[Correction of kyphotic fixed lumbar segments and hypolordosis with the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion technique]. / Erweiterte transforaminale lumbale intersomatische Fusion zur Korrektur kyphotisch fixierter lumbaler Segmente und lumbaler Hypolordosen.

OBJECTIVE: Correction of a segmental or global lumbar hypolordosis to improve a sagittal imbalance. INDICATIONS: Lumbar segments fixed in kyphosis; degenerative or posttraumatic hypolordotic deformity of the lumbar spine with sagittal imbalance. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Bechterew disease; extended adhesions in the retroperitoneum. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Segmental correction of a kyphotic fixed segment using a unilateral transforaminal approach to release the annulus and anterior longitudinal ligament. With an additional posterior V­shaped osteotomy, a segmental correction of more than 20° could be achieved to improve a global sagittal imbalance. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Back-friendly mobilisation starting the first day after surgery with support of a physiotherapist. No sports for 3-4 months. RESULTS: In all, 25 patients with 33 kyphotic fixed lumbar segments were treated using a complete anterior release of the annulus and anterior longitudinal ligament via a unilateral transforaminal approach. This enabled a lordosizing correction of the segment between 5° and 29° (mean 11.4°) without any neurological or vascular complications. A total of 10 patients treated with an additional posterior osteotomy were corrected 14-29° (mean 19°). There was a loss of reduction of the lordotic correction (mean 1°; range 0-3°) in the X­ray control at a minimum follow-up of 6 months (range 6-33 months).

[S2-Ala-iliac screws for extended pelvic fixation in longer lumbar instrumentations : Description of a freehand technique]. / S2-Ala-Iliumschrauben zur erweiterten pelvinen Fixation mehrsegmentaler lumbaler Spondylodesen : Beschreibung einer Freihandtechnik.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce the rate of implant failures at the lumbosacral junction in polysegmental lumbar fusions. INDICATIONS: Spinal fusion with deformity correction including L5/S1, revision surgery for pseudoarthrosis L5/S1, screw pull-out and pedicle fractures in S1, and S1/S2 fractures after polysegmental fusions. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Osteosynthesis of complex pelvic ring fractures, tumors of the ilium. Relative contraindication: infection, to avoid contamination of the iliosacral joint. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Conventional posterior approach to the lumbar spine. Positioning of the lumbar and S1 pedicle screws in common technique. Identification of the correct entrance point for one or two S2-Ala-iliac screws for each side and preparation of the drill holes in freehand technique. Connection of the lumbar and S1 pedicle screws and S2-Ala-iliac screws with one stress-free rod on each side without the use of connectors or special plates. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Back-friendly mobilization beginning on day 1 after surgery with support of a physiotherapist. No sports for 12 weeks. RESULTS: In all, 25 patients were treated with an extended pelvic fixation using S2-Ala-iliac screws. A primary deformity correction was performed in 11 patients, whereas 14 patients underwent revision surgery. A total of 24 patients were clinically and radiologically followed for a mean of 16 months. Two patients showed a loosening of the S2-Ala-iliac screws on one side, and one patient had broken screw as well only on one side without clinical symptoms. So far, no patient has undergone revision surgery because of S2-Ala-iliac screw-associated complications.

[Imaging-guided injection techniques of the lumbar spine]. / Bildwandlergestützte Injektionstechniken an der Lendenwirbelsäule.

Spinal injections are an important treatment option in the conservative management of many spinal disorders. A large number of imaging techniques are available to achieve a precise and safe needle placement in interventional procedures. Fluoroscopy-guided injections are safe, cost effective and available in most institutions. The following article presents an overview of common fluoroscopy-guided spinal injection therapy of the lumbar spine.

Alternative technique of cement augmentation of loosened pedicle screws -- technical note and presentation of two cases.

An alternative cement augmentation technique for pedicle screws is described, which was applied in two patients with mono- and bisegmental non-union after preceding multisegmental lumbar fusion. The correctly placed pedicle screws in S1 with diameters of 6 and 8.5 mm had severely enlarged the screw cavities due to segmental instability. Revision screws with 10 mm diameter demonstrated sufficient purchase only on the left side. Therefore, cement augmentation was performed for the right sided screws. After verification of intact pedicle borders, the cavity was filled up with PMMA bone cement. Afterwards, a Kirschner wire was positioned centrally, the hardening of the cement was awaited, the cement was gradually drilled and the screw was placed. In both patients, sufficient purchase of the cemented pedicle screws was documented. Screw insertion after awaiting the hardening of the bone cement in pedicles and vertebral bodies with huge defect situations seems to be an alternative to previous cement augmentation techniques of pedicle screws with the advantage, that the screws could be more easily unscrewed, if necessary.

[Adjacent segment movement after monosegmental total disc replacement and monosegmental fusion of segments L4/5]. / Anschlusssegmentbeweglichkeit nach monosegmentaler Bandscheibenprothesenimplantation und monosegmentaler Fusion Segment L4/5.

BACKGROUND: Preservation of movement at the treated segment and possible reduction of adjacent segment effects is assumed to be an advantage of non-fusion technologies over fusion. The aim of this study was to compare the segmental range of motion (ROM) at the operative level, the cranial and caudal adjacent levels and the global lumbar spine ROM (L2-S1) after monosegmental fusion and total disc replacement (TDR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Radiographic data was collected from 27 patients with level 1 degenerative disc disease operated at level L4/5. The ROM was assessed at the index level (L4/5), the cranial and caudal adjacent level and for the lumbar spine (L2-S1). RESULTS: In the TDR group no significant changes of lumbar spine ROM (L2-S1) and segmental ROM (index level, cranial and caudal adjacent level) were noticed. In the fusion group there was a significant reduction of lumbar ROM (L2-S1) and index level ROM. Additionally the relative ROM in the adjacent caudal segment significantly increased while no changes were seen in the cranial segment. CONCLUSION: The relative ROM was significantly increased in monosegmental fusion at level L4/5 compared to TDR. To what extent this fact may result in early adjacent segment degeneration in cases of fusion compared to TDR is still unknown.

[Prevalence of mental disorders in multimodal therapy of chronic back pain]. / Prävalenz psychischer Störungen in der multimodalen Therapie des chronifizierten Rückenschmerzes.

Because of its biopsychosocial factors chronic back pain is often resistant to unimodal therapy regimes. Multimodal pain programs are a promising therapy option in the management of chronic pain as they focus on functional restoration. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of psychopathology in patients with chronic back pain. The study included 127 patients suffering from chronic back pain in multimodal inpatient pain therapy who were assessed by a psychologist. A retrospective analysis was performed focusing on the psychological diagnoses. Further factors investigated were age, gender, numeric rating scale (NRS) pain intensity at the beginning and end of the program, hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), further psychological treatment recommendations and migration background. Fisher's exact test was performed to calculate the significance in the different subgroups. The results showed that there was a high prevalence of depression, anxiety disorders and adjustment disorders in patients with chronic back pain. In this cohort the prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders was significantly higher than the estimated prevalence of the normal German population.

[Injection techniques in the cervical spine]. / Injektionstechniken an der Halswirbelsäule.

Spinal injections are a treatment option in the conservative management of degenerative spinal disorders. The indications must be critically reviewed for every patient. Treatment with injections for painful spinal disorders should be a part of interdisciplinary treatment regimes. The diagnostic value varies between injection procedures. A large number of imaging techniques are used to achieve a precise and safe needle placement in interventional procedures. The following article presents an overview of common fluoroscopy-guided spinal injection techniques for the cervical spine.

[Spinal epidural lipomatosis]. / Spinale epidurale Lipomatose.

Spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL) is a rare condition affecting the thoracic and lumbar spine, characterized by a hypertrophy and hyperplasia of the rich vascularized fat tissue inside the spinal canal. The etiology of SEL is unknown. A high number of cases are associated with obesity, corticosteroid intake and a dysbalance in adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-cortisone metabolism. It can be an incidental radiographic finding or present with symptoms, such as low back pain, weakness of the lower limbs, dysesthesia, radiculopathy, claudication or even cauda equina syndrome. The interdisciplinary treatment consists of weight reduction, weaning from corticosteroids and in persisting cases or neurologic alterations in surgical decompression of the spinal canal. The following article presents a current review and a case report of this rare entity.

[Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: current aspects of diagnostics and therapy]. / Diffuse idiopathische skelettale Hyperostose: Aktuelles zur Diagnostik und Therapie.

Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) is a common but often unrecognized systemic disorder observed mainly in the middle-aged and elderly population, characterized by ankylosing formations of the spine and ossifications of peripheral ligaments, tendons and joint capsule insertion points (entheses). Despite the increase of prevalence with age, the condition often remains undiagnosed. It can be an asymptomatic incidental radiographic finding but can also manifest in several multiorgan complications, such as back and neck pain, restriction of mobility of the spine, peripheral joint affection, dysphagia, dyspnea, foreign body sensation, hoarseness, neurologic manifestations due to compression of the spinal cord, hyperuricemia, obesity, hypercholesterinemia and resulting cardiovascular comorbidities, implicating a multidisciplinary approach. The following article presents a current overview of the condition.

The bothersomeness of patient self-rated "complications" reported 1 year after spine surgery.

