Category: Spine

Posted on

Validity and Reliability of a Measurement of Objective Functional Impairment in Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease: The Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test

Validity and Reliability of a Measurement of Objective Functional Impairment in Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease- The Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test

Neurosurgery 79:270–278, 2016

There are few objective measures of functional impairment to support clinical decision making in lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD).

OBJECTIVE: We present the validation (and reliability measures) of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test.

METHODS: In a prospective, 2-center study, 253 consecutive patients were assessed using the TUG test. A representative cohort of 110 volunteers served as control subjects. The TUG test values were assessed for validity and reliability.

RESULTS: The TUG test had excellent intra- (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.97) and interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.99), with a standard error of measurement of 0.21 and 0.23 seconds, respectively. The validity of the TUG test was demonstrated by a good correlation with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back (Pearson’s correlation coefficient [PCC]: 0.25) and VAS (PCC: 0.29) leg pain, functional impairment (Roland-Morris Disability Index [PCC: 0.38] and Oswestry Disability Index [PCC: 0.34]), as well as with health-related quality of life (Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary score [PCC: 20.25], Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary score [PCC: 20.32], and EQ-5D [PCC: 20.28]). The upper limit of “normal” was 11.52 seconds. Mild (lower than the 33rd percentile), moderate (33rd to 66th percentiles), and severe objective functional impairment (higher than the 66th percentile) as determined by the TUG test was <13.4 seconds, 13.4 to 18.4 seconds, and >18.4 seconds, respectively.

CONCLUSION: The TUG test is a quick, easy-to-use, valid, and reliable tool to evaluate objective functional impairment in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease. In the clinical setting, patients scoring a TUG test time of over 12 seconds can be considered to have functional impairment.

Posted on

How to predict return to work after lumbar discectomy

How to predict return to work after lumbar discectomy- answers from the NeuroPoint-SD registry

J Neurosurg Spine 25:181–186, 2016

To date, the factors that predict whether a patient returns to work after lumbar discectomy are poorly understood. Information on postoperative work status is important in analyzing the cost-effectiveness of the procedure.

Methods An observational prospective cohort study was completed at 13 academic and community sites (Neuro- Point–Spinal Disorders [NeuroPoint-SD] registry). Patients undergoing single-level lumbar discectomy were included. Variables assessed included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), SF-36 physical function score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, presence of diabetes, smoking status, systemic illness, workers’ compensation status, and preoperative work status. The primary outcome was working status within 3 months after surgery. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to determine which factors were predictive of return to work at 3 months following discectomy.

Results There were 127 patients (of 148 total) with data collected 3 months postoperatively. The patients’ average age at the time of surgery was 46 ± 1 years, and 66.9% of patients were working 3 months postoperatively. Statistical analyses demonstrated that the patients more likely to return to work were those of younger age (44.5 years vs 50.5 years, p = 0.008), males (55.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.005), those with higher preoperative SF-36 physical function scores (44.0 vs 30.3, p = 0.002), those with lower preoperative ODI scores (43.8 vs 52.6, p = 0.01), nonsmokers (83.5% vs 66.7%, p = 0.03), and those who were working preoperatively (91.8% vs 26.2%, p < 0.0001). When controlling for patients who were working preoperatively (105 patients), only age was a statistically significant predictor of postoperative return to work (44.1 years vs 51.1 years, p = 0.049).

Conclusions In this cohort of lumbar discectomy patients, preoperative working status was the strongest predictor of postoperative working status 3 months after surgery. Younger age was also a predictor. Factors not influencing return to work in the logistic regression analysis included sex, BMI, SF-36 physical function score, ODI score, presence of diabetes, smoking status, and systemic illness. Clinical trial registration no.: 01220921 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Posted on

First Human Implantation of a Bioresorbable Polymer Scaffold for Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury

First Human Implantation of a Bioresorbable Polymer Scaffold for Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury

Neurosurgery 79:E305–E312, 2016

A porous bioresorbable polymer scaffold has previously been tested in preclinical animal models of spinal cord contusion injury to promote appositional healing, spare white matter, decrease posttraumatic cysts, and normalize intraparenchymal tissue pressure. This is the first report of its human implantation in a spinal cord injury patient during a pilot study testing the safety and feasibility of this technique (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02138110).

