Asian Spine Journal最新文献

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Purpose: To correlate cervical facet fluid characteristics to radiographic spondylolisthesis, determine if facet fluid is associated with instability in cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis, and examine whether vertebral levels with certain facet fluid characteristics and spondylolisthesis are more likely to be operated on.

Overview of literature: The relationship between facet fluid and lumbar spondylolisthesis is well-documented; however, there is a paucity of literature investigating facet fluid in degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis.

Methods: Patients diagnosed with cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis were identified from a hospital's medical records. Demographic and surgical characteristics were collected through a structured query language search and manual chart review. Radiographic measurements were made on preoperative MRIs for all vertebral levels diagnosed with spondylolisthesis and adjacent undiagnosed levels between C3 and C6. The facet fluid index was calculated by dividing the facet fluid measurement by the width of the facet. Bivariate analysis was conducted to compare facet characteristics based on radiographic spondylolisthesis and spondylolisthesis stability.

Results: We included 154 patients, for whom 149 levels were classified as having spondylolisthesis and 206 levels did not. The average facet fluid index was significantly higher in patients with spondylolisthesis (0.26±0.07 vs. 0.23±0.08, p <0.001). In addition, both fluid width and facet width were significantly larger in patients with spondylolisthesis (p <0.001 each). Cervical levels in the fusion construct demonstrated a greater facet fluid index and were more likely to have unstable spondylolisthesis than stable spondylolisthesis (p <0.001 each).

Conclusions: Facet fluid index is associated with cervical spondylolisthesis and an increased facet size and fluid width are associated with unstable spondylolisthesis. While cervical spondylolisthesis continues to be an inconclusive finding, vertebral levels with spondylolisthesis, especially the unstable ones, were more likely to be included in the fusion procedure than those without spondylolisthesis.

Study design: Retrospective study.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the differences in the characteristics of patients with rod fracture (RF) at the lumbosacral junction from those without RF following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery.

Overview of literature: RF is a major complication following ASD surgery and may require reoperation because of pain and correction loss. The lumbosacral junction is a common RF site. However, risk factors for RFs at the lumbosacral junction remain unknown.

Methods: The study included data from 100 patients who underwent ASD surgery between 2012 and 2020. Fifteen of these patients presented with RFs. Patient demographics, clinical outcomes, and radiographic parameters were evaluated in each group.

Results: RFs were significantly more frequent in patients with a medical history of total hip arthroplasty (THA; p=0.01) or severe obesity (p=0.04). However, no significant differences in clinical outcomes, preoperative or postoperative measurements, or changes were found between pre- and postoperative radiographic parameters within the groups. Both pre- (p=0.01) and postoperative (p=0.02) anterior disc heights were significantly greater in the RF group than in the non-RF group. In the RF group, the postoperative lordotic angles of the lumbosacral junction significantly decreased compared with preoperative angles (p=0.02). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that a THA history (odds ratio, 34.2), severe obesity (odds ratio, 14.0), and preoperative anterior disc height (odds ratio, 1.2) were significant risk factors for RFs.

Conclusions: In this study, the greatest risk factors for postoperative lumbosacral RF after ASD surgery were THA history, severe obesity, and postoperative anterior disc height of ≥10. For patients at higher risk, the use of multirods is considered necessary.

The purpose of this study was to assess the factors affecting caudal screw loosening after spinopelvic fixation for adult patients with spinal deformity. This meta-analysis calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) using Review Manager ver. 5.3 (RevMan; Cochrane, London, UK). The loosening group was older than the control group (WMD, 2.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-3.87; p=0.01). The S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) could prevent the caudal screw from loosening (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.94; p=0.03). However, gender distribution (p=0.36), the number of fusion segments (p=0.24), rod breakage (p=0.97), T-score (p=0.10), and proximal junctional kyphosis (p=0.75) demonstrated no difference. Preoperatively, only pelvic incidence (PI) in the loosening group was higher (WMD, 5.08; 95% CI, 2.71-7.45; p<0.01), while thoracic kyphosis (p=0.09), lumbar lordosis (LL) (p=0.69), pelvic tilt (PT) (p=0.31), pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) (p=0.35), sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (p=0.27), and T1 pelvic angle (TPA) demonstrated no difference (p=0.10). PI-LL (WMD, 6.05; 95% CI, 0.96-11.14; p=0.02), PT (WMD, 4.12; 95% CI, 0.99-7.26; p=0.01), TPA (WMD, 4.72; 95% CI, 2.35-7.09; p<0.01), and SVA (WMD, 13.35; 95% CI, 2.83-3.87; p=0.001) were higher in the screw loosening group immediately postoperatively. However, TK (p=0.24) and LL (p=0.44) demonstrated no difference. TPA (WMD, 8.38; 95% CI, 3.30-13.47; p<0.01), PT (WMD, 6.01; 95% CI, 1.47-10.55; p=0.01), and SVA (WMD, 23.13; 95% CI, 12.06-34.21; p<0.01) were higher in the screw loosening group at the final follow-up. However, PI-LL (p=0.17) demonstrated no significant difference. Elderly individuals were more susceptible to the caudal screw loosening, and the S2AI screw might better reduce the caudal screw loosening rate than the iliac screws. The lumbar lordosis and sagittal alignment should be reconstructed properly to prevent the caudal screw from loosening. Measures to block sagittal alignment deterioration could also prevent the caudal screw from loosening.

