Spinal Manifestations of Skeletal Dysplasia: A Practical Guide for Clinical Diagnosis.

Skeletal dysplasias are a group of genetic conditions defined by atypical bone or cartilage growth and development. Skeletal abnormalities include short stature, limb deformity, joint contracture, and spinal deformity. Over 90% of disorders have a known genetic mutation that can definitively determine the diagnosis. As patients may present with a primary spinal concern, a careful clinical and radiographic evaluation can allow the physician to develop a working diagnosis to guide additional evaluation. Spinal manifestations include scoliosis and kyphoscoliosis, cervical instability, cervical kyphosis, thoracolumbar kyphosis, spinal stenosis, and atypical vertebral body morphology. An understanding of the affected conditions, prevalence, and natural history of these radiographic findings aids the orthopaedic surgeon in establishing a diagnosis and guides appropriate orthopaedic care.

Lowest instrumented vertebrae in early onset scoliosis: is there a role for a more selective approach?

PURPOSE: This purpose of this study was to assess the impact of patient and implant characteristics on LIV selection in ambulatory children with EOS and to assess the relationship between the touched vertebrae (TV), the last substantially touched vertebrae (LSTV), the stable vertebrae (SV), the sagittal stable vertebrae (SSV), and the LIV. METHODS: A multicenter pediatric spine database was queried for patients ages 2-10 years treated by growth friendly instrumentation with at least 2-year follow up. The relationship between the LIV and preoperative spinal height, curve magnitude, and implant type were assessed. The relationships between the TV, LSTV, SV, SSV, and the LIV were also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 281 patients met inclusion criteria. The LIV was at L3 or below in most patients with a lumbar LIV: L1 (9.2%), L2 (20.2%), L3 (40.9%), L4 (29.5%). Smaller T1 - T12 length was associated with more caudal LIV selection (p = 0.001). Larger curve magnitudes were similarly associated with more caudal LIV selection (p = < 0.0001). Implant type was not associated with LIV selection (p = 0.32) including MCGR actuator length (p = 0.829). The LIV was caudal to the TV in 78% of patients with a TV at L2 or above compared to only 17% of patients with a TV at L3 or below (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Most EOS patients have an LIV of L3 or below and display TV-LIV and LSTV-LIV incongruence. These findings suggest that at the end of treatment, EOS patients rarely have the potential for selective thoracic fusion. Further work is necessary to assess the potential for a more selective approach to LIV selection in EOS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

What is the role of plastic surgery for incisional closures in pediatric spine surgery? Results from a pediatric spine study group survey.

Current best practice guidelines recommend a plastics-style multilayer wound closure for high-risk pediatric spine surgery. However, plastic surgery closure of spinal incisions remains controversial. This study investigates surgeon perceptions and practice patterns regarding plastic surgery multilayered closure (PMC) in pediatric spine surgery. All surgeons in an international pediatric spine study group received a 30-question survey assessing incisional closure practices, frequency of plastic surgery collaboration, and drain management. Relationship to practice size, setting, geographic region, and individual diagnoses were analyzed. 87/178 (49%) surgeons responded from 79% of participating sites. Plastics utilization rates differed by diagnosis: neuromuscular scoliosis 16.9%, early onset scoliosis 7.8%, adolescent idiopathic scoliosis 2.8% (P < 0.0001). Plastics were used more for early onset scoliosis [odds ratio (OR) 18.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.5, 40.2; P < 0.001] and neuromuscular scoliosis [OR 29.2 (12.2, 69.9); P < 0.001] than adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Plastics use was unrelated to practice size, setting, or geographic region (P ≥ 0.09). Respondents used plastics more often for spina bifida and underweight patients compared to all other indications (P < 0.001). Compared to orthopaedic management, drains were utilized more often by plastic surgery (85 vs. 21%, P = 0.06) and for longer durations (P = 0.001). Eighty-nine percent of surgeons felt plastics increased operative time (58 ±â€…37 min), and 34% felt it increased length of hospitalization. Surgeons who routinely utilize plastics were more likely to believe PMC decreases wound complications (P = 0.007). The perceived benefit of plastic surgery varies, highlighting equipoise among pediatric spine surgeons. An evidence-based guideline is needed to optimize utilization of plastics in pediatric spine surgery.

The Fate of The Broken Tether: How Do Curves Treated with Vertebral Body Tethering Behave After Tether Breakage?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, Multicenter. OBJECTIVE: Assess curve progression and occurrence of revision surgery following tether breakage after vertebral body tethering (VBT). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Tether breakage after VBT is common with rates up to 50% reported. In these cases, it remains unknown whether the curve will progress or remain stable. METHODS: Adolescent and juvenile idiopathic scoliosis patients in a multicenter registry with ≥2 year-follow-up after VBT were reviewed. Broken tethers were listed as postoperative complications and identified by increased screw divergence of >5° on serial radiographs. Revision procedures and curve magnitude at subsequent visits were recorded. RESULTS: Of 186 patients who qualified for inclusion, 84 (45.2%) patients with tether breakage were identified with a mean age at VBT of 12.4±1.4 years and mean curve magnitude at index procedure of 51.8°±8.1°. Tether breakage occurred at a mean of 30.3±11.8 months and mean curve of 33.9°±13.2°. Twelve patients (12/84, 14.5%) underwent 13 revision procedures after VBT breakage, including 6 tether revisions and 7 conversions to fusion. All tether revisions occurred within 5 months of breakage identification. No patients with curves <35° after breakage underwent revision. Revision rate was greatest in skeletally immature (Risser 0-3) patients with curves ≥35° at time of breakage (Risser 0-3: 9/17, 53% vs. Risser 4-5: 3/23, 13%, P=0.01).Curves increased by 3.1° and 3.7° in the first and second year, respectively. By two years, 15/30 (50%) progressed >5° and 8/30 (26.7%) progressed greater than 10°. Overall, 66.7% (40/60) reached a curve magnitude >35° at their latest follow-up, and 14/60 (23.3%) reached a curve magnitude greater than 45°. Skeletal maturity did not affect curve progression after tether breakage (P>0.26), but time to rupture did (P=0.048). CONCLUSION: While skeletal immaturity and curve magnitude were not independently associated with curve progression, skeletally immature patients with curves ≥35° at time of rupture are most likely to undergo additional surgery. Most patients can expect progression at least 5° in the first two years after tether breakage, though longer-term behavior remains unknown. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Return to play following spine surgery.

Return to physical activity is a primary concern for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis who are indicated for spinal fusion surgery. Preoperative counseling often addresses questions regarding ability to return to sport, postoperative restrictions, time away from play, and the safety of returning to activities. Previous works have shown that flexibility can noticeably decrease after surgery, and that the ability to return to the same level of play may be impacted by the levels of the spine included in the fusion. Equipoise remains on when patients should be allowed to return to non-contact, contact, and collision play; however, there is a trend toward earlier release to activities over the last few decades. Sources agree, though, that returning to play is safe, with rare instances of complications reported for patients with spinal fusion. Here, we review the literature on the function of spinal fusion levels on flexibility and biomechanics, address factors that may influence one's recovery of sports performance, and discuss safety considerations regarding return play following spine surgery.

Perioperative Management of Nonorthopaedic Devices in the Pediatric Neuromuscular Patient Population.

Pediatric patients with neuromuscular conditions often have nonorthopaedic implants that can pose a challenge for MRI acquisition and surgical planning. Treating physicians often find themselves in the position of navigating between seemingly overly risk-averse manufacturer's guidelines and an individual patient's benefits of an MRI or surgery. Most nonorthopaedic implants are compatible with MRI under specific conditions, though often require reprogramming or interrogation before and/or after the scan. For surgical procedures, the use of electrosurgical instrumentation poses a risk of electromagnetic interference and implants are thus often programmed or turned off for the procedures. Special considerations are needed for these patients to prevent device damage or malfunction, which can pose additional risk to the patient. Additional planning before surgery is necessary to ensure appropriate equipment, and staff are available to ensure patient safety.

The current state of navigation in robotic spine surgery.

The advent and widespread adoption of pedicle screw instrumentation prompted the need for image guidance in spine surgery to improve accuracy and safety. Although the conventional method, fluoroscopy, is readily available and inexpensive, concerns regarding radiation exposure and the drive to provide better visual guidance spurred the development of computer-assisted navigation. Contemporaneously, a non-navigated robotic guidance platform was also introduced as a competing modality for pedicle screw placement. Although the robot could provide high precision trajectory guidance by restricting four of the six degrees of freedom (DOF), the lack of real-time depth control and high capital acquisition cost diminished its popularity, while computer-assisted navigation platforms became increasingly sophisticated and accepted. The recent integration of real-time 3D navigation with robotic platforms has resulted in a resurgence of interest in robotics in spine surgery with the recent introduction of numerous navigated robotic platforms. The currently available navigated robotic spine surgery platforms include the ROSA Spine Robot (Zimmer Biomet Robotics formerly Medtech SA, Montpellier, France), ExcelsiusGPS® (Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA), Mazor X spine robot (Medtronic Navigation Louisville, CO; Medtronic Spine, Memphis, TN; formerly Mazor Robotics, Caesarea, Israel) and TiRobot (TINAVI Medical Technologies, Beijing, China). Here we provide an overview of these navigated spine robotic platforms, existing applications, and potential future avenues of implementation.