Posterior pelvic ring injuries, lumbosacral junction instabilities and stabilization techniques for spinopelvic dissociation: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: From transiliac Harrington rods to minimally invasive (MIS) percutaneous 3D-navigated transsacral-transiliac screw (TTS) fixation, concepts of fixation methods in pelvic injuries with spinopelvic dissociation (SPD) are steadily redefined. This narrative review examines the literature of recent years regarding surgical treatment options and trends in SPD, outlining risks and benefits of each treatment option and addressing biomechanical aspects of sacral injuries and common classification systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search on the search across relevant online databases was conducted. As a scale for quality assessment, the SANRA-scoring system was taken into account. RESULTS: Sacral Isler type 1 injuries of the LPJ in U- and H-type fractures are frequently treated with stand-alone TTS. Fractures with higher instability (Isler types 2 and 3) require unilateral or bilateral LPF, subject to side involvement, as a buttressing construct, or triangular fixation as additional compression and neutralization, determined by fracture radiation. A more comprehensive classification from which to derive stabilization options is provided by the 2023 301SPD classification. MIS techniques are on the rise and offer shorter OR time, less blood loss, fewer infections, and fewer wound complications. It is advisable to implement MIS techniques as much as possible, as long as decompression is not required and closed fracture reduction succeeds satisfactorily. CONCLUSION: SPD is characteristic of severe injuries, mostly in polytraumatized patients. The complication rates are decreasing due to the increasing adaptation of MIS techniques.

Cage subsidence-A multifactorial matter!

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study OBJECTIVE: Wider cages are associated with improved decompression and reduced subsidence, but variation in cage physical properties limits consistent outcome analysis after thoracolumbar interbody fusion. This study investigated cage subsidence and its relationship to lateral and posterior approaches with a focus on the hypothesis that the larger surface area of lateral cages results in lower subsidence rates. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed 194 patients who underwent interbody fusion between 2016 and 2019 with a primary outcome of cage subsidence. Secondary outcomes were cage distribution (patients, approaches, expandability), cage dimensions, t­scores, length of hospital stay, blood loss, surgical time, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch. RESULTS: Medical records were reviewed for 194 patients receiving 387 cages at 379 disc levels. Subsidence was identified in 35.1% of lateral cages, 40.9% of posterior cages, and 36.3% of all cages. Lower surface area (p = 0.008) and cage expandability were associated with subsidence risk. Lower anteroposterior cage length proved to be a significant factor in the subsidence of posteriorly placed cages (p = 0.007). Osteopenic and osteoporotic patients experienced cage subsidence 36.8% of the time compared to 3.5% of patients with normal t­scores (p = 0.001). Cage subsidence correlated with postoperative deterioration of the PI-LL mismatch (p = 0.03). Patients receiving fusion augmentation with bone morphogenic protein experienced higher fusion rates (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Cage subsidence is a common complication that can significantly impact operative outcomes following thoracolumbar interbody fusion. Low t­scores, smaller surface area, cage expandability, and lower cage length in posterior approaches contribute significantly to cage subsidence.

Complication rates following stand-alone lateral interbody fusion: a single institution series after 10 years of experience.

PURPOSE: This retrospective single institution study's goal was to analyze and report the complications from stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIF). METHODS: This research was approved by the institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We retrospectively reviewed the database of patients with adult degenerative spine deformity treated via LLIF at our institution between January 2016 and December 2020. RESULTS: Stand-alone LLIF was performed in 158 patients (145 XLIF, 13 OLIF; mean age 65 y.; 88 f., 70 m.). Mean surgical time was 85 min (± 24 min). Mean follow-up was 14 months (± 5 m). Surgical blood loss averaged 120 mL (± 187 mL) and the mean number of fused levels was 1.2 (± 0.4 levels). Overall complication rate was 19.6% (31 total; 23 approach-related, 8 secondary complications). CONCLUSION: Lateral interbody fusion appears to be a safe surgical intervention with relatively low complication- and revision rates.

Qualitative Evaluation of Educational Content on Lateral Spine Surgery YouTube™ Demonstrations.

OBJECTIVE:  This study assessed the quality of educational content for lateral spine fusion procedures on YouTube™. METHODS:  YouTube™ was searched using the following keywords and phrases: "Lateral lumbar interbody fusion," "lateral lumbar spine surgery," "Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF)," "Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF)," and "Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF)." An expert panel of three senior-level spine surgeons [rater one to three (R1-R3)] rated videos on 13 qualitative evaluation parameters via a modified Delphi approach. RESULTS:  Thirty-eight videos were included for evaluation. Interrater reliability analysis indicated a moderate agreement between R1 and R2 (κ=0.50; standard error, SE = 0.05), R1 and R3 (κ = 0.60, SE = 0.04), and a substantial agreement between R2 and R3 (κ = 0.65, SE = 0.04). Unanimously positive assessments of the quality of the intraoperative presentation varied between 42% and 63% of the rated videos. However, perioperative quality features were unanimously rated positively less than 21% of the videos. CONCLUSION:  With regard to the surgical approach and execution of lateral lumbar fusions, YouTube™ videos can be seen as a valuable addition to academic education. The main problem, however, is the lack of control mechanisms that check the quality of the content offered before it is consumed by patients, students, and doctors in training.