PURPOSE: The last few decades have witnessed a paradigm shift in the assessment of outcome in spine surgery, with patient-centred questionnaires superseding traditional surgeon-based assessments. The assessment of complications after surgery and their impact on the patient has not enjoyed this same enlightened approach. This study sought to quantify the incidence and bothersomeness of patient-rated complications 1 year after surgery. METHODS: Patients with lumbar degenerative disorders, operated with the goal of pain relief between October 2006 and September 2010, completed a questionnaire 1 year postoperatively enquiring about complications arising as a consequence of their operation. They rated the bothersomeness of any such complications on a 5-point scale. Global outcome of surgery and satisfaction at the 12-month follow-up were also rated on 5-point Likert scales. The multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) was completed preoperatively and at the 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Of 2,282 patients completing the questionnaire (92% completion rate), 687 (30.1%) reported complications, most commonly sensory disturbances (36% of those with complications) or ongoing/new pain (26%), followed by motor problems (8%), pain plus neurological disturbances (11%), and problems with wound healing (6%). The corresponding "bothersomeness" ratings for these were: 1% not at all, 23% slightly, 27% moderately, 31% very, and 18% extremely bothersome. The greater the bothersomeness, the worse the global outcome (Rho = 0.51, p < 0.0001), patient satisfaction (Rho = 0.44, p < 0.0001) and change in COMI score (Rho = 0.52, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Most complications reported by the patient are perceived to be at least moderately bothersome and hence are not inconsequential. Complications and their severity should be assessed from both the patient's and the surgeon's perspectives--not least to better understand the reasons for poor outcome and dissatisfaction with treatment.

The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain.

Decompression surgery is a common and generally successful treatment for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). However, clinical practice raises some concern that the presence of concomitant low back pain (LBP) may have a negative influence on the overall outcome of treatment. This prospective study sought to examine on how the relative severity of LBP influences the outcome of decompression surgery for LDH. The SSE Spine Tango System was used to acquire the data from 308 patients. Inclusion criteria were LDH, first-time surgery, maximum 1 affected level, and decompression as the only procedure. Before and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; includes 0-10 leg/buttock pain (LP) and LBP scales); at 12 months, global outcome was rated on a Likert scale and dichotomised into "good" and "poor" groups. In the "good" outcome group, mean baseline LP was 2.8 (SD 3.1) points higher than LBP; in the "poor" group, the corresponding value was 1.1 (SD 2.9) (p < 0.001 between groups). Significantly fewer patients with back pain as their "main problem" had a good outcome (69% good) when compared with those who reported leg/buttock pain (84% good) as the main problem (p = 0.04). In multivariate regression analyses (controlling for age, gender, co-morbidity), baseline LBP intensity was a significant predictor of the 12-month COMI score, and of the global outcome (each p < 0.05) (higher LBP, worse outcome). In conclusion, patients with more back pain showed significantly worse outcomes after decompression surgery for LDH. This finding fits with general clinical experience, but has rarely been quantified in the many predictor studies conducted to date. Consideration of the severity of concomitant LBP in LDH may assist in establishing realistic patient expectations before the surgery.

Management of fractures of the pedicle after instrumentation with transpedicular screws: A report of three patients.

Fracture of a pedicle is a rare complication of spinal instrumentation using pedicular screws, but it can lead to instability and pain and may necessitate extension of the fusion. Osteosynthesis of the fractured pedicle by cerclage-wire fixation and augmentation of the screw fixation by vertebroplasty or temporary elongation of the fixation, allows stabilisation without sacrifice of the adjacent healthy segment. We describe three patients who developed a fracture of the pedicle in the most caudal instrumented vertebra early after lumbar spinal fusion. During revision surgery the pedicles were reduced and secured by a soft cerclage wire bilaterally. Fusion was obtained at the site of the primary instrumentation and healing of the pedicles was achieved. Cerclage wiring of the fractured pedicle seems to be safe and avoids permanent extension of the fusion without the sacrifice of an otherwise healthy segment.

A prospective, cohort study comparing translaminar screw fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine.

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (sd 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (sd 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); 'good' global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52). The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes. Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years.

The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index.

The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing multidimensional outcome in spine surgery. The minimal clinically important score-difference (MCID) for improvement (MCID(imp)) was determined in one of the original research studies validating the instrument, but has never been confirmed in routine clinical practice. Further, the MCID for deterioration (MCID(det)) has never been investigated; indeed, this needs very large sample sizes to obtain sufficient cases with worsening. This study examined the MCIDs of the COMI in routine clinical practice. All patients undergoing surgery in our Spine Center since February 2004 were asked to complete the COMI before and 12 months after surgery. The COMI has one question each on back (neck) pain intensity, leg/buttock (arm/shoulder) pain intensity, function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality of life, work disability, and social disability, scored as a 0-10 index. At follow-up, patients also rated the global effectiveness of surgery, on a 5-point Likert scale. This was used as the external criterion ("anchor") in receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses to derive cut-off scores for individual improvement and deterioration. Twelve-month follow-up questionnaires were returned by 3,056 (92%) patients. The group mean COMI score change for patients declaring that the "operation helped" was a reduction of 3.1 points; the corresponding value for those whom it "did not help" was a reduction of 0.5 points. The group MCID(imp) was hence 2.6 points reduction; the corresponding group MCID(det) was 1.2 points increase (0.5 minus -0.7). The area under the ROC curve was 0.88 for MCID(imp) and 0.89 for MCID(det) (both P < 0.0001), indicating that the COMI had good discriminative ability. The cut-offs for individual improvement and deterioration, respectively, were > or =2.2 points decrease (sensitivity 81%, specificity 83%) and > or =0.3 points increase (sensitivity 83%, specificity 88%). The MCID(imp) score of 2.2 points was similar to that reported in the original study (2-3 points, depending on external criterion used). The MCID(det) suggested that the COMI is less responsive to deterioration than to improvement, a phenomenon also reported for other spine outcome instruments. This needs further investigation in even larger patient groups. The MCIDs provide essential information for both the planning (sample size) and interpretation of the results (clinical relevance) of future clinical studies using the COMI.

The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective. Part 1: the Core Outcome Measures Index in clinical practice.

The Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) is a short, multidimensional outcome instrument, with excellent psychometric properties, that has been recommended for use in monitoring the outcome of spinal surgery from the patient's perspective. This study examined the feasibility of implementation of COMI and its performance in clinical practice within a large Spine Centre. Beginning in March 2004, all patients undergoing spine surgery in our Spine Centre (1,000-1,200 patients/year) were asked to complete the COMI before and 3, 12 and 24 months after surgery. The COMI has one question each on back (neck) pain intensity, leg/buttock (arm/shoulder) pain intensity, function, symptom-specific well being, general quality of life, work disability and social disability, scored as a 0-10 index. At follow-up, patients also rated the global effectiveness of surgery, and their satisfaction with their treatment in the hospital, on a five-point Likert scale. After some fine-tuning of the method of administration, completion rates for the pre-op COMI improved from 78% in the first year of operation to 92% in subsequent years (non-response was mainly due to emergencies or language or age issues). Effective completion rates at 3, 12 and 24-month follow-up were 94, 92 and 88%, respectively. The 12-month global outcomes (from N = 3,056 patients) were operation helped a lot, 1,417 (46.4%); helped, 860 (28.1%); helped only little, 454 (14.9%); did not help, 272 (8.9%); made things worse, 53 (1.7%). The mean reductions in COMI score for each of these categories were 5.4 (SD2.5); 3.1 (SD2.2); 1.3 (SD1.7); 0.5 (SD2.2) and -0.7 (SD2.2), respectively, yielding respective standardised response mean values ("effect sizes") for each outcome category of 2.2, 1.4, 0.8, 0.2 and 0.3, respectively. The questionnaire was feasible to implement on a prospective basis in routine practice, and was as responsive as many longer spine outcome questionnaires. The shortness of the COMI and its multidimensional nature make it an attractive option to comprehensively assess all patients within a given Spine Centre and hence avoid selection bias in reporting outcomes.

Microdiscectomy compared with standard discectomy: an old problem revisited with new outcome measures within the framework of a spine surgical registry.

Studies comparing the relative merits of microdiscectomy and standard discectomy report conflicting results, depending on the outcome measure of interest. Most trials are small, and few have employed validated, multidimensional patient-orientated outcome measures, considered essential in outcomes research. In the present study, data were collected prospectively from six surgeons participating in a surgical registry. Inclusion criteria were: lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative disease; discectomy/sequestrectomy without additional fusion/stabilisation; German or English-speaking. Before and 3 and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the Core Outcome Measures Index comprising questions on leg/buttock pain, back pain, back-related function, symptom-specific well-being, general quality-of-life, and social and work disability. At follow-up, they rated overall satisfaction, global outcome, and perceived complications. Compliance with the registry documentation was excellent: 87% for surgeons (surgery forms), 91% for patients (for 12 months follow-up). 261 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria (225 microdiscectomy, 36 standard discectomy). The standard discectomy group had significantly greater blood-loss than the microdiscectomy (P < 0.05). There were no group differences in the proportion of surgical complications or duration of hospital stay (P > 0.05). The groups did not differ in relation to any of the patient-orientated outcomes or individual outcome domains (P > 0.05). Though not equivalent to an RCT, the study included every single eligible patient in our Spine Center and allowed surgeons to use their regular procedure; it hence had extremely high external validity (relevance/generalisability). There was no clinically relevant difference in outcome after lumbar disc excision dependent on the use of the microscope. The decision to use the microscope should rest with the surgeon.