International Journal of Spine Surgery最新文献

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a well-known complication after spine surgery. As many cases of cervical spine disease result in severe gait disturbance due to myelopathy, it may harbor a higher risk of VTE than other spinal disorders. However, few studies have focused primarily on cervical spine surgery to date. This investigation sought to determine the prevalence of VTE after cervical spine surgery and identify patient-based risk factors.

Methods: The medical data of 341 consecutive patients (240 men and 101 women; mean age, 68.1 years) who underwent cervical spine surgery were retrospectively examined. Logistic regression models were employed to examine the prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors of postoperative VTE.

Results: In this study, 2.6% of cervical spine surgery patients experienced postoperative VTE. In comparisons of VTE and non-VTE groups, significant differences were found for age (79.6 years vs 67.7 years, P < 0.01), 1-week postoperative D-dimer level (10.6 μg/mL vs 2.7 μg/mL, P < 0.01), and cardiovascular disease (44.4% vs 11.1%, P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis identified elevated postoperative D-dimer level and cardiovascular disease as significantly associated with postsurgical VTE with respective odds ratios of 1.54 and 9.52.

Conclusion: Postoperative VTE in cervical spine surgery was seen in 2.6% of cases. Patients with elevated postoperative D-dimer level and cardiovascular disease may be at increased risk of VTE and may require additional observation.

Clinical relevance: Spine surgeons should take into account that patients with elevated postoperative D-dimer levels and cardiovascular disease may be at increased risk for VTE.

Level of evidence: 4:

Background: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior screw fusion is a safe and effective treatment for patients suffering from degenerative spine disorders. While LLIF has been shown to restore disc height, decompress neural components, correct sagittal imbalances, and improve pain scores, the approach requires repositioning patients for posterior pedicle fixation, which requires 2 separate surgeries. The evolution of surgical techniques, navigation, and robotics has allowed for a single position approach to LLIF with the patient in the prone position. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the prone single position (PSP) LLIF approach to the dual position LLIF approach. We hypothesized that PSP LLIF will have a reduced operative time, complication rate, and blood loss compared with the dual position LLIF procedure.

Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. PubMed and Embase databases were searched with key terms: (lateral AND [interbody OR "inter body"] AND lumbar AND fusion) AND (prone OR single). Results were extracted and reviewed by 2 authors (MR and RB) per selection criteria. Patient demographics were extracted from the selected studies, along with surgical, patient-reported, and radiographic outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed using an unstandardized mean difference or log odds ratio with a confidence level of 95%.

Results: Fifteen studies were included in the systematic review and 5 studies compared PSP LLIF to dual position LLIF for meta-analysis. PSP LLIF had a reduced operative time and length of stay compared with the dual position approach, although there was no significant reduction in estimated blood loss. Additionally, PSP LLIF improved lumbar lordosis more effectively than dual position LLIF. There was no difference in segmental lordosis or pelvic tilt. There was no difference in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, or reoperations.

Conclusions: PSP LLIF reduces operative time and length of stay, with no relative increase in complications or reoperations compared with the dual position approach. Additionally, PSP LLIF improves lumbar lordosis relative to dual position LLIF, which may improve functional outcomes and reduce the risk of developing adjacent segment disease.

Clinical relevance: The associated operative and postoperative benefits of PSP LLIF may improve long-term outcomes of patients undergoing spinal fusion.

Level of evidence: 1:

Background: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is commonly used to address various lumbar pathologies. LLIF using the prone transpsoas (PTP) approach has several potential advantages, allowing simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior columns of the spine. The aim of this study was to report the 1-year outcomes of LLIF via PTP.

Methods: This is a retrospective review of 97 consecutive patients who underwent LLIF via PTP. Radiographic parameters, including lumbar-lordosis, segmental-lordosis, anterior disc height, and posterior disc height, were measured on preoperative, initial-postoperative, and 1-year postoperative imaging. Patient-reported outcomes measures, including Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS), pain EQ5D, and postoperative complications, were reviewed.

Results: Ninety-seven consecutive patients underwent 161 levels of LLIF. Fifty-seven percent underwent 1-level LLIF, 30% 2-level LLIF, 6% 3-level LLIF, and 7% 4-level LLIF. The most common level was L4 to L5 (35%), followed by L3 to L4 (33%), L2 to L3 (21%), and L1 to L2 (11%). Significant improvements were noted at initial and 1-year postoperative periods in lumbar-lordosis (2° ± 10°, P = 0.049; 3° ± 9°, P = 0.005), segmental-lordosis (6° ± 5°, P < 0.001; 5° ± 5°, P < 0.001), anterior disc height (8 mm ± 4 mm, P < 0.001; 7 mm ± 4 mm, P < 0.001), and posterior disc height (3 mm ± 2 mm, P < 0.001; 3 mm ± 2 mm, P < 0.001). Significant improvements were seen in Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks (P = 0.002), 6 months (P < 0.001), and 1 year (P < 0.001) postoperatively; pain EQ5D at 6 weeks (P < 0.001), 6 months (P < 0.001), and 1 year (P < 0.001) postoperatively; and leg and back visual analog scale at 2 weeks (P < 0.001), 6 months (P < 0.001), and 1 year (P < 0.001) postoperatively. The average length of stay was 2.5 days, and the most common complications were ipsilateral hip flexor pain (46%), weakness (59%), and contralateral hip flexor pain (29%).

Conclusion: PTP is a novel way of performing LLIF. These 1-year data support that PTP is an effective, safe, and viable approach with similar patient-reported outcome measures and complications profiles as LLIF performed in the lateral decubitus position.

Level of evidence: 4:

Background: Interbody devices in anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) are currently a focus of innovation due to their potential to improve clinical outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to analyze complications and changes in spinopelvic parameters after ALIF with the novel Medacta MectaLIF interbody fusion device.

Methods: Patients aged 18 to 80 years who underwent multilevel ALIF using this novel implant were identified. Demographic and surgical data were collected. Patients were divided into short- and long-fusion cohorts. A comparison of outcomes between the short- and long-fusion groups was performed using the Student t test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test and the χ² test for categorical variables. Analysis of the pre- vs postoperative radiographic data for the entire cohort was performed using the 2-tailed Student t test.

Results: One hundred and eight patients met the inclusion criteria. No significant postoperative change was observed in L1-4 lumbar lordosis (LL). L1-S1 LL increased to a mean of 55.1 ± 12.8 (a mean change of 10.7 ± 14.5), and L4-S1 LL increased to a mean of 38.4 ± 8.7 (a mean increase of 7.5 ± 8.2), with pelvic incidence LL mismatch changing from 8.9 ± 15.1 to 1.1 ± 13.5 (n = 102). Related changes in sacral slope and pelvic tilt were also observed (33.0 ± 11.0 to 37.6 ± 10.9 and 19.6 ± 9.5 to 18.2 ± 9.1 [n = 103], respectively). Five patients (4.6%) experienced implant subsidence, 1 (0.9%) had implant migration, and 6 (5.6%) experienced a nonunion. There was no difference in the rates of complications associated with the novel implant in the short- and long-fusion cohorts.

Conclusion: This novel implant achieves correction of spinopelvic parameters with minimal complications. The ability to modify the implant intraoperatively based on the patient's anatomy can help achieve maximal contact area and therefore help reduce the risk of subsidence.

Clinical relevance: This modular implant can achieve correction of spinopelvic parameters with minimal medical and surgical complications.

Level of evidence: 4:

Background: Studies were reviewed and collected to compare different image guidance systems for pedicle screw placement (PSP) regarding accuracy and safety outcomes. Included were conventional, navigation, robot-assisted, and recent technology such as augmented reality (AR) guiding systems.

Methods: This network meta-analysis obtained human comparative studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding PSP found in 3 databases (Cochrane, PubMed, and Scopus). Data extraction for accuracy, safety, and clinical outcomes were collected. The network meta-analysis was analyzed, and a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the treatment for all outcomes.

Results: The final 61 studies, including 13 RCTs and 48 non-RCTs, were included in the meta-analysis. These studies included a total of 17,023 patients and 35,451 pedicle screws. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranking demonstrated the supremacy of robotics in almost all accuracy outcomes except for the facet joint violation. Regarding perfect placement, the risk difference for AR was 19.1 (95% CI: 8.1-30.1), which was significantly higher than the conventional method. The robot-assisted and navigation systems had improved outcomes but were not significantly different in accuracy vs the conventional technique. There was no statistically significant difference concerning safety or clinical outcomes.

Conclusions: The accuracy of PSP achieved by robot-assisted technology was the highest, whereas the safety and clinical outcomes of the different methods were comparable. The recent AR technique provided better accuracy compared with navigation and conventional methods.

Level of evidence: 2:

Background: Mounting evidence demonstrates a promising safety and efficacy profile for spinal fusion procedures using cellular bone allograft (CBA). However, limited data exists on fusion outcomes stratified by surgical approach. The current study investigates the effectiveness of CBA in lumbar spinal fusion by surgical approach (ie, anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches).

Methods: Patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (Trinity Elite) were enrolled into a prospective, multi-center, open-label clinical study (NCT02969616). Fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and computed tomography images. Clinical outcome measures included quality of life (QoL; EQ5D), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) for back pain and leg pain). Patient data extending to 24 months were analyzed in a post-hoc analysis.

Results: A total of 252 patients underwent interbody fusion (159 women; 93 men). Patients had a mean age of 58.3 years (SD 12.5), height of 168.3 cm (SD 10.2), and weight of 87.3 kg (SD 20.0) with a body mass index of 30.8 kg/m² (SD 6.5). At 12 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.5%; fusion success was 98.1%, 100.0%, and 97.9% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. At 24 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.9%; fusion success was 97.9%, 100.0%, and 98.8% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. The surgical approach did not significantly impact fusion success. A significant (P < 0.0001) improvement in QoL, pain, and disability scores was also observed. Significant differences in the ODI, VAS, and EQ5D were observed between the treatment groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: CBA represents an attractive alternative to autograft alone, reporting a high rate of successful fusion and clinical outcomes across various surgical approaches.

Clinical relevance: The use of CBA for spinal fusion procedures, regardless of surgical approach, provides high rates of fusion with a favorable safety profile and improved patient outcomes.

Level of evidence: 4:

Trial registration: NCT02969616.

Background: Nonoperative management is an appealing option for purely transosseous thoracolumbar flexion-distraction injuries given the prospects of osseous healing and restoration of the posterior tension band complex. This study seeks to examine differences in outcomes following flexion-distraction injuries after operative and nonoperative management.

Methods: This study reviews all patients at a single Level 1 trauma center from 2004 to 2022 with AO Spine B1 thoracolumbar injuries treated operatively vs nonoperatively. Inclusion criteria were age greater than 16 years, computed tomography-confirmed transosseous flexion-distraction injuries, and at least 3 months of follow-up with available imaging. The primary outcome assessed was a change in local Cobb angles, with secondary outcomes consisting of complications, time to return to work, and need for subsequent operative fixation.

Results: Initial Cobb angles in the operative (n = 14) vs nonoperative group (n = 13) were -5° and -13°, respectively (P = 0.225), indicating kyphotic alignment in both cohorts. We noted a significant difference in Cobb angles between cohorts at first follow-up (2.6° and -13.9°, P = 0.015) and within the operative cohort from presentation to first follow-up (P = 0.029). At the second follow-up, there was no significant difference in Cobb angles between cohorts (3.6° and -12.6°, P = 0.07). No significant differences were noted in complication rates (P = 1), time to return to work (P = 0.193), or resolution of subjective back pain (P = 0.193). No crossover was noted.

Conclusions: Nonoperative management of minimally displaced transosseous flexion-distraction injuries is a safe alternative to surgery. Patient factors, such as compliance with follow-up, and location of the injury should be factored into the surgeon's management recommendation.

Clinical relevance: Overall, no significant differences in outcomes and complications were noted following nonoperative management of AO Spine B1 injuries, indicating the potential for these injuries to be managed conservatively.

Level of evidence: 3:

Background: This study aimed to clarify the quantitative threshold of intraoperative radiological parameters for suspecting posterior malposition of the oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) cage triggering contralateral radiculopathy.

Methods: We measured the sagittal center and axial rotation angle (ARA) of the cage using postoperative computed tomography (CT) in 130 patients (215 cages) who underwent OLIF. The location of the cage tip was determined from axial magnetic resonance imaging in selected cases based on CT simulations to assess whether the cage was in contact with the contralateral exiting nerve or whether the surgical instruments could contact the nerve during intradiscal maneuvers.

Results: The sagittal center of the cages was on average 41.5% from the anterior edge of the endplate (shown as AC/AP value: anterior end plate edge-cage center/anterior-posterior endplate edge ×100%), and posterior cage positioning ≥50% occurred in 14% of the cages. The ARA was -2.9°, and posterior oblique rotation of the cages ≥10° (ARA ≤ -10°) was observed in 13%. CT simulation showed that the cage tip could directly contact the contralateral nerve when the cage was placed deep in the posterior portion ≥50% of the AC/AP values with concomitant posterior axial rotation ≥10° (ARA ≤ -10°), or deep in an extremely rare portion ≥60% of the AC/AP values with posterior axial rotation ≥0° (ARA ≤ 0°). Six percent of the cages (13/215) were placed in these posterior oblique areas (potential contact area: PCA). Three cages in the PCA were in direct contact with the contralateral nerves, and 9 were placed deep just anterior to the nerves. Symptomatic contralateral radiculopathy occurred in 2 cages (2/13/215, 15.3%/0.9%).

Conclusions: Two intraoperative radiological parameters (AC/AP and ARA) measurable during OLIF procedures may become practical indicators for suspecting cage malposition in PCA and may be available when determining whether to consider cage revision intraoperatively to a more ventral disc space or anteriorly from the opposite endplate edge.

Level of evidence: 4:

Background: Percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) placement has become a pivotal technique in spinal surgery, increasing surgical efficiency and limiting the invasiveness of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy of computer-assisted PPS placement with a standardized technique in the lateral decubitus position.

Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on 44 consecutive patients treated between 2021 and 2023 with lateral decubitus single-position surgery. PPS placement was assessed by computed tomography scans, and breaches were graded based on the magnitude and direction of the breach. Facet joint violations were assessed. Variables collected included patient demographics, indication, intraoperative complications, operative time, fluoroscopy time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay.

Results: Forty-four patients, with 220 PPSs were identified. About 79.5% of all patients underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion only, 13.6% underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion only, and 6.8% received a combination of both anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eleven screw breaches (5%) were identified: 10 were Grade II breaches (<2 mm), and 1 was a Grade IV breach (>4 mm). All breaches were lateral. About 63.6% involved down-side screws indicating a trend toward the laterality of breaches for down-side pedicles. When analyzing breaches by level, 1.2% of screws at L5, 13% at L4, and 11.1% at L3 demonstrated Grade II breaches. No facet joint violations were noted.

Conclusion: PPS placement utilizing computer-assisted navigation in lateral decubitus single-position surgery is both safe and accurate. An overall breach rate of 5% was found; considering a safe zone of 2 mm, only 1 screw (0.5%) demonstrated a relevant breach.

Clinical relevance: PPS placement is both safe and accurate. Breaches are rare, and when breaches do occur, they are lateral.

Level of evidence: 3: