Category: Spine

Posted on

Stand-alone ALIF versus TLIF in patients with low back pain

Brain and Spine 3 (2023) 102713

Instrumented lumbar fusion by either the anterior or transforaminal approach has different a vantages and disadvantages. Few studies have compared PatientReported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) between stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SA-ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Research question: This is a register-based dual-center study on patients with severe disc degeneration (DD) and low back pain (LBP) undergoing single-level SA-ALIF or TLIF. Comparing PROMs, including disability, quality of life, back- and leg-pain and patient satisfaction two years after SA-ALIF or TLIF, respectively.

Material and methods: Data were collected preoperatively and at one and two-year follow-up. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and quality of life (QoL) measured by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index score. To reduce baseline differences between groups, propensityscore matching was employed in a 1:1 fashion.

Results: 92 patients were matched, 46 S A-ALIF and 46 TLIF. They were comparable preoperatively, with no significant difference in demographic data or PROMs (P > 0.10). Both groups obtained statistically significant improvement in the ODI, QoL and VAS-score (P < 0.01), but no significant difference was observed (P = 0.14). No statistically significant differences in EQ-5D index scores (P = 0.25), VAS score for leg pain (P = 0.88) and back pain (P = 0.37) at two years follow-up.

Conclusion: Significant improvements in ODI, VAS-scores for back and leg pain, and EQ-5D index score were registered after two-year follow-up with both SA-ALIF and TLIF. No significant differences in improvement.

Posted on

Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow‑up

Acta Neurochirurgica (2023) 165:3493–3504

In surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors (imSCT), distortion of the anatomy challenges the visual identification of dorsal columns (DC) for midline myelotomy. Dorsal column mapping (DCM) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can identify DC neurophysiologically. We compare application and feasibility of both methods.

Methods Patients with surgically treated imSCT were prospectively included between 04/2017 and 06/2019. The anatomical midline (AM) was marked. SSEPs at the DC after stimulation of tibial/median nerve with an 8-channel DCM electrode and cortical SSEP phase reversal at C3/C4 after SCS using a bipolar concentric probe were recorded. Procedural and technical aspects were compared. Standardized neurological examinations were performed preoperatively, 1 week postoperatively and after more than 12 months.

Results The DCM electrode detected the midline in 9/13 patients with handling limitations in the remaining patients. SCS was applicable in all patients with determination of the midline in 9/13. If both recordings could be acquired (6/13), concordance was 100%. If baseline SSEPs were poor, both methods were limited. SCS was less time-consuming (p = 0.001), cheaper, and easier to handle. In 92% of cases, the AM and neurophysiologic midlines were concordant. After myelotomy, 3 patients experienced > 50% reduction in amplitude of SSEPs. Despite early postoperative worsening of DC function, longterm follow-up showed significant recovery and improvement in quality of life.

Conclusion DCM and SCS may help confirm and correct the AM for myelotomy in imSCT, leading to a favorable longterm neurological outcome in this cohort. SCS evolved to be superior concerning applicability, cost-effectiveness, and time expenditure.

Posted on

Predictors of Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Spinal Intramedullary Ependymoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study by the Neurospinal Society of Japan

Neurosurgery 93:1046–1056, 2023

Ependymoma is the most common spinal intramedullary tumor. Although clinical outcomes have been described in the literature, most of the reports were based on limited numbers of cases or been confined to institutional experience. The objective of this study was to analyze more detailed characteristics of spinal intramedullary ependymoma (SIE) and provide clinical factors associated with progression-free survival (PFS).

METHODS: This retrospective observational multicenter study included consecutive patients with SIE in the cervical or thoracic spine treated surgically at a total of 58 institutions between 2009 and 2020. The results of pathological diagnosis at each institute were confirmed, and patients with myxopapillary ependymoma, subependymoma, or unverified histopathology were strictly excluded from this study. Outcome measures included surgical data, surgery-related complications, postoperative systemic adverse events, postoperative adjuvant treatment, postoperative functional condition, and presence of recurrence.

RESULTS: This study included 324 cases of World Health Organization grade II (96.4%) and 12 cases of World Health Organization grade III (3.6%). Gross total resection (GTR) was achieved in 76.5% of cases. Radiation therapy (RT) was applied after surgery in 16 cases (4.8%), all of which received local RT and 5 of which underwent chemotherapy in combination. Functional outcomes were significantly affected by preoperative neurological symptoms, tumor location, extent of tumor resection, and recurrence. Multivariate regression analysis suggested that limited extent of tumor resection or recurrence resulted in poor functional outcomes. Multiple comparisons among the groups undergoing GTR, subtotal resection and biopsy, or partial resection of the tumor showed that the probability of PFS differed significantly between GTR and other extents of resection.

CONCLUSION: When GTR can be safely obtained in the surgery for SIE, functional maintenance and longer PFScan be expected.

 

Posted on

Complications of the Prone Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Multicenter Study

Neurosurgery 93:1106–1111, 2023

The prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a novel technique for degenerative lumbar spine disease. However, there is a paucity of information in the literature on the complications of this procedure, with all published data consisting of small samples. We aimed to report the intraoperative and postoperative complications of PTP in the largest study to date.

METHODS: A retrospective electronic medical record review was conducted at 11 centers to identify consecutive patients who underwent LLIF through the PTP approach between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. The following data were collected: intraoperative characteristics (operative time, estimated blood loss [EBL], intraoperative complications [anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) rupture, cage subsidence, vascular and visceral injuries]), postoperative complications, and hospital stay.

RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were included in the study. Among these patients, 2.2% had ALL rupture, 0.3% had cage subsidence, 0.3% had a vascular injury, 0.3% had a ureteric injury, and no other visceral injuries were reported. Mean operative time was 226.2 ± 147.9 minutes. Mean EBL was 138.4 ± 215.6 mL. Mean hospital stay was 2.7 ± 2.2 days. Postoperative complications included new sensory symptoms—8.2%, new lower extremity weakness—5.8%, wound infection—1.4%, cage subsidence—0.8%, psoas hematoma—0.5%, small bowel obstruction and ischemia—0.3%, and 90-day readmission—1.9%.

CONCLUSION: In this multicenter case series, the PTP approach was well tolerated and associated with a satisfactory safety profile.

Posted on

Midline lumbar interbody fusion: a review of the surgical technique and outcomes

J Neurosurg Spine 39:462–470, 2023

Midline lumbar interbody fusion (MidLIF) is a mini-open posterior interbody fusion technique defined by a cortical screw trajectory wherein screws are placed from a more medial to lateral trajectory compared with traditional pedicle screws. This enables the surgeon to perform a smaller muscle dissection with the benefits of improved blood loss, less muscle retraction, decreased operative time, shorter length of stay, and improved back pain outcomes compared with the traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques utilizing pedicle screw fixation.

Importantly, MidLIF offers comparable clinical outcomes and radiographic outcomes to other posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques.

In the current review, the authors aimed to educate readers about the MidLIF surgical technique, as well as surgical, clinical, radiographic, cost effectiveness, and biomechanical outcomes, when compared with both open and minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques with pedicle screw fixation.

Readers will be able to utilize this information to determine how the MidLIF procedure compares as an alternative to traditional techniques.

Posted on

Robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement accuracy compared with alternative guidance in lateral single-position surgery

J Neurosurg Spine 39:443–451, 2023

While single-position surgery (SPS) eliminates the need for patient repositioning, the placement of screws in the unconventional lateral position poses unique challenges related to asymmetry relative to the surgical table. Use of robotic guidance or intraoperative navigation can help to overcome this. The aim of this study was to compare the relative accuracies offered by these various navigation modalities for pedicle screws placed in lateral SPS.

METHODS According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies reporting pedicle screw placement accuracy using fluoroscopic, CT-navigated, O-arm, or robotic guidance in lateral SPS, and a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Included studies all compared evaluated screw placement accuracy in lateral SPS using a single navigation method. Quality assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system; risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. The primary outcome, rate of pedicle screw breach, was analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS Eleven studies were included comprising 548 patients who underwent the placement of instrumentation with 2488 screws. For the fluoroscopic, CT-navigated, O-arm, and robotic guidance cohorts, there were 3, 2, 3, and 3 studies, respectively. Breach rates by modality were as follows: fluoroscopic guidance (6.6%), CT navigation (4.7%), O-arm (3.9%), and robotic guidance (3.9%). Random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant difference between studies, with an overall breach rate of 4.9% (95% CI 3.1%–7.5%; p < 0.001); however, testing for subgroup differences failed to show a significant difference between guidance modalities (Q M = 0.69, df = 3; p = 0.88). Heterogeneity between studies was significant (I 2 = 79.0%, τ 2 = 0.41, χ 2 = 47.65, df = 10; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS Robotic guidance of screws is noninferior to alternative guidance modalities in lateral SPS; however, additional prospective studies directly comparing different guidance types are merited.

Posted on

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Inpatient Setting: A 1-Year Comparative Effectiveness Analysis

Neurosurgery 93:867–874, 2023

Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as an alternative setting for surgical care as part of the national effort to lower health care costs. The literature regarding the safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in the ASC setting is limited to few small case series.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of MIS TLIF performed in the ASC vs inpatient hospital setting.

METHODS: A total of 775 patients prospectively enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database undergoing single-level MIS TLIF at a single ASC (100) or the inpatient hospital setting (675) were compared. Propensity matching generated 200 patients for analysis (100 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences regarding baseline demographic data, clinical history, or comorbidities after propensity matching. Only 1 patient required inpatient transfer from the ASC because of intractable pain. All other patients were discharged home within 23 hours of surgery. The rates of 90-day readmission (2.0%) and reoperation (0%) were equivalent between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, back pain, and leg pain) at 3 months that were maintained at 1 year. PROMs did not differ between groups at any time point. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION: In carefully selected patients, MIS TLIF may be performed safely in the ASC setting with no statistically significant difference in safety or efficacy in comparison with the inpatient setting.

Posted on

Retrospective single-surgeon study of prone versus lateral robotic pedicle screw placement: a CT-based assessment of accuracy

J Neurosurg Spine 39:490–497, 2023

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion including anterior-to-psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion has conventionally relied on pedicle screw placement (PSP) for construct stabilization. Single-position surgery with lumbar interbody fusion in the lateral decubitus position with concomitant PSP has been associated with increased operative efficiency. What remains unclear is the accuracy of PSP with robotic guidance when compared with the more familiar prone patient positioning. The present study aimed to compare robot-assisted screw placement accuracy between patients with instrumentation placed in the prone and lateral positions.

METHODS The authors identified all consecutive patients treated with interbody fusion and PSP in the prone or lateral position by a single surgeon between January 2019 and October 2022. All pedicle screws placed were analyzed using CT scans to determine appropriate positioning according to the Gertzbein-Robbins classification grading system (grade C or worse was considered as a radiographically significant breach). Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to identify risk factors for the occurrence of a radiographically significant breach.

RESULTS Eighty-nine consecutive patients (690 screws) were included, of whom 46 (477 screws) were treated in the prone position and 43 (213 screws) in the lateral decubitus position. There were fewer breaches in the prone (n = 13, 2.7%) than the lateral decubitus (n = 15, 7.0%) group (p = 0.012). Nine (1.9%) radiographically significant breaches occurred in the prone group compared with 10 (4.7%) in the lateral decubitus group (p = 0.019), for a prone versus lateral decubitus PSP accuracy rate of 98.1% versus 95.3%. There were no significant differences in BMI between prone versus lateral decubitus cohorts (30.1 vs 29.6) or patients with screw breach versus those without (31.2 vs 29.5). In multivariate models, the prone position was the only significant protective factor for screw accuracy; no other significant risk factors for screw breach were identified.

CONCLUSIONS The present data suggest that pedicle screws placed with robotic assistance have higher placement accuracy in the prone position. Further studies will be needed to validate the accuracy of PSP in the lateral position as single-position surgery becomes more commonplace in the treatment of spinal disorders.

Posted on

Endoscopic odontoidectomy for brainstem compression in association with posterior fossa decompression and occipitocervical fusion

J Neurosurg 139:1152–1159, 2023

Endonasal endoscopic odontoidectomy (EEO) is an alternative to transoral surgery for symptomatic ventral compression of the anterior cervicomedullary junction (CMJ), allowing for earlier extubation and feeding. Because the procedure destabilizes the C1–2 ligamentous complex, posterior cervical fusion is often performed concomitantly. The authors’ institutional experience was reviewed to describe the indications, outcomes, and complications in a large series of EEO surgical procedures in which EEO was combined with posterior decompression and fusion.

METHODS A consecutive, prospective series of patients who underwent EEO between 2011 and 2021 was studied. Demographic and outcome metrics, radiographic parameters, extent of ventral compression, extent of dens removal, and increase in CSF space ventral to the brainstem were measured on the preoperative and postoperative scans (first and most recent scans).