CLINICAL PRESENTATION: A 25-year-old man had a T11-12 fracture dislocation sustained in a motocross accident that resulted in a T11 American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) grade A traumatic spinal cord injury. He was treated with acute surgical decompression and spinal fixation with fusion, and enrolled in the spinal scaffold study. A 2 x 10 mm bioresorbable scaffold was placed in the spinal cord parenchyma at T12. The scaffold was implanted directly into the traumatic cavity within the spinal cord through a dorsal root entry zone myelotomy at the caudal extent of the contused area. By 3 months, his neurological examination improved to an L1 AIS grade C incomplete injury. At 6-month postoperative follow-up, there were no procedural complications or apparent safety issues related to the scaffold implantation.

CONCLUSION: Although longer-term follow-up and investigation are required, this case demonstrates that a polymer scaffold can be safely implanted into an acutely contused spinal cord. This is the first human surgical implantation, and future outcomes of other patients in this clinical trial will better elucidate the safety and possible efficacy profile of the scaffold.

Posted on

Three-Year Follow-up of the Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization vs Instrumented Fusion in Patients With Lumbar Stenosis

Three-Year Follow-up of the Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization vs Instrumented Fusion in Patients With Lumbar Stenosis

Neurosurgery 79:169–181, 2016

Traditional surgical options for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis include decompression alone vs decompression and fusion; both options have potential limitations.

OBJECTIVE: To report the 36-month follow-up analysis of the coflex Interlaminar Stabilization (Paradigm Spine, LLC, New York, New York) after decompression, examined under a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial, which is intended to provide stabilization after decompression while preserving normal segmental motion at the treated level.

METHODS: The coflex trial was a prospective, randomized investigational device exemption study conducted at 21 clinical sites in the United States. Baseline and followup visits collected demographics, clinical, and radiographic status. The primary endpoint was a measure of composite clinical success 24 months postoperatively. For this current 36-month analysis, composite clinical success was calculated using analogous methods.

RESULTS: Composite clinical success at 36 months was achieved by 62.2% among 196 coflex Interlaminar Stabilization patients and 48.9% among 94 fusion patients (difference = 13.3%, 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-25.5%, P = .03). Bayesian posterior probabilities for noninferiority (margin = 210%) and superiority of cofle Interlaminar Stabilization vs fusion were .0.999 and 0.984, respectively. Substantial and comparable improvements were observed in both groups for patient-reported outcomes, although the percentage with a clinically significant improvement ($15) in the Oswestry Disability Index seemed larger for the coflex Interlaminar Stabilization group relative to the fusion group (P = .008). Radiographic measurements maintained index level and adjacent level range of motion in coflex Interlaminar Stabilization patients, although range of motion at the level superior to fusion was significantly increased (P = .005).

CONCLUSION: Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization for stenosis is proven to be effective and durable at improving overall composite clinical success without altering normal spinal kinematic motion at the index level of decompression or adjacent levels.

Posted on

Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up

mobi-c

Neurosurgery 79:135–145, 2016

The cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years.

METHODS: Data were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12- Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated qualityadjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate.

RESULTS: The cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34 377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was 2$165 103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY in all scenarios (2$225 816 per QALY to $22 071 per QALY).

CONCLUSION: This study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality.

Posted on

Natural Head Posture in the Setting of Sagittal Spinal Deformity

Natural Head Posture in the Setting of Sagittal Spinal Deformity

Neurosurgery 79:108–115, 2016

The maintenance of horizontal gaze is an essential function of upright posture and global sagittal spinal alignment. Horizontal gaze is classically measured by the chin-brow vertical angle (CBVA), which is not readily measured on most lateral spine radiographs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate relations between CBVA and the slope of the line of sight, the slope of McGregor’s line (McGS), and Oswestry Disability Index.

