Global Spine Journal最新文献

Study design: Retrospective Study.

Objective: At the North American Spine Society (NASS) conference, participants may influence spine surgery practices and patient care through their contributions. Therefore, their financial conflicts of interest are of notable interest. This study aims to compare the demographics and payments made to participating surgeons.

Methods: A list of 151 spine surgeons was created based on those who participated in the 2022 NASS conference. Demographic information was obtained from public physician profiles. General payments, research payments, associated research funding, and ownership interest were collected for each physician. Descriptive statistics and two-tailed t-tests were used.

Results: In 2021, 151 spine surgeon participants received industry payments, totaling USD 48 294 115. The top 10% of orthopedic surgeons receiving payments accounted for 58.7% of total orthopedic general value, while the top 10% of neurosurgeons accounted for 70.1%. There was no significant difference between these groups' general payment amounts. Surgeons with 21-30 years of experience received the most general funding. There was no difference in funding between surgeons in academic or private settings. For all surgeons, royalties accounted for the largest percentage of the general value exchanged, while food/beverage accounted for the largest percentage of transactions.

Conclusion: Our study found that only years of experience had a positive association with general payments, and most monetary value belonged to a small handful of surgeons. These participants receiving significant money may promote techniques requiring products of companies providing their compensation. Future conferences may require disclosure policy changes so attendees understand the degree of funding participants receive.

Study design: Literature review with clinical recommendation.

Objective: A concise curation of the latest spine literature exploring the relationship between expectations and satisfaction for patients with metastatic spinal disease (MSD). Deliver recommendations to practicing clinicians regarding interpretation and utilisation of this evidence.

Methods: The latest spine literature in the topic of factors affecting the expectations of patients with MSD was reviewed and clinical recommendations were formulated. Recommendations are graded as strong or Conditional.

Results: 5 articles were selected. Article 1: risk factors for the development of dissatisfaction from a cohort of 362 MSD patients. Strong recommendation to incorporate risk factor assessment when considering treatment. Article 2: systematic review assessing the relationship between pre-operative patient expectations and subsequent satisfaction in allied disciplines. Conditional recommendation to optimize patient expectation to positively modify patient satisfaction. Article 3: qualitative study of how clinicians, from different specialties, counsel patients with MSD pre-treatment. Strong recommendation to use a multidisciplinary approach. Article 4 qualitative study of how MSD patients experience their pre-treatment counselling and how that affected their appreciation of treatment success. Conditional recommendation to furnish patients with tailored, expected outcomes in the context of systemic progression. Article 5 Design and validation of a pre-treatment questionnaire specific to MSD. A conditional recommendation to incorporate this questionnaire in clinical and research MSD practice.

Conclusion: Patients with MSD are approaching end of life care and high levels of treatment satisfaction are crucial at this juncture. The role of expectation management and comprehensive counselling is critical.

Study design: Cadaveric anatomical studies.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the anatomical relationship between bony landmark "V point", dural sac, nerve roots, and intervertebral disc for improving operative outcomes and decreasing post-operative complications in posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy or discectomy (PECF or PECD).

Methods: 10 soft adult cadavers were studied. We measured the distance of the V point to the lateral margin of dural sac, V point to the inferior border of intervertebral disc, and the inferior border of cervical nerve root to the inferior border of intervertebral disc. Then we calculated the mean of distance from V point to the inferior border of cervical nerve root.

Results: The mean distance from the V point to the lateral margin of dural sac from C3/4 to C7/T1 ranged from 3.1 ± 1.38 mm to 3.37 ± 1.46 mm. The mean distances from V point to the inferior border of intervertebral disc from C3/4 to C7/T1 were .19 ± 1.16 mm at C3/4, .45 ± 1.23 mm at C4/5, .43 ± 1.01 at C5/6, -.43 ± 1.86 mm at C6/7 and -1.5 ± 1.2 mm at C7/T1. The mean distance between V point and the inferior border of cervical nerve root from C3/4 to C7/T1 showed all positive value, ranging from .06 ± 1.18 mm to 4.45 ± 2.57 mm, increasing caudally.

Conclusion: In performing PECF or PECD, a 3-4 mm radius of bone removal should be enough for exposure and neural decompression at C3/4 to C5/6. At C6/7 and C7/T1 a more extensive bone cut of more than 4 mm is recommended, especially in cranial direction.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Objective: Determine impact of standard/novel spinopelvic parameters on global sagittal imbalance, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores, and clinical outcomes in patients with multi-level, tandem degenerative spondylolisthesis (TDS).

