Robotic assisted surgery for the treatment of spinal metastases: A case series.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal metastases can significantly affect quality of life in patients with cancer and present complex neurosurgical challenges for surgeons. Surgery with instrumentation is often indicated to alleviate pain, preserve neurological function, and ensure mechanical stability. However, distortions in the bony anatomy due to oncological disease can decrease the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. Robotic-assisted surgery may offer an opportunity to increase screw accuracy and improve navigation of spinal lesions compared to conventional techniques. Therefore, we presented our institutional experience evaluating robotic-assisted surgical fixation for spinal metastases. METHODS: Patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery at a large tertiary care center between January 2019 - January 2023 for the treatment of spinal metastases were identified. Patient characteristics, including demographics, tumor pathology, surgical complications, and post-operative outcomes were extracted. The Gertzbein Robbins classification system (GRS) was used to assess pedicle screw placement accuracy in patients with post-operative computed tomography. RESULTS: Twenty patients were identified, including 7 females (35 %), with an overall median age of 66 years (range: 39-80 years) and median BMI of 25 kg/m2 (range: 17-34 kg/m2). An average of four spinal levels were instrumented, with metastases located primarily in the thoracic (n=17, 85 %) spine. Common primary tumor types included prostate (n=4), lung (n=2), and plasma cell (n=2) cancers. Most pedicle screws (92 %) were classified as GRS A in patients with postoperative imaging. Post-operative complications were unrelated to the use of the robot, and included pulmonary embolism (n=1), deep vein thrombosis (n=2), and gastric symptoms (n=3). Three patients were readmitted at 30 days, with one reoperation due to tumor recurrence. Four patients were deceased within 6 months of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the inherent high-risk nature of these surgeries, this study underscores the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted surgery in the management of spinal metastases. Robots can be helpful in ensuring accuracy of pedicle screw placement in patients with metastatic disease.

Does Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use Reduce Pseudarthrosis Rates in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries?

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2, or BMP for short) is a popular biological product used in spine surgeries to promote fusion and avoid the morbidity associated with iliac crest autograft. BMP's effect on pseudarthrosis in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates of pseudarthrosis in single-level TLIF with and without concurrent use of BMP. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a single academic institution. Adults undergoing primary single-level TLIF with a minimum of 1 year of clinical and radiographic follow-up were included. BMP use was determined by operative notes at index surgery. Non-BMP cases with iliac crest bone graft were excluded. Pseudarthrosis was determined using radiographic and clinical evaluation. Bivariate differences between groups were assessed by independent t test and χ 2 analyses, and perioperative characteristics were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight single-level TLIF patients were included. The mean age was 59.3 years, and 52.0% were women. There were no demographic differences between patients who received BMP and those who did not. Pseudarthrosis rates in patients treated with BMP were 6.2% vs 7.5% in the no BMP group (P = 0.756). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between patients who received BMP (3.7%) vs those who did not receive BMP (7.5%, P = 0.314). Patients who underwent revision surgery for pseudarthrosis more commonly had diabetes with end-organ damage (revised 37.5% vs not revised 1.4%, P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated no reduction in reoperation for pseudarthrosis related to BMP use (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-3.7, P = 0.269). Diabetes with end-organ damage (OR 112.6,95% CI 5.7-2225.8, P = 0.002) increased the risk of reoperation for pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSIONS: BMP use did not reduce the rate of pseudarthrosis or the number of reoperations for pseudarthrosis in single-level TLIFs. Diabetes with end-organ damage was a significant risk factor for pseudarthrosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BMP is frequently used "off-label" in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; however, little data exists to demonstrate its safety and efficacy in this procedure.

Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Increases Operative Efficiency and Maintains Safety in Revision Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Multi-centre retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning. METHOD: A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1 to 4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the US and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P <0.05. RESULTS: 101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P =0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P =0.668) was similar between groups.Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P =0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150mL P-LLIF vs. 182mL L-LLIF, P =0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3d, P =0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements. CONCLUSION: P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Exoscope Use in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review of Applications, Benefits, and Limitations.