RESULTS Forty-two patients (26.2% pediatric) underwent EEO: 78.6% had basilar invagination, and 76.2% had Chiari type I malformation. The mean ± SD age was 33.6 ± 3.0 years, with a mean follow-up of 32.3 ± 4.0 months. The majority of patients (95.2%) underwent posterior decompression and fusion immediately before EEO. Two patients underwent prior fusion. There were 7 intraoperative CSF leaks but no postoperative CSF leaks. The inferior limit of decompression fell between the nasoaxial and rhinopalatine lines. The mean ± SD vertical height of dens resection was 11.98 ± 0.45 mm, equivalent to a mean ± SD resection of 74.18% ± 2.56%. The mean increase in ventral CSF space immediately postoperatively was 1.68 ± 0.17 mm (p < 0.0001), which increased to 2.75 ± 0.23 mm (p < 0.0001) at the most recent follow-up (p < 0.0001). The median (range) length of stay was 5 (2–33) days. The median time to extubation was 0 (0–3) days. The median time to oral feeding (defined as, at minimum, toleration of a clear liquid diet) was 1 (0–3) day. Symptoms improved in 97.6% of patients. Complications were rare and mostly associated with the cervical fusion portion of the combined surgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS EEO is safe and effective for achieving anterior CMJ decompression and is often accompanied by posterior cervical stabilization. Ventral decompression improves over time. EEO should be considered for patients with appropriate indications.

Posted on

Effect of Lumbar Discectomy or Lumbar Decompression on Axial Back Pain: Results of a Meta-Analysis

World Neurosurg. (2023) 177:109-121

This meta-analysis evaluated the impact of lumbar disk herniation and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) on axial back pain and the extent of improvement of axial and radicular pain following lumbar decompression and discectomy surgery in patients with low back pain (LBP).

METHODS: A systematic search for published literature between January 2012 and January 2023 was made on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library database on 31 st January 2023.

Original articles that included patients with lumbar disc herniation or LSS who underwent lumbar discectomy or lumbar decompression respectively were included in the study.

RESULTS: A total of 71 studies including 16,770 patients with LBP undergoing lumbar discectomy or decompression surgery were included in the metaanalysis. The pooled standard mean difference between postoperative and preoperative: Visual Analog Scale scores for leg pain was L5.14 with 95% confidence interval (CI): L6.59 to L3.69 (P-value [ 0) and for back pain was L2.90 with 95% CI: L3.79 to L2.01 (P value [ 0), Numerical pain Rating Scale for leg pain was L1.64 with 95% CI: L1.97 to L1.30 (P-value<0.01) and for back pain was L1.58 with 95% CI: L1.84 to L1.32 (P-value <0.01), Oswerty Disability Index score was L4.76 with 95% CI: L6.22 to L3.29 (P-value [ 0) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score was 3.45 with 95% CI: 0.02 to 6.88 (P value 0) at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides evidence that lumbar discectomy and decompression are effective in improving axial LBP in patients with lumbar disk herniation and LSS.

 

Posted on

Anterolateral versus posterior minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis: comparison of outcomes from a global, multicenter study at 12-months follow-up

The Spine Journal 23 (2023) 1494−1505

Several minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion techniques may be used as a treatment for spondylolisthesis to alleviate back and leg pain, improve function and provide stability to the spine. Surgeons may choose an anterolateral or posterior approach for the surgery however, there remains a lack of real-world evidence from comparative, prospective studies on effectiveness and safety with relatively large, geographically diverse samples and involving multiple surgical approaches.

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that anterolateral and posterior minimally invasive approaches are equally effective in treating patients with spondylolisthesis affecting one or two segments at 3months follow-up and to report and compare patient reported outcomes and safety profiles between patients at 12-months post-surgery.

DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, international, observational cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent 1- or 2-level minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient reported outcomes assessing disability (ODI), back pain (VAS), leg pain (VAS) and quality of life (EuroQol 5D-3L) at 4-weeks, 3-months and 12-months follow-up; adverse events up to 12-months; and fusion status at 12-months post-surgery using X-ray and/or CT-scan. The primary study outcome is improvement in ODI score at 3-months. METHODS: Eligible patients from 26 sites across Europe, Latin America and Asia were consecutively enrolled. Surgeons with experience in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedures used, according to clinical judgement, either an anterolateral (ie, ALIF, DLIF, OLIF) or posterior (MIDLF, PLIF, TLIF) approach. Mean improvement in disability (ODI) was compared between groups using ANCOVA with baseline ODI score used as a covariate. Paired t-tests were used to examine change from baseline in PRO for both surgical approaches at each timepoint after surgery. A secondary ANCOVA using a propensity score as a covariate was used to test the robustness of conclusions drawn from the between group comparison.

RESULTS: Participants receiving an anterolateral approach (n=114) compared to those receiving a posterior approach (n=112) were younger (56.9 vs 62.0 years, p <.001), more likely to be employed (49.1% vs 25.0%, p<.001), have isthmic spondylolisthesis (38.6% vs 16.1%, p<.001) and less likely to only have central or lateral recess stenosis (44.9% vs 68.4%, p=.004). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for gender, BMI, tobacco use, duration of conservative care, grade of spondylolisthesis, or the presence of stenosis. At 3-months follow-up there was no difference in the amount of improvement in ODI between the anterolateral and posterior groups (23.2 § 21.3 vs 25.8 § 19.5, p=.521). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the groups on mean improvement for back- and leg-pain, disability, or quality of life until the 12-months follow-up. Fusion rates of those assessed (n=158; 70% of the sample), were equivalent between groups (anterolateral, 72/88 [81.8%] fused vs posterior, 61/70 [87.1%] fused; p=.390).

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with degenerative lumbar disease and spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion presented statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline up to 12-months follow-up. There were no clinically relevant differences between patients operated on using an anterolateral or posterior approach.

Posted on

Surgery Decreases Nonunion, Myelopathy, and Mortality for Patients With Traumatic Odontoid Fractures

Neurosurgery 93:546–554, 2023

Existing literature suggests that surgical intervention for odontoid fractures is beneficial but often does not control for known confounding factors.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of surgical fixation on myelopathy, fracture nonunion, and mortality after traumatic odontoid fractures.

METHODS: We analyzed all traumatic odontoid fractures managed at our institution between 2010 and 2020. Ordinal multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with myelopathy severity at follow-up. Propensity score analysis was used to test the treatment effect of surgery on nonunion and mortality.

RESULTS: Three hundred and three patients with traumatic odontoid fracture were identified, of whom 21.6% underwent surgical stabilization. After propensity score matching, populations were well balanced across all analyses (Rubin’s B < 25.0, 0.5 < Rubin’s R < 2.0). Controlling for age and fracture angulation, type, comminution, and displacement, the overall rate of nonunion was lower in the surgical group (39.7% vs 57.3%, average treatment effect [ATE] = À0.153 [À0.279, À0.028], P = .017). Controlling for age, sex, Nurick score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Injury Severity Score, and selection for intensive care unit admission, the mortality rate was lower for the surgical group at 30 days (1.7% vs 13.8%, ATE = À0.101 [À0.172, À0.030], P = .005) and at 1 year was 7.0% vs 23.7%, ATE = À0.099 [À0.181, À0.017], P = .018. Cox proportional hazards analysis also demonstrated a mortality benefit for surgery (hazard ratio = 0.587 [0.426, 0.799], P = .0009). Patients who underwent surgery were less likely to have worse myelopathy scores at follow-up (odds ratio = 0.48 [0.25, 0.93], P = .029).

CONCLUSION: Surgical stabilization is associated with better myelopathy scores at follow-up and causes lower rates of fracture nonunion, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality.

Posted on

Complications associated with single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 39:380–386, 2023

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a workhorse surgical approach for lumbar arthrodesis. There is growing interest in techniques for performing single-position surgery in which LLIF and pedicle screw fixation are performed with the patient in the prone position. Most studies of prone LLIF are of poor quality and without long-term followup; therefore, the complication profile related to this novel approach is not well known. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and pooled analysis to understand the safety profile of prone LLIF.

METHODS A systematic review of the literature and a pooled analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies reporting prone LLIF were assessed for inclusion. Studies not reporting complication rates were excluded.

RESULTS Ten studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Overall, 286 patients were treated with prone LLIF across these studies, and a mean (SD) of 1.3 (0.2) levels per patient were treated. The 18 intraoperative complications reported included cage subsidence (3.8% [3/78]), anterior longitudinal ligament rupture (2.3% [5/215]), cage repositioning (2.1% [2/95]), segmental artery injury (2.0% [5/244]), aborted prone interbody placement (0.8% [2/244]), and durotomy (0.6% [1/156]). No major vascular or peritoneal injuries were reported. Sixty-eight postoperative complications occurred, including hip flexor weakness (17.8% [21/118]), thigh and groin sensory symptoms (13.3% [31/233]), revision surgery (3.8% [3/78]), wound infection (1.9% [3/156]), psoas hematoma (1.3% [2/156]), and motor neural injury (1.2% [2/166]).

CONCLUSIONS Single-position LLIF in the prone position appears to be a safe surgical approach with a low complication profile. Longer-term follow-up and prospective studies are needed to better characterize the long-term complication rates related to this approach.

Posted on

Anatomic trajectory for iliac screw placement adapts better to the morphological features of the pelvis of each individual than the S2 alar iliac screw

Acta Neurochirurgica (2023) 165:2607–2614

The iliac fixation (IF) through the S2 ala permits the minimization of implant prominence and tissue dissection. An alternative to this technique is the anatomic iliac screw fixation (AI), which considers the perpendicular axis to the narrowest width of the ileum and the width of the screw. The morphological accuracy of the iliac screw insertion of two low profile iliac fixation (IF) techniques is investigated in this study.

Methods Twenty-nine patients operated on via low profile IF technique were divided into two groups, those treated using 28 screws with the starting point at S2, and those treated with 30 AI entry point. Radiological parameters (Tsv-angle, Sag-Angle, Max-length, sacral-distance, iliac-width, S2-midline, skin-distance, iliac-wing, and PSIS distance) and clinical outcomes (early and clinic complications) were evaluated by two blinded expert radiologists, and the results were compared in both groups with the real trajectory of the screws placed.

Results Differences between ideal and real trajectories were observed in 6 of the 9 evaluated parameters in the S2AI group. In the AI group, these trajectories were similar, except for TSV-Angle, Max-length, Iliac-width, and distance to iliac-wing parameters. Moreover, compared with S2AI, AI provided better adaptation to the pelvic morphology in all parameters, except for sagittal plane angulation, skin distance, and iliac width.

Conclusions AI ensures the advantages of low profile pelvic fixation like S2AI, with a starting point in line with S1 pedicle anchors and low implant prominence, and moreover adapts better to the morphological features of the pelvis of each individual.

Posted on

Comparison of minimally invasive decompression alone versus minimally invasive short-segment fusion in the setting of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis:

J Neurosurg Spine 39:394–403, 2023

Patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) and neurogenic pain may be candidates for decompression alone or short-segment fusion. In this study, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) decompression (MIS-D) and MIS short-segment fusion (MIS-SF) in patients with DLS were compared in a propensity score–matched analysis.

METHODS The propensity score was calculated using 13 variables: sex, age, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index, smoking status, leg pain, back pain, grade 1 spondylolisthesis, lateral spondylolisthesis, multilevel spondylolisthesis, lumbar Cobb angle, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis, and pelvic tilt in a logistic regression model. One-to-one matching was performed to compare perioperative morbidity and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patients was calculated based on cutoffs of percentage change from baseline: 42.4% for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 25.0% for visual analog scale (VAS) low-back pain, and 55.6% for VAS leg pain.

RESULTS A total of 113 patients were included in the propensity score calculation, resulting in 31 matched pairs. Perioperative morbidity was significantly reduced for the MIS-D group, including shorter operative duration (91 vs 204 minutes, p < 0.0001), decreased blood loss (22 vs 116 mL, p = 0.0005), and reduced length of stay (2.6 vs 5.1 days, p = 0.0004). Discharge status (home vs rehabilitation), complications, and reoperation rates were similar. Preoperative PROMs were similar, but after 3 months, improvement was significantly higher for the MIS-SF group in the VAS back pain score (−3.4 vs −1.2, p = 0.044) and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) Mental Component Summary (MCS) score (+10.3 vs +1.9, p = 0.009), and after 1 year the MIS-SF group continued to have significantly greater improvement in the VAS back pain score (−3.9 vs −1.2, p = 0.026), ODI score (−23.1 vs −7.4, p = 0.037), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey MCS score (+6.5 vs −6.5, p = 0.0374), and VR-12 MCS score (+7.6 vs −5.1, p = 0.047). MCID did not differ significantly between the matched groups for VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, or ODI scores (p = 0.38, 0.055, and 0.072, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS Patients with DLS undergoing surgery had similar rates of significant improvement after both MIS-D and MIS-SF. For matched patients, tradeoffs were seen for reduced perioperative morbidity for MIS-D versus greater magnitudes of improvement in back pain, disability, and mental health for patients 1 year after MIS-SF. However, rates of MCID were similar, and the small sample size among the matched patients may be subject to patient outliers, limiting generalizability of these results.

Posted on

Three-level ACDF versus 3-level laminectomy and fusion: are there differences in outcomes?

Neurosurg Focus 55(3):E2, 2023

OBJECTIVE The authors sought to compare 3-level anterior with posterior fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

METHODS The authors analyzed prospective data from the 14 highest enrolling sites of the Quality Outcomes Database CSM module. They compared 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) surgical procedures, excluding surgical procedures crossing the cervicothoracic junction. Rates of reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared at 24 months postoperatively. Multivariable analyses adjusted for potential confounders elucidated in univariable analysis.

