Computed Tomography Hounsfield Units as a Predictor of Reoperation and Graft Subsidence After Standalone and Multilevel Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Standalone single and multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been increasingly applied to treat degenerative spinal conditions in a less invasive fashion. Graft subsidence following LLIF is a known complication and has been associated with poor bone mineral density (BMD). Previous research has demonstrated the utility of computed tomography (CT) Hounsfield units (HUs) as a surrogate for BMD. In the present study, we investigated the relationship between the CT HUs and subsidence and reoperation after standalone and multilevel LLIF. METHODS: A prospectively maintained single-institution database was retrospectively reviewed for LLIF patients from 2017 to 2020, including single and multilevel standalone cases with and without supplemental posterior fixation. Data on demographics, graft parameters, BMD determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, preoperative mean segmental CT HUs, and postoperative subsidence and reoperation were collected. We used 36-in. standing radiographs to measure the preoperative global sagittal alignment and disc height and subsidence at last follow-up. Subsidence was classified using the Marchi grading system corresponding to disc height loss: grade 0, 0%-24%; grade I, 25%-49%; grade II, 50%-74%; and grade III, 75%-100%. RESULTS: A total of 89 LLIF patients had met the study criteria, with a mean follow-up of 19.9 ± 13.9 months. Of the 54 patients who had undergone single-level LLIF, the mean segmental HUs were 152.0 ± 8.7 for 39 patients with grade 0 subsidence, 136.7 ± 10.4 for 9 with grade I subsidence, 133.9 ± 23.1 for 3 with grade II subsidence, and 119.9 ± 30.9 for 3 with grade III subsidence (P = 0.032). Of the 96 instrumented levels in the 35 patients who had undergone multilevel LLIF, 85, 9, 1, and 1 level had had grade 0, grade I, grade II, and grade III subsidence, with no differences in the HU levels. On multivariate logistic regression, increased CT HU levels were independently associated with a decreased risk of reoperation after both single-level and multilevel LLIF (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-0.99; P = 0.044; and odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.99; P = 0.017, respectively). Overall, the BMD determined using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was not associated with graft subsidence or reoperation. Using a receiver operating characteristic curve to separate the patients who had and had not required reoperation, the threshold HU level determined for single-level and multilevel LLIF was 131.4 (sensitivity, 0.62; specificity 0.65) and 131.0 (sensitivity, 0.67; specificity, 0.63), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lower CT HUs were independently associated with an increased risk of graft subsidence after single-level LLIF. In addition, lower CT HUs significantly increased the risk of reoperation after both single and multilevel LLIF with a critical threshold of 131 HUs. The determination of the preoperative CT HUs might provide a more robust gauge of local bone quality and the likelihood of graft subsidence requiring reoperation following LLIF than overall BMD.

Comparison of traditional and closed loop vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy: A propensity-matched retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: For epilepsy patients with drug-resistant, unresectable epilepsy, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is an option for seizure control. Approximately 40-70% of patients will achieve ≥50% seizure reduction with VNS. New closed loop VNS models detect ictal tachycardia and responsively stimulate the vagus nerve. The effectiveness of closed loop VNS compared to traditional VNS for pediatric epilepsy is unknown. METHODS: An 11-year retrospective electronic medical record review at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh was performed. Patients with drug-resistant epilepsy who underwent VNS implantation were included. Patients were divided into groups based on VNS model: traditional versus closed loop. Those who transitioned from traditional to closed loop VNS were excluded. Given potential for selection bias, propensity scores matching was utilized to compare traditional to closed loop VNS patients. Patients with focal versus generalized epilepsy were also separately analyzed. The primary outcome was "VNS response", defined as at least 50% seizure frequency reduction from baseline. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients were included in this sample. The percentage of matched patients (total n = 220: n = 179 traditional VNS, n = 41 closed loop VNS) who responded to VNS after one year of therapy was 43% for traditional VNS and 39% for closed loop VNS (p = 0.64). After two years of therapy, a higher proportion of closed loop VNS patients than traditional VNS patients responded to VNS among all subgroups, though no differences were statistically significant (p>0.05). Notably, for those with generalized epilepsy, 73% of closed loop patients responded to VNS compared to only 46% of traditional patients (p = 0.10). After two years of VNS therapy, patients were taking approximately the same quantity of antiseizure medications as baseline (change of +0.074 +/- 0.90 ) with no difference between VNS models (p = 0.87). SIGNIFICANCE: Among pediatric patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, closed loop VNS trends towards a higher rate of VNS response after two years of treatment, especially among generalized epilepsy patients. Neither model of VNS allows patients to reduce antiseizure medication quantity after two years.