Management of C2 fractures following multiple classifications, a narrative review.

Introduction: Classifications are helpful for surgeons as they can be a resource for decision-making, often providing the individual indicators that may deem a case necessary for surgery. However, when there are multiple classifications, the decision-making might be compromised. That is the case with C2 fractures. For this reason, this study was designed to review the different classifications of axis fractures. Research question: What are the most commonly used classifications for C2 fractures, and how do these classifications compare in terms of clinical utility? Methods: A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Guidelines was performed. Three different Pub-med searches (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) were done to isolate the most common C2 fracture classifications of odontoid process fractures, the posterior element of the axis and axis body fractures. Results: The search isolated 530 papers. Applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria yielded seven papers on axis body fractures, six on odontoid fractures, and ten on "hangman's fractures." Most of the classifications proposed are modified versions of the classic ones: Benzel's for body fractures, Anderson and D'Alonzo's for odontoid fractures, and Effendi's for "hangman's fractures." The proposal by AO Spine of a different classification seems promising and had good early results of interobserver and intraobserver agreement. Discussion and conclusion: Currently, no classification is universally accepted or widely used. The emergence of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification system seems promising as it encompasses radiological and clinical elements.

Radiographic Alignment in Deformity Patients Treated With Personalized Interbody Devices: Early Experience From the COMPASS Registry.

BACKGROUND: Literature supports the need for improved techniques to achieve spinopelvic alignment and reduce complication rates in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Personalized interbody devices were developed to address this need and are under evaluation in the multicenter Clinical Outcome Measures in Personalized aprevo (circle R superscript) Spine Surgery (COMPASS (TM suprascript) registry. This report presents interim COMPASS pre- and postoperative sagittal alignment results and complication rates for a subcohort of COMPASS patients diagnosed and surgically treated for spinal deformity. METHODS: COMPASS is a postmarket observational registry of patients enrolled either before or after index surgery and then followed prospectively for 24 months. Sagittal alignment was assessed with SRS-Schwab modifiers for pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, and T1 pelvic angle. Summed SRS-Schwab modifiers were utilized to assign overall deformity status as mild, moderate, or severe. Complications were extracted from patient medical records. RESULTS: The study included 67 patients from 9 centers. Preoperative severe deformity was observed in 66% of patients. Index surgeries included implantation of a median of 2 personalized interbody devices by anterior, lateral, or transforaminal approaches and with a median of 8 posteriorly instrumented levels. Overall postoperative sagittal alignment improved with a significant decrease in the mean sum of SRS-Schwab modifiers that correlated strongly to improvements in pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis. Among 44 patients with preoperative severe overall deformity, 16 improved to moderate and 9 to mild deformity. Complications occurred for 13 patients (19.4%), including 1 mechanical complication requiring revision 9 months after surgery and none related to personalized interbody devices. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that ASD patients whose treatment included personalized interbody devices can obtain favorable postoperative alignment status comparable to published results and with no complications related to the personalized interbody devices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study contributes to growing evidence that personalized interbody devices contribute to improved sagittal alignment in ASD patients by directly adjusting the orientation of adjacent vertebra.

Predictability in Achieving Target Intervertebral Lordosis Using Personalized Interbody Implants.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar lordosis distribution has become a pivotal factor in re-establishing the foundational alignment of the lumbar spine. This can directly influence overall sagittal alignment, leading to improved long-term outcomes for patients. Despite the wide availability of hyperlordotic stock cages intended to achieve optimal postoperative alignment, there is a lack of correlation between the lordotic shape of a cage and the resultant intervertebral alignment. Recently, personalized spine surgery has witnessed significant advancements, including 3D-printed personalized interbody implants, which are customized to the surgeon's treatment and alignment goals. This study evaluates the reliability of 3D-printed patient-specific interbody implants to achieve the planned postoperative intervertebral alignment. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 217 patients with spinal deformity or degenerative conditions. Patients were included if they received 3D-printed personalized interbody implants. The desired intervertebral lordosis (IVL) angle was prescribed into the device design for each personalized interbody (IVL goal). Standing postoperative radiographs were measured, and the IVL offset was calculated as IVL achieved minus IVL goal. RESULTS: In this patient population, 365 personalized interbodies were implanted, including 145 anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs), 99 lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs), and 121 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions. Among the 365 treated levels, IVL offset was 1.1° ± 4.4° (mean ± SD). IVL was achieved within 5° of the plan in 299 levels (81.9%). IVL offset depended on the approach of the lumbar interbody fusion and was achieved within 5° for 85.9% of LLIF, 82.6% of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions and 78.6% of ALIFs. Ten levels (2.7%) missed the planned IVL by >10°. ALIF and LLIF levels in which the plan was missed by more than 5° tended to be overcorrected. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of 3D-printed personalized interbody implants to achieve planned sagittal intervertebral alignment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Personalized interbody implants can consistently achieve IVL goals and potentially impact foundational lumbar alignment.

Mismatch Between Pelvic Incidence and Lumbar Lordosis After Personalized Interbody Fusion: The Importance of Preoperative Planning and Alignment in Degenerative Spine Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data have highlighted the significance of planning and aligning total and segmental lumbar lordosis with pelvic morphology when performing short-segment fusion with the goal of reducing the risk of adjacent segment disease while also decreasing spine-related disability. This study evaluates the impact of personalized interbody implants in restoring pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch compared with a similar study using stock interbody implants. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective analysis assessed radiographic pre- and postoperative spinopelvic alignment (PI-LL) in patients who underwent 1- or 2-level lumbar fusions with personalized interbody implants for degenerative (nondeformity) indications. The aim was to assess the incidence of malalignment (PI-LL ≥ 10°) both before and after fusion surgery and to determine the rate of alignment preservation and/or correction in this population. RESULTS: There were 135 patients included in this study. Of 83 patients who were aligned preoperatively, alignment was preserved in 76 (91.6%) and worsened in 7 (8.4%). Among the 52 preoperatively malaligned patients, alignment was restored in 23 (44.2%), and 29 (55.8%) were not fully corrected. Among patients who were preoperatively aligned, there was no statistically significant difference in either the "preserved" or "worsened" groups between stock devices and personalized interbody devices. In contrast, among patients who were preoperatively malaligned, there was a statistically significant increase in the "restored" group (P = 0.046) and a statistically significant decrease in the "worsened" groups in patients with personalized interbodies compared with historical stock device data (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a historical cohort with stock implants, personalized interbody implants in short-segment fusions have shown a statistically significant improvement in restoring patients to normative PI-LL. Using 3-dimensional preoperative planning combined with personalized implants provides an important tool for planning and achieving improvement in spinopelvic parameters.

Changes in Alignment at Untreated Vertebral Levels Following Short-Segment Fusion Using Personalized Interbody Cages: Leveraging Personalized Medicine to Reduce the Risk of Reoperation.

BACKGROUND: An abnormal postoperative lordosis distribution index (LDI), which quantifies the ratio between the lordosis at L4 to S1 and the lordosis at L1 to S1, contributes to the development of adjacent segment disease and increased revision rates in patients undergoing short-segment lumbar intervertebral fusions. Incorporating preoperative spinopelvic parameters and LDI into the surgical plan for short-segment fusion is important for guiding alignment restoration and preserving normal preoperative alignment in unfused segments. This study examined changes in LDI, segmental lordosis, and lordosis of the unfused levels in patients treated with personalized interbody cage (PIC) implants. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated radiographic measurements from 111 consecutively treated patients diagnosed with degenerative spinal conditions and treated with a short-segment fusion of L4 to L5, L5 to S1, or L4 to S1 using PIC implant(s) within 6 months of the fusion procedure. Comparisons of intervertebral lordosis for treated and untreated levels as well as LDI pre- and postoperatively were performed. RESULTS: In patients with a preoperative hypolordotic distribution (LDI < 50%), statistically significant increases were found in LDI postoperatively, approaching the normal LDI range (LDI 50%-80%). Likewise, patients with hyperlordotic distribution preoperatively (LDI > 80%) experienced a decrease in LDI postoperatively, trending toward the normal range, although the changes were not statistically significant. Intervertebral lordosis for the L5 to S1 level increased significantly following the placement of a PIC in the normal and hypolordotic LDI groups. Changes in intervertebral lordosis for L5 to S1 were not significant for patients with preoperative hyperlordotic LDI. Reciprocal changes in intervertebral lordosis at L1 to L4 were not observed in any groups. CONCLUSIONS: PIC implants may provide a benefit for patients, particularly those with hypolordotic distributions preoperatively. They have the potential to further improve patient outcomes by helping surgeons to achieve patient-specific lordosis goals, which may help to reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease and revisions in patients undergoing short-segment lumbar intervertebral fusions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Personalized implants can help surgeons achieve patient-specific alignment goals, potentially prevent adjacent segment disease, and reduce long-term reinterventions.

Analyzing the L4-5 Segmental Alignment Change of Two Minimally Invasive Prone-Based Interbody Fusions.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: Restoration of lumbar lordosis (LL) is a principal objective during spinal fusion procedures, traditionally focusing on achieving an LL within 10° of the pelvic incidence (PI). Recent studies have demonstrated a relatively constant L4-S1 alignment of 35-40° at L4-S1 and at least 15° at L4-5, regardless of PI. Based on these results, this study was created to examine the success rate of achieving a minimum of 15° at L4-5 through two differing prone-based techniques: Prone Lateral (pLLIF) and Trans Foraminal Interbody Fusion (TLIF). METHODS: One hundred patients with a primary single-level L4-5 interbody fusion (50 pLLIF and 50 TLIF) were retrospectively analyzed. Pre and post-operative radiographs were measured to examine the segmental change at each level in the lumbar spine and calculate the success rate for achieving a minimum L4-5 segmental lordosis of 15° at the final follow-up. RESULTS: The overall success rate of achieving an L4-5 segmental alignment >15° at the final follow-up was 70%. Prone LLIF was significantly more likely than TLIF to achieve this goal, achieving L4-5 > 15° 84% of the time vs TLIFs 56% (P = 0.002). Prone LLIF demonstrated an average L4-5 increase of 5.6 ± 5.9° which was larger than the mean increase for TLIF 0.4 ± 3.8° (P < 0.001). In both techniques, there was an inverse correlation between pre-operative L4-5 angle and L4-5 angle change. CONCLUSION: Prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion demonstrates a high success rate for achieving a post-operative L4-5 angle >15° and achieves this at a higher rate than TLIF.

Endoscopic Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease: A Narrative Review of Full-Endoscopic and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Degenerative lumbar spine disease is the leading cause of disability and work absenteeism worldwide. Lumbar microdiscectomy became the standard treatment for herniated discs and stenotic disease. With the evolution of different techniques, endoscopic spinal surgery emerged to minimize the surgical footprint while providing at least non-inferior results. Currently, two different types of endoscopic spine procedures are dominating the surgical scenario: "Full-Endoscopic" (FE) and Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic" (UBE) Spine Surgery. The aim of this study is to describe and analyze their indications, their technical characteristicswithitsadvantagesanddisadvantagesofbothtechniquesandtheirfuture trends. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of the most relevant articles published up to August 2023 through a Pub Med search. The search terms " FE Spine Surgery" and " UBE Spine Surgery" were used. The articles selected, were independently reviewed by 3 authors and 55 full text articles were reviewed. RESULTS: The FE and UBE Spine Surgery techniques were described. The FE technique is performed with a monoportal access under constant saline irrigation. The FE comprises the transforaminal and the interlaminar approaches, and the indication depends from the pathology to treat, and still remains controversial. UBE can approach also the spine from a posterior, postero lateral,and para spinal route. It uses two different ports addressed to a target with continuous irrigation. The process of establishing these two portals is called triangulation. CONCLUSIONS: FE and UBE spine surgery have demonstrated outcomes comparable to open surgery, minimizing complications and surgical footprint.

Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique Guide: Surgical Tips and Tricks.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a popular technique as it allows for the placement of a large interbody implant through a retroperitoneal, transpsoas working corridor. Historically, the interbody is placed with the patient in lateral decubitus and then repositioned to prone for the posterior instrumentation. While this has been an effective and successful technique, removing the interoperative flip would improve the efficiency of these cases. This has led to modified LLIF approaches including single-position prone LLIF (pLLIF). This modification has shown to be an efficient and powerful technique; however, learning to navigate the LLIF approach in the prone position has its own challenges. The purpose of this article is to provide a detailed description of our pLLIF technique while simultaneously introducing surgical tips to overcome the challenges of the approach and optimize the implantation of the interbody device.

Educational Status of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery / Situação educacional da cirurgia minimamente invasiva da coluna

Introduction The objective of this study was to understand how spine surgeons learn minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) and how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the educational experience of MISS. Potential solutions for increasing the spine surgeon's access to MISS educational resources were also discussed. Methods An internet survey was distributed to neurosurgical and orthopedic spine surgeons across multiple online platforms from April to June 2021, asking specific questions about education and training for MISS. Online survey tools were used to contact spine surgeons in the five geographical continents. Results A total of 303 spine surgeons responded to the survey: 272 (89.7%) neuro-surgeons and 31 (10.3%) orthopedic surgeons. The six countries with the greatest number of participants were: Argentina (n » 70; 23.1%), India (n » 47; 15.5%), Brazil (n » 34; 11.2%), Pakistan (n » 10; 3.3%), Mexico (n » 9; 3.0%), and Chile (n » 8; 2.6%). Conclusion Most spine surgeons were able to attend virtual learning events during the pandemic, but cadaveric study was still considered the gold standard for learning MISS. Multidisciplinary effort is needed to develop structured curriculums for teaching MISS that include a variety of educational tools such as cadaver laboratory, guidance from experienced surgeons, and virtual demonstrations.

Introdução O objetivo desse estudo foi entender como os cirurgiões de coluna aprendem técnicas minimamente invasivas e como a pandemia de COVID-19 impactou essa atividade. Soluções em potencial para aumentar o acesso a ferramentas educacionais de cirurgia minimamente invasiva são discutidas. Métodos Uma pesquisa realizada na internet para neurocirurgiões e ortopedistas em múltiplas plataformas on-line de abril a junho de 2021, perguntando especificamente questões sobre o estado educacional e de treinamento em cirurgia minimamente invasiva de coluna. Plataformas online específicas foram utilizadas para alcançar cirurgiões de coluna nos cinco continentes geográficos. Resultados Um total de 303 cirurgiões de coluna responderam à pesquisa: 272 (89,7%) neurocirurgiões e 31 (10,3%) ortopedistas. Os seis países com os maiores números de respostas foram: Argentina (n » 70; 23,1%); Índia (n » 47; 15,5%); Brasil (n » 34; 11,2%), Paquistão (n » 10, 3,3%), México (n » 9; 3,0%) e Chile (n » 8; 2,6%). Conclusão A maioria dos respondentes foi capaz de frequentar cursos online durante a pandemia, porém cursos cadavéricos ainda são considerados o padrão-ouro para o aprendizado de técnicas minimamente invasivas. Um esforço multidisciplinar será necessário para desenvolver um currículo estruturado que inclua uma variedade de ferramentas educacionais como laboratório cadáver, tutoria por pares mais experientes e demonstrações virtuais.

Perioperative Complications and Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes in Severe Pediatric Spinal Deformity.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perioperative complications and mid-term outcomes for severe pediatric spinal deformity. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have evaluated the impact of complications on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in severe pediatric spinal deformity. METHODS: Patients from a prospective, multicenter database with severe pediatric spinal deformity (minimum of 100 degree curve in any plane or planned vertebral column resection (VCR)) with a minimum of 2-years follow-up were evaluated (n=231). SRS-22r scores were collected preoperatively and at 2-years postoperatively. Complications were categorized as intraoperative, early postoperative (within 90-days of surgery), major, or minor. Perioperative complication rate was evaluated between patients with and without VCR. Additionally, SRS-22r scores were compared between patients with and without complications. RESULTS: Perioperative complications occurred in 135 (58%) patients, and major complications occurred in 53 (23%) patients. Patients that underwent VCR had a higher incidence of early postoperative complications than patients without VCR (28.9% vs. 16.2%, P =0.02). Complications resolved in 126/135 (93.3%) patients with a mean time to resolution of 91.63 days. Unresolved major complications included motor deficit (n=4), spinal cord deficit (n=1), nerve root deficit (n=1), compartment syndrome (n=1), and motor weakness due to recurrent intradural tumor (n=1). Patients with complications, major complications, or multiple complications had equivalent postoperative SRS-22r scores. Patients with motor deficits had lower postoperative satisfaction subscore (4.32 vs. 4.51, P =0.03), but patients with resolved motor deficits had equivalent postoperative scores in all domains. Patients with unresolved complications had lower postoperative satisfaction subscore (3.94 vs. 4.47, P =0.03) and less postoperative improvement in self-image subscore (0.64 vs. 1.42, P =0.03) as compared to patients with resolved complications. CONCLUSION: Most perioperative complications for severe pediatric spinal deformity resolve within 2-years postoperatively and do not result in adverse HRQoL outcomes. However, patients with unresolved complications have decreased HRQoL outcomes.

Time to surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: How long does it take? A multicenter study.

Study design: Retrospective review of multicentric data. Objectives: To estimate the time from initial visit to surgery in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients and the main reasons for the time to surgery in a multicenter study. Methods: This retrospective study evaluated 509 patients with AIS from 16 hospitals across six Latin American countries. From each hospital's deformity registry, the following patient data were extracted: demographics, main curve Cobb angle, Lenke Classification at the initial visit and time of surgery, time from indication-for-surgery to surgery, curve progression, Risser skeletal-maturity score and causes for surgical cancelation or delay. Surgeons were asked if they needed to change the original surgical plan due to curve progression. Data also were collected on each hospital's waiting list numbers and mean delay to AIS surgery. Results: 66.8% of the patients waited over six months and 33.9% over a year. Waiting time was not impacted by the patient's age when surgery first became indicated (p = 0.22) but waiting time did differ between countries (p < 0.001) and hospitals (p < 0.001). Longer time to surgery was significantly associated with increasing magnitude of the Cobb angle through the second year of waiting (p < 0.001). Reported causes for delay were hospital-related (48.4%), economic (47.3%), and logistic (4.2%). Oddly, waiting time for surgery did not correlate with the hospital's reported waiting-list lengths (p = 0.57). Conclusion: Prolonged waits for AIS surgery are common in Latin America, with rare exceptions. At most centers, patients wait over six months, most commonly for economic and hospital-related reasons. Whether this directly impacts surgical outcomes in Latin America still must be studied.

Single-Position Transpsoas Corpectomy and Posterior Instrumentation in the Thoracolumbar Spine for Different Clinical Scenarios.

BACKGROUND: The concept of single-position spine surgery has been gaining momentum because it has proven to reduce operative time, blood loss, and hospital length of stay with similar or better outcomes than traditional dual-position surgery. The latest development in single-position spine surgery techniques combines either open or posterior pedicle screw fixation with transpsoas corpectomy while in the lateral or prone positioning. OBJECTIVE: To provide, through a multicenter study, the results of our first patients treated by single-position corpectomy. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent corpectomy and instrumentation in the lateral or prone position without repositioning between the anterior and posterior techniques. Data regarding demographics, diagnosis, neurological status, surgical details, complications, and radiographic parameters were collected. The minimum follow-up for inclusion was 6 months. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were finally included in our study (24 male patients and 10 female patients), with a mean age of 51.2 (SD ± 17.5) years. Three-quarter of cases (n = 27) presented with thoracolumbar fracture as main diagnosis, followed by spinal metastases and primary spinal infection. Lateral positioning was used in 27 cases, and prone positioning was used in 7 cases. The overall rate of complications was 14.7%. CONCLUSION: This is the first multicenter series of patients who underwent single-position corpectomy and fusion. This technique has shown to be safe and effective to treat a variety of spinal conditions with a relatively low rate of complications. More series are required to validate this technique as a possible standard approach when thoracolumbar corpectomies are indicated.

Why are frailty indices not used systematically during preoperative spine consultations?