Methods: Single institution analysis; 49 patients with TDS. Demographics, PROMIS and ODI scores collected. Radiographic measurements-sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence (PI), lumbar lordosis (LL), PI-LL mismatch, sagittal L3 flexion angle (L3FA) and L3 sagittal distance (L3SD). Stepwise linear multivariate regression performed using full length cassettes to identify demographic and radiographic factors predictive of aberrant SVA (≥5 cm). Receiver operative curve (ROC) analysis used to identify cutoffs for lumbar radiographic values independently predictive of SVA ≥5 cm. Univariate comparisons of patient demographics, (HRQoL) scores and surgical indication were performed around this cutoff using two-way Student's t-tests and Fisher's exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

Results: Patients with increased L3FA had worse ODI (P = .006) and increased rate of failing non-operative management (P = .02). L3FA (OR 1.4, 95% CI) independently predicted of SVA ≥5 cm (sensitivity and specifity of 93% and 92%). Patients with SVA ≥5 cm had lower LL (48.7 ± 19.5 vs 63.3 ± 6.9 mm, P < .021), higher L3SD (49.3 ± 12.9 vs 28.8 ± 9.2, P < .001) and L3FA (11.6 ± 7.9 vs -3.2 ± 6.1, P < .001) compared to patients with SVA ≤5 cm.

Conclusions: Increased flexion of L3, which is easily measured by the novel lumbar parameter L3FA, predicts global sagittal imbalance in TDS patients. Increased L3FA is associated with worse performance on ODI, and failure of non-operative management in patients with TDS.

Study design: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective: To determine whether 3D-printed porous titanium (3DPT) interbody cages offer any clinical or radiographic advantage over standard solid titanium (ST) interbody cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF).

Methods: A consecutive series of adult patients undergoing one- or two-level TLIF with either 3DPT or ST "banana" cages were analyzed for patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographic complications, and clinical complications. Exclusion criteria included clinical or radiographic follow-up less than 1 year.

Results: The final cohort included 90 ST interbody levels from 74 patients, and 73 3DPT interbody levels from 50 patients for a total of 124 patients. Baseline demographic variables and comorbidity rates were similar between groups (P > .05). Subsidence of any grade occurred more frequently in the ST group compared with the 3DPT group (24.4% vs 5.5%, respectively, P = .001). Further, the ST group was more likely to have higher grades of subsidence than the 3DPT group (P = .009). All PROMs improved similarly after surgery and revision rates did not differ between groups (both P > .05). On multivariate analysis, significant positive correlators with increasing subsidence grade included greater age (P = .015), greater body mass index (P = .043), osteoporosis/osteopenia (P < .027), and ST cage type (P = .019).

Conclusions: When considering interbody material for TLIF, both ST and 3DPT cages performed well; however, 3DPT cages were associated with lower rates of subsidence. The clinical relevance of these findings deserves further randomized, prospective investigation.

Study design: Multicenter, prospective cohort.

Objectives: Malalignment following adult spine deformity (ASD) surgery can impact outcomes and increase mechanical complications. We assess whether preoperative goals for sagittal alignment following ASD surgery are achieved.

Methods: ASD patients were prospectively enrolled based on 3 criteria: deformity severity (PI-LL ≥25°, TPA ≥30°, SVA ≥15 cm, TCobb≥70° or TLCobb≥50°), procedure complexity (≥12 levels fused, 3-CO or ACR) and/or age (>65 and ≥7 levels fused). The surgeon documented sagittal alignment goals prior to surgery. Goals were compared with achieved alignment on first follow-up standing radiographs.

Results: The 266 enrolled patients had a mean age of 61.0 years (SD = 14.6) and 68% were women. Mean instrumented levels was 13.6 (SD = 3.8), and 23.2% had a 3-CO. Mean (SD) offsets (achieved-goal) were: SVA = -8.5 mm (45.6 mm), PI-LL = -4.6° (14.6°), TK = 7.2° (14.7°), reflecting tendencies to undercorrect SVA and PI-LL and increase TK. Goals were achieved for SVA, PI-LL, and TK in 74.4%, 71.4%, and 68.8% of patients, respectively, and was achieved for all 3 parameters in 37.2% of patients. Three factors were independently associated with achievement of all 3 alignment goals: use of PACs/equivalent for surgical planning (P < .001), lower baseline GCA (P = .009), and surgery not including a 3-CO (P = .037).

Conclusions: Surgeons failed to achieve goal alignment of each sagittal parameter in ∼25-30% of ASD patients. Goal alignment for all 3 parameters was only achieved in 37.2% of patients. Those at greatest risk were patients with more severe deformity. Advancements are needed to enable more consistent translation of preoperative alignment goals to the operating room.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Objective: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is often regarded as the gold standard for spinal pathology, as it provides good structural visualisation. SPECT-CT, however, provides combined structural and functional information. There is a paucity of literature comparing SPECT-CT with MRI in the spine. Our aim was to determine whether SPECT-CT provides additional information to MRI in individuals with complex spinal pathology, including deformity, which altered management.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all individuals seen at our tertiary spinal unit that were investigated with both MRI and SPECT-CT of the spine between 2007-2020. We reviewed imaging reports, and collated diagnoses, surgical treatment and the relative contributions of MRI and SPECT-CT to management decisions.

Results: 104 individuals identified, with a mean age of 30 years (89 females and 15 males). Diagnostic categories were adolescent, adult, and congenital deformity, degenerative pathology, and miscellaneous pathology. MRI returned positive findings in 58 (55.8%), and SPECT-CT in 41 (39.4%) cases. SPECT-CT identified 10 cases of facet joint degeneration, 5 of increased uptake around metalwork suggestive of loosening, 1 pseudoarthrosis, 1 partial failure of fusion and 1 osteoid osteoma which were not reported on MRI, all in individuals who had previously undergone spinal instrumentation. Despite this, SPECT-CT only altered management for 6 individuals (5.8%).

Conclusion: MRI is less useful in the setting of previous instrumentation due to metal artefact. Where MRI is inconclusive, particularly in individuals with previous spinal instrumentation, SPECT-CT may provide a diagnosis, but is not recommended as primary imaging.

Study design: A retrospective study.

Objective: To develop a new MRI scoring system to assess patients' clinical characteristics, outcomes and complications.

Methods: A retrospective 1-year follow-up study of 366 patients with cervical spondylosis from 2017 to 2021. The CCCFLS scores (cervical curvature and balance (CC), spinal cord curvature (SC), spinal cord compression ratio (CR), cerebrospinal fluid space (CFS). Spinal cord and lesion location (SL). Increased Signal Intensity (ISI) were divided into Mild group (0-6), Moderate group (6-12), and Severe group (12-18) for comparison, and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, visual analog scale (VAS), numerical rating scale (NRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Nurick scores were evaluated. Correlation and regression analyses were performed between each variable and the total model in relation to clinical symptoms and C5 palsy.

Results: The CCCFLS scoring system was linearly correlated with JOA, NRS, Nurick and NDI scores, with significant differences in JOA scores among patients with different CC, CR, CFS, ISI scores, with a predictive model (R² = 69.3%), and significant differences in preoperative and final follow-up clinical scores among the 3 groups, with a higher rate of improvement in JOA in the severe group (P < .05), while patients with and without C5 paralysis had significant differences in preoperative SC and SL (P < .05).

Conclusion: CCCFLS scoring system can be divided into mild (0-6). moderate (6-12), severe (12-18) groups. It can effectively reflect the severity of clinical symptoms, and the improvement rate of JOA is better in the severe group, while the preoperative SC and SL scores are closely related to C5 palsy.

Level of evidence: III.

Study design: Systematic review of the literature and subsequent meta-analysis for the development of a new guideline.

Objectives: This manuscript summarizes the recommendations from a new clinical guideline published by the German Spine Society. It covers the current evidence on recommendations regarding the indication, test blocks and use of radiofrequency denervation. The guidelines aim is to improve patient care and efficiency of the procedure.

Methods: A multidisciplinary working group formulated recommendations based on the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.

Results: 20 clinical questions were defined for guideline development, with 87.5% consensus achieved by committee members for one recommendation and 100% consensus for all other topics. Specific questions that were addressed included clinical history, examination and imaging, conservative treatment before injections, diagnostic blocks, the injected medications, the cut-off value in pain-reduction for a diagnostic block as well as the number of blocks, image guidance, the cannula trajectories, the lesion size, stimulation, repeat radiofrequency denervation, sedation, cessation or continuation of anticoagulants, the influence of metal hardware, and ways to mitigate complications.

Conclusion: Radiofrequency (RF) denervation of the spine and the SI joint may provide benefit to well-selected individuals. The recommendations of this guideline are based on very low to moderate quality of evidence as well as professional consensus. The guideline working groups recommend that research efforts in relation to all aspects of management of facet joint pain and SI joint pain should be intensified.

Study design: This study is a scoping review.

Objective: There is a broad variability in the definition of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and no standardized set of diagnostic criteria to date.

Methods: We interrogated the Myelopathy.org database, a hand-indexed database of primary clinical studies conducted exclusively on DCM in humans between 2005-2021. The DCM inclusion criteria used in these studies were inputted into 3 topic modeling algorithms: Hierarchical Dirichlet Process (HDP), Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), and BERtopic. The emerging topics were subjected to manual labeling and interpretation.

Results: Of 1676 reports, 120 papers (7.16%) had well-defined inclusion criteria and were subjected to topic modeling. Four topics emerged from the HDP model: disturbance from extremity weakness and motor signs; fine-motor and sensory disturbance of upper extremity; a combination of imaging and clinical findings is required for the diagnosis; and "reinforcing" (or modifying) factors that can aid in the diagnosis in borderline cases. The LDA model showed the following topics: disturbance to the patient is required for the diagnosis; reinforcing factors can aid in the diagnosis in borderline cases; clinical findings from the extremities; and a combination of imaging and clinical findings is required for the diagnosis. BERTopic identified the following topics: imaging abnormality, typical clinical features, range of objective criteria, and presence of clinical findings.

Conclusions: This review provides quantifiable data that only a minority of past studies in DCM provided meaningful inclusion criteria. The items and patterns found here are very useful for the development of diagnostic criteria for DCM.