The Importance of Alignment in the Management of Thoracolumbar Trauma.

Spinal injuries occur in 3% of all trauma patients, most commonly in males, and often due to high-velocity impact followed by abrupt deceleration. The most affected region following spinal trauma is the thoracolumbar junction due to the anterior center of gravity at T12-L1 vertebral level and the relatively stiff thoracic spine uniting with the mobile lumbar spine. Many classifications exist to guide the choice of operative versus non-operative management of traumatic injuries at this site. However, the current classifications do not consider the segmental alignment of the spine - an aspect which has been shown to improve quality of life in non-traumatic post-operative spinal patients. Ignoring this aspect of thoracolumbar management often contributes to the development of post-traumatic malalignment and other complications. This review recommends that a new or modified classification system accounts for sagittal segmental alignment factors, including the injured vertebra's level, the number of affected adjacent levels, imaging techniques with better specificity and sensitivity, and assessment for osteoporosis. Case studies are included to demonstrate the importance of segmental sagittal alignment and the vertebral level on patient outcomes.

L5-S1 Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Is Associated with Increased Revisions Compared to L4-L5 TLIF at Two Years.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes in patients undergoing one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at L4-S1. BACKGROUND: TLIF is frequently performed at L4-S1 to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies. However, the native alignment and biomechanics differ across L4-L5 and L5-S1, and there is limited data regarding comparative radiographic outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent one-level TLIF at L4-L5 or L5-S1 at a single academic institution were identified. Baseline demographics, procedural characteristics, change in postoperative spinopelvic alignment and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and two-year postoperative surgical complications were compared. Multivariate regression analyses, accounting for age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and body mass index (BMI), were also performed. RESULTS: Across the 175 included patients, 125 had L4-L5 TLIF and 50 had L5-S1 TLIF. The mean age was 57.8 years, 56.6% were female, mean CCI was 0.9, and mean follow-up was 26.7 months. In the hospital, the two cohorts were not statistically different with regards to EBL and LOS. Two years postoperatively, multivariate linear regression analyses revealed that L5-S1 TLIF achieved 6.0° higher correction in L4-S1 lordosis ( P =0.012) than L4-L5 TLIF. At the same time, however, L5-S1 TLIF patients experienced significantly higher rates of pseudoarthrosis (8.0% vs 1.6%, P =0.036) and subsequent spine surgery (18.0% vs. 7.2%, P =0.034), specifically for pseudoarthrosis (6.0% vs. 0.0%, P =0.006), with this cohort having 8.7 times higher odds of subsequent spine surgery for pseudoarthrosis ( P =0.015) than L4-L5 TLIF patients on multivariate logistic analyses. PROMs, on the other hand, were not different across the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Although L5-S1 TLIF yielded good radiographic correction, it was associated with higher rates of subsequent spine surgery for pseudoarthrosis compared to L4-L5 TLIF. These findings may be related to differences in native segmental alignment and biomechanics across the L4-L5 and L5-S1 motion segments and are important to consider during surgical planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Grading: Current Standards and Important Factors to Consider for Management.

Spondylolisthesis is a common condition with a prevalence of 4-6% in childhood and 5-10% in adulthood. The Meyerding Classification, developed in 1932, assigns grades (I to V) based on the degree of slippage observed on standing, neutral lateral lumbar radiographs. Despite its historical significance and reliability, more factors should be evaluated to predict spondylolisthesis progression, especially in low-grade cases. The manuscript highlights areas for improvement in spondylolisthesis classification, emphasizing the need for considering factors beyond vertebral slippage. Factors such as global and segmental alignment, pelvic incidence, overhang, the number of affected levels, and the use of lateral flexion-extension radiographs to assess for stability using the kyphotic angle and slippage degree are identified as crucial in predicting progression and determining effective management strategies.