INTRODUCTION: Frailty indices are highly predictive of major medical and mechanical complications, lengths of hospital stay, and mortality rates after spine procedures. However, several barriers limit the extent to which spine surgeons employ these indices. The main purposes of the current study were to assess the use of frailty indices by Latin-American spine surgeons and identify the main barriers perceived to restrict their clinical application. METHODS: For this cross-sectional survey, a questionnaire evaluating the demographic characteristics of participating surgeons and their utilization of frailty indices were created in Google form and sent by e-mail to every registered member of AO Spine Latin America between October and November 2020. RESULTS: Of the 1047 surgeons sent the survey, 293 responded (response rate=28%). Half of the surgeons (51.7%) said they were unfamiliar with the terms ¨frailty´ and ¨frailty index", while 70.3% claimed not to use any frailty scale during their pre-operative assessments. The most frequently utilized index was the modified Frailty Index (mFI) (18%). The most important perceived barrier was the excessive amount of time required to calculate each patient's frailty score. Ninety-two percent of the spine surgeons felt sure that these scores could influence their therapeutic decisions, while 91% desired an easier-to-use risk-prevention scale. CONCLUSION: The main perceived barriers restricting the use of frailty indices were the time required to complete them, lack of index validation, and need for specific instruments to calculate the index score.

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons.

PURPOSE: To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field. METHODS: Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique. CONCLUSION: A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

When to Consider Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Is There a Role for a Comeback With New Implants?

OBJECTIVE: To perform a comprehensive review of the literature about the role of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). METHODS: A MEDLINE review was conducted including studies about stand-alone LLIF for any condition. The opinions of the authors were also considered. Studies that included biomechanical, cadaveric, or clinical aspects of stand-alone cages were revised to obtain data about the pros, cons, and limitations of the technique. Comparative studies with 360° (lateral + posterior) fusions were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies were identified. After reviewing the abstracts, 18 full articles of interest for the objective of this review were analyzed. Recommendations based on the literature were made. Although most of the recommendations in the literature were about augmentation with pedicle screws, there may be a role for stand-alone LLIF in some particular cases. Specific technical aspects should be considered to reduce the failure rate. CONCLUSION: Although there might be some specific indications for stand-alone LLIF, it should be considered an exception rather than the rule.

Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 2D Operative Video.

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis involves an acquired reduction in the spinal canal diameter due to osteoarthritic changes on the disk, facet joints, and ligaments and may result in spinal cord or cauda equina compression.1 This process may lead to pain radiating to the legs, neurogenic claudication, and neurologic deficit. First-line treatment includes conservative care such as physical therapy, spinal injections, and lifestyle changes. If this strategy is insufficient to achieve symptom relief, surgical management is recommended.1,2 Surgery generally encompasses a decompression procedure through a posterior approach. There are several techniques to accomplish this in the context of severe bilateral stenosis including standard open laminectomy, unilateral laminectomy with bilateral decompression, and a tubular approach with bilateral decompression (e.g., "over-the-top technique").2 Among these, the spinous process splitting laminectomy has emerged as a strategy that allows decompressing the spinal canal through a familiar anatomy to the surgeon while respecting paravertebral muscles.3,4 This technique involves exposure of the laminae by cutting through the spinous process and then separating both halves and muscles attached at the sides. The main advantage is that the insertion of these paravertebral soft tissues is preserved, the required retraction is reduced and postoperative pain is decreased.4 Moreover, the learning curve to achieve a successful decompression employing the splitting laminectomy is substantially shorter than with other minimally invasive approaches, such as tubular. This video aims to show the steps to perform this technique (Video 1). We report the case of a 74-year-old male who presented with left sciatica and neurogenic claudication. The images showed multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, with severe bilateral compression at L4-5, without signs of instability. Surgical alternatives were discussed with the patient, and it was decided to perform an L4-5 spinous process splitting laminectomy. The patient had a good evolution with an unremarkable postoperative course.

Single-Position Surgery versus Lateral-Then-Prone-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the outcomes of single-position (SP) circumferential lumbar interbody fusion in lateral decubitus versus dual-position (DP) fusion. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to identify comparative studies reporting the outcomes of SP lumbar interbody fusion versus DP. For risk of bias assessment, the ROBINS-I (risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions) tool was used. RESULTS: Four comparative studies were included from an initial search of 3780 papers. All 4 studies were retrospective cohort studies comparing outcomes of SP versus DP LLIF. A total of 349 patients were operated using SP versus 254 using DP. All studies involved reported operating time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, change in segmental lordosis, and complications. From a general perspective, baseline variables were similar in both groups in all the studies and all reported a significant decrease in operative time and length of stays with SP. CONCLUSIONS: Literature comparing SP versus lateral-then-prone lumbar fusion shows a tendency toward shorter operating time and hospital stays in SP lumbar fusion while maintaining similar perioperative outcomes.

Safe and effective performance of pediatric spinal deformity surgery in patients unwilling to accept blood transfusion: a clinical study and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric deformity surgery traditionally involves major blood loss. Patients refusing blood transfusion add extra clinical and medicolegal challenges; specifically the Jehovah's witnesses population. The objective of this study is to review the safety and effectiveness of blood conservation techniques in patients undergoing pediatric spine deformity surgery who refuse blood transfusion. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed 20 consecutive patients who underwent spinal deformity surgery and refused blood transfusion at a single institution between 2014 and 2018. We collected pertinent preoperative, intraoperative and most recent clinical and radiological data with latest follow-up (minimum two-year follow-up). RESULTS: Twenty patients (13 females) with a mean age of 14.1 years were identified. The type of scoliotic deformities were adolescent idiopathic (14), juvenile idiopathic (1), neuromuscular (3) and congenital (2). The major coronal Cobb angle was corrected from 55.4° to 11.2° (80% correction, p <  0.001) at the latest follow-up. A mean of 11.4 levels were fused and 5.6 levels of Pontes osteotomies were performed. One patient underwent L1 hemivertebra resection and three patients had fusion to pelvis. Estimated blood loss, percent estimated blood volume loss, and cell saver returned averaged 307.9 mL, 8.5%, and 80 mL, respectively. Average operative time was 214 min. The average drop in hemoglobin after surgery was 2.9 g/dL. The length of hospital stay averaged 5.1 days. There were no intraoperative complications. Three postoperative complications were identified, none related to their refusal of transfusion. One patient had in-hospital respiratory complication, one patient developed a late infection, and one patient developed asymptomatic radiographic distal junctional kyphosis. CONCLUSIONS: Blood conservation techniques allow for safe and effective spine deformity surgery in pediatric patients refusing blood transfusion without major anesthetic or medical complications, when performed by an experienced multidisciplinary team. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Late spinal infections following posterior spinal fusion in pediatric deformities: treatment using single-stage titanium implant exchange.

PURPOSE: Late infection following posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for deformity is a leading cause of revision. The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes following a single-stage debridement and exchange of spinal implants with titanium in adolescent patients with late-onset infections following PSF METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data of adolescent patients with spinal deformity, who were surgically treated with PSF was collected. Patients were included for the study if they developed late arising infection (> 1 year after index posterior fusion for the deformity) from 2006-2019. Treatment consisted of irrigation, debridement, implant exchange with titanium screws and rods, and antibiotics. Parameters evaluated include radiographic Cobb angles, operative data, and clinical data, all at minimum 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: 31 patients (29 with AIS and 2 with Scheuermann's kyphosis) developed late spinal infections. Mean age was 11.4 ± 2.3 years, 84% female, mean time from index surgery was 52.5 months. 25 had all stainless steel implants and 6 had cobalt chrome during the index procedure. Positive cultures were obtained in 5 patients (2 Staphylococcus Aureus, 1 Staphylococcus epidermidis, 1 Peptostreptococcus, 1 Pseudomonas aeruginosa) with cultures followed till 7 days post-operatively. At 2-years following the exchange, there was no change in coronal and sagittal alignment. Three (9%) patients developed subsequent infection necessitating implant removal. CONCLUSION: A single-stage procedure consisting of implant removal, irrigation, and debridement, and replacement with all titanium implants is an effective treatment strategy in patients developing late wound infection following PSF with regards to maintenance of curve correction and minimizing recurrent infections.