Single-position lateral interbody fusion surgery has gained traction over the years because of reduced surgical time and improved operating theater workflow. With the introduction of robotics in spine surgery, surgeons can place pedicle screws with a high degree of accuracy and efficiency; moreover, the robot allows us to localize the disk space and perform endplate preparation accurately with minimal radiation. In this study, we discuss the potential synergistic benefits of integrating robotic-assisted spine surgery and singleposition prone lateral surgery. We share our technique and provide the operative nuances of using the Mazor X Stealth Edition system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). We highlighted the potential synergistic benefits of integrating both the prone lateral and robotic-assisted surgical techniques, including the challenges encountered. This approach is not meant to replace other techniques or be used in all patients. Instead, it adds to our arsenal for managing spine fusion.

Study design: A prospective longitudinal cohort study.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of two different techniques of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) with contrast and without contrast in treating lumbar radiculopathy.

Overview of literature: Epidural injections are one of the most frequently used nonsurgical treatment options for managing lumbar radiculopathy. This study aims to simplify the TFESI technique, which is effective and requires less effort to replicate.

Methods: We collected data on 118 patients who underwent TFESI without contrast versus TFESI with contrast for lumbar radiculopathy. The pain was evaluated using a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain at 5 minutes, 2 hours, 2 weeks, and 2 months. The functional status was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. The operation time and fluoroscopic dosage were also measured using this score.

Results: Two groups of patients with radiculopathy were studied, comprising of 56 patients in the non-contrast group (NC group) and 62 patients in the contrast group (C group). There was a significant decrease in pain, as evaluated by NRS, in the C group compared to the NC group at 5 minutes post-procedure (3.39±1.54 vs. 3.86±0.72, with a p-value of 0.039). There was no significant difference in NRS scores at 2 hours, 2 weeks, and 2 months, as well as in ODI scores. The operation time and fluoroscopic dosage were lower in the group without contrast compared to the contrast group, with 12.58±3.30 minutes per level vs. 16.70±5.94 minutes per level (p <0.001) and 3.62±1.66 mGy vs. 5.32±2.74 mGy per level (p =0.014), respectively. No complications were reported in either group.

Conclusions: There is no difference in pain and functional outcome when treating lumbar radiculopathy with or without contrast using TFESI. The TFESI without contract technique has a shorter operation time and lower intra-operative fluoroscopic dosage without complications.

Study design: This study is a retrospective cohort study.

Purpose: This study aims to determine whether preoperative neuroforaminal stenosis (FS) severity is associated with motor function patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Overview of literature: Cervical FS can significantly contribute to patient symptoms. While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used to classify FS, there has been limited research into the impact of FS severity on patient outcomes.

Methods: Patients undergoing primary, elective 1-3 level ACDF for radiculopathy at a single academic center between 2015 and 2021 were identified retrospectively. Cervical FS was evaluated using axial T2-weighted MRI images via a validated grading scale. The maximum degree of stenosis was used for multilevel disease. Motor symptoms were classified using encounters at their final preoperative and first postoperative visits, with examinations ≤3/5 indicating weakness. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. Bivariate analysis was used to compare outcomes based on stenosis severity, followed by multivariable analysis.

Results: This study included 354 patients, 157 with moderate stenosis and 197 with severe stenosis. Overall, 58 patients (16.4%) presented with upper extremity weakness ≤3/5. A similar number of patients in both groups presented with baseline motor weakness (13.5% vs. 16.55, p =0.431). Postoperatively, 97.1% and 87.0% of patients with severe and moderate FS, respectively, experienced full motor recovery (p =0.134). At 1-year, patients with severe neuroforaminal stenosis presented with significantly worse 12-item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score (PCS-12) (33.3 vs. 37.3, p =0.049) but demonstrated a greater magnitude of improvement (Δ PCS-12: 5.43 vs. 0.87, p =0.048). Worse stenosis was independently associated with greater ΔPCS-12 at 1-year (β =5.59, p =0.022).

Conclusions: Patients with severe FS presented with worse preoperative physical health. While ACDF improved outcomes and conferred similar motor recovery in all patients, those with severe FS reported much better improvement in physical function.

Study design: Prospective study.

Purpose: To propose a scoring system for predicting the need for surgery in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).

Overview of literature: The indications for surgery in patients with LDH are well established. However, the exact timing of surgery is not. According to surgeons, patients with failed conservative treatment who underwent delayed surgery, often after 6 months postsymptom initiation, have poor functional recovery and outcome.

Methods: The current study included patients with symptomatic LDH. Patients with an indication for emergent surgery such as profound or progressive motor deficit, cauda equina syndrome, and diagnoses other than single-level LDH were excluded from the analysis. All patients followed a conservative treatment regimen (a combination of physical therapy, pain medications, and/or spinal epidural steroid injections). Surgery was indicated for patients who continuously experienced pain despite maximal conservative therapy.

Results: In total, 134 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among them, 108 (80.6%) responded to conservative management, and 26 (19.4%) underwent unilateral laminotomy and microdiscectomy. The symptom duration, disc degeneration grade on magnetic resonance imaging (Pfirrmann disc grade), herniated disc location and type, fragment size, and thecal sac diameter significantly differed between patients who responded to conservative treatment and those requiring surgery. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the scoring system based on the anteroposterior size of the herniated disc fragment and herniated disc location and type was 0.81.

Conclusions: A scoring system based on herniated disc/fragment size, location, and type can be applied to predict the need for surgery in patients with LDH. In the future, this tool can be used to prevent unnecessarily prolonged conservative management (>4-8 weeks).

Study design: This was a retrospective multivariate analysis of preoperative risk factors leading to intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in patients undergoing elective or acute dorsal spine surgery.

Purpose: Numerous studies have predicted a substantial increase in spine surgeries within the next decades, potentially overwhelming hospitals' resources, including ICU occupancy. Accurate estimates of whether patients need postsurgical ICU treatment are pivotal for both resource allocation and patient safety.

Overview of literature: Risk factors leading to ICU admissions after dorsal spine surgery have been extensively examined for lumbar elective surgery. Studies including other anatomical segments of the spine and nonelective surgery regarding postsurgical ICU treatment probability are lacking.

Methods: This study was designed to be a single-center multivariate analysis of data retrospectively collected from a tertiary care university hospital. Patients undergoing dorsal spine surgery from 2009 to 2019 were included in this study. The patients' demographic data were analyzed to determine potential preoperative risk factors for ICU admission after surgery using multiple logistic regression.

Results: In our cohort, 962 patients with a mean age of 71.1±0.55 years were included. Surgeries involved 3.24±0.08 spinal levels on average. The incidence of ICU treatment after surgery was 30.4% (n=292). Multivariate logistic regression showed a markedly increased odds ratio (OR) for patients undergoing surgery of the cervicothoracic junction (OR, 8.86) and those undergoing surgery for spinal deformity treatment (OR, 7.7). Additionally, cervical procedures (OR, 3.29), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 3-4 (OR, 2.74), spondylodiscitis (OR, 2.47), fusion of ≥3 levels (OR, 1.94), and age >75 years (OR, 1.33) were associated with an increased risk of postsurgical ICU admission.

Conclusions: The findings highlight the relevance of anatomical location, preoperative diagnosis, ASA class, and length of surgery regarding the predictability of postoperative ICU admission. Our data allowed for more sophisticated estimates regarding the need for ICU treatment after dorsal spine surgery, guiding the surgeon through patient selection, communication, and ICU admission predictability.

Study design: This is a retrospective cohort study.

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the risk factors for postoperative distal adding-on in Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and validate the relationship between fusion mass shift (FMS) and postoperative distal adding-on.

Overview of literature: Postoperative distal curve adding-on is one of the complications in AIS. FMS has been proposed to prevent postoperative distal adding-on, which requires further validation from different institutions.

Methods: This study included 60 patients with Lenke 1 AIS who underwent selective thoracic fusion surgery. Coronal spinal alignment parameters were analyzed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up. The postoperative FMS was divided into two groups: the balanced group (FMS ≤20 mm) and the unbalanced group (FMS >20 mm). An independent t-test was used to compare quantitative data between groups, and a chi-square test was used for qualitative data. Furthermore, binary logistic regression and receiver operating characteristics curve analyses were used to identify the risk factors for postoperative distal adding-on in AIS.

Results: At 2-year follow-up, the unbalanced group was more likely to have adding-on (17 of 24 patients) than the balanced group (six of 36 patients; p<0.001). Twenty-three patients with distal adding-on had significantly greater preoperative and postoperative lower instrumented vertebrae (LIV) rotation, FMS, and FMS angle (FMSA) than those without postoperative distal adding-on. Binary logistic regression analysis selected three independent risk factors for adding-on incidence after surgery: FMS (odds ratio [OR], 1.115; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.049-1.185; p<0.001), FMSA (OR, 1.590; 95% CI, 1.225-2.064; p<0.001), and postoperative LIV rotation (OR, 6.581; 95% CI, 2.280-19.000; p<0.001).

Conclusions: Achieving a balanced fusion mass intraoperatively is important to avoid postoperative distal adding-on, with FMS of <20 mm and FMS angle of <4.5°. Furthermore, correcting LIV rotation helps to decrease the incidence of postoperative distal addingon.