Customized 3-dimensional-printed Vertebral Implants for Spinal Reconstruction After Tumor Resection: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To examine the outcomes of customized 3-dimensional (3D) printed implants for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Various techniques exist for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the utility of customized 3D-printed implants for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed according to "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guidelines. All level I-V evidence studies reporting the use of 3D-printed implants for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection were included. RESULTS: Eleven studies (65 patients; mean age, 40.9 ± 18.1 y) were included. Eleven patients (16.9%) underwent intralesional resections with positive margins and 54 patients (83.1%) underwent en bloc spondylectomy with negative margins. All patients underwent vertebral reconstruction with 3D-printed titanium implants. Tumor involvement was in the cervical spine in 21 patients (32.3%), thoracic spine in 29 patients (44.6%), thoracolumbar junction in 2 patients (3.1%), and lumbar spine in 13 patients (20.0%). Ten studies with 62 patients reported perioperative outcomes radiologic/oncologic status at final follow-up. At the mean final follow-up of 18.5 ± 9.8 months, 47 patients (75.8%) had no evidence of disease, 9 patients (14.5%) were alive with recurrence, and 6 patients (9.7%) had died of disease. One patient who underwent C3-C5 en bloc spondylectomy had an asymptomatic subsidence of 2.7 mm at the final follow-up. Twenty patients that underwent thoracic and/or lumbar reconstruction had a mean subsidence of 3.8 ± 4.7 mm at the final follow-up; however, only 1 patient had a symptomatic subsidence that required revision surgery. Eleven patients (17.7%) had one or more major complications. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence to suggest that using customized 3D-printed titanium or titanium alloy implants is an effective technique for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection. There is a high incidence of asymptomatic subsidence and major complications that are similar to other methods of reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, systematic review of level I-V studies.

Obesity and perioperative adverse events in patients undergoing complex revision surgery for the thoracolumbar spine.

BACKGROUND: There are no previous studies that evaluate the effect of obesity on patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery. The primary objective was to determine the relationship between obesity and perioperative adverse events (AEs) with patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery while controlling for psoas muscle index (PMI) as a confounding variable. The secondary objective was to determine the relationship between obesity and 30-day readmission rates, 30-day re-operation rates, rate of discharge to a facility, and post-operative length of stay (LOS). METHODS: Between May 2016 and February 2020, a retrospective analysis of individuals undergoing complex revision surgery of the thoracolumbar spine was performed at a single institution. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m2. PMI < 500 mm2/m2 for males and < 412 mm2/m2 for females were used to define low muscle mass. A Spine Surgical Invasiveness Index (SSII) > 10 was used to define complex revision surgery. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to ascertain the effects of low muscle mass, obesity, age, and gender on the likelihood of the occurrence of any AE. RESULTS: A total of 114 consecutive patients were included in the study. Fifty-four patients were in the obese cohort and 60 patients in the non-obese cohort. There was not a significant difference in perioperative outcomes of both the obese and non-obese patients. There were 22 obese patients (40.7%) and 33 non-obese patients (55.0%) that experienced any AE (p = 0.130). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that individuals with low muscle mass had a significantly higher likelihood for an AE than individuals with normal or high muscle mass (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.05-18.60). Obesity did not have a significant effect in predicting AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is not associated with perioperative AEs, 30-day readmission rates, 30-day re-operation rates, rate of discharge to a facility, or post-operative length of stay (LOS) among patients undergoing complex revision thoracolumbar spine surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Instrumented Versus Noninstrumented Spinal Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review compares radiographic and clinical outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral lumbar spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal method of fusion for instability from degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis remains to be an area of debate amongst spine surgeons. There are no prior comprehensive systematic review of comparative studies that compares outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I-III comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between instrumented and noninstrumented posterolateral spine fusions for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were included. RESULTS: Seven studies (672 patients, 274 noninstrumented, 398 instrumented) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, 2 randomized studies were level II, and 4 nonrandomized studies were level III. Mean follow-up ranged from 1.4 to 5.9 years. Instrumented patients had a higher rate of solid fusion (87.6% vs. 77.1%, P=0.023) and a lower rate of definitive pseudarthrosis (5.3% vs. 19.9%, P<0.001). However, there was no difference in overall functional improvement at final follow-up between the 2 treatment groups (75.0% vs. 81.7%, P=0.258). In addition, there was no difference in reoperation or complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, there are significantly higher rates of fusion among patients undergoing instrumented posterolateral fusion compared with noninstrumented posterolateral fusion. However, there is no difference in overall functional improvement, pain-related outcome scores, reoperation rates, or complication rates between the 2 treatment groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-systematic review of level I-III studies.

Anterior versus posterior spinal fusion for Lenke type 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

PURPOSE: To review and compare clinical and radiologic outcomes between anterior spinal fusion (ASF) and posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for the treatment of Lenke type 5 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to Preferred reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. All level I-III evidence studies investigating the clinical and radiologic outcomes of ASF and PSF for the treatment of Lenke type 5 AIS were included. RESULTS: Nine studies (285 ASF patients, 298 PSF patients) were included. ASF was associated with a significantly lower number of levels fused compared with PSF (p < 0.01) with similar immediate and long-term coronal deformity correction (p = 0.16; p = 0.12, respectively). PSF achieved a better correction of thoracic hypokyphosis in one study and lumbar hypolordosis in three studies. PSF was associated with a significant shorter length of stay (LOS) compared with ASF (p < 0.01). One long-term study demonstrated a significantly higher rate of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) with PSF compared with ASF. There were no significant differences in major complication or re-operation rates. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of Lenke type 5 AIS, there is moderate evidence to suggest that ASF requires a lower number of instrumented levels to achieve similar immediate and long-term coronal deformity correction compared with PSF. There is some evidence to suggest that PSF may achieve better thoracic and lumbar sagittal deformity correction compared with ASF. There is some evidence to suggest a higher incidence of PJK at long-term follow-up with PSF compared with ASF. ASF is associated with a longer post-operative LOS compared with PSF.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Corticosteroid Injection for Lumbar Spondylosis and Sacroiliac Arthropathy: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies.

This systematic review compares clinical outcomes between platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. A systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Pubmed, SCOPUS, and Ovid MEDLINE databases. All level I-III evidence comparative studies published in the English language investigating the clinical outcomes between PRP and corticosteroid injections for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy were included. Five studies (242 patients, 114 PRP, 128 corticosteroid) were analyzed. One randomized study was level I evidence, two randomized studies were level II, and two non-randomized studies were level III. Final follow-up ranged from six weeks to six months. Four studies found that both PRP and corticosteroid treatment led to a statistically significant reduction in the visual analog scale (VAS). One found that only the PRP group led to a statistically significant reduction in VAS. Three studies found more significant improvements in one or more clinical outcome scores among PRP patients as compared with corticosteroid patients at the three- to six-month follow-up. Two studies found no difference in outcome score improvements between the two groups at six- to 12-week follow-up. There were no reports of major complications. There were no significant differences in minor complication rates between the two groups. In conclusion, both PRP and corticosteroid injections are safe and effective options for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis and sacroiliac arthropathy. There is some evidence that PRP injection is a more effective option at long-term follow-up compared with corticosteroid injection. Further randomized controlled trials with longer-term follow-up are necessary to compare its long-term efficacy.