Journal of neurosurgery. Spine最新文献

Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the fractured vertebra antedisplacement reconstruction technique for the treatment of posttraumatic thoracolumbar kyphosis (PTK).

Methods: A total of 22 patients with PTK who were treated with the fractured vertebra antedisplacement reconstruction technique were retrospectively analyzed. The radiological evaluation included global kyphosis, thoracolumbar angle, and sagittal vertical axis. The clinical evaluation included visual analog scale pain score, Oswestry Disability Index score, SF-12 Health Survey score, and American Spinal Injury Association grade. The complications were recorded.

Results: The mean global kyphosis was 55.0° ± 12.6° preoperatively, 8.5° ± 5.0° postoperatively, and 10.3° ± 4.8° at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). The average total kyphosis correction achieved was 44.7° ± 14.2°, with a range of 23.4°-79.4°, indicating a mean final correction of 80.1%. The mean thoracolumbar angle was 46.2° ± 13.2° preoperatively, 6.6° ± 4.5° postoperatively, and 7.6° ± 4.2° at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). The mean sagittal vertical axis was improved significantly, from 51.1 ± 24.2 mm preoperatively to 28.5 ± 17.4 mm at the latest follow-up (p = 0.001). One patient (4.5%) experienced single intervertebral fusion nonunion, and 1 patient (4.5%) experienced distal screw loosening. No patients experienced any neurological deterioration. The visual analog scale pain score, Oswestry Disability Index score, SF-12 Health Survey score, and American Spinal Injury Association grade achieved significant improvement at the latest follow-up.

Conclusions: Fractured vertebra antedisplacement reconstruction technique can effectively correct kyphosis, reconstruct spinal stability, and improve the patient's symptoms and neurological function. This technique is safer, minimally traumatic, and less technically demanding to avoid osteotomy-related complications. It is a feasible treatment choice for PTK.

Objective: The aim of this study was to design a novel lumbar cortical bone trajectory (CBT) penetrating the anterior, middle, and posterior vertebral area using imaging; measure the relevant parameters to find theoretical parameters and screw placement possibilities; and investigate the optimal implantation trajectory of the CBT in patients with osteoporosis.

Methods: Three types of CBTs with appropriate lengths were selected to simulate screw placement using Mimics software. These CBTs were classified as the leading tip of the trajectory pointing to the posterior quarter area (original CBT [CBT-O]) and middle (novel CBT A [CBT-A]) and anterior quarter (novel CBT B [CBT-B]) of the superior endplate. The authors then measured the maximum screw diameter (MSD) and length (MSL), cephalad (CA) and lateral (LA) angles, and bone mineral density (Hounsfield unit [HU] values) of the planned novel 3-column CBT screw placements. The differences in the parameters of the novel CBTs, the percentages of successfully planned CBT screws, and the factors that influenced the successful planning of 3-column CBT screws were analyzed.

Results: Three-column CBT screws were successfully designed in all segments of the lumbar spine. The success rate of the 3-column CBT planned screws was 72.25% (83.25% for CBT-A and 61.25% for CBT-B). From the CBT-O type, to the CBT-A type, to the CBT-B type, the LA, CA, and MSD of the novel CBT screws decreased with increasing trajectory length. The HU values of the three types of trajectories were all significantly higher than that of the traditional pedicle screw trajectory (p < 0.001). The main factor affecting successful planning of the 3-column CBT screw was pedicle width.

Conclusions: Moderating adjustment of the original screw parameters by reducing LAs and CAs to penetrate the anterior, middle, and posterior columns of the vertebral body using the 3-column CBT screw is feasible, especially in the lower lumbar spine.

Objective: Expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages were designed to address the limitations of static cages. Bilateral cage insertion can potentially enhance stability, fusion rates, and segmental lordosis. However, the benefits of unilateral versus bilateral expandable cages with varying sizes in TLIF remain unclear. This study used a validated finite element spine model to compare the biomechanical properties of L5-S1 TLIF by using differently sized expandable cages inserted unilaterally or bilaterally.