BACKGROUND: Exoscopes were recently developed as an alternative to the operative microscope (OM) and endoscope for intraoperative visualization during neurosurgery. Prior reviews studying mixed cranial and spinal surgical cohorts reported advantages with exoscope use, including improved ergonomics and teaching. In recent years, there has been an increase in exoscope research, with no updated systematic review focused exclusively on the benefits and limitations of exoscope use in spine surgery. Thus, we sought to systematically synthesize the literature related to exoscope-assisted spine surgery. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies reported between 2010 and September 2023. Data, such as the exoscope model used, procedure types performed, and user observations, were then collected. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies met our inclusion criteria, including 481 patients with spine pathologies who underwent a surgical procedure using 1 of 9 exoscope models. The lumbar region was the most frequently operated area (n = 234; 48.6%), and discectomies comprised the most overall procedures (n = 273; 56.8%). All patients benefited clinically. The reported advantages of exoscopes compared with OMs or endoscopes were improved focal distance, surgeon posture, trainee education, compactness, and assistant participation. Other aspects such as stereopsis, illumination, and cost had various observations. CONCLUSIONS: Exoscopes have advantages compared with OMs or endoscopes during spine surgery. The user learning curve is minimal, and no negative patient outcomes have been reported. However, some aspects of exoscope use necessitate longer term prospective research before exoscopes can be considered a standard tool in the armamentarium of intraoperative visualization strategies.

A Century of Evolution in Spine Surgery Publications: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Field From 1900 to 2023.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Spine surgery has advanced in concert with our deeper understanding of its elements. Narrowly focused bibliometric analyses have been conducted previously, but never on the entire corpus of the field. Using big data and bibliometrics, we appraised the entire corpus of spine surgery publications to study the evolution of the specialty as a scholarly field since 1900. METHODS: We queried Web of Science for all contents from 13 major publications dedicated to spine surgery. We next queried by topic [topic = (spine OR spinal OR vertebrae OR vertebral OR intervertebral OR disc OR disk)]; these results were filtered to include articles published by 49 other publications that were manually determined to contain pertinent articles. Articles, along with their metadata, were exported. Statistical and bibliometric analyses were performed using the Bibliometrix R package and various Python packages. RESULTS: Eighty-five thousand five hundred articles from 62 journals and 134 707 unique authors were identified. The annual growth rate of publications was 2.78%, with a surge after 1980, concurrent with the growth of specialized journals. International coauthorship, absent before 1970, increased exponentially with the formation of influential spine study groups. Reference publication year spectroscopy allowed us to identify 200 articles that comprise the historical roots of modern spine surgery and each of its subdisciplines. We mapped the emergence of new topics and saw a recent lexical evolution toward outcomes- and patient-centric terms. Female and minority coauthorship has increased since 1990, but remains low, and disparities across major publications persist. CONCLUSION: The field of spine surgery was borne from pioneering individuals who published their findings in a variety of journals. The renaissance of spine surgery has been powered by international collaboration and is increasingly outcomes focused. While spine surgery is gradually becoming more diverse, there is a clear need for further promotion and outreach to under-represented populations.

Association Between the Bone Density of Posterior Fusion Mass and Mechanical Complications After Thoracolumbar Three-Column Osteotomy for Adult Spinal Deformity.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship of fusion mass bone density on computed tomography (CT) and the development of rod fractures (RFs) and proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have evaluated the relationship of fusion mass bone density to mechanical complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of adult spinal deformity patients who underwent thoracolumbar three-column osteotomy from 2007 to 2017 was performed. All patients underwent routine 1-year CT imaging and had at least 24 months follow-up. Posterior fusion mass bone density was evaluated by measuring hounsfield unit (HU) on CT in three different regions [upper instrumented vertebra (UIV), lower instrumented vertebra, and osteotomy site], and were compared between patients with and without mechanical complications. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients (63.2 years, 33.5% male) were included. Overall PJK rate was 18.8%, and 35.5% of these underwent PJK revision. There was significantly lower density of posterior fusion mass at the UIV in patients who experienced PJK compared with patients without PJK (431.5HU vs. 537.4HU, P =0.026). Overall RF rate was 34.5% and 61.4% of these underwent revision for RFs. Among 57 patients with RFs, 71.9% had pseudarthrosis. Fusion mass density did not differ between patients with or without RFs. However, in RF patients with pseudarthrosis, there was significantly higher bone mass density near the osteotomy compared with those without pseudarthrosis (515.7HU vs. 354.2HU, P =0.012). There were no differences in radiographic sagittal measures between the patients with and without RF or PJK. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PJK tend to have less dense posterior fusion mass at the UIV. Fusion mass density does not correlate with RF, but greater bone density near the osteotomy was correlated with accompanying pseudarthrosis in patients with RFs. Assessing density of posterior fusion mass on CT may be helpful in assessing risk for PJK and provide insight as to the causes of RFs.