RESULTS Overall, 199 patients met the inclusion criteria: 123 ACDF (61.8%) and 76 PCF (38.2%) patients. The 24-month follow-up rates were similar (ACDF 90.2% vs PCF 92.1%, p = 0.67). Preoperatively, ACDF patients were younger (60.8 ± 10.2 vs 65.0 ± 10.3 years, p < 0.01), and greater proportions were privately insured (56.1% vs 36.8%, p= 0.02), actively employed (39.8% vs 22.8%, p = 0.04), and independently ambulatory (14.6% vs 31.6%, p < 0.01). Otherwise, the cohorts had equivalent baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS)–arm pain, NRS–neck pain, and EQ-5D scores (p > 0.05). ACDF patients had reduced hospitalization length (1.6 vs 3.9 days, p < 0.01) and a greater proportion had nonroutine discharge (7.3% vs 22.8%, p < 0.01), but they had a higher rate of postoperative dysphagia (13.5% vs 3.5%, p = 0.049). Compared with baseline values, both groups demonstrated improvements in all outcomes at 24 months (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, after controlling for age, insurance payor, employment status, ambulation status, and other potential clinically relevant confounders, ACDF was associated with a greater proportion of patients with maximum satisfaction on the North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index (NASS) (NASS score of 1) at 24 months (69.4% vs 53.7%, OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.17–5.09, adjusted p = 0.02). Otherwise, the cohorts shared similar 24-month outcomes in terms of reaching the MCID for mJOA, NDI, NRS–arm pain, NRS–neck pain, and EQ-5D score (adjusted p > 0.05). There were no differences in the 3-month readmission (ACDF 4.1% vs PCF 3.9%, p = 0.97) and 24-month reoperation (ACDF 13.5% vs PCF 18.6%, p = 0.36) rates.

CONCLUSIONS In a cohort limited to 3-level fusion surgical procedures, ACDF was associated with reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization length, and higher routine home discharge rates; however, PCF resulted in lower rates of postoperative dysphagia. The procedures yielded comparably significant improvements in functional status (mJOA score), neck and arm pain, neck pain–related disability, and quality of life at 3, 12, and 24 months. ACDF patients had significantly higher odds of maximum satisfaction (NASS score 1). Given comparable outcomes, patients should be counseled on each approach’s complication profile to aid in surgical decision-making.

Posted on

Outcomes following anterior odontoid screw versus posterior arthrodesis for odontoid fractures

J Neurosurg Spine 39:196–205, 2023

Odontoid fractures can be managed surgically when indicated. The most common approaches are anterior dens screw (ADS) fixation and posterior C1–C2 arthrodesis (PA). Each approach has theoretical advantages, but the optimal surgical approach remains controversial. The goal in this study was to systematically review the literature and synthesize outcomes including fusion rates, technical failures, reoperation, and 30-day mortality associated with ADS versus PA for odontoid fractures.

METHODS A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and the I 2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS In total, 22 studies comprising 963 patients (ADS 527, PA 436) were included. The average age of the patients ranged from 28 to 81.2 years across the included studies. The majority of the odontoid fractures were type II based on the Anderson-D’Alonzo classification. The ADS group was associated with statistically significantly lower odds to achieve bony fusion at last follow-up compared to the PA group (ADS 84.1%; PA 92.3%; OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23–0.91; I 2 42.6%). The ADS group was associated with statistically significantly higher odds of reoperation compared to the PA group (ADS 12.4%; PA 5.2%; OR 2.56; 95% CI 1.50–4.35; I 2 0%). The rates of technical failure (ADS 2.3%; PA 1.1%; OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.52–2.37; I 2 0%) and all-cause mortality (ADS 6%; PA 4.8%; OR 1.35; 95% CI 0.67–2.74; I 2 0%) were similar between the two groups. In the subgroup analysis of patients > 60 years old, the ADS was associated with statistically significantly lower odds of fusion compared to the PA group (ADS 72.4%; PA 89.9%; OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.06–0.91; I 2 58.7%).

CONCLUSIONS ADS fixation is associated with statistically significantly lower odds of fusion at last follow-up and higher odds of reoperation compared to PA. No differences were identified in the rates of technical failure and all-cause mortality. Patients receiving ADS fixation at > 60 years old had significantly higher and lower odds of reoperation and fusion, respectively, compared to the PA group. PA is preferred to ADS fixation for odontoid fractures, with a stronger effect size for patients > 60 years old.

Posted on

Postoperative Spinal Cerebrospinal Fluid-Venous Fistulas Associated With Dural Tears in Patients With Intracranial Hypotension or Superficial Siderosis

Neurosurgery 93:473–479, 2023

Postoperative spinal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks are common but rarely cause extensive CSF collections that require specialized imaging to detect the site of the dural breach.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of digital subtraction myelography (DSM) for patients with extensive extradural CSF collections after spine surgery.

METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify a consecutive group of patients with extensive postoperative spinal CSF leaks who underwent DSM.

RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (9 men and 12 women) were identified. The mean age was 46.7 years (range, 17-75 years). The mean duration of the postoperative CSF leak was 3.3 years (range, 3 months to 21 years). MRI showed superficial siderosis in 6 patients. DSM showed the exact location of the CSF leak in 19 (90%) of the 21 patients. These 19 patients all underwent surgery to repair the CSF leak, and the location of the CSF leak could be confirmed intraoperatively in all 19 patients. In 4 (19%) of the 21 patients, DSM also showed a CSF-venous fistula at the same location as the postoperative dural tear.

CONCLUSION: In this study, DSM had a 90% detection rate of visualizing the exact site of the dural breach in patients with extensive postoperative spinal CSF leaks. The coexistence of a CSF-venous fistula in addition to the primary dural tear was present in about one-fifth of patients. The presence of a CSF-venous fistula should be considered if CSF leak symptoms persist in spite of successful repair of a durotomy.

Posted on

Risk Factors for Adjacent Segment Disease in Short Segment Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Operative Neurosurgery 25:136–141, 2023

Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a common problem after lumbar spinal fusions. Ways to reduce the rates of ASD are highly sought after to reduce the need for reoperation.

OBJECTIVE: To find predisposing factors of ASD after lumbar interbody fusions, especially in mismatch of pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL).

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusions of less than 4 levels from June 2015 to July 2020 with at least 1 year of follow-up and in those who had obtained postoperative standing X-rays.

RESULTS: We found 243 patients who fit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fourteen patients (5.8%) developed ASD, at a median of 24 months. Postoperative lumbar lordosis was significantly higher in the non-ASD cohort (median 46.4°± 1.4°vs 36.9°± 3.6°, P < .001), pelvic tilt was significantly lower in the non-ASD cohort (16.0°± 0.66°vs 20.3°± 2.4°, P = .002), PI-LL mismatch was significantly lower in the non-ASD cohort (5.28°± 1.0°vs 17.1°± 2.0°, P < .001), and age-appropriate PI-LL mismatch was less common in the non-ASD cohort (34 patients [14.8%] vs 13 [92.9%] of patients with high mismatch, P < .001). Using multivariate analysis, greater PI-LL mismatch was predictive of ASD (95% odds ratio CI = 1.393-2.458, P < .001) and age-appropriate PI-LL mismatch was predictive of ASD (95% odds ratio CI = 10.8-970.4, P < .001).

CONCLUSION: Higher PI-LL mismatch, both age-independent and when adjusted for age, after lumbar interbody fusion was predictive for developing ASD. In lumbar degenerative disease, correction of spinopelvic parameters should be a main goal of surgical correction.

Posted on

Effects of Sacral Slope Changes on the Intervertebral Disc and Hip Joint: A Finite Element Analysis

World Neurosurg. (2023) 176:e32-e39

Spinopelvic parameters are vital components that must be considered when treating patients with spinal disease. Several finite element (FE) studies have explored spinopelvic parameters such as sacral slope (SS) and the impact on the lumbar spine, although no study has examined the effect on the hip and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) on varying SS angles. Therefore, it is necessary to have a biomechanical understanding of the impact on the spinopelvic complex.

METHODS: An FE lumbar, pelvis, and femur model was created from computed tomography scans of a 55-year-old female patient with no abnormalities. Three models were created: a normal model (SS [ 26  ), a model with high SS (SS [ 30  ), and a model with low SS (SS [ 20  ). These models underwent loading for flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Range of motion (ROM), intradiscal pressures, hip joint, and SIJ contact stresses were analyzed.

RESULTS: The high SS model (SS [ 30  ) indicated the highest ROM in the L5-S1 (slip angle) level and the highest intradiscal pressures. The highest average hip and SIJ contact stresses were present in this model, although the low SS model (SS [ 20  ) in extension had the largest stresses for the hip and SIJ.

CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence that patients with higher SS may be more prone to increased ROM at the slip angle (L5-S1). In addition, patients with higher SS were shown to have higher contact stresses on the hip joint and SIJ, potentially leading to SIJ dysfunction. Clinically, correcting lumbar lordosis including SS is important; however, a high SS may have a negative impact on the intervertebral disc, SIJ, and hip joint.

Proudly powered by WordPress