METHODS: Patients were identified from a single center database of 531 spine patients who underwent full-body EOS x-rays. Correlations between CBVA, the slope of the line of sight, and McGS were assessed. Using a quadratic regression with Oswestry Disability Index and CBVA, windows of low disability were identified. Comparison of sagittal spinopelvic parameters was carried out between patients with “ascending gaze” and “neutral position.”

RESULTS: Three hundred three patients were included (74% female, mean age 54.8 years, body mass index 26.6 6 6.0 kg/m2). CBVA strongly correlated with the slope of the line of sight (r = 0.996) and McGS (r = 0.862). Regression studies between Oswestry Disability Index and CBVA yielded a range of values corresponding to low disability (24.7 degrees to 17.7 degrees). Similarly, a low disability range for the slope of the line of sight (25.1 degrees to 18.5 degrees) and McGS (25.7 degrees to 14.3 degrees) was computed. Patients with “ascending gaze” had a worse spinopelvic alignment than “neutral position” patients.

CONCLUSION: The slope of the line of sight and McGS correlated strongly with CBVA and can be used as surrogate measures. The range of values for these measures corresponding to low disability was identified. These values can be used as a general guideline to assess alignment for diagnostic purposes. Cervical compensatory mechanism may modify the natural head position in sagittally misaligned patients.

Posted on

Clinical and Surgical Predictors of Complications Following Surgery for the Treatment of Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

Clinical_and_Surgical_Predictors_of_Complications

Neurosurgery 79:33–44, 2016

Surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is generally safe and effective. Nonetheless, complications occur in 11% to 38% of patients. Knowledge of important predictors of complications will help clinicians identify high-risk patients and institute prevention and management strategies.

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical and surgical predictors of perioperative complications in CSM patients.

METHODS: Four hundred seventy-nine surgical CSM patients were enrolled in the prospective CSM-International study at 16 sites. A panel of physicians reviewed all adverse events and classified each as related or unrelated to surgery. Univariate analyses were performed to determine differences between patients who experienced a perioperative complication and those who did not. A complication prediction rule was developed using multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients experienced 89 perioperative complications (16.25%). On univariate analysis, the major clinical risk factors were ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) (P = .055), number of comorbidities (P = .002), comorbidity score (P = .006), diabetes mellitus (P = .001), and coexisting gastrointestinal (P = .039) and cardiovascular (P = .046) disorders. Patients undergoing a 2-stage surgery (P = .002) and those with a longer operative duration (P = .001) were at greater risk of perioperative complications. A final prediction model consisted of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] = 1.96, P = .060), number of comorbidities (OR = 1.20, P = .069), operative duration (OR = 1.07, P = .002), and OPLL (OR = 1.75, P = .040).

CONCLUSION: Surgical CSM patients have a higher risk of perioperative complications if they have a greater number of comorbidities, coexisting diabetes mellitus, OPLL, and a longer operative duration. Surgeons can use this information to discuss the risks and benefits of surgery with patients, to plan case-specific preventive strategies, and to ensure appropriate management in the perioperative period.

Posted on

Outcomes of Operative and Nonoperative Treatment for Adult Spinal Deformity

adult lumbar scoliosis

Neurosurgery 78:851–861, 2016

High-quality studies that compare operative and nonoperative treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) are needed.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment for ASD.

METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective analysis of consecutive ASD patients opting for operative or nonoperative care. Inclusion criteria were age .18 years and ASD. Operative and nonoperative patients were propensity matched with the baseline Oswestry Disability Index, Scoliosis Research Society-22r, thoracolumbar/lumbar Cobb angle, pelvic incidence–to–lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), and leg pain score. Analyses were confined to patients with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six operative and 403 nonoperative patients met the criteria, with mean ages of 53 and 55 years, 2-year follow-up rates of 86% and 55%, and mean follow-up of 24.7 and 24.8 months, respectively. At baseline, operative patients had significantly worse health-related quality of life (HRQOL) based on all measures assessed (P < .001) and had worse deformity based on pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence–to– lumbar lordosis mismatch, and sagittal vertical axis (P ≤ .002). At the minimum 2-year follow-up, all HRQOL measures assessed significantly improved for operative patients (P < .001), but none improved significantly for nonoperative patients except for modest improvements in the Scoliosis Research Society-22r pain (P = .04) and satisfaction (P < .001) domains. On the basis of matched operative-nonoperative cohorts (97 in each group), operative patients had significantly better HRQOL at follow-up for all measures assessed (P < .001), except Short Form-36 mental component score (P = .06). At the minimum 2-year follow-up, 71.5% of operative patients had ≥1 complications.

