. P =.016). The screw placement accuracy was significantly higher in the 3DP group (422/582, 72.51% vs. 397/575, 69.04%. P =.024). The screw misplacement related complication rate was significantly higher in the free-hand group (6/35 vs. 1/35, P =.046). Conclusions: The study provided solid evidence that 3DP spine models can enhance surgeons' confidence in performing higher grade osteotomies and improve the safety and efficiency in severe spine deformity correction surgery. 3D printing technology has a good prospect in spinal deformity surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the safety and accuracy of cortical bone trajectory screw placement between the robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-assisted approaches.Methods: This retrospective study was conducted between November 2018 and June 2020, including 81 patients who underwent cortical bone trajectory (CBT) surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease. CBT was performed by the same team of experienced surgeons. The patients were randomly divided into two groups-the fluoroscopy-assisted group (FA, 44 patients) and the robot-assisted group (RA, 37 patients). Robots for orthopedic surgery were used in the robot-assisted group, whereas conventional fluoroscopy-guided screw placement was used in the fluoroscopy-assisted group. The accuracy of screw placement and rate of superior facet joint violation were assessed using postoperative computed tomography (CT). The time of single screw placement, intraoperative blood loss, and radiation exposure to the surgical team were also recorded. The χ2 test and Student's t-test were used to analyze the significance of the variables (P < 0.05).Results: A total of 376 screws were inserted in 81 patients, including 172 screws in the robot-assisted group and 204 pedicle screws in the fluoroscopy-assisted group. Screw placement accuracy was higher in the RA group (160, 93%) than in the FA group (169, 83%) (P = 0.003). The RA group had a lower violation of the superior facet joint than the FA group. The number of screws reaching grade 0 in the RA group (58, 78%) was more than that in the FA group (56, 64%) (P = 0.041). Screw placement time was longer in the FA group (7.25 ± 0.84 min) than in the RA group (5.58 ± 1.22 min, P < 0.001). The FA group had more intraoperative bleeding (273.41 ± 118.20 ml) than the RA group (248.65 ± 97.53 ml, P = 0.313). The radiation time of the FA group (0.43 ± 0.07 min) was longer than the RA group (0.37 ± 0.10 min, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the overall learning curve tended to decrease.Conclusions: Robot-assisted screw placement improves screw placement accuracy, shortens screw placement time, effectively improves surgical safety and efficiency, and reduces radiation exposure to the surgical team. In addition, the learning curve of robot-assisted screw placement is smooth and easy to operate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]