Tag: Lumbar spine fusion

Posted on

Evaluating the safe zone for lumbar pedicle screws: are midline crossing screws indicative of pedicle breach?

The Spine Journal 24 (2024) 617−624

Pedicle screw breach (PSB) is not uncommon following lumbar instrumentation, and in some instances, it may lead to vascular and/or neurologic complications. Previous literature suggested that screws crossing the vertebral midline on an anterior-posterior (AP) radiograph (or midsagittal on CT) are concerning for medial pedicle breach.

OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim was to map out the safe zones (SZ) of bilateral pedicle instrumentation and their relationship at each lumbar vertebral level. Our secondary aim was to evaluate the presence of SZs’ intersection at each lumbar level, denoting safe midline pedicle screw crossing not otherwise associated with medial pedicle breach.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective Anatomical Study.

PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients in the from “The Cancer Imaging Archive” (TCIA) database who have not had thoraco-lumbo-sacral fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Physiologic measures obtained through 3D analysis of CT images and virtual pedicle screws.

METHOD: CT scans of 51 patients were randomly selected from “The Cancer Imaging Archive” (TCIA) online database for analysis. The Sectra 3D Spine software was used to create 3D renderings, place virtual screws, and make measurements. At each lumbar vertebra, the right and left pedicle corridors were mapped. At each pedicle, two screw positions were templated, the “medial limit screw” (MLS) and the “lateral limit screw” (LLS). Each limit screw was the most extreme position that the screw could exist in without causing a medial or lateral breach. The safe zone was defined as the zone between MLS and LLS. Measurements were taken for each level (between L1 and L5) and side (Left, Right).

RESULTS: A total of 253 lumbar vertebrae from 51 patients (mean age 53.1, 56.9% male) were included. Two vertebrae from two patients were removed for poor image quality. Out of the 506 screw positions analyzed in our study, 97.4% had overlapping SZ and crossed the midplane without medial pedicle breach. The significant factors (p<.01) for safe midplane-crossing screws included: the screw length (L1−L5); the laterality of the screw entry point (L1−L4); and the pedicle diameter (L2 and L5). CONCLUSIONS: A midline crossing pedicle screw on a lumbar AP radiograph is not necessarily indicative of a medial pedicle screw breach. Anatomical (ie, larger pedicle diameter) and technical (ie, longer screws, and lateral entry points) factors allow for safety zone intersections and indicate safe midline crossing by pedicle screws.

Posted on

Independent Predictors of Revision Lumbar Fusion Outcomes and the Impact of Spine Surgeon Variability

Neurosurgery 89:836–843, 2021

There is a paucity of information regarding treatment strategies and variables affecting outcomes of revision lumbar fusions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of primary vs different surgeon on functional outcomes of revisions.

METHODS: All elective lumbar fusion revisions, March 2018 to August 2019, were retrospectively categorized as performed by the same or different surgeon who performed the primary surgery. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and clinical variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression identified multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) of independent variables analyzed.

RESULTS:Of the 130 cases, 117 (90%) had complete data. There was a slight difference in age in the same (median: 59; interquartile range [IQR], 54-66) and different surgeon (median: 67; IQR, 56-72) groups (P = .02); all other demographic variables were not significantly different (P > .05). Revision surgery with a different surgeon had an ODI improvement (median: 8; IQR, 2-14) greater than revisions performed by the same surgeon (median: 1.5; IQR, −3 to 10) (P < .01). Revisions who achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) performed by different surgeon (59.7%) were also significantly greater than the ones performed by the same surgeon (40%) (P=.042). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a different surgeon revising (OR, 2.37; [CI]: 1.007-5.575, P = .04) was an independent predictor of MCID achievement, each additional 2 years beyond the last surgery conferred a 2.38 ([CI]: 1.36-4.14, P < .01) times greater odds of MCID achievement, and the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach decreased the chance of achieving MCID (OR, 0.19; [CI]: 0.04-0.861, P = .03).