CONCLUSION: Operative treatment for ASD can provide significant improvement of HRQOL at a minimum 2-year follow-up. In contrast, nonoperative treatment on average maintains presenting levels of pain and disability.

Posted on

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with the ROSA Spine robot and intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with the ROSATM Spine robot and intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance

Acta Neurochir (2016) 158:1125–1128

Circumferential arthrodesis is commonly used to treat degenerative lumbar diseases. Minimally invasive techniques may enable faster recovery and reduce the incidence of postoperative infections.

Methods: We report on the surgical technique of a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure performed with the assistance of a new robotic device (ROSATM Spine) and intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance.

Conclusions: The combined use of this new robotic device and intraoperative CT enables accurate and safe arthrodesis in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc diseases.

Posted on

Microsurgical unilateral laminotomy for decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis

Microsurgical unilateral laminotomy for decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis

Acta Neurochir (2016) 158:1103–1113

The microsurgical unilateral laminotomy (MUL) technique for bilateral decompression of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a less destabilizing alternative to laminectomy and leads to good short-term outcomes. However, little is known about the long-term results including predictive factors.

Methods: Medical records of patients who underwent MUL for LSS decompression between 2005 and 2010 were reviewed, and a questionnaire was distributed to complement the long-term outcome data. The study population consisted of 176 patients including 17 patients with stable grade I spondylolisthesis. Complications and reoperations were meticulously analyzed. Clinical outcome was measured using a modified Prolo scale and was further dichotomized in good vs. poor outcome. Predictive factors were obtained from uni- and multivariate analyses.

Results: The median age of the cohort was 70.0 years and the follow-up 71.7 months. Complications occurred in 5.1%of the patients. The overall reoperation rate was 17.0 %, including surgery, which was exclusively performed at other levels in 4.0 %. The reoperation rate for fusion was 4.5 %. Good neurogenic claudication outcome faded from 98.3 % at hospital discharge to 47.2 % at 6 years. Multivariate analysis identified previous lumbar operation as a potential independent predictor of a reoperation; potential independent predictors of poor longterm claudication outcome were older age, female gender, higher body mass index (BMI) and tobacco smoking.

Conclusions: In our experience, the long-term reoperation rate after MUL for LSS is not negligible and higher in previously operated patients. It seems like the good initial clinical results after MUL may fade over time, and several patient-related predictive factors including potentially modifiable obesity and tobacco smoking seem to play an important role.

Posted on

Assessment of Impact of Long-Cassette Standing X-Rays on Surgical Planning for Cervical Pathology

ssessment of Impact of Long-Cassette Standing X-Rays on Surgical Planning for Cervical Pathology

Neurosurgery 78:717–724, 2016

Understanding the role of regional segments of the spine in maintaining global balance has garnered significant attention recently. Long-cassette radiographs (LCR) are necessary to evaluate global spinopelvic alignment. However, it is unclear how LCRs impact operative decision-making for cervical spine pathology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of LCRs results in changes to respondents’ operative plans compared to standard imaging of the involved cervical spine in an international survey of spine surgeons.

METHODS: Fifteen cases (5 control cases with normal and 10 test cases with abnormal global alignment) of cervical pathology were presented online with a vignette and cervical imaging. Surgeons were asked to select a surgical plan from 6 options, ranging from the least (1 point) to most (6 points) extensive. Cases were then reordered and presented again with LCRs and the same surgical plan question.

RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven surgeons completed the survey, of which 79% were spine fellowship trained. The mean response scores for surgical plan increased from 3.28 to 4.0 (P = .003) for test cases with the addition of LCRs. However, no significant changes (P = .10) were identified for the control cases. In 4 of the test cases with significant mid thoracic kyphosis, 29% of participants opted for the more extensive surgical options of extension to the mid and lower thoracic spine when they were provided with cervical imaging only, which significantly increased to 58.3% upon addition of LCRs.

CONCLUSION: In planning for cervical spine surgery, surgeons should maintain a low threshold for obtaining LCRs to assess global spinopelvic alignment.

Posted on

New Posterior Atlantoaxial Restricted Non-Fusion Fixation for Atlantoaxial Instability

New Posterior Atlantoaxial Restricted Non-Fusion Fixation for Atlantoaxial Instability

Neurosurgery 78:735–741, 2016

Loss of axial rotation and lateral bending after atlantoaxial fusion reduces a patient’s quality of life. Therefore, effective, nonfusion fixation alternatives are needed for atlantoaxial instability.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the initial stability and function of posterior atlantoaxial restricted nonfusion fixation (PAARNF), a new protocol, using cadaveric cervical spines compared with the intact state, destabilization, and posterior C1-C2 rod fixation.

METHODS: Cervical areas C0 through C3 were used from 6 cadaveric spines to test flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation range of motion (ROM). With the use of a machine, 1.5-Nm torque at a rate of 0.1 Nm/s was used and held for 10 seconds. The specimens were loaded 3 times, and data were collected in the third cycle and tested in the following sequence: (1) intact, (2) destabilization (using a type II odontoid fracture model), (3) destabilization with PAARNF (PAARNF group), and (4) rod implantation (rod group). The order of tests for the PAARNF and rod groups was randomly assigned.

RESULTS: The average flexion-extension ROM in the PAARNF group was 7.44 6 2.05, which was significantly less than in the intact (P = .00) and destabilization (P = .00) groups but not significantly different from that of the rod group (P = .07). The average lateral bending ROM (10.59 6 2.33; P = .00) and axial rotation ROM (38.79 6 13.41; P = .00) of the PAARNF group were significantly greater than in the rod group. However, the values of the PAARNF group showed no significant differences compared with those of the intact group.

CONCLUSION: PAARNF restricted atlantoaxial flexion-extension but preserved axial rotation and lateral bending at the atlantoaxial joint in a type II odontoid fracture model. However, it should not be used clinically until further studies have been performed to test the long-term effects of this procedure.

Posted on

Posterior Cervical Fusion Using Cervical Interfacet Spacers in Patients With Symptomatic Cervical Pseudarthrosis

Posterior Cervical Fusion Using Cervical Interfacet Spacers in Patients With Symptomatic Cervical Pseudarthrosis

Neurosurgery 78:661–668, 2016

Posterior cervical fusion with cervical interfacet spacer (CIS) is a novel allograft technology offering the potential to provide indirect neuroforaminal decompression while simultaneously enhancing fusion by placing the allograft in compression.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical and radiological outcomes after posterior cervical fusion with CIS in patients with symptomatic anterior cervical pseudarthroses.

METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent posterior cervical fusion with CIS for symptomatic pseudarthrosis after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion were reviewed. Standardized outcome measures such as visual analog scale (VAS) score for neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and upright lateral cervical radiographs were reviewed.

RESULTS: There were 19 patients with symptomatic cervical pseudarthrosis. Preoperative symptoms included refractory neck or arm pain. The average follow-up was 20 months (range, 12-56 months). There was improvement in VAS score for neck pain (P < .004), radicular arm pain (P < .007), and NDI score (P < .06) after surgery, with 83%, 72%, and 67% of patients showing improvement in their VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, and NDI scores, respectively. Fusion rate was high, with fusion occurring at all levels treated for pseudarthrosis. There was a small improvement in cervical lordosis (mean difference, 2 6 5.17; P = .09) and slight worsening of C2-7 sagittal vertical axis after surgery (mean difference, 1.89 6 7.87 mm; P = .43).

CONCLUSION: CIS provides an important fusion technique, allowing placement of an allograft in compression for posterior cervical fusion in patients with anterior cervical pseudarthroses. Although there was improvement in clinical outcome measures after surgery, placement of CIS had no clinically significant impact on cervical lordosis and C2-7 sagittal vertical axis.

Posted on

Microendoscopic discectomy versus open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis

Complications of endoscopic microdiscectomy using the EASYGO! system

Eur Spine J (2016) 25:1373–1381

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of microendoscopic discectomy and open discectomy for patients with lumbar disc herniation.

Methods: An extensive search of studies was performed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Google Scholar. The following outcome measures were extracted: visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), complication, operation time, blood loss and length of hospital stay. Data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.0.

Results: Five randomized controlled trials involving 501 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the VAS, ODI or complication between the two groups. However, compared with the open discectomy, the microendoscopic discectomy was associated with less blood loss [WMD = -151.01 (-288.22, -13.80), P = 0.03], shorter length of hospital stay [WMD = -69.33 (-110.39, -28.28), P = 0.0009], and longer operation time [WMD = 18.80 (7.83, 29.76), P = 0.0008].

Conclusions: Microendoscopic discectomy, which requires a demanding learning curve, may be a safe and effective alternative to conventional open discectomy for patients with lumbar disc herniation.

 

Posted on

ALIF and total disc replacement versus 2-level circumferential fusion with TLIF: a prospective, randomized, clinical and radiological trial

ALIF-TDR vs TLIF

Eur Spine J (2016) 25:1558–1566

Study design: Prospective, randomized trial.

Purpose: The treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) with two-level fusion has been associated with a reasonable rate of complications. The aim of the present study was to compare (Hybrid) stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1 with total disc replacement at L4/5 (TDR) as an alternative surgical strategy to (Fusion) 2-level circumferential fusion employing trans- foraminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with transpedicular stabilization at L4–S1.

Methods: A total of 62 patients with symptomatic DDD of segments L5/S1 (Modic ≥2°) and L4/5 (Modic ≤2°; positive discography) were enrolled; 31 were treated with Hybrid and 31 with Fusion. Preoperatively, at 0, 12, and a mean follow-up of 37 months, clinical (ODI, VAS) and radiological evaluations (plain/extension-flexion radiographs evaluated for implant failure, fusion, global and segmental lordosis, and ROM) were performed.

Results: In 26 of 31 Hybrid and 24 of 31 Fusion patients available at the final follow-up, we found a significant clinical improvement compared to preoperatively. Hybrid patients had significantly lower VAS scores immediately postoperatively and at follow-up compared to Fusion patients. The complication rates were low and similar between the groups. Lumbar lordosis increased in both groups. The increase was mainly located at L4–S1 in the Hybrid group and at L1–L4 in the Fusion group. Hybrid patients presented with increased ROM at L4/5 and L3/4, and Fusion patients presented with increased ROM at L3/4, with significantly greater ROM at L3/4 compared to Hybrid patients at follow-up.

Conclusions Hybrid surgery is a viable surgical alternative for the presented indication. Approach-related inferior trauma and the balanced restoration of lumbar lordosis resulted in superior clinical outcomes compared to two-level circumferential fusion with TLIF.

Posted on

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

lumbar stenosis

N Engl J Med 2016;374:1413-23

The efficacy of fusion surgery in addition to decompression surgery in patients who have lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis, has not been substantiated in controlled trials.

