Osteoporotic vertebral fractures localized in the lumbar area significantly impact sagittal alignment.

Lumbar fractures and/or multiple fractures at the lumbar or thoracolumbar regions are risk factors for sagittal malalignment in patients older than 70 years old. Although patients with OVF show a huge capacity to compensate after the fractures, lumbar and TL lumbar fractures require closer monitoring. PURPOSE: To assess the impact of osteoporotic vertebral fractures on the sagittal alignment of the elderly and identify risk factors for sagittal malalignment. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study on a cohort of 249 patients older than 70 years old and diagnosed with osteoporosis who suffered chronic vertebral fractures. Demographic and radiological data were collected. Full-spine lateral X-rays were obtained to analyze the sagittal plane. Patients were classified according to the number and location of the fractures. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationships between the type of fractures and sagittal alignment. RESULTS: A total of 673 chronic fractures were detected in 249 patients with a mean number of vertebral fractures per patient of 2.7 ± 1.9. Patients were divided into 9 subgroups according to the location and the number of fractures. Surprisingly, any of the aggregated parameters used to assess sagittal alignment exceeded the threshold defined for malalignment. In the second part of the analysis, 41 patients with sagittal malalignment were identified. In this subpopulation, an overrepresentation of patients with lumbar fractures (34% vs. 11%) and an under-representation of thoracic fractures (9% vs. 34%) were reported. We also observed that patients with 3 or more lumbar or thoracolumbar fractures had an increased risk of sagittal malalignment. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar fractures and/or multiple fractures at the lumbar or thoracolumbar regions are risk factors for sagittal malalignment in patients older than 70 years old. Although patients show a remarkable capacity to compensate, fractures at the lumbar and thoracolumbar regions need closer monitoring.

Simplified Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy for Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures.

BACKGROUND: In osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVF) involving neurological symptoms and severe kyphosis, vertebral osteotomies are necessary but are associated with a high risk of complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study. In 14 patients (mean age, 69.3 years old) with unstable thoracolumbar fractures associated with severe kyphosis, a posterior instrumentation with polymethylmethacrylate-augmented screws and a modified pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) at the fracture level were performed to stabilize the spine and correct the kyphosis. The underlying principle behind the osteotomy's technique was to exaggerate the defect caused by the fracture and shorten the spine: (1) completion of a wide laminoforaminotomy, (2) use of successive reamers rotated in the pedicle at a 25° angle in the axial plane to obtain its complete decancellation, (3) insertion of the reamers in a more medial orientation (55°) to collapse the posterior wall, and (4) breakage of the lateral wall. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were analyzed pre- and postoperatively. Complications were reported. RESULTS: Functional scores improved after surgery. Oswestry disability index and visual analog scale scores decreased significantly (33 and 4 points, respectively). Patient satisfaction rate reached 93%. Average postoperative regional vertebral kyphosis was decreased to 3.79°. No dural tear or neurological injuries were observed. Blood loss of 920 mL (±350 mL) and two mechanical complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: OVF can lead to severe deformities. In osteoporotic bones, the use of sequential reamers can simplify the PSO technique, allowing for the shortening and stabilization of the spine without manipulating the dural sac. The risk of neurological injuries and blood loss is decreased. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Fractional Curve in Adult Spinal Deformity: Is it a Driver of or a Compensation for Coronal Malalignment?

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of the multicenter adult spine deformity database. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the role of the fractional curve (FC) on global coronal malalignment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite being very common, the role of the coronal FC as either a driver or compensation for global coronal malalignment is not well documented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with the following characteristics were extracted from a prospective multicenter database: lumbar/thoracolumbar (TL) major coronal curve >15 degrees, apex at T11-L3, lower end vertebra at L3 or L4, above 45 years old, and FC >5 degrees. In addition to the classic radiographic parameters, baseline analysis included Cobb angle, pelvic obliquity (PO), fractional ratio (fractional Cobb/main Cobb), the sum of PO and FC, as well as the coronal Qiu classification. Curves distribution (TL vs. FC) were compared across the 3 Qui types, and the role of the FC was investigated. RESULTS: A total of 404 patients (63 y old, 83.3% female) were included: 43 patients were classified as type B, 120 as type C, and 241 were coronally balanced (type A). Compared with the balanced patients, type C patients had similar major TL Cobb angles but significantly larger fractional Cobb angles (17.5 vs. 22.3 degrees, P<0.001). By opposition, type B patients had significantly larger major TL Cobb angles (49 vs. 41 degrees, P=0.001) but smaller fractional Cobb angles (P<0.001). PO>5 degrees in the same direction as FC was more common in type B patients (20%) than in type C patients (7.5%), which suggests the preferential role of pelvic compensation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings challenge the idea that FC is only a compensatory curve below a main lumbar or TL curve. In type B patients, FC acts as a compensation mechanism but fails to maintain coronal alignment despite the presence of PO. In type C patients, however, the lumbosacral FC acts as a primary driver of coronal malalignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

The clinical impact of global coronal malalignment is underestimated in adult patients with thoracolumbar scoliosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of multicenter adult spine deformity (ASD) database. OBJECTIVES: A recent publication demonstrated that the laterality of the coronal offset is a key parameter that directly impacts postoperative outcomes. The objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between global coronal malalignment (GCM) and functional outcomes in a North American population of ASD patients with no history of previous surgery. The clinical impact of GCM in patients with ASD remains controversial. METHODS: Primary patients were drawn from a multicenter database of ASD patients and categorized with the Qiu classification: Type A = GCM < 3 cm; Type B = GCM > 3 cm toward the concave side of the curve; and Type C = GCM > 3 cm toward the convex side. In addition to the classic radiographic parameter, the coronal truncal inclination was investigated in regard to the pelvic obliquity. Clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters, and demographics were compared across the three Qiu Types using analysis of variance. The analysis was repeated after propensity matching of the three types by age and sagittal alignment (PI-LL mismatch, pelvic tilt, and sagittal vertical axis). RESULTS: 576 ASD patients (mean age 58.8 years) were included. Type B patients had significantly worse functional scores (Oswestry Disability Index, 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary, and Scoliosis Research Society-22) and a more severe coronal deformity in terms of maximum Cobb angle, global coronal deformity angle, and coronal malalignment; they were also older (65.4 vs. 58.8 years, p = 0.004) and displayed more severe sagittal malalignment. Similar findings were observed after propensity matching. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to establish an association between functional outcomes and the severity of the coronal plane deformity in the setting of a specific coronal curve pattern in patients without previous surgery. Coronal malalignment significantly affects the health status of patients when the offset is greater than 3 cm in the direction of curve concavity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Revisions in Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion can be performed without supplemental posterior instrumentation. Previous reports have shown favorable results with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF); however, a reoperation rate of up to 26% has been reported. It remains unclear what perioperative factors are associated with early failure after SA-LLIF. The objective of this study is to determine perioperative factors that increase the risk of early revisions after SA-LLIF. METHODS: Data of consecutive patients with SA-LLIF were reviewed. All revisions or recommendations for revision surgery within 12 months after the LLIF procedure were documented. As potential contributors, operative levels, preoperative clinical diagnosis, number of fusion levels, and the average L1/L2 quantitative computed tomography-volumetric bone mineral density value were obtained along with other demographic factors. Cage subsidence (grade 0-III as per Marchi et al.), was also evaluated in patients who had radiographs/computed tomography between 6 and 12 months postoperatively (n = 122). Logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 133 eligible patients, 21 (15.8%) underwent revision surgery and 4 (3.0%) were recommended for revision surgery within 1 year primarily because of neurologic symptoms or pain (68%). Baseline demographics showed no significant difference between the revision and the nonrevision group. The average number of levels fused was 2.12 (revision group) and 2.14 (nonrevision group) (P = 0.55). Significantly more patients in the revision group had the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis (64.0% vs. 39.8%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with foraminal stenosis were more likely to have early revision surgery after SA-LLIF primarily because of neurologic symptoms/pain. This information can assist in preoperative discussions and management of patient expectations.

Spine Injuries in Soccer.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, with more than 270 million participants. It is characterized by repetition of short and intense actions that require high-coordination capacity. It is a sport where interactions with other players put the athletes at risk for traumatic injuries. Lower-limb injuries are the most prevalent injuries in soccer. Spine injuries are less frequent; however, they can impose serious and debilitating sequelae on the athlete. These injuries can be associated with long recovery periods preventing return to play. Moreover, specific repetitive activities (heading, kicking, etc.) can lead to chronic injuries. The cervical spine is particularly at risk for degenerative changes. Considerations for when an athlete should undergo spinal surgery and the timing of return to play present a difficult challenge to spine specialists. The objective of this article is to review the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of spinal injuries in soccer.

Lumbar disc replacement surgery-successes and obstacles to widespread adoption.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lumbar disc replacement has been a surgical alternative to fusion surgery for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) for many years. Despite enthusiasm after the approval of the first devices, implantation rates have remained low, especially in the USA. The goal of this review is to provide a general overview of lumbar disc replacement in order to comprehend the successes and obstacles to widespread adoption. RECENT FINDINGS: Although a large amount of evidence-based data including satisfactory long-term results is available, implantation rates in the USA have not increased in the last decade. Possible explanations for this include strict indications for use, challenging surgical techniques, lack of device selection, fear of late complications or revision surgeries, and reimbursement issues. Recent publications can address some of the past concerns, but there still remain obstacles to widespread adoption. Upcoming data on long-term outcome, implant durability and possible very late complications will determine the future of lumbar disc replacement surgery.