Methods: A finite element model of X-PAC expandable lumbar cages was created and used at the L5-S1 level. This model had cage dimensions of 9 mm in height, 15° in lordosis, and varying widths and lengths. Various placements (unilateral vs bilateral) and sizes were examined under pure moment loading to evaluate range of motion, adjacent-segment motion, and endplate stress.

Results: Stability at the L5-S1 level decreased when smaller cages were used in both the unilateral and bilateral cage models. In the unilateral model, cage 1 (the smallest cage) resulted in 47.9% more motion at the L5-S1 level compared to cage 5 (the largest cage) in flexion, as well as 64.8% more motion in extension. Similarly, in the bilateral TLIF model, bilateral cage 1 led to 49.4% more motion at the L5-S1 level in flexion and 73.4% more motion in extension compared to bilateral cage 5. Unilateral insertion of cage 5 provided superior stability in flexion and surpassed cages 1-3 in extension when compared to cages inserted either unilaterally or bilaterally. Reduced motion at L5-S1 correlated with increased adjacent-segment motion at L4-5. Bilateral TLIF resulted in greater adjacent-segment motion compared to unilateral TLIF with the same-size cages. Inferior endplates experienced higher stress during flexion and extension than superior endplates, with this difference being more pronounced in the bilateral model. In bilateral cage placement, stress differences ranged from 46.3% to 60.0%, while they ranged from 1.1% to 9.6% in unilateral cages. Qualitative analysis revealed increased focal stress in unilateral cages versus bilateral cages.

Conclusions: The authors' study shows that using a large unilateral TLIF cage may offer better stability than the bilateral insertion of smaller cages. While large bilateral cages increase adjacent-segment motion, they also provide a uniform stress distribution on the endplates. These findings deepen our understanding of the biomechanics of the available expandable TLIF cages.

Objective: Surgery for primary tumors of the mobile spine and sacrum often requires complex reconstruction techniques to cover soft-tissue defects and to treat wound and CSF-related complications. The anatomical, vascular, and immunoregulatory characteristics of the omentum make it an excellent local substrate for the management of radiation soft-tissue injury, infection, and extensive wound defects. This study describes the authors' experience in complex wound reconstruction using pedicled omental flaps to cover defects in surgery for mobile spine and sacral primary tumors.

Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 34 patients who underwent pedicled omental flap reconstruction after en bloc resection of primary sacral and mobile spine tumors between 2010 and 2020. The study focused on assessing the indications for omental flap usage, including soft-tissue coverage, protection against postoperative radiation therapy, infection management, vascular supply for bone grafts, and dural defect and CSF leak repair. Patient demographic characteristics, tumor characteristics, surgical outcomes, and follow-up data were analyzed to determine the procedure's efficacy and complication rates.

Results: From 2010 to 2020, 34 patients underwent pedicled omental flap reconstruction after en bloc resection of sacral (24 of 34 [71%]) and mobile spine (10 of 34 [29%]) primary tumors, mostly chordomas. The patient cohort included 21 men and 13 women with a median (range) age of 60 (32-89) years. The most common indication for omental flap was soft-tissue coverage (20 of 34 [59%]). Other indications included protecting abdominopelvic organs for postoperative radiation therapy (6 of 34 [18%]), treating infections (5 of 34 [15%]), providing vascular supply for free fibular bone graft (1 of 34 [3%]), and repairing large dural defects and CSF leak (2 of 34 [6%]). The median (range) follow-up was 24 (0-132) months, during which 71% (24 of 34) of patients did not require additional surgery for wound-related complications. At last follow-up, 59% (20 of 34) had stable disease and 32% (11 of 34) had recurrence, had progression of disease, or had been discharged to hospice after treatment.

Conclusions: The pedicled omentum is an effective local tissue graft that can be used for complex wound reconstruction and management of high-risk closures in primary spine tumors. This technique may have a lower rate of complications than other approaches and may influence surgical planning and flap selection in challenging cases.

Objective: The incidence of spondylodiscitis is rising across Europe, but the ideal treatment approach remains controversial. The choice between conservative and surgical therapies is ambiguous due to a lack of consensus. This European survey aimed to explore prevailing treatment paradigms for primary spondylodiscitis.

Methods: Spine neurosurgeons were invited through the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies Spine Section's mailing list to participate in an online survey featuring 7 spondylodiscitis case vignettes. Along with general management queries, specific patient treatment questions were posed. Data analysis was performed using R software (version 4.0.4). The index of qualitative variation (IQV) was calculated to quantify the variability in responses.

Results: A total of 130 responses were collected, comprising 86.9% board-certified neurosurgeons and 13.1% neurosurgeons in training, with an average of 11 years of practice. Most respondents performed 50-100 spine surgeries annually, with 66.7% specializing in spine surgery. An epidural empyema causing pronounced neurological deficits influenced 95.4% toward a surgical intervention, and mild neurological deficits and challenges in pathogen identification prompted 72.3% and 80%, respectively, to consider a surgical approach. Vertebral body destruction and spinal deformity directed 60% and 66.2%, respectively, toward surgery, whereas advanced age and comorbidities had a much smaller impact-5.4% and 9.2%, respectively. Clinical vignettes highlighted a predominant preference for conservative treatment in specific cases, with statistical significance (p < 0.05). The IQV values evaluated for each question ranged from 0.88 to 0.99, indicating low agreement across all questions among respondents. When examining the average IQV by country, intercountry variations in IQV were substantial, as illustrated by the diverse range of overall mean IQV values (0.15-0.85).

Conclusions: The findings reveal a significant variability in the treatment of spondylodiscitis among European neurosurgeons, with most neurosurgeons opting for conservative treatment. These diverse strategies, both between and within countries, highlight an imperative for evidence-backed guidelines and consensus statements for this grave condition.

Objective: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) has been demonstrated to achieve the highest rates of arthrodesis in multilevel lumbar fusion but is also associated with possible perioperative morbidity. A novel allograft (OSTEOAMP) is a differentiated allograft that retains growth factors supporting bone healing. The authors sought to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of rhBMP-2 and the novel allograft in lumbar interbody arthrodesis to determine if the latter may be a safer and equally effective alternative to rhBMP-2 for single- and multilevel posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF or TLIF).

Methods: Patients who underwent single- or multilevel TLIF or PLIF using either OSTEOAMP or rhBMP-2 at the authors' institution over a 2-year period were prospectively followed for 12 months. Healthcare utilization, safety measures, patient satisfaction, physical disability (measured on the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), back and leg pain (on the numeric rating scale [NRS]), quality of life (on the EQ-5D scale), and return to work (RTW) were prospectively recorded. For purposes of this study, this consecutive series was retrospectively analyzed and pseudarthrosis rates were assessed at 2 years of follow-up. All patients (100%) had both 12-month patient-reported outcome follow-up and 24-month clinical and radiographic follow-up.

Results: One thousand one hundred fifty-four patients (654 treated with OSTEOAMP, 500 with rhBMP-2) were prospectively enrolled in the institutional registry. After propensity score matching, there were no significant baseline differences between 330 novel allograft and 330 rhBMP-2 cases. Perioperative morbidity and 90-day hospital readmission (3.3% vs 2.4%, p = 0.485) did not significantly differ between the novel allograft and the rhBMP-2 cases. At the 2-year follow-up, symptomatic pseudarthrosis requiring revision surgery occurred in 8 patients (2.4%) with OSTEOAMP and 6 patients (1.8%) with rhBMP-2 (p = 0.589). The overall fusion rate at 2 years was similar between groups (p = 0.213). Both groups showed significant and equivalent improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from baseline to 12-month follow-up, with no significant difference in 1-year mean NRS leg pain score (2.5 vs 2.7), ODI (25 vs 26), quality-adjusted life years (0.73 vs 0.73), satisfaction (83% vs 80%), or RTW (6.6 vs 7 weeks).

Conclusions: In the authors' institutional experience, OSTEOAMP is a clinically viable substitute for rhBMP-2 for single- and multilevel lumbar fusion. This novel allograft provides clinically effective arthrodesis and improvements in PROMs comparable to rhBMP-2 with a similar safety profile. Additional indications and outcome assessment in longitudinal studies are needed to further characterize this allogeneic graft.