METHODS: We randomly assigned 247 patients between 50 and 80 years of age who had lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two adjacent vertebral levels to undergo either decompression surgery plus fusion surgery (fusiongroup) or decompression surgery alone(decompression-alonegroup). Randomization was stratified according to the presence of preoperative degenerative spondylolisthesis (in 135 patients) or its absence. Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures, a 6-minute walk test, and a health economic evaluation. The primary outcome was the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) 2 years after surgery. The primary analysis, which was a per-protocol analysis, did not include the 14 patients who did not receive the assigned treatment and the 5 who were lost to follow-up.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups in the mean score on the ODI at 2 years (27 in the fusion group and 24 in the decompression-alone group, P=0.24) or in the results of the 6-minute walk test (397 m in the fusion group and 405 m in the decompres- sion-alone group, P=0.72). Results were similar between patients with and those without spondylolisthesis. Among the patients who had 5 years of follow-up and were eligible for inclusion in the 5-year analysis, there were no significant differences between the groups in clinical outcomes at 5 years. The mean length of hospitalization was 7.4 days in the fusion group and 4.1 days in the decompression-alone group (P<0.001). Operating time was longer, the amount of bleeding was greater, and surgical costs were higher in the fusion group than in the decompression-alone group. During a mean follow-up of 6.5 years, additional lumbar spine surgery was performed in 22% of the patients in the fusion group and in 21% of those in the decompression-alone group.

CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis, decompression surgery plus fusion surgery did not result in better clinical outcomes at 2 years and 5 years than did decompression surgery alone.

Posted on

A Cost-Effectiveness Comparison Between Open Transforaminal and Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions

lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Neurosurgery 78:585–595, 2016

Direct cost comparisons between minimally invasive spine surgeries and the open options are rare.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare costs associated with open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and to calculate the thresholds for minimum clinically important difference and minimum cost-effective difference for patient-reported outcome measures at the 2-year follow-up.

METHODS: Forty-five patients who underwent single-level TLIF and 29 patients who underwent single-level stand-alone LLIF were included in the comparison. All costs from diagnosis through the 2-year follow-up were available from a comprehensive single-center data bank within a unified hospital system. Payment provided for all spine-related medical resource use from the time of diagnosis through 2 years was recorded. A 0% discount rate was applied. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EuroQol-5D collected in an unbiased manner. Difference in total cost per QALY gained for LLIF minus that for TLIF was assessed as the estimate of the ICER from a US perspective.

RESULTS: Significant improvements were observed at the 2-year follow-up for both TLIF and LLIF with the Short Form-36 physical component summary, Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale back pain and leg pain scores, and EuroQol-5D. ICER calculations revealed similar mean cumulative QALYs gained at the 2-year interval (0.67 for TLIF and 0.60 for LLIF; P = .33). Median total costs of care after TLIF and LLIF were $44 068 and $45 574, respectively (P = .96). Minimum cost-effective difference thresholds with an anchor of ,$50 000 per QALY were higher than minimum clinically important difference thresholds for all patient-reported outcome measures. Total mean cost and EuroQol-5D were statistically equivalent between the 2 treatment groups.

CONCLUSION: TLIF and LLIF produced equivalent 2-year patient outcomes at an equivalent cost-effectiveness profile.

Posted on

Outcome of conservative and surgical treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis

pyogenic spondylodiscitis

Eur Spine J (2016) 25:983–999

Spondylodiscitis is a spinal infection affecting primarily the intervertebral disk and the adjacent vertebral bodies. Currently many aspects of the treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis are still a matter of debate.

Purpose The aim of this study was to review the currently available literature systematically to determine the outcome of patients with pyogenic spondylodiscitis for conservative and surgical treatment strategies.

Methods A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration, and Web of Science regarding the treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis was performed. Included articles were assessed on risk of bias according the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendation was evaluated according the GRADE approach.

Results: 25 studies were included. Five studies had a high or moderate quality of evidence. One RCT suggest that 6 weeks of antibiotic treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis results in a similar outcome when compared to longer treatment duration. However, microorganism-specific studies suggest that at least 8 weeks of treatment is required for S. aureus and 8 weeks of Daptomycin for MRSA. The articles that described the outcome of surgical treatment strategies show that a large variety of surgical techniques can successfully treat spondylodiscitis. No additional long-term beneficial effect of surgical treatment could be shown in the studies comparing surgical versus antibiotic only treatment.

Conclusion There is a strong level of recommendation for 6 weeks of antibiotic treatment in pyogenic spondylodiscitis although this has only been shown by one recent RCT. If surgical treatment is indicated, it has been suggested by two prospective studies with strong level of recommendation that an isolated anterior approach could result in a better clinical outcome.

Posted on

Posterior Reduction of Fixed Atlantoaxial Dislocation and Basilar Invagination by Atlantoaxial Facet Joint Release and Fixation

Posterior Reduction of Fixed Atlantoaxial Dislocation and Basilar Invagination by Atlantoaxial Facet Joint Release and Fixation- A Modified Technique With 174 Cases

Neurosurgery 78:391–400, 2016

Treatment of fixed atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD) with basilar invagination (BI) is challenging.

OBJECTIVE: To introduce a modified technique to reduce fixed AAD and BI through a posterior approach.

METHODS: From 2007 to 2013, 174 patients with fixed AAD and BI underwent surgical reduction by posterior atlantoaxial facet joint release and fixation technique.

RESULTS: There was 1 death in the series, and 3 patients were lost to follow-up. The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 52 months (mean: 35.2 months) for the remaining 170 patients. Neurological improvement was observed in 168 of 170 patients (98.8%), and was stable in 1 (0.06%) and exacerbated in 1 (0.06%), with the Japanese Orthopedic Association scores increasing from 11.4 preoperatively to 15.8 postoperatively (P , .01). Radiologically, complete or .90% reduction was attained in 107 patients (62.9%), 60% to 90% reduction was attained in 51 patients (30%), and ,50% reduction was attained in 12 patients (7.1%), who underwent additional transoral decompression. Complete decompression was demonstrated in all 170 patients. Solid bony fusion was demonstrated in 167 patients at follow-up (98.2%).

CONCLUSION: This series showed the safety and efficacy of the posterior C1-2 facet joint release and reduction technique for the treatment of AAD and BI. Most fixed AAD and BI cases are reducible via this method. In most cases, this method avoids transoral odontoidectomy and cervical traction. Compared with the occiput-C2 screw method, this short-segment C1-2 technique exerts less antireduction shearing force, guarantees longer bone purchase, and provides more immediate stabilization.

Posted on

Orientation of the facet joints in degenerative rotatory lumbar scoliosis

Orientation of the facet joints in degenerative rotatory lumbar scoliosis- an MR study on 52 patients

Acta Neurochir (2016) 158:473–479

Because of a degenerative component, degenerative rotatory scoliosis seems different from congenital and idiopathic subtypes of the disease. This study aims to examine the orientation of facet joints, as a known cause of degeneration, in patients with degenerative rotatory scoliosis.

Methods Lumbar magnetic resonance (MR) images and plain radiographs of 52 symptomatic patients (mean age, 50.17 years) with degenerative rotatory lumbar scoliosis (mean curve, 19.22 degrees) and 50 healthy individuals were reviewed. Facet joint angles in rotated segments and the minimum neural foramen width at all lumbar levels were measured by three observers and the average was recorded.

Results The maximum vertebral rotation was most frequent at L4-L5 (75 %), and the majority was of type I (84.6 %) according to the Nash-Moe classification. At all lumbar spinal levels the mean facet joint angles were significantly higher on the side of rotation (L2-L3, 57.92 degrees; L3-L4, 45.00 degrees; L4-L5, 43.88 degrees) compared to those on the contralateral side (L2-L3, 20.42 degrees; L3-L4, 15.48 degrees; L4-L5, 13.12 degrees) and in controls (L2-L3, 30.21 degrees; L3- L4, 40.81 degrees; L4-L5, 45.20 degrees) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). The mean facet joint angle increased significantly from L4-L5 to L2-L3 in cases and reversely in controls. The mean minimum neural foramen width was 1.29 ± 0.85 mm on the side of rotation, 5.50 ± 1.09 mm on the contralateral side, and 6.78± 1.75 mm in controls (p<0.001).

Conclusions Substantial asymmetries and abnormal orientations in facet joints were documented in patients with degenerative rotatory lumbar scoliosis. Such asymmetries may adversely affect neural foramen width.

Proudly powered by WordPress