Platelet-Rich Plasma, Bone Morphogenetic Protein, and Stem Cell Therapies.

The frequency of use of "biologics," including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), and stem cell therapies in the treatment of orthopaedic conditions has significantly increased over the past few decades. The use of PRP and stem cells has been proposed for a wide variety of conditions including knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA), tendon strains and tendinopathies, muscle strains, and acute and chronic soft-tissue injuries. It has also been proposed for use in the enhancement of healing during surgical treatments. BMP has seen use in promoting fracture union and spinal fusion and has been researched as an adjunct in other procedures as well. The current state of the literature in the use and support of these biologics is outlined here.

Minimally invasive direct pars repair with cannulated screws and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein: case series and review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to describe the use of a minimally invasive surgical treatment of lumbar spondylolysis in athletes by a fluoroscopically guided direct pars screw placement with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and to report on clinical and radiographic outcomes. METHODS A retrospective review was conducted of all patients treated surgically for lumbar spondylolysis via a minimally invasive direct pars repair with cannulated screws. Demographic information, clinical features of presentation, perioperative and intraoperative radiographic imaging, and postoperative data were collected. A 1-cm midline incision was performed for the placement of bilateral pars screws utilizing biplanar fluoroscopy, followed by placement of a fully threaded 4.0-mm-diameter titanium cannulated screw. A tubular table-mounted retractor was utilized for direct pars fracture visualization and debridement through a separate incision. The now-visualized pars fracture could then be decorticated, with care taken not to damage the titanium screw when using a high-speed drill. Local bone obtained from the curettage was then placed in the defect with 1.05 mg rhBMP-2 divided equally between the bilateral pars defects. RESULTS Nine patients were identified (mean age 17.7 ± 3.42 years, range 14-25 years; 6 male and 3 female). All patients had bilateral pars fractures of L-4 (n = 4) or L-5 (n = 5). The mean duration of preoperative symptoms was 17.22 ± 13.2 months (range 9-48 months). The mean operative duration was 189 ± 29 minutes (range 151-228 minutes). The mean intraoperative blood loss was 17.5 ± 10 ml (range 10-30 ml). Radiographic follow-up was available in all cases; the mean length of time from surgery to the most recent imaging study was 30.8 ± 23.3 months (range 3-59 months). The mean hospital length of stay was 1.13 ± 0.35 days (range 1-2 days). There were no intraoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS Lumbar spondylolysis treatment with a minimally invasive direct pars repair is a safe and technically feasible option that minimizes muscle and soft-tissue dissection, which may particularly benefit adolescent patients with a desire to return to a high level of physical activity.

Direct lateral retroperitoneal approach for the surgical treatment of lumbar discitis and osteomyelitis.

OBJECT: The medical management of discitis and osteomyelitis with long-term antibiotic therapy and bracing usually results in eradicated infection. Surgical management is appropriate when medical management fails and in some cases with pyogenic deformity or neurological deficit. The success of surgery depends on adequate debridement of the necrotic infected disc and vertebral body, along with anterior column reconstruction and vertebral stabilization. Debridement is typically performed via an anterior retroperitoneal approach, which can necessitate mobilization of the great vessels for proper exposure. Mobilization can be technically difficult and lead to vascular injury. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an alternative technique for the surgical treatment of lumbar discitis and osteomyelitis using a direct lateral retroperitoneal approach, which allows for thorough debridement and anterior column reconstruction while avoiding the need to mobilize the great vessels. METHODS: A retrospective chart analysis was performed for all patients who had presented with lumbar discitis and osteomyelitis and had undergone surgical management via the direct lateral retroperitoneal approach in the period from 2006 to 2013. Collected data included surgical blood loss, perioperative complications (wound infection, vascular injury, approach-related complications, and neurological injury), need for secondary procedures, microbiological and laboratory results, and efficacy of infection eradication. Imaging studies were reviewed as well. RESULTS: Ten patients, 7 male and 3 female, underwent this procedure at the authors' institution in the defined period. Average blood loss was 272 ml (range 150-800 ml, with 800 ml in the only 2-level case). There were no vascular injuries. Average follow-up was 680 days, although 4 patients did not complete the follow-up beyond 6 months. Eight patients underwent immediate posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Two patients did not undergo posterior instrumentation, and one of these developed a kyphotic deformity that required a secondary posterior procedure. Infection was eradicated in all patients according to a history, physical examination, imaging studies, and laboratory parameters (complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein). One patient developed a painful neuroma at the iliac crest harvest site, and one patient had a retroperitoneal hematoma. Otherwise, there were no approach-related neurological injuries or complications. Neither was there any postoperative surgical site infection. CONCLUSIONS: The direct lateral approach for the surgical treatment of lumbar discitis and osteomyelitis allows for thorough debridement and spinal reconstruction without the need to mobilize the great vessels. This technique effectively eradicated infection in all cases, with reasonable blood loss and no vascular injuries. This approach should be considered as an alternative to the open anterior approach. The authors recommend posterior instrumentation to prevent the development of kyphosis.

Spine surgeon triage of new patient referrals: quantification of surgical conversion rate by clinic referral source.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In an effort to efficiently deliver high-value spine surgical care, spine surgery clinics may triage new patient referrals. A triage system with attending surgeon review of referred patient images may improve the surgical conversion rate (SCR) of a spine surgical clinic, and shift the distribution of new patients in clinic toward those most likely to derive benefit from surgery. PURPOSE: To quantify SCR and number of triage steps by referral source in a tertiary referral spine clinic where all referrals are triaged by attending surgeons. DESIGN: All spine surgery clinic patients seen for a new patient visit (NPV) at an academic medical center over a one-year period had their triage process and outcome (surgery or no surgery) reviewed. PATIENT SAMPLE: The 1398 new adult patients seen for elective spine pathology were queried. OUTCOME MEASURES: SCR was defined as the percentage of new patients who underwent elective spine surgery within 18 months of NPV. Triage steps were defined as an action item by triage staff (ie, obtaining patient records) or by the patient (ie, undergoing additional imaging). METHODS: All new patient visits were evaluated for referral source, number of triage steps, and triage outcome. Time from referral to NPV, and time from NPV to surgery were also recorded. SCR, triage steps, and time-intervals were calculated for each surgeon and referral source and compared. Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to ascertain differences. RESULTS: The overall SCR for the 4-surgeon group was 41.6%. This ranged among the surgeons from 24.7% to 60.1%. The referral sources with the highest SCR were in-system spine advanced practice providers (APPs) and in-system physical medicine and rehabilitation providers. Spine APPs also demonstrated the smoothest referral process, requiring the fewest steps. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a framework for assessment of triage processes at other institutions, as well as the impact of upgrades to our triage process as we work to improve triage efficiency. In the present study, referrals from providers familiar with spine pathology resulted in the highest SCR and fewest triage steps.

Preliminary experience with a novel facet-based lateral mass drill guide for the placement of lateral mass screws compared to freehand technique: a cadaveric study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lateral mass screw fixation is the standard for posterior subaxial cervical fixation. Several freehand surgical techniques for placing lateral mass screws have been described which rely on anatomical landmarks and surgeon mastery of the technique to safely place screws. The accuracy of these freehand techniques is inherently variable and can be influenced by a surgeon's level of clinical experience. A novel technique was developed that utilizes the plane of the facet joint to create lateral mass screw pilot holes parallel with the joint line to improve the safety and accuracy of lateral mass screw placement regardless of experience. PURPOSE: To assess the safety and accuracy of lateral mass screw placement using a novel lateral mass drill guide instrument (LM Guide), compared to standard freehand technique. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized cadaveric study utilizing multiple surgeon evaluators to compare the safety and accuracy of guided cervical lateral mass placement compared to traditional freehand techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral mass screws were placed from C3 to C7 in 20 cadaver specimens by 8 spine surgeons of varying levels of clinical experience (4 attendings, 4 fellows). Screws were placed bilaterally using standard anatomic landmarks ("freehand") randomly allocated on one side and using the LM Guide on the other. Cadaveric specimens were imaged with high-resolution CT to assess screw placement. Zone grading for safety was conducted based on screw tip position and clinical severity of screw breach was based on proximity to surrounding neurovascular anatomy. Screws were graded as safe, at-risk, or critical, with at-risk and critical screws considered malpositioned. To assess the accuracy of screw trajectory placed using the LM Guide compared to freehand, sagittal screw angle was measured and compared to an "ideal" screw path parallel to the facet joint line. Freehand and LM Guide groups were compared using Pearson's chi-square correlation. RESULTS: Screw placement using the LM guide yielded a significantly lower rate of screw malpositioning, with 7 of 91 (7.7%) compared with 18 of 99 (18.2%) screws placed in the At-Risk or Critical Zones, p<.05. Of the 91 screws inserted using the LM Guide, 84 (92.3%) were in the Safe Zone, 7 (7.7%) were At-Risk, and 0 were in Critical zones. There was no incidence of neural or transverse foramen breaches with the LM Guide. In comparison, for the 99 screws inserted freehand, 81 (81.8%) were Safe, 14 (14.1%) were At-Risk, and 4 (4.1%) were in Critical zones. The 4 Critical zone freehand screw breaches included 1 neural foramen breach, 2 transverse foramen breaches, and 1 facet breach. The LM Guide also resulted in higher accuracy of screw trajectory, as indicated by a significant reduction in sagittal screw angle compared with freehand, p<.01. Notably, in the less-experienced surgeon cohort, the LM Guide significantly reduced the sagittal screw angle and resulted in no critical screw breaches compared to 3 critical breaches with freehand technique suggesting there might be a benefit in decreasing the learning curve associated with lateral mass screw placement. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral mass screw placement with a novel LM Guide that uses the facet joint to control screw trajectory improved the accuracy and reproducibility of screw placement with a significant reduction in screw breach rate and sagittal screw angle compared to freehand techniques regardless of surgeon experience level. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The inherent variability of freehand lateral mass screw placement can increase the risk of clinical complications associated with screw malpositioning. The technique presented in this cadaveric study may be a viable alternative to standard freehand technique that can improve the overall safety of lateral mass screw placement.

Pain Plan Implementation Effect: Analysis of Postoperative Opioid Use, Hospital Length of Stay, and Clinic Resource Utilization for Patients Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The Pain Plan was developed collaboratively and implemented a unique systematic approach to reduce opioid usage in elective spine surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients who underwent elective spine surgery before and after Pain Plan implementation. The Pain Plan was implemented on May 1, 2019. The experimental group comprised patients over the subsequent 1-year period with a Pain Plan (n = 319), and the control group comprised patients from the previous year without a Pain Plan (n = 385). Outcome variables include hospital length of stay (LOS), inpatient opioid use, outpatient opioid prescription quantities, number of clinic communication encounters, and communication encounter complexity. Patients were prospectively divided into three surgical invasiveness index subgroups representing small-magnitude, medium-magnitude, and large-magnitude spine surgeries. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant decrease in hospital LOS ( P = 0.028), inpatient opioid use ( P = 0.001), and the average number of steps per communication encounter ( P = 0.010) for Pain Plan patients and a trend toward decreased outpatient opioid prescription quantities ( P = 0.052). No difference was observed in patient-reported pain scores. Statistically significant decreases in inpatient opioid use were seen in large-magnitude (50% reduction, P < 0.001) and medium-magnitude surgeries (49% reduction, P < 0.001). For small-magnitude surgeries, there was no difference (1.7% reduction, P = 0.99). The median LOS for large-magnitude surgeries decreased by 38% (20.5-hour decrease, P < 0.001) and decreased by 34% for medium-magnitude surgeries (17-hour difference, P = 0.055). For small-magnitude surgeries, there was no significant difference ( P = 0.734). Outpatient opioid prescription quantities were markedly decreased in small-magnitude surgeries only. The total number of communication encounters was not statistically significant in any group. However, the number of steps within a communication encounter was significantly decreased ( P = 0.010), and staff survey respondents reported more efficient and effective postoperative pain management for Pain Plan patients. DISCUSSION: Pain Plan implementation markedly decreased hospital LOS, inpatient opioid use and outpatient opioid prescription quantities, and clinic resource utilization in elective spine surgery patients.

Surgeon Learning Curve and Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Percutaneous Instrumentation.

OBJECTIVES: This study reports the learning phase of the minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion (mini-ALIF) approach with a vascular and orthopaedic spine surgeon team. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent primary mini-ALIF at the lowest two segments of the lumbar spine (i.e., L4/5, L5/S1) between January 2010 and December 2018 were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven patients were included. There was no notable change in total surgical time over the study period. Estimated blood loss markedly decreased until stabilizing at case 30 and slowly declined thereafter. The mean estimated blood loss was 184 mL for L5/S1, 232 mL for L4/L5, and 458 mL for two-level mini-ALIF. There were 20 vascular issues requiring primary repair or packing. Vascular issues declined over time, with a rate of 32% in the first 25 cases and 0% in the last 25. The postoperative complication rate was highest in the first 25 cases (7 of 21 total complications). The odds ratio of vascular injury with body mass index (BMI) > 35 was 4.09 (1.4 to 11.7 confidence interval, P ≤ 0.008). Total surgical time and postoperative complications increased with increasing BMI. CONCLUSION: Performance of the mini-ALIF approach is associated with a learning curve of 25 to 30 cases before complications begin to decline. BMI > 35 is associated with increased surgical time and complications.

Effect of Bone Health Optimization on Osteoporosis Screening and Treatment Before Thoracolumbar Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis is not rare in thoracolumbar spine fusion patients and may portend poorer surgical outcomes. Implementation of a bone health optimization (BHO) clinic improves osteoporosis screening and treatment in the total joint arthroplasty population. We hypothesize that preoperative osteoporosis is common, under-recognized, and undertreated in thoracolumbar fusion patients and that a BHO clinic will increase preoperative osteoporosis screening rates and pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment in this population. METHODS: This retrospective case series includes adults older than 30 years who underwent elective thoracolumbar spine fusion at a single tertiary care center before and after creation of a BHO referral clinic. Data collected included preoperative osteoporosis risk factors, prior dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry testing, and prior osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. Fracture risk was estimated using the fracture risk assessment tool with and without bone mineral density (BMD), and the US National Osteoporosis Foundation criteria for screening and treatment were applied. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included in the pre-BHO group; 53 patients met criteria for BMD measurement, but only 10 were tested within 2 years preoperatively. Sixteen patients (18%) met criteria for osteoporosis pharmacotherapy, but only 5 of the 16 (31%) received osteoporosis medication within 6 months of surgery. There were 87 patients in the post-BHO group, and 19 were referred to the BHO clinic. BMD measurement was done in 17 of the patients (89%) referred to the BHO clinic compared with 10% for those not referred. All patients (n = 7) referred to the BHO clinic meeting treatment criteria received treatment within 6 months before surgery, whereas only 25% of the patients not referred received treatment. DISCUSSION: Osteoporosis is not rare in adults undergoing thoracolumbar spine fusion with ∼13% to 18% meeting criteria for pharmacotherapy. Preoperative BHO referral increases screening and treatment.

Utilizing previous patient opioid experiences for pain plan implementation: Role of opioid use categorization on inpatient and outpatient opioid use, length of stay, pain scores, and clinic resource utilization following elective spine surgery.

Background: A Pain Plan was formulated for all patients undergoing elective spine surgery at our institution. It was based on prior opioid experiences and developed collaboratively between the patient and the surgeon at a preoperative clinic visit. Category 1 patients had no previous opioid experience, Category 2 patients had remote previous opioid experience with acceptable pain control and no side effects, Category 3 patients had remote previous opioid experience with unacceptable pain control and/or side effects, and Category 4 patients had opioid use leading up to surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing adult patients within four different pain plan categories over one year (n = 313) to determine if categorization is predictive. Demographic data collected included age, gender, ASA class, BMI, smoking status, insurance status, substance abuse, and comorbid psychiatric diagnoses. Demographic factors between categories were compared and controlled for as covariates within analyses. Outcomes measures comprised self-reported pain scores and functional measurements, including inpatient opioid use, outpatient opioid prescription quantities, and postoperative healthcare utilization. Results: Inpatient and outpatient opioid use were statistically significant amongst the categories, with prescription quantities greatest in Category 4, followed by Categories 2, 3, and 1, respectively. There was no difference in LOS or complexity of communication encounters amongst any of the groups. Patient-reported pain scores showed statistically significant differences and followed the same trend as opioid quantities, 4, 2, 3, and 1. The number of communication encounters was significant exclusively for Category 3 vs. 4. Conclusions: The use of categorization in Pain Plan formation has been a helpful tool for postoperative pain management at our institution. Categorization is predictive of pain scores and opioid use after surgery, allowing the surgical team to tailor their care and counseling towards individual patients. In addition, the plan's collaborative nature enables patients to be involved in their pain management decisions while also setting limits and expectations.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adjacent Segment Degeneration.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Assessment of outcomes in patients undergoing lateral interbody fusion as part of the surgical treatment of adjacent segment deterioration after previous lumbar spine fusion. METHODS: Adult patients with previous lumbar posterior spinal fusion who presented with adjacent segment degeneration and stenosis refractory to nonoperative treatment and who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed and comparisons made between preoperative baseline and postoperative values. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration at 46 motion segments were included. Thirty (83.3%) of the 36 patients had complete relief of both preoperative lower extremity pain and back pain at the time of final follow-up. Six (16.7%) of the 36 patients had persistent pain, though in all 6 cases, the pain was less postoperatively than preoperatively. Oswestry Disability Index scores were improved significantly at final follow-up (P = .001). Compared with preoperative baseline parameters, initial and final postoperative radiographs had an increase in segmental lordosis (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively), increase in overall lumbar lordosis (P < .05 and P = .094, respectively), decrease in segmental coronal angulation (P = .63 and P < .01, respectively), decrease in overall coronal angulation (P = .063 and P = .009, respectively), and increase in intervertebral height (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion achieves favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes for the treatment of adjacent segment degeneration after previous lumbar fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Factors Considered in Ranking Spine Surgery Fellowship Applicants: A Survey of Program Directors.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors spine surgery fellowship program directors (PDs) consider most important when ranking applicants. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine surgery is a popular orthopedic subspecialty. As such, the spine fellowship match process is highly competitive. Surveys of fellowship PDs in orthopedic sports medicine and hand surgery have demonstrated differing opinions regarding factors considered most important when ranking fellowship applicants. The factors considered important to spine surgery fellowship PDs have not been evaluated. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was sent to the PDs of all spine surgery fellowships participating in the San Francisco (SF) Match Program. The questions were designed to identify criteria considered most important in ranking spine surgery fellowship applicants. A list of 12 criteria was presented and PDs were asked to rank these in order of importance. A weighted score for each criterion was calculated using the following scale: 5 points for each criterion ranked 1st, 4 points for 2nd, 3 points for 3rd, 2 points for 4th, and 1 point for 5th. RESULTS: Of the 73 PDs queried, 52 responded (71% response rate). The interview was the most important factor when ranking fellowship applicants. The other criteria deemed most important in order of weighted scoring were letters of recommendation and personal connections to the applicant and/or familiarity with the applicant's letter writer(s). CONCLUSION: Spine surgery fellowship PDs consider the interview, letters of recommendation, and personal connections with the applicant/letter writers to be the most important factors when ranking candidates. These results may be valuable to orthopedic residents and mentors of those pursuing fellowship training in spine surgery.Level of Evidence: 4.

A Multicenter Evaluation of the Feasibility, Patient/Provider Satisfaction, and Value of Virtual Spine Consultation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, patient/provider satisfaction, and perceived value of telehealth spine consultation after rapid conversion from traditional in-office visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Data were obtained for patients undergoing telehealth visits with spine surgeons in the first 3 weeks after government restriction of elective surgical care at 4 sites (March 23, 2020, to April 17, 2020). Demographic factors, technique-specific elements of the telehealth experience, provider confidence in diagnostic and therapeutic assessment, patient/surgeon satisfaction, and perceived value were collected. RESULTS: A total of 128 unique visits were analyzed. New (74 [58%]), preoperative (26 [20%]), and postoperative (28 [22%]) patients were assessed. A total of 116 (91%) visits had successful connection on the first attempt. Surgeons felt very confident 101 times (79%) when assessing diagnosis and 107 times (84%) when assessing treatment plan. The mean and median patient satisfaction was 89% and 94%, respectively. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for video over audio-only visits (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different with patient age, location of chief complaint (cervical or thoracolumbar), or visit type (new, preoperative, or postoperative). Providers reported that 76% of the time they would choose to perform the visit again in telehealth format. Sixty percent of patients valued the visit cost as the same or slightly less than an in-office consultation. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate the feasibility and high patient/provider satisfaction of virtual spine surgical consultation, and appropriate reimbursement and balanced regulation for spine telehealth care is essential to continue this existing work.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive technique that allows access to the lumbar spine from L1/2 to L4/5 for placement of wide interbody devices. This technique is used in the treatment of degenerative conditions, deformity, and infectious, neoplastic, and traumatic thoracolumbar pathology. LLIF allows placement of interbody devices across the apophysis, which leads to powerful coronal deformity correction and indirect decompression from restoration of disk height. Literature shows equivalent to superior outcomes of the LLIF technique to anterior or posterior techniques in the treatment of degenerative conditions while avoiding the complications associated with larger procedures.

Percutaneous and open iliac screw safety and accuracy using a tactile technique with adjunctive anteroposterior fluoroscopy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: All currently described percutaneous iliac screw placement methods are entirely dependent on fluoroscopy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and the accuracy of percutaneous and open iliac screw placement using a primarily tactile technique with adjunctive anteroposterior (AP) fluoroscopy. STUDY DESIGN/CONTEXT: All patients who underwent open and percutaneous iliac screw placement over a 5-year period were identified. Charts were reviewed to assess for any instances of neurologic or vascular injury associated with iliac screw placement. Screw accuracy was judged with postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 133 patients were identified who underwent open or percutaneous iliac screw placement. Computed tomography scans were available for 57 patients, and all of these patients were included in the study, with a total of 115 iliac screws. OUTCOME MEASURES: Radiographic measurements were performed, consisting of the distance of the iliac screw to the sciatic notch on postoperative radiographs and CT scans. Computed tomography scans were used to determine iliac screw accuracy. METHODS: Charts were reviewed to assess for any neurologic or vascular injuries related to screw placement. The distance of the iliac screw to the sciatic notch was measured and compared on AP radiography and CT scans. Computed tomography scans were assessed for any screw violation of the iliac cortex or the sciatic notch. The accuracy of open iliac screw placement was compared with minimally invasive percutaneous placement. RESULTS: There were no neurologic or vascular injuries related to screw placement in the 133 patients. Computed tomography scans were available for 115 iliac screws, with 3 cortical breaches, all by less than 2 mm. All 112 other screws were accurately intraosseous. There was a strong correlation between the iliac screw to the sciatic notch distance when measured by CT scan compared with AP radiography (r=0.9), thus validating the accuracy of AP fluoroscopy in guiding iliac screw placement with respect to the sciatic notch. Iliac screw accuracy was equal with the open and percutaneous insertion techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The described surgical technique represents a safe and reliable surgical option for iliac screw placement. Intraoperative AP fluoroscopy accurately reflects the distance of the iliac screw to the sciatic notch. Percutaneous iliac screws placed with this technique are as accurate as open iliac screws.

Variability in Surgical Treatment of Spondylolisthesis Among Spine Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There are a multitude of treatments for low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. There are no clear guidelines for the optimal approach. OBJECTIVE: To identify the surgical treatment patterns for spondylolisthesis among United States spine surgeons. METHODS: 445 spine surgeons in the United States completed a survey of clinical/radiographic case scenarios on patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis with neurogenic claudication with (S+BP) or without (S-BP) associated mechanical back pain. Treatment options included decompression, laminectomy with posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, or none of the above. The primary outcome measure was the probability of 2 randomly chosen surgeons disagreeing on the treatment method. RESULTS: There was 64% disagreement (36% agreement) among surgeons for treatment of spondylolisthesis with mechanical back pain (S+BP) and 71% disagreement (29% agreement) for spondylolisthesis without mechanical back pain (S-BP). For S+BP, disagreement was 52% for those practicing 5 to 10 years versus 70% among those practicing more than 20 years. Orthopedic surgeons had greater disagreement than did neurosurgeons (76% vs. 56%) for S+BP. Greater clinical equipoise was seen for S-BP than for S+BP regardless of surgeon characteristics. For spondylolisthesis without mechanical back pain, neurosurgeons were significantly more likely to select decompression-only than were orthopedic surgeons, who more commonly selected fusion. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical equipoise exists for the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Differences are greater when the patient presents without associated back pain. Surgeon case volume, practice duration, and specialty training influence operative decisions for a given pathologic condition. Recognizing this practice variation will hopefully lead to better evidence and practice guidelines for the optimal and most cost-effective treatment paradigms.

Spine Surgeon Treatment Variability: The Impact on Costs.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. OBJECTIVES: Given the lack of strong evidence/guidelines on appropriate treatment for lumbar spine disease, substantial variability exists among surgical treatments utilized, which is associated with differences in costs to treat a given pathology. Our goal was to investigate the variability in costs among spine surgeons nationally for the same pathology in similar patients. METHODS: Four hundred forty-five spine surgeons completed a survey of clinical and radiographic case scenarios on patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation, low back pain, and spondylolisthesis. Those surveyed were asked to provide various details including their geographical location, specialty, and fellowship training. Treatment options included no surgery, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, and transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Costs were estimated via Medicare national payment amounts. RESULTS: For recurrent lumbar disc herniation, no difference in costs existed for patients undergoing their first revision microdiscectomy. However, for patients undergoing another microdiscectomy, surgeons who operated <100 times/year had significantly lower costs than those who operated >200 times/year (P < .001) and those with 5-15 years of experience had significantly higher costs than those with >15 years (P < .001). For the treatment of low back pain, academic surgeons kept costs about 55% lower than private practice surgeons (P < .001). In the treatment of spondylolisthesis, there was significant treatment variability without significant differences in costs. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability in surgical treatment paradigms exists for different pathologies. Understanding why variability in treatment selection exists in similar clinical contexts across practices is important to ensure the most cost-effective delivery of care among spine surgeons.

Percutaneous Lumbopelvic Fixation for Reduction and Stabilization of Sacral Fractures With Spinopelvic Dissociation Patterns.

Sacral fractures that result in spinopelvic dissociation are unstable injuries that are often treated surgically, with iliosacral screw fixation and/or lumbopelvic fixation from L4 to the pelvis. Open lumbopelvic fixation allows for direct fracture reduction and immediate postoperative weight bearing, but is associated with a relatively high wound complication rate. Open surgery often takes several hours and can be associated with significant blood loss, and therefore may not be well tolerated physiologically in these patients who often have multiple injuries. We developed a percutaneous lumbopelvic reduction and fixation technique to address these issues.

The use of intraoperative triggered electromyography to detect misplaced pedicle screws: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECT: Insertion of instruments or implants into the spine carries a risk for injury to neural tissue. Triggered electromyography (tEMG) is an intraoperative neuromonitoring technique that involves electrical stimulation of a tool or screw and subsequent measurement of muscle action potentials from myotomes innervated by nerve roots near the stimulated instrument. The authors of this study sought to determine the ability of tEMG to detect misplaced pedicle screws (PSs). METHODS: The authors searched the U.S. National Library of Medicine, the Web of Science Core Collection database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for PS studies. A meta-analysis of these studies was performed on a per-screw basis to determine the ability of tEMG to detect misplaced PSs. Sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) were calculated overall and in subgroups. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included in the systematic review. The authors analyzed 18 studies in which tEMG was used during PS placement in the meta-analysis, representing data from 2932 patients and 15,065 screws. The overall sensitivity of tEMG for detecting misplaced PSs was 0.78, and the specificity was 0.94. The overall ROC AUC was 0.96. A tEMG current threshold of 10-12 mA (ROC AUC 0.99) and a pulse duration of 300 µsec (ROC AUC 0.97) provided the most accurate testing parameters for detecting misplaced screws. Screws most accurately conducted EMG signals (ROC AUC 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Triggered electromyography has very high specificity but only fair sensitivity for detecting malpositioned PSs.

Differences in the Surgical Treatment of Lower Back Pain Among Spine Surgeons in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN: Electronic survey. OBJECTIVE: To identify the surgical treatment patterns for low back pain (LBP), among U.S. spine surgeons. Specifically determine (1) differences in surgical treatment responses based on various demographic variables; (2) probability of disagreement based on surgeon subgroups. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple surgical and nonsurgical treatments exist for LBP. Without strong evidence or clear guidelines for the indications and optimal treatments, there is substantial variability in surgical treatments used. METHODS: A total of 445 U.S. spine surgeons completed a survey of clinical and radiographic case scenarios on patients with mechanical LBP, no leg pain, and concordant discograms. Surgical treatment options included no surgery, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterolateral fusion with pedicle screws, transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF), etc. Statistical significance was set at 0.01 to account for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: There was substantial clinical equipoise (∼75% disagreement) among surgeons on the approach to treat patients with LBP. Disagreement was highest in the southwest and lowest in the Midwest (82% vs. 69%, respectively); there was significantly lower disagreement among those in academic practices versus those in private/hybrid practices (56% vs.79%, respectively). Those in academic practices had approximately four times greater odds of choosing no surgery as compared to those in hybrid and private practices, who were more likely to choose ALIF or PLIF/TLIF. Those with fellowship training had approximately two times greater odds of selecting no surgery and four times greater odds of selecting ALIF as compared to those without fellowship training who were more likely to select TLIF/PLIF. CONCLUSION: Significant differences exist among U.S. spine surgeons in the treatment of LBP. These differences stem from geographical location of the practice, specialty, practice type, and fellowship training. Recognizing the substantial variability underlies the importance of additional studies aimed at identifying the proper indications and most cost-effective treatments for LBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Lumbar Fusion: A Comparison of Blood Loss, Surgical Complications, and Hospital Course.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative blood loss is a frequent concern in spine surgery and often necessitates the use of allogeneic transfusion. Minimally invasive technique (MIS) is an option that minimizes surgical trauma and therefore intra-operative bleeding. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the blood loss, surgical complications, and duration of inpatient hospitalization in patients undergoing open posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF), open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with PLF, or MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). METHODS: Operative reports and perioperative data of patients undergoing single-level, primary open PLF (n=41), open PLIF/PLF (n=42), and MIS TLIF (n=71) were retrospectively evaluated. Patient demographics, operative blood loss, use of transfusion products, complications, and length of stay were tabulated. Patient data was controlled for age, BMI, and gender for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Patients undergoing open PLF and open PLIF/PLF respectively experienced a significantly higher blood loss (p<0.001), higher volume of blood transfusion (p<0.001), higher volume of cell saver transfusion (p<0.001), and more surgical complications (dural injury, wound infections, screw malposition) (p=0.02) than those undergoing MIS TLIF. There was no statistically significant difference in duration of hospital stay (p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: MIS TLIF provides interbody fusion with less intraoperative blood loss and subsequently a lower transfusion rate compared to open techniques, but this did not influence length of hospital stay. MIS TLIF is at least as safe as open techniques with respect to dural tear, wound infection, and screw placement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic.