Outcomes of posterior cervical fusion and decompression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with decompression is a treatment option for patients with conditions such as spondylosis, spinal stenosis, and degenerative disc disorders that result in myelopathy or radiculopathy. The annual rate, number, and cost of PCF in the United States has increased. Far fewer studies have been published on PCF outcomes than on anterior cervical fusion (ACF) outcomes, most likely because far fewer PCFs than ACFs are performed. PURPOSE: To evaluate the patient-reported and clinical outcomes of adult patients who underwent subaxial posterior cervical fusion with decompression. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: The total number of patients in the 31 articles reviewed and included in the meta-analysis was 1,238 (range 7-166). OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative to postoperative change in patient-reported outcomes (visual analog scales for arm pain and neck pain, Neck Disability Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA] score, modified JOA score, and Nurick pain scale) and rates of fusion, revision, and complications or adverse events. METHODS: This study was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and a preapproved protocol. PubMed and Embase databases were searched for articles published from January 2001 through July 2018. Statistical analyses for patient-reported outcomes were performed on the outcomes' raw mean differences, calculated as postoperative value minus preoperative value from each study. Pooled rates of successful fusion, revision surgery, and complications or adverse events, and their 95% confidence intervals, were also calculated. Two subgroup analyses were performed: one for studies in which only myelopathy or radiculopathy (or both) were stated as surgical indications and the other for studies in which only myelopathy or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (or both) were stated as surgical indications. This study was funded by Providence Medical Technology, Inc. ($32,000). RESULTS: Thirty-three articles were included in the systematic review, and 31 articles were included in the meta-analysis. For all surgical indications and for the 2 subgroup analyses, every cumulative change in patient-reported outcome improved. Many of the reported changes in patient-reported outcome also exceeded the minimal clinically important differences. Pooled outcome rates with all surgical indications were 98.25% for successful fusion, 1.09% for revision, and 9.02% for complications or adverse events. Commonly reported complications or adverse events were axial pain, C5 palsy, transient neurological worsening, and wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior cervical fusion with decompression resulted in significant clinical improvement, as indicated by the changes in patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, high fusion rates and low rates of revision and of complications and adverse events were found.

Postoperative Care Pathways Following Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Results of a Modified Delphi Approach.

STUDY DESIGN: A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Subject matter experts were invited to participate as the expert panel. Best practice statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark "agree" or "disagree" after a series of statements during several rounds until either consensus could be obtained or the practice method was deemed unable to achieve consensus. OBJECTIVE: Lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) is acknowledged as an alternative to spinal fusion in appropriately selected patients. There is a lack of unanimity on the appropriate postoperative patient protocols and rehabilitation expectations for the procedure. The long-term viability of Lumbar TDR, further adoption in the community setting and specific patient outcomes are contingent on the existence of appropriate postoperative recovery programs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Currently there are no established methods for postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Establishing a postoperative clinical pathway algorithm may improve patient outcomes with respect to lumbar TDR. METHOD: A lumbar TDR expert panel of 22 spine surgeons employed a modified Delphi method to drive consensus on postoperative care following single-level Lumbar TDR. The panel first reviewed literature and guidelines relevant to postoperative care following lumbar TDR. Panel members considered 21 survey questions intended to determine "standard-practice" postoperative care recommendations for patients who have undergone lumbar TDR for the initial recovery phase (0-4 wk) and rehabilitation (4-20 wk). Each panel member participated in a round of anonymous voting followed by a group discussion. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement or higher among the respondents. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved in 11 of the 21 survey questions. There was a high degree of consensus around the key goals for both the initial recovery and rehabilitation phases, ceased use of narcotics for pain management by 4 weeks postoperative, unrestricted walking immediately following surgery, timelines for physical therapy (within 2-4 wk) and return to work based on level of activity (as early as 1 wk postoperative). Lack of agreement included the use of back bracing and timing of postoperative visits. Generally, panel members felt that patient expectations regarding return to function were different following lumbar TDR versus fusion and warrant further study. CONCLUSION: Surgeon and patient alignment around postoperative expectations may significantly affect the long-term results of lumbar TDR. This surgeon consensus study found agreement for immediate postoperative ambulation, rapid reduction in opioids within the first month, and early return to work. When expectations are appropriately set with patients preoperatively, both provider and patient have shared goals in the return-to-function process. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Individuals with sacroiliac joint dysfunction display asymmetrical gait and a depressed synergy between muscles providing sacroiliac joint force closure when walking.

Walking is often compromised in individuals with low back and hip disorders, such as sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD). The disorder involves reduced coactivation of the gluteus maximus and contralateral latissimus dorsi, which together provide joint stability during walking. The purpose of our study was to compare the kinematics and contributions of selected muscles to identified synergies during walking between healthy individuals and those with SIJD. Six women with unilateral SIJD and six age-matched healthy controls walked on a force-measuring treadmill at 1 m/s while we recorded kinematics and the activity of 16 muscles with surface EMG. Non-negative matrix factorization was used to identify patterns of EMG activity (muscle synergies). Individuals with SIJD exhibited less hip extension and lower peak vertical ground reaction forces on the affected side than the unaffected side. In contrast to controls, the SIJD group also displayed a depressed muscle synergy between gluteus maximus on the affected side and the contralateral latissimus dorsi. The results indicate that individuals with SIJD exhibited both reduced activation of gluteus maximus during a loading synergy present in walking and greater asymmetry between legs when walking compared with age-matched controls.

Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction exhibit altered movement strategies when performing a sit-to-stand task.

OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ability to rise from a chair is a basic functional task that is frequently compromised in individuals diagnosed with orthopedic disorders in the low back and hip. There is no published literature that describes how this task is altered by sacroiliac joint dysfunction (SIJD). PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare lower extremity biomechanics and the onset of muscle activity when rising from a chair in subjects with SIJD and in healthy persons. STUDY DESIGN: Six women with unilateral SIJD and six age-matched healthy controls performed a sit-to-stand task while we measured kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects stood up at a preferred speed from a seated position on an armless and backless adjustable stool. We measured kinematics with a 10-camera motion capture system, ground reaction forces for each leg with force plates, and muscle activity with surface electromyography. Joint angles and torques were calculated using inverse dynamics. Leg-loading rate was quantified as the average slope of vertical ground reaction (VGRF) force during the 500-millisecond interval preceding maximal knee extension. RESULTS: Between-leg differences in loading rates and peak VGRFs were significantly greater for the SIJD group than for the control group. Maximal hip angles were significantly less for the SIJD group (p=.001). Peak hip moment in the SIJD group was significantly greater in the unaffected leg (0.75±0.22 N⋅m/kg) than in the affected leg (0.47±0.29 N⋅m/kg, p=.005). There were no between-leg or between-group differences for peak knee or ankle moments. The onset of activity in the latissimus dorsi muscle on the affected side was delayed and the erector spinae muscles were activated earlier in the SIJD group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with SIJD have a greater VGRF on the unaffected leg, generate a greater peak hip moment in the unaffected leg, use a smaller range of motion at the hip joint of the affected leg, and delay the onset of a key muscle on the affected side when rising from a seated position.

Foreword: Proceedings From the First Annual Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Summit.

: This publication focuses on proceedings from the First Annual Lumbar Total Disc Replacement Summit, held October 25, 2016 in Boston, MA. The Summit brought together 17 thought leading surgeons who employed a modified-Delphi method to determine where consensus existed pertaining to the utilization of lumbar total disc replacement as a standard of care for a subpopulation of patients suffering from degenerative disc disease.