Objective: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an FDA-approved antifibrinolytic that is seeing increased popularity in spine surgery owing to its ability to reduce intraoperative blood loss (IOBL) and allogeneic transfusion requirements. The present study aimed to summarize the current literature on these formulations in the context of short-segment instrumented lumbar fusion including ≥ 1-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were queried for all full-text English studies evaluating the use of topical TXA (tTXA), systemic TXA (sTXA), or combined tTXA+sTXA in patients undergoing PLIF. The primary endpoints of interest were operative time, IOBL, and total blood loss (TBL); secondary endpoints included venous thromboembolic complication occurrence, and allogeneic and autologous transfusion requirements. Outcomes were compared using random effects. Comparisons were made between the following treatment groups: sTXA, tTXA, and sTXA+tTXA. Given that sTXA is arguably the standard of care in the literature (i.e., the most common route of administration that to this point has been studied the most), the authors compared sTXA versus tTXA and sTXA versus sTXA+tTXA. Study heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test, and grouped analysis using the Hedge's g test was performed for measurement of effect size.

Results: Forty-five articles were identified, of which 17 met the criteria for inclusion with an aggregate of 1008 patients. TXA regimens included sTXA only, tTXA only, and various combinations of sTXA and tTXA. There were no significant differences in operative time, TBL, or postoperative drainage between the sTXA and tTXA groups or between the sTXA and sTXA+tTXA groups.

Conclusions: The present meta-analysis suggested clinical equipoise between isolated sTXA, isolated tTXA, and combinatorial tTXA+sTXA formulations as hemostatic adjuvants/neoadjuvants in short-segment fusion including ≥ 1-level PLIF. Given the theoretically lower venous thromboembolism risk associated with tTXA, additional investigations using large cohorts comparing these two formulations within the posterior fusion population are merited. Although TXA has been shown to be effective, there are insufficient data to support topical or systemic administration as superior within the open PLIF population.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive value of different site-specific MRI-based assessments of bone quality for cage subsidence among patients undergoing oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with or without posterior internal fixation.

Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent OLIF between 2017 and 2022. Endplate bone quality (EBQ), mean vertebral bone quality (MVBQ), and vertebral bone quality (VBQ) scores were measured using preoperative non-contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI of the lumbar spine. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with cage subsidence. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the value of different site-specific MRI-based assessments of bone quality in predicting cage subsidence.

Results: Of the 124 patients who underwent OLIF, subsidence was found in 42 (33.9%). The VBQ, MVBQ, and EBQ scores were higher in the subsidence group than in the no-subsidence group. In the stand-alone OLIF (SA-OLIF) group, logistic regression analysis showed that the EBQ score was significantly associated with subsidence (OR 13.656, 95% CI 2.561-72.806; p = 0.002). Furthermore, the areas under the curve (AUCs) for using the VBQ, MVBQ, and EBQ scores and T-score to predict cage subsidence were 0.684, 0.683, 0.745, and 0.685, respectively. In the OLIF with posterior internal fixation (OLIF-PF) group, logistic regression analysis showed that the MVBQ score was significantly associated with subsidence (OR 8.301, 95% CI 2.064-33.385; p = 0.003). The AUCs for using the VBQ score, MVBQ score, and T-score to predict cage subsidence were 0.757, 0.774, and 0.685, respectively.

Conclusions: There are significant differences in the predictive value of different site-specific bone quality assessments for cage subsidence among patients undergoing OLIF. For SA-OLIF, the EBQ score is recommended, while for OLIF-PF, the VBQ score is preferable.

Objective: After lumbar spine surgery, postoperative drain removal often delays discharge. Whether inpatient drain removal reduces the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) or hematoma remains controversial. Therefore, in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery, the authors sought to determine the impact of inpatient versus outpatient drain removal on the following variables: 1) length of hospital stay (LOS), and 2) postoperative complications.

Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study in which the authors used prospectively collected data of patients undergoing primary, elective, 1- or 2-level lumbar spine decompression and/or fusion was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. Patients with intraoperative or postoperative CSF leaks were excluded. The primary exposure variable was inpatient versus outpatient drain removal. The primary outcome was LOS, and secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, including 90-day postoperative SSI or hematoma. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed, controlling for age, body mass index, instrumentation, number of levels, antibiotics at discharge, and surgeons involved.

Results: Of 483 patients included, 325 (67.3%) had inpatient drain removal and 158 (32.7%) had outpatient drain removal. Patients with outpatient drain removal were significantly younger (58.6 ± 12.4 vs 61.2 ± 13.2 years, p = 0.040); more likely to have 1-level surgery (75.9% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001); and less likely to receive instrumentation (50.6% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, patients with outpatient drain removal had a shorter LOS (0.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 1.6 days, p < 0.001); were more likely to be discharged home (98.1% vs 92.3%, p = 0.015); were more likely to be discharged on antibiotics (76.6% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001); were less likely to be on opioids (32.3% vs 88.3%, p < 0.001); and were more likely to have Jackson-Pratt compared to Hemovac drains (96.2% vs 34.5%, p < 0.001). No difference was found in SSI (3.7% vs 3.8%, p > 0.999) or hematoma (0.9% vs 0.6%, p > 0.999), as well as reoperation or readmission due to SSI or hematoma. On multivariable regression, outpatient drain removal was significantly associated with shorter LOS (β = -1.15, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.73, p < 0.001). No association was found with SSI/hematoma (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: Outpatient drain removal after elective lumbar spine surgery was associated with a significantly decreased LOS without a significant increase in postoperative SSI or hematoma. Although the choice of drain removal and the LOS may be subject to surgeons' preference, these results may support the feasibility and safety of outpatient drain removal, and the potential cost savings resulting from shortened hospital stays. Drawbacks may exist regarding added burden to the patient and the surgeon's team to accommodate 1-week follow-up appointments for drain removal.

Objective: De novo spinal infections are an increasing medical problem. The decision-making for surgical or nonsurgical treatment for de novo spinal infections is often a non-evidence-based process and commonly a case-by-case decision by single physicians. A scoring system based on the latest evidence might help improve the decision-making process compared with other purely radiology-based scoring systems or the judgment of a single senior physician.

Methods: Patients older than 18 years with an infection of the spine who underwent nonsurgical or surgical treatment between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Clinical data for neurological status, pain, and existing comorbidities were gathered and transferred to an anonymous spreadsheet. Patients without an MR image and a CT scan of the affected spine region were excluded from the investigation. A multidisciplinary expert panel used the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), Spinal Instability Spondylodiscitis Score (SISS), and Spinal Infection Treatment Evaluation Score (SITE Score), previously developed by the authors' group, on every clinical case. Each physician of the expert panel gave an individual treatment recommendation for surgical or nonsurgical treatment for each patient. Treatment recommendations formed the expert panel opinion, which was used to calculate predictive validities for each score.

Results: A total of 263 patients with spinal infections were identified. After the exclusion of doubled patients, patients without de novo infections, or those without CT and MRI scans, 123 patients remained for the investigation. Overall, 70.70% of patients were treated surgically and 29.30% were treated nonoperatively. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the SITE Score, SINS, and SISS were 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.95, p < 0.01), 0.65 (95% CI 0.91-0.83, p < 0.01), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.91-0.89, p < 0.01). In comparison with the expert panel decision, the SITE Score reached a sensitivity of 96.97% and a specificity of 81.90% for all included patients. For potentially unstable and unstable lesions, the SISS and the SINS yielded sensitivities of 84.42% and 64.07%, respectively, and specificities of 31.16% and 56.52%, respectively. The SITE Score showed higher overall sensitivity with 97.53% and a higher specificity for patients with epidural abscesses (75.00%) compared with potentially unstable and unstable lesions for the SINS and the SISS. The SITE Score showed a significantly higher agreement for the definitive treatment decision regarding the expert panel decision, compared with the decision by a single physician for patients with spondylodiscitis, discitis, or spinal osteomyelitis.

Conclusions: The SITE Score shows high sensitivity and specificity regarding the treatment recommendation by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The SITE Score shows higher predictive validity compared with radiology-based scor