CONCLUSION: All revision lumbar spinal fusion approaches may not achieve the same outcomes. This analysis suggests that revision surgeries may have better outcomes when performed by a different surgeon.

Posted on

Clinical outcomes in revision lumbar spine fusions: an observational cohort study

J Neurosurg Spine 35:437–445, 2021

The authors compared primary lumbar spine fusions with revision fusions by using patient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to evaluate the impact of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based medicine (EBM) lumbar fusion indications on patient-reported outcome measures of revision surgeries.

METHODS This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single quaternary spine surgery service and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. A prospective quality improvement database was constructed that included the data from all elective lumbar spine surgeries, which were categorized prospectively as primary or revision surgeries and EBM-concordant or EBM-discordant revision surgeries based on the NASS coverage EBM policy. In total, 309 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The ODIs of all groups (primary, revision, revision EBM concordant, and revision EBM discordant) were statistically compared. Differences in frequencies between cohorts were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. The unpaired 2-tailed Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric data were used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was performed to determine the associations between independent variables (surgery status and NASS criteria indications) and functional outcomes.

RESULTS Primary lumbar fusions were significantly associated with improved functional outcomes compared with revisions, as evidenced by ODI scores (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16–2.95 to achieve a minimal clinically important difference, p = 0.01). The percentage of patients whose functional status had declined at the 6-month postoperative evaluation was significantly higher in patients who had undergone a revision surgery than in those who underwent a primary surgery (23% vs 12.3%, respectively). An increase in ODI score, indicating worse clinical outcome after surgery, was greater in patients who underwent revision procedures (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.17–3.91, p = 0.0014). Patients who underwent EBMconcordant revision surgery had significantly improved mean ODI scores compared with those who underwent EBMdiscordant revision surgery (7.02 ± 5.57 vs −4.6 ± 6.54, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS The results of this prospective quality improvement program investigation illustrate that outcomes of primary lumbar fusions were superior to outcomes of revisions. However, revision procedures that met EBM guidelines were associated with greater improvements in ODI scores, which indicates that the use of defined EBM guideline criteria for reoperation can improve clinical outcomes of revision lumbar fusions.

 

Posted on

Perioperative mortality after lumbar spinal fusion surgery: an analysis of epidemiology and risk factors

Eur Spine J (2012) 21:1633–1639 DOI 10.1007/s00586-012-2298-8

Study design Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 1998 to 2008.

Objective To analyze the most recent available and nationally representative data for risk factors contributing to in-hospital mortality after primary lumbar spine fusion.

Summary of background data The total number of lumbar spine fusion surgeries has increased dramatically over the past decades. While the field of spine fusion surgery remains highly dynamic with changes in perioperative care constantly affecting patient care, recent data affecting rates and risk for perioperative mortality remain very limited.

Methods We obtained the NIS from the Hospital cost and utilization project. The impact of patient and health care system related demographics, including various comorbidities as well as postoperative complications on the outcome of in-hospital mortality after spine fusion were studied. Furthermore, we analyzed the timing of in-hospital mortality.

Results An estimated total of 1,288,496 primary posterior lumbar spine fusion procedures were performed in the US between 1998 and 2008. The average mortality rate for lumbar spine fusion surgery was 0.2 %. Independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality included advanced age, male gender, large hospital size, and emergency admission. Comorbidities associated with the highest in-hospital mortality after lumbar spine fusion surgery were coagulopathy, metastatic cancer, congestive heart failure and renal disease. Most lethal complications were cerebrovascular events, sepsis and pulmonary embolism. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the timing of death occurred relatively early in the in-hospital period with over half of fatalities occurring by postoperative day 9.

Conclusion This study provides nationally representative information on risk factors for and timing of perioperative mortality after primary lumbar spine fusion surgery. These data can be used to assess risk for this event and to develop targeted intervention to decrease such risk.

Proudly powered by WordPress