Multidisciplinary conference for complex surgery leads to improved quality and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Complex surgery for adult spinal deformity has high rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Preoperative discussions of high-risk operative spine patients at a multidisciplinary conference may contribute to decreased rates of these adverse outcomes through appropriate patient selection and surgical plan optimization. With this goal, we implemented a high-risk case conference involving orthopedic and neurosurgery spine, anesthesia, intraoperative monitoring neurology, and neurological intensive care. METHODS: Included in this retrospective review were patients ≥ 18 years old meeting one of the following high-risk criteria: 8 + levels fused, osteoporosis with 4 + levels fused, three column osteotomy, anterior revision of the same lumbar level, or planned significant correction for severe myelopathy, scoliosis (> 75˚), or kyphosis (> 75˚). Patients were categorized as Before Conference (BC): surgery before 2/19/2019 or After Conference (AC): surgery after 2/19/2019. Outcome measures include intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperations. RESULTS: 263 patients were included (96 AC, 167 BC). AC was older than BC (60.0 vs 54.6, p = 0.025) and had lower BMI (27.1 vs 28.9, p = 0.047), but had similar CCI (3.2 vs 2.9 p = 0.312), and ASA Classification (2.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.790). Surgical characteristics, including levels fused (10.6 vs 10.7, p = 0.839), levels decompressed (1.29 vs 1.25, p = 0.863), 3 column osteotomies (10.4% vs 18.6%, p = 0.080), anterior column release (9.4% vs 12.6%, p = 0.432), and revision cases (53.1% vs 52.4%, p = 0.911) were similar between AC and BC. AC had lower EBL (1.1 vs 1.9L, p < 0.001) and fewer total intraoperative complications (16.7% vs 34.1%, p = 0.002), including fewer dural tears (4.2% vs 12.6%, p = 0.025), delayed extubations (8.3% vs 22.8%%, p = 0.003), and massive blood loss (4.2% vs 13.2%, p = 0.018). Length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups (7.2 vs 8.2 days, 0.251). AC had a lower incidence of deep surgical site infections (SSI, 1.0% vs 6.6%, p = 0.038), but a higher rate of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy (18.8% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). Other postoperative complications were similar between groups. AC had lower rates of reoperation at 30 (2.1% vs 8.4%, p = 0.040) and 90 days (3.1 vs 12.0%, p = 0.014) and lower readmission rates at 30 (3.1% vs 10.2%, p = 0.038) and 90 days (6.3 vs 15.0%, p = 0.035). On logistic regression, AC patients had higher odds of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy and lower odds of delayed extubation, intraoperative RBC, and intraoperative salvage blood. CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of a multidisciplinary high-risk case conference, 30- and 90-day reoperation and readmission rates, intraoperative complications, and postoperative deep SSIs decreased. Hypotensive events requiring vasopressors increased, but did not result in longer LOS or greater readmissions. These associations suggest a multidisciplinary conference may help improve quality and safety for high-risk spine patients. particularly through minimizing complications and optimizing outcomes in complex spine surgery.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior posterior surgery improves operative efficiency, improves perioperative outcomes, and maintains radiological outcomes comparable with traditional anterior posterior fusion at minimum 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The advantages of lateral single position surgery (LSPS) in the perioperative period has previously been demonstrated, however 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively. PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSPS versus gold-standard FLIP STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Four hundred forty-two patients undergoing lumbar fusion via LSPS or FLIP OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and reasons for reoperation at 30-days, 90-days, 1-year, and 2-years. Radiographic outcomes included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, and segmental lumbar lordosis. METHODS: Patients were grouped as LSPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure under the same anesthetic. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2-years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<.05. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-two patients met inclusion, including 352 LSPS and 90 FLIP patients. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs 56.9; p≤.001) and smoking status (7% vs 16%; p=.023) between the LSPS and FLIP groups. LSPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p<.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p<.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p<.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs 3.61 days; p<.001) compared to FLIP. LSPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9% vs 34.4%; p=.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p<.001). No differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%LSPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=.125), 90-day (5.1%LSPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.441). LSPS group had a significantly lower preoperative PI-LL (4.1° LSPS vs 8.6°FLIP, p=.018), and a significantly greater postoperative LL (56.6° vs 51.8°, p = .006). No significant differences were noted in rates of fusion (94.3% LSPS vs 97.8% FLIP; p=.266) or subsidence (6.9% LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.260). CONCLUSIONS: LSPS and circumferential fusions have similar outcomes at 2-years post-operatively, while reducing perioperative complications, improving perioperative efficiency and safety.

Comparative Analysis of Inpatient Opioid Consumption Between Different Surgical Approaches Following Single Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate inpatient MME administration associated with different lumbar spinal fusion surgeries. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of Grade I or II spondylolisthesis, stenosis, degenerative disc disease or pars defect who underwent one-level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) or one-level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) or Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) through traditional MIS, anterior-posterior position or single position approaches between L2-S1. Outcome measures included patient demographics, surgical procedure and approach, perioperative clinical characteristics, incidence of ileus and inpatient MME. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA with a post-hoc Tukey Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test with post-hoc Mann-Whitney test. MME was calculated as per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and previous literature. Significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: Mean age differed significantly between MIS TLIF (55.6 ± 12.5 years) and all other groups (Open TLIF 57.1 ± 12.5, SP ALIF/LLIF 57.9 ± 9.9, TP ALIF/LLIF 50.9 ± 12.7, Open ALIF/LLIF 58.4 ± 15.5). MIS TLIF had the shortest LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Total MME was significantly different between MIS TLIF and Open ALIF/LLIF (172.5 MME vs 261.1 MME, P = .044) as well as MIS TLIF and TP ALIF/LLIF (172.5 MME vs 245.4 MME, P = .009). There were no significant differences in MME/hour and incidence of ileus between all groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing MIS TLIF had lower inpatient opioid intake compared to TP and SP ALIF/LLIF, as well as shorter LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Thus, it appears that the advantages of minimally invasive surgery are seen in minimally invasive TLIFs.

Single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion: an overview of terminology, concepts, rationale and the current evidence base.

PURPOSE: To provide definitions and a conceptual framework for single position surgery (SPS) applied to circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine. METHODS: Narrative literature review and experts' opinion. RESULTS: Two major limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been (a) a perceived need to reposition the patient to the prone position for posterior fixation, and (b) the lack of a robust solution for fusion at the L5/S1 level. Recently, two strategies for performing single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion have been described. The combination of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position (LALIF), LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (pPSF) in the lateral decubitus position is known as lateral single-position surgery (LSPS). Prone LLIF (PLLIF) involves transpsoas LLIF done in the prone position that is more familiar for surgeons to then implant pedicle screw fixation. This can be referred to as prone single-position surgery (PSPS). In this review, we describe the evolution of and rationale for single-position spinal surgery. Pertinent studies validating LSPS and PSPS are reviewed and future questions regarding the future of these techniques are posed. Lastly, we present an algorithm for single-position surgery that describes the utility of LALIF, LLIF and PLLIF in the treatment of patients requiring AP lumbar fusions. CONCLUSIONS: Single position surgery in circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine includes posterior fixation in association with any of the following: lateral position LLIF, prone position LLIF, lateral position ALIF, and their combination (lateral position LLIF+ALIF). Preliminary studies have validated these methods.

Spinal exposure for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position: anatomical and technical considerations.

PURPOSE: Single position surgery has demonstrated to reduce hospital length of stay, operative times, blood loss, postoperative pain, ileus, and complications. ALIF and LLIF surgeries offer advantages of placing large interbody devices under direct compression and can be performed by a minimally invasive approach in the lateral position. Furthermore, simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column is possible in the lateral position without the need for patient repositioning. The purpose of this study is to outline the anatomical and technical considerations for performing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS: Surgical technique and technical considerations for reconstruction of the anterior column in the lateral position by ALIF at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels. RESULTS: Topics outlined in this review include: Operating room layout and patient positioning; surgical anatomy and approach; vessel mobilization and retractor placement for L4-5 and L5-S1 lateral ALIF exposure, in addition to comparative technique of disc space preparation, trialing and implant placement compared to the supine ALIF procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior exposure performed in the lateral decubitus position allows safe-, minimally invasive access and implant placement in ALIF. The approach requires less peritoneal and vessel retraction than in a supine position, in addition to allowing simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior columns when performing 360° Anterior-Posterior fusion.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion shows equivalent results to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at one-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: This study compares perioperative and 1-year outcomes of lateral decubitus single position circumferential fusion (L-SPS) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for degenerative pathologies. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective chart review of patients undergoing AP fusion with L-SPS or MIS TLIF. Demographics and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared using independent samples t tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 445 patients were included: 353 L-SPS, 92 MIS TLIF. The L-SPS cohort was significantly older with fewer diabetics and more levels fused. The L-SPS cohort had significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, radiation dosage, and length of stay compared to MIS TLIF. 1-year follow-up showed that the L-SPS cohort had higher rates of fusion (97.87% vs. 81.11%; p = 0.006) and lower rates of subsidence (6.38% vs. 38.46%; p < 0.001) compared with MIS TLIF. There were significantly fewer returns to the OR within 1 year for early mechanical failures with L-SPS (0.0% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001). 1-year radiographic outcomes revealed that the L-SPS cohort had a greater LL (56.6 ± 12.5 vs. 51.1 ± 15.9; p = 0.004), smaller PI-LL mismatch (0.2 ± 13.0 vs. 5.5 ± 10.5; p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in amount of change in VAS scores between cohorts. Similar results were seen after propensity-matched analysis and sub-analysis of cases including L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS: L-SPS improves perioperative outcomes and does not compromise clinical or radiographic results at 1-year follow-up compared with MIS TLIF. There may be decreased rates of early mechanical failure with L-SPS.

Incidence of dysphagia following posterior cervical spine surgery.

Abundant literature exists describing the incidence of dysphagia following anterior cervical surgery; however, there is a paucity of literature detailing the incidence of dysphagia following posterior cervical procedures. Further characterization of this complication is important for guiding clinical prevention and management. Patients ≥ 18 years of age underwent posterior cervical fusion with laminectomy or laminoplasty between C1-T1. Pre- and post-operative dysphagia was assessed by a speech language pathologist. The patient cohort was categorized by approach: Laminectomy + Fusion (LF) and Laminoplasty (LP). Patients were excluded from radiographic analyses if they did not have both baseline and follow-up imaging. The study included 147 LF and 47 LP cases. There were no differences in baseline demographics. There were three patients with new-onset dysphagia in the LF group (1.5% incidence) and no new cases in the LP group (p = 1.000). LF patients had significantly higher rates of post-op complications (27.9% LF vs. 8.5% LP, p = 0.005) but not intra-op complications (6.1% LF vs. 2.1% LP, p = 0.456). Radiographic analysis of the entire cohort showed no significant changes in cervical lordosis, cSVA, or T1 slope. Both group comparisons showed no differences in incidence of dysphagia pre and post operatively. Based on this study, the likelihood of developing dysphagia after LF or LP are similarly low with a new onset dysphagia rate of 1.5%.

Anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine in the lateral decubitus position: anatomical and patient-related considerations for ALIF, anterior-to-psoas, and transpsoas LLIF approaches.

PURPOSE: Circumferential (AP) lumbar fusion surgery is an effective treatment for degenerative and deformity conditions of the spine. The lateral decubitus position allows for simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior aspects of the spine, enabling instrumentation of both columns without the need for patient repositioning. This paper seeks to outline the anatomical and patient-related considerations in anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine from L1-S1 in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS: We detail the anatomic considerations of the lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgical approaches from surgeon experience and comprehensive literature review. RESULTS: Single-position AP surgery allows simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column and may combine ALIF, LLIF, and minimally invasive posterior instrumentation techniques from L1-S1 without patient repositioning. Careful history, physical examination, and imaging review optimize safety and efficacy of lateral ALIF or LLIF surgery. An excellent understanding of patient spinal and abdominal anatomy is necessary. Each approach has relative advantages and disadvantages according to the disc level, skeletal, vascular, and psoas anatomy. CONCLUSIONS: A development of a framework to analyze these factors will result in improved patient outcomes and a reduction in complications for lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgeries.

Single position lateral decubitus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior fusion reduces complications and improves perioperative outcomes compared with traditional anterior-posterior lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion utilizing anterior lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior fixation is a novel, minimally invasive surgical technique. Single position lumbar surgery (SPLS) with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been shown to be a safe, effective technique. This study directly compares perioperative outcomes of SPLS with lateral ALIF vs. traditional supine ALIF with repositioning (FLIP) for degenerative pathologies. PURPOSE: To determine if SPLS with lateral ALIF improves perioperative outcomes compared to FLIP with supine ALIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary AP fusions with ALIF at 5 institutions from 2015 to 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, inclusion of L4-L5, L5-S1, radiation dosage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and PI-LL mismatch. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of primary ALIFs with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L4-S1 over 5 years at 5 institutions. Patients were grouped as FLIP or SPLS. Demographic, procedural, perioperative, and radiographic outcome measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p <.05. Cohorts were propensity-matched for demographic or procedural differences. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients were included; 124 SPS and 197 Flip patients. Propensity-matching yielded 248 patients: 124 SPLS and 124 FLIP. The SPLS cohort demonstrated significantly reduced operative time (132.95±77.45 vs. 261.79±91.65 min; p <0.001), EBL (120.44±217.08 vs. 224.29±243.99 mL; p <.001), LOS (2.07±1.26 vs. 3.47±1.40 days; p <.001), and rate of perioperative ileus (0.00% vs. 6.45%; p =.005). Radiation dose (39.79±31.66 vs. 37.54±35.85 mGy; p =.719) and perioperative complications including vascular injury (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), retrograde ejaculation (0.00% vs. 0.81%, p =.328), abdominal wall (0.81% vs. 2.42%; p =.338), neuropraxia (1.61% vs. 0.81%; p =.532), persistent motor deficit (0.00% vs. 1.61%; p =.166), wound complications (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), or VTE (0.81% vs. 0.81%; p =.972) were similar. No difference was seen in 90-day return to OR. Similar results were noted in sub-analyses of single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 fusions. On radiographic analysis, the SPLS cohort had greater changes in LL (4.23±11.14 vs. 0.43±8.07 deg; p =.005) and PI-LL mismatch (-4.78±8.77 vs. -0.39±7.51 deg; p =.002). CONCLUSIONS: Single position lateral ALIF with percutaneous posterior fixation improves operative time, EBL, LOS, rate of ileus, and maintains safety compared to supine ALIF with prone percutaneous pedicle screws between L4-S1.

Volumetric growth rates of untreated cavernous sinus meningiomas.

OBJECTIVE: Meningiomas that arise primarily within the cavernous sinus are often believed to be more indolent in their growth pattern. Despite this perceived growth pattern, disabling symptoms can arise even with small tumors. While research has been done on cavernous sinus meningiomas (CSMs) and their treatment, very little is known about their natural growth rates. With a better understanding of the growth rate of CSM, patient treatment and guidance can be can optimized and individualized. The goal of this study was to determine volumetric growth rates of untreated CSMs. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with 166 MR images obtained between May 2004 and September 2019 were reviewed, with a range of 2-13 MR images per patient (average of 4.5 MR images per patient). These scans were obtained over an average follow-up period of 45.9 months (median 33.8, range 2.8-136.9 months). All imaging prior to any intervention was included in this analysis. Volumetric measurements were performed and assessed over time. RESULTS: The estimated volumetric growth rate was 23.3% per year (95% CI 10.2%-38.0%, p < 0.001), which is equivalent to an estimated volume doubling time (VDT) of 3.3 years (95% CI 2.1-7.1 years). There was no significant relationship between growth rate and patient age (p = 0.09) or between growth rate and patient sex (p = 0.78). The median absolute growth rate was 41% with a range of -1% to 1793%. With a definition of "growth" as an increase of greater than 20% during the observed period, 65% of tumors demonstrated growth within their observation interval. Growth rates for each tumor were calculated and tumors were segmented based on growth rate. Of 37 patients, 22% (8) demonstrated no growth (< 5% annual growth, equivalent to a VDT > 13.9 years), 32% (12) were designated as slow growth (annual growth rate 5%-20%, VDT 3.5-13.9 years), 38% (14) were found to have medium growth (annual growth rate 20%-100%, VDT 0.7-3.5 years), and 8% were considered fast growing (annual growth rate > 100%, VDT < 0.7 years). CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluated CSM volumetric growth rates. A deeper understanding of the natural history of untreated CSMs allows for better counseling and management of patients.

COVID-19 pandemic and elective spinal surgery cancelations - what happens to the patients?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide suspensions of elective surgeries due to reallocation of resources to the care of COVID-19 patients. Following resumption of elective cases, a significant proportion of patients continued to delay surgery, with many yet to reschedule, potentially prolonging their pain and impairment of function and causing detrimental long-term effects. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients who have and have not rescheduled their spine surgery procedures originally cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to evaluate the reasons for continued deferment of spine surgeries even after the lifting of the mandated suspension of elective surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective case series at a single institution PATIENT SAMPLE: Included were 133 patients seen at a single institution where spine surgery was canceled due to a state-mandated suspension of elective surgeries from March to June, 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: The measures assessed included preoperative diagnoses and neurological dysfunction, surgical characteristics, reasons for surgery deferment, and PROMIS scores of pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function. METHODS: Patient electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients who had not rescheduled their canceled surgery as of January 31, 2021, and did not have a reason noted in their charts were called to determine the reason for continued surgery deferment. Patients were divided into three groups: early rescheduled (ER), late rescheduled (LR), and not rescheduled (NR). ER patients had a date of surgery (DOS) prior to the city's Phase 4 reopening on July 20, 2020; LR patients had a DOS on or after that date. Statistical analysis of the group findings included analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test, independent samples T-test, and chi-square analysis with significance set at p≤.05. RESULTS: Out of 133 patients, 47.4% (63) were in the ER, 15.8% (21) in the LR, and 36.8% (49) in the NR groups. Demographics and baseline PROMIS scores were similar between groups. LR had more levels fused (3.6) than ER (1.6), p= .018 on Tukey HSD. NR (2.1) did not have different mean levels fused than LR or ER, both p= >.05 on Tukey HSD. LR had more three column osteotomies (14.3%) than ER and (1.6%) and NR (2.0%) p=.022, and fewer lumbar microdiscectomies (0%) compared to ER (20.6%) and NR (10.2%), p=.039. Other surgical characteristics were similar between groups. LR had a longer length of stay than ER (4.2 vs 2.4, p=.036). No patients in ER or LR had a nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Of NR, 2.0% have a future surgery date scheduled and 8.2% (4) are acquiring updated exams before rescheduling. 40.8% (20; 15.0% total cohort) continue to defer surgery over concern for COVID-19 exposure and 16.3% (8) for medical comorbidities. 6.1% (3) permanently canceled for symptom improvement. 8.2% (4) had follow-up recommendations for non-surgical management. 4.1% (2) are since deceased. CONCLUSION: Over 1/3 of elective spine surgeries canceled due to COVID-19 have not been performed in the 8 months from when elective surgeries resumed in our institution to the end of the study. ER patients had less complex surgeries planned than LR. NR patients continue to defer surgery primarily over concern for COVID-19 exposure. The toll on the health of these patients as a result of the delay in treatment and on their lives due to their inability to return to normal function remains to be seen.

Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with percutaneous posterior screw fixation are two techniques used to address degenerative lumbar pathologies. Traditionally, these anterior-posterior (AP) surgeries involve repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. To reduce operative time (OpTime) and subsequent complications of prolonged anesthesia, single-position lumbar surgery (SPLS) is a novel, minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position. PURPOSE: Assess the perioperative safety and efficacy of single position AP lumbar fusion surgery (SPLS). STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary ALIF and/or LLIF surgery with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 were included over a 4-year period. Patients were classified as either traditional repositioned "Flip" surgery or SPLS. Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, EBL, LOS, perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included LL, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. All measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p < .05. Propensity matching was completed where demographic differences were found. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. Age, gender, BMI, and CCI were similar between groups. Levels fused (1.47 SPLS vs 1.52 Flip, p = .468) and percent cases including L5-S1 (31% SPLS, 35% Flip, p = .405) were similar between cohorts. SPLS significantly reduced OpTime (103 min vs 306 min, p < .001), EBL (97 vs 313 mL, p < .001), LOS (1.71 vs 4.12 days, p < .001), and fluoroscopy radiation dosage (32 vs 88 mGy, p < .001) compared to Flip. Perioperative complications were similar between cohorts with the exception of postoperative ileus, which was significantly lower in the SPLS group (0% vs 5%, p < .001). There was no significant difference in wound, vascular injury, neurological complications, or Venous Thrombotic Event. There was no significant difference found in 90-day return to operating room (OR). CONCLUSIONS: SPLS improves operative efficiency in addition to reducing blood loss, LOS and ileus in this large cohort study, while maintaining safety.

Benefits of the Subdural Evacuating Port System (SEPS) Procedure Over Traditional Craniotomy for Subdural Hematoma Evacuation.

BACKGROUND: There remains no consensus on the optimal primary intervention for subdural hematoma (SDH). Although historically favored, craniotomy carries substantial morbidity and incurs significant costs. Contrastingly, the subdural evacuating port system (SEPS) is a minimally invasive bedside procedure. We assessed the benefits of SEPS over traditional craniotomy for SDH evacuation. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study of SDH patients receiving craniotomy or SEPS between 2012 and 2017 was performed. Information regarding demographics, medical history, presentation, surgical outcomes, cost, and complications was collected. Pre- and postoperative hematoma volumes were calculated using 3D image segmentation using Vitrea software. Multivariate regression models were employed to assess the influence of intervention choice. RESULTS: Of 107 patients, 68 underwent craniotomy and 39 underwent SEPS. There were no differences in age, sex, blood thinner use, platelet count, INR, hematoma lateralization, age, volume, or midline shift at presentation between intervention groups. Although there was no difference in percent residual hematoma volume 24-hour postintervention (44.1% vs 45.1%, P = .894), SEPS was associated with lower hospitalization costs ($108 391 vs $166 318, *P = .002), shorter length of stay (4.0 vs 5.8 days, *P = .0002), and fewer postoperative seizures (2.6% vs 17.7%, *P = .048). Reoperation rate was higher after SEPS overall (33.3% vs 13.2%, *P = .048) but comparable to craniotomy in chronic SDH (12.50% vs 7.69%, P = 1.000). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort, SEPS was noninferior to craniotomy at reducing SDH hematoma volume. The SEPS procedure was also associated with decreased length of stay hospitalization costs, and postoperative seizures and demonstrated a comparable recurrence rate to craniotomy for chronic SDH in particular.

Treatment of sellar metastases with gamma knife radiosurgery in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Metastases should be considered in a patient with a cancer history and a sellar/suprasellar lesion, as this diagnosis can change the management strategy in such patients. Once the diagnosis is established, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can be a safe and effective approach for these patients. METHODS: This case series describes five patients with pituitary metastases managed with GKRS at a single institution, taken from our prospective registry. All patients had SRS using the Gamma Knife Perfexion or Icon (Elekta), according to our standard institutional protocol. The optic nerves and chiasm were contoured, and the plan was adjusted to restrict dose to the optic apparatus as necessary. The tumor margin doses delivered were 11 Gy, 12 Gy, 14 Gy, 18 Gy (3 sessions of 6 Gy), and 12 Gy at the 50% isodose line. RESULTS: In this series, all sellar metastases were treated successfully with good radiographic and clinical response. The histology of the tumors included endometrial, gastrointestinal, and lung adenocarcinomas. Typically, histology is taken into consideration when choosing the treatment dose, along with size and location. In these patients, however, the dose used for the sellar metastases was chosen primarily for visual safety. This was typically lower than the dose for brain metastases in other locations. CONCLUSION: SRS provides an alternative treatment approach for sellar/suprasellar metastases with excellent local control, symptom improvement and maintenance of systemic therapy as desired. As such, CNS failure is rarely the proximate cause of demise in pituitary metastases provided that endocrinopathies are recognized and managed appropriately.