Impact of Prior Cervical Fusion on Patients Undergoing Thoracolumbar Deformity Correction.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of prior cervical constructs on upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) selection and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing thoracolumbar deformity correction. BACKGROUND: Surgical planning for adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients involves consideration of spinal alignment and existing fusion constructs. METHODS: ASD patients with (ANTERIOR or POSTERIOR) and without (NONE) prior cervical fusion who underwent thoracolumbar fusion were included. Demographics, radiographic alignment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on POSTERIOR patients to identify parameters predictive of UIV choice and to evaluate postoperative outcomes impacted by UIV selection. RESULTS: Among 542 patients, with 446 NONE, 72 ANTERIOR, and 24 POSTERIOR patients, mean age was 64.4 years and 432 (80%) were female. Cervical fusion patients had worse preoperative cervical and lumbosacral deformity, and PROMs (P<0.05). In the POSTERIOR cohort, preoperative LIV was frequently below the cervicothoracic junction (54%) and uncommonly (13%) connected to the thoracolumbar UIV. Multivariate analyses revealed that higher preoperative cervical SVA (coeff=-0.22, 95%CI=-0.43--0.01, P=0.038) and C2SPi (coeff=-0.72, 95%CI=-1.36--0.07, P=0.031), and lower preoperative thoracic kyphosis (coeff=0.14, 95%CI=0.01-0.28, P=0.040) and thoracolumbar lordosis (coeff=0.22, 95%CI=0.10-0.33, P=0.001) were predictive of cranial UIV. Two-year postoperatively, cervical patients continued to have worse cervical deformity and PROMs (P<0.05) but had comparable postoperative complications. Choice of thoracolumbar UIV below or above T6, as well as the number of unfused levels between constructs, did not affect patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent thoracolumbar deformity correction, prior cervical fusion was associated with more severe spinopelvic deformity and PROMs preoperatively. The choice of thoracolumbar UIV was strongly predicted by their baseline cervical and thoracolumbar alignment. Despite their poor preoperative condition, these patients still experienced significant improvements in their thoracolumbar alignment and PROMs after surgery, irrespective of UIV selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Patient-reported Physical and Mental Health Outcomes Following Lumbar Spinal Fusion versus Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) are reliable surgical procedures for alleviating pain and optimizing function. Spinal fusion has also been shown to be beneficial, however the comparative benefit of THA/TKA to lumbar spinal fusion is incompletely understood. METHODS: This study analyzed a single-center database of patients who underwent primary lumbar spinal fusion, elective primary TKA, or THA. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included Veterans-Rand (VR12) Physical and Mental Component Score (PCS/MCS) for TKA/THA and PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) Global Mental and Physical Health (GPH/GMH) for spinal fusion. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients who underwent TKA, 290 who underwent THA, and 125 who underwent spinal fusion were included. Joint replacement patients were older, with higher body mass index in the TKA group. Spine patients had a lower improvement in physical health than the joint patients (TKA: 9.4 ± 11.2, THA: 15.2 ± 11.2, Spine: 6.2 ± 8.7, P < 0.001) and a lower proportion of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Spine patients had higher GMH improvements compared with TKA patients (TKA: -1.1 ± 10.7, THA: 1.1 ± 11.9, Spine: 1.8 ± 8.4, P = 0.009) and the highest proportion of patients reaching the MCID. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal fusion, total knee arthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty all significantly improved PROMs at 1-year follow-up. At baseline, spinal fusion patients had better physical function scores and worse mental health scores compared with joint arthroplasty patients, while spinal fusion resulted in mean smaller gains in patient reported physical function and higher gains in patient reported mental health function compared with arthroplasty.

Impact of Gender on Peri-Operative Characteristics and Outcomes of Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Current Concepts Review.

The success of spine surgery is variable among patients. Finding reliable predictors of successful outcomes will not only maximize patient benefit, but also increase the cost effectiveness of surgery. Recent research has demonstrated the importance of patient specific factors in predicting patient outcomes, including gender. While many studies show that female patients present with worse pain and function preoperatively, there is conflicting data on whether male and female patients reap the same benefits from lumbar spine surgery. In this manuscript we review the current research on gender and sex differences in preoperative characteristics and post-operative outcomes and comment on the need for more studies to better elucidate the mechanism driving the conflicting evidence.

What Is the Epidemiology of Cervical and Thoracic Spine Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Vertebral fractures are associated with enduring back pain, diminished quality of life, as well as increased morbidity and mortality. Existing epidemiological data for cervical and thoracic vertebral fractures are limited by insufficiently powered studies and a failure to evaluate the mechanism of injury. QUESTION/PURPOSE: What are the temporal trends in incidence, patient characteristics, and injury mechanisms of cervical and thoracic vertebral fractures in the United States from 2003 to 2021? METHODS: The United States National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP) database collects data on all nonfatal injuries treated in US hospital emergency departments and is well suited to capture epidemiological trends in vertebral fractures. As such, the NEISS-AIP was queried from 2003 to 2021 for cervical and thoracic fractures. The initial search by upper trunk fractures yielded 156,669 injuries; 6% (9900) of injuries, with a weighted frequency of 638,999 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 62 ± 25 years and 52% (334,746 of 638,999) of patients were females. Descriptive statistics were obtained. Segmented regression analysis, accounting for the year before or after 2019 when the NEISS sampling methodology was changed, was performed to assess yearly injury trends. Multivariable logistic regression models with age and sex as covariates were performed to predict injury location, mechanism, and disposition. RESULTS: The incidence of cervical and thoracic fractures increased from 2.0 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.7) and 3.6 (95% CI 2.4 to 4.7) per 10,000 person-years in 2003 to 14.5 (95% CI 10.9 to 18.2) and 19.9 (95% CI 14.5 to 25.3) in 2021, respectively. Incidence rates of cervical and thoracic fractures increased for all age groups from 2003 to 2021, with peak incidence and the highest rate of change in individuals 80 years or older. Most injuries occurred at home (median 69%), which were more likely to impact older individuals (median [range] age 75 [2 to 106] years) and females (median 61% of home injuries); injuries at recreation/sports facilities impacted younger individuals (median 32 [3 to 96] years) and male patients (median 76% of sports facility injuries). Falls were the most common injury mechanism across all years, with females more likely to be impacted than males. The proportion of admissions increased from 33% in 2003 to 50% in 2021, while the proportion of treated and released patients decreased from 53% to 35% in the same period. CONCLUSION: This epidemiological study identified a disproportionate increase in cervical and thoracic fracture incidence rates in patients older than 50 years from 2003 to 2021. Furthermore, high hospital admission rates were also noted resulting from these fractures. These findings indicate that current osteoporosis screening guidelines may be insufficient to capture the true population at risk of osteoporotic fractures, and they highlight the need to initiate screening at an earlier age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Hip Osteoarthritis in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Severe Adult Spinal Deformity: Prevalence and Impact on Spine Surgery Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is common in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Limited data exist on the prevalence of hip OA in patients with ASD, or on its impact on baseline and postoperative alignment and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Therefore, this paper will assess the prevalence and impact of hip OA on alignment and PROMs. METHODS: Patients with ASD who underwent L1-pelvis or longer fusions were included. Two independent reviewers graded hip OA with the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification and stratified it by severity into non-severe (KL grade 1 or 2) and severe (KL grade 3 or 4). Radiographic parameters and PROMs were compared among 3 patient groups: Hip-Spine (hip KL grade 3 or 4 bilaterally), Unilateral (UL)-Hip (hip KL grade 3 or 4 unilaterally), or Spine (hip KL grade 1 or 2 bilaterally). RESULTS: Of 520 patients with ASD who met inclusion criteria for an OA prevalence analysis, 34% (177 of 520) had severe bilateral hip OA and unilateral or bilateral hip arthroplasty had been performed in 8.7% (45 of 520). A subset of 165 patients had all data components and were examined: 68 Hip-Spine, 32 UL-Hip, and 65 Spine. Hip-Spine patients were older (67.9 ± 9.5 years, versus 59.6 ± 10.1 years for Spine and 65.8 ± 7.5 years for UL-Hip; p < 0.001) and had a higher frailty index (4.3 ± 2.6, versus 2.7 ± 2.0 for UL-Hip and 2.9 ± 2.0 for Spine; p < 0.001). At 1 year, the groups had similar lumbar lordosis, yet the Hip-Spine patients had a worse sagittal vertebral axis (SVA) measurement (45.9 ± 45.5 mm, versus 25.1 ± 37.1 mm for UL-Hip and 19.0 ± 39.3 mm for Spine; p = 0.001). Hip-Spine patients also had worse Veterans RAND-12 Physical Component Summary scores at baseline (25.7 ± 9.3, versus 28.7 ± 9.8 for UL-Hip and 31.3 ± 10.5 for Spine; p = 0.005) and 1 year postoperatively (34.5 ± 11.4, versus 40.3 ± 10.4 for UL-Hip and 40.1 ± 10.9 for Spine; p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: This study of operatively treated ASD revealed that 1 in 3 patients had severe hip OA bilaterally. Such patients with severe bilateral hip OA had worse baseline SVA and PROMs that persisted 1 year following ASD surgery, despite correction of lordosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in adulthood.

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is an abnormal coronal curvature of the spine that most commonly presents in adolescence. While it may be asymptomatic, AIS can cause pain, cosmetic deformity, and physical and psychological disability with curve progression. As adolescents with AIS enter adulthood, condition outcomes vary with some experiencing curve stabilization and others noting further curve progression, chronic pain, osteoporosis/fractures, declines in pulmonary and functional capacity, among others. Regular monitoring and individualized management by healthcare professionals are crucial to address the diverse challenges and provide appropriate support for a fulfilling adult life with AIS. This review examines the prevalence, risk factors, presenting symptoms, diagnosis, management, and complications of AIS in the adult population, informing targeted interventions by clinicians caring for adult patients with AIS.

Hyperlipidemia, Obesity, and Diabetes, and Risk of Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament.

BACKGROUND: Several risk factors of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) have been established, including diabetes and obesity. However, the relationship between hyperlipidemia (HLD) and OPLL is incompletely understood. METHODS: PearlDiver was queried to identify adults with (+) and without (-) HLD, diabetes, and obesity. Comparative analyses were performed on demographics, comorbidities, and OPLL rates before and after matching for age, sex, and comorbidities. Stepwise logistic regression modeling assessing the relationship between HLD and OPLL with the addition of predictor variables was also performed. RESULTS: In total, 31,677 cervical OPLL patients, as well as 170,467 HLD+ and 118,665 HLD-, 168,985 Diabetes+ and 137,966 Diabetes-, and 150,363 Obesity+ and 142,553 Obesity- patients, were examined. Mean age ranged 43.44-59.46 years, 54.94-63.12% were females, and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index ranged from 0.06 from 1.53, all higher in those with the comorbidity. Before matching, OPLL rates were higher in those with HLD (HLD+=0.05% vs. HLD-=0.03%, P = 0.005), diabetes (Diabetes+=0.06% vs. Diabetes-=0.02%, P < 0.001), and obesity (Obesity+=0.05% vs. Obesity-=0.02%, P = 0.001). However, after matching by age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, the associations between the studied comorbidities and OPLL were attenuated (all P > 0.05). Stepwise regression modeling revealed an association between HLD and cervical OPLL that was most impacted by the addition of age (OR=1.95, R2 = 0.029 to OR=1.38, R2 = 0.075) and obesity (OR=1.21, R2 = 0.086 to OR=1.07, R2 = 0.111) into the model. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical OPLL rates were higher in patients with HLD even after accounting for demographics and comorbidities. HLD may be an independent risk factor for OPLL development.

Restoring L4-S1 Lordosis Shape in Severe Sagittal Deformity: Impact of Correction Techniques on Alignment and Complication Profile.

BACKGROUND: Severe sagittal plane deformity with loss of L4-S1 lordosis is disabling and can be improved through various surgical techniques. However, data are limited on the differing ability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to achieve alignment goals in severely malaligned patients. METHODS: Severe adult spinal deformity patients with preoperative PI-LL >20°, L4-S1 lordosis <30°, and full body radiographs and PROMs at baseline and 6-week postoperative visit were included. Patients were grouped into ALIF (1-2 level ALIF at L4-S1), PSO (L4/L5 PSO), and TLIF (1-2 level TLIF at L4-S1). Comparative analyses were performed on demographics, radiographic spinopelvic parameters, complications, and PROMs. RESULTS: Among the 96 included patients, 40 underwent ALIF, 27 underwent PSO, and 29 underwent TLIF. At baseline, cohorts had comparable age, sex, race, Edmonton frailty scores, and radiographic spinopelvic parameters (P > 0.05). However, PSO was performed more often in revision cases (P < 0.001). Following surgery, L4-S1 lordosis correction (P = 0.001) was comparable among ALIF and PSO patients and caudal lordotic apex migration (P = 0.044) was highest among ALIF patients. PSO patients had higher intraoperative estimated blood loss (P < 0.001) and motor deficits (P = 0.049), and in-hospital ICU admission (P = 0.022) and blood products given (P = 0.004), but were otherwise comparable in terms of length of stay, blood transfusion given, and postoperative admission to rehab. Likewise, 90-day postoperative complication profiles and 6-week PROMs were comparable as well. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF can restore L4-S1 sagittal alignment as powerfully as PSO, with fewer intraoperative and in-hospital complications. When feasible, ALIF is a suitable alternative to PSO and likely superior to TLIF for correcting L4-S1 lordosis among patients with severe sagittal malalignment.

Cortical Trajectory versus Traditional Pedicle Screw Trajectory in Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis of Complications and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar degenerative disease imposes a substantial burden on global health care expenditures. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using either traditional trajectory (TT) pedicle screws or cortical bone trajectory (CBT) pedicle screws has become increasingly common. This meta-analysis evaluated outcomes and safety of open TLIF with TT compared with CBT. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched up to April 2024. The studied outcomes included complications, revision surgeries, operating room time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), incision length, Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopedic Association. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 5 studies; 770 patients undergoing TLIF were included, with 415 in the CBT group and 355 in the TT group. No statistically significant differences were found in the rate of overall complications, including specific complications, rate of revision surgeries, patient-reported outcome measures, operating room time, and estimated blood loss. However, the CBT group demonstrated shorter LOS (P = 0.05) and shorter incision lengths (P < 0.001) compared with the TT group. CONCLUSIONS: TT and CBT in TLIF procedures demonstrated comparable rates of complications, reoperations, and patient-reported outcome measures. Despite similar operating room times and estimated blood loss, the CBT group exhibited shorter incision lengths and shorter LOS than the TT group. Both CBT and TT pedicle screws are safe and effective options for TLIF. There are potential benefits to CBT such as shorter incision and LOS, although TT remains an essential tool for spinal instrumentation techniques.

Segmental Sagittal Alignment in Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Review of Evidence-Based Evaluation of Preoperative Measurement, Surgical Planning, Intraoperative Execution, and Postoperative Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Maintaining and restoring global and regional sagittal alignment is a well-established priority that improves patient outcomes in patients with adult spinal deformity. However, the benefit of restoring segmental (level-by-level) alignment in lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions is not widely agreed on. The purpose of this review was to summarize intraoperative techniques to achieve segmental fixation and the impact of segmental lordosis on patient-reported and surgical outcomes. METHODS: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were queried for the literature reporting lumbar alignment for degenerative lumbar spinal pathology. Reports were assessed for data regarding the impact of intraoperative surgical factors on postoperative segmental sagittal alignment and patient-reported outcome measures. Included studies were further categorized into groups related to patient positioning, fusion and fixation, and interbody device (technique, material, angle, and augmentation). RESULTS: A total of 885 studies were screened, of which 43 met inclusion criteria examining segmental rather than regional or global alignment. Of these, 3 examined patient positioning, 8 examined fusion and fixation, 3 examined case parameters, 26 examined or compared different interbody fusion techniques, 5 examined postoperative patient-reported outcomes, and 3 examined the occurrence of adjacent segment disease. The data support a link between segmental alignment and patient positioning, surgical technique, and adjacent segment disease but have insufficient evidence to support a relationship with patient-reported outcomes, cage subsidence, or pseudoarthrosis. CONCLUSION: This review explores segmental correction's impact on short-segment lumbar fusion outcomes, finding the extent of correction to depend on patient positioning and choice of interbody cage. Notably, inadequate restoration of lumbar lordosis is associated with adjacent segment degeneration. Nevertheless, conclusive evidence linking segmental alignment to patient-reported outcomes, cage subsidence, or pseudoarthrosis remains limited, underscoring the need for future research.

Lumbar Disc Replacement Versus Interbody Fusion: Meta-analysis of Complications and Clinical Outcomes.

Background: Lumbar spinal fusion is a commonly performed operation with relatively high complication and revision surgery rates. Lumbar disc replacement is less commonly performed but may have some benefits over spinal fusion. This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of lumbar disc replacement (LDR) versus interbody fusion (IBF), assessing their comparative safety and effectiveness in treating lumbar DDD. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-2) were searched up until February 2024. The studied outcomes included operative room (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, reoperations, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain. Results: Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis, of which six were randomized controlled trials, three were retrospective studies, and one was a prospective study. A total of 1720 patients were included, with 1034 undergoing LDR and 686 undergoing IBF. No statistically significant differences were observed in OR time, EBL, or LOS between the LDR and IBF groups. The analysis also showed no significant differences in the rates of complications, reoperations, and leg pain between the two groups. However, the LDR group demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in mean back pain (p=0.04) compared to the IBF group. Conclusion: Both LDR and IBF procedures offer similar results in managing CLBP, considering OR time, EBL, LOS, complication rates, reoperations, and leg pain, with slight superiority of back pain improvement in LDR. This study supports the use of both procedures in managing degenerative spinal disease.

Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Posterior Fusion for Cervical Myelopathy : A Meta-Analysis of Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis investigates the outcomes of laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy with fusion (LF) to guide effective patient selection for these 2 procedures. BACKGROUND: Although LF traditionally offers the ability for excellent posterior decompression, it may alter cervical spine biomechanics and increase the risk of adjacent segment degeneration. LP aims to preserve the natural kinematics of the spine but has not been universally accepted, and may be associated with inadequate decompression, neck pain, and recurrent stenosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched up until March 2024. The outcomes studied were surgery-related outcomes [operative time (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and length of stay], adverse events (overall complications, C5 palsy, and reoperations), radiographic outcomes (cervical lordosis, cervical sagittal vertical axis, and T1 slope angle), and patient-reported outcome measures (Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale for neck pain, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association). RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included in this meta-analysis, of which 19 were retrospective studies, 2 were prospective nonrandomized studies, and 1 was a randomized controlled trial. A total of 2128 patients were included, with 1025 undergoing LP and 1103 undergoing LF. Patients undergoing LP experienced significantly shorter operative time ( P = 0.009), less EBL ( P = 0.02), a lower rate of overall complications ( P < 0.00001) and C5 palsy ( P = 0.003), a lower T1 slope angle ( P = 0.02), and a lower Neck Disability Index ( P = 0.0004). No significant difference was observed in the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates that for cervical myelopathy, LP has the benefits of shorter operative time time, less EBL, and reduced incidence of C5 palsy as well as overall complication rate. Given these findings, LP remains an important surgical option with a favorable complication profile in patients with cervical myelopathy, although careful patient selection is still paramount in choosing the right procedure for individual patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Impact of Self-Reported Loss of Balance and Gait Disturbance on Outcomes following Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate if imbalance influences complication rates, radiological outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Methods: ASD patients with baseline and 2-year radiographic and PROMs were included. Patients were grouped according to whether they answered yes or no to a recent history of pre-operative loss of balance. The groups were propensity-matched by age, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), and surgical invasiveness score. Results: In total, 212 patients were examined (106 in each group). Patients with gait imbalance had worse baseline PROM measures, including Oswestry disability index (45.2 vs. 36.6), SF-36 mental component score (44 vs. 51.8), and SF-36 physical component score (p < 0.001 for all). After 2 years, patients with gait imbalance had less pelvic tilt correction (-1.2 vs. -3.6°, p = 0.039) for a comparable PI-LL correction (-11.9 vs. -15.1°, p = 0.144). Gait imbalance patients had higher rates of radiographic proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) (26.4% vs. 14.2%) and implant-related complications (47.2% vs. 34.0%). After controlling for age, baseline sagittal parameters, PI-LL correction, and comorbidities, patients with imbalance had 2.2-times-increased odds of PJK after 2 years. Conclusions: Patients with a self-reported loss of balance/unsteady gait have significantly worse PROMs and higher risk of PJK.

Cutibacterium acnes in spine surgery: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.

Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes) previously named Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes) has been increasingly recognized by spine surgeons as a cause of indolent postsurgical spinal infection. Patients infected with C. acnes may present with pseudarthrosis or nonspecific back pain. Currently, microbiological tissue cultures remain the gold standard in diagnosing C. acnes infection. Ongoing research into using genetic sequencing as a diagnostic method shows promising results and may be another future way of diagnosis. Optimized prophylaxis involves the use of targeted antibiotics, longer duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, antibacterial-coated spinal implants, and evidence-based sterile surgical techniques all of which decrease contamination. Antibiotics and implant replacement remain the mainstay of treatment, with longer durations of antibiotics proving to be more efficacious. Local guidelines must consider the surge of antimicrobial resistance worldwide when treating C. acnes.

Same-Day Versus Staged Spinal Fusion: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to compare same-day versus staged spine surgery, assessing their effects on patient care and health care system efficiency. BACKGROUND: In spinal surgery, the debate between whether same-day and staged surgeries are better for patients continues, as the decision may impact patient-related outcomes, health care resources, and overall costs. While some surgeons advocate for staged surgeries, citing reduced risks of complications, others proclaim same-day surgeries may minimize costs and length of hospital stays. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were searched up until February 2024. The studied outcomes were operative room (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, venous thromboembolism (VTE), death, operations, and nonhome discharge. RESULTS: Sixteen retrospective studies were included in this meta-analysis, representing a total of 2346 patients, of which 644 underwent staged spinal fusion surgeries and 1702 same-day surgeries. No statistically significant difference was observed in EBL between staged and same-day surgery groups. However, the staged group exhibited a statistically significant longer OR time ( P =0.05) and LOS ( P =0.004). A higher rate of overall complications ( P =0.002) and VTE ( P =0.0008) was significantly associated with the staged group. No significant differences were found in the rates of death, reoperations, and nonhome discharge between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both staged and same-day spinal fusion surgeries showed comparable rates of death, operations, and nonhome discharges for patients undergoing spinal surgeries. However, given the increased OR time, LOS, and complications associated with staged spinal surgeries, this study supports same-day surgeries when possible to minimize the burden on healthcare resources and enhance efficiency.

Preoperative Resilience and Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

BACKGROUND: It is incompletely understood how preoperative resilience affects 1-year postoperative outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing open lumbar spinal fusion at a single-center institution were identified between November 2019 and September 2022. Preoperative resilience was assessed using the Brief Resilience Scale. Demographic data at baseline including age, gender, comorbidities, and body mass index (BMI) were extracted. Patient-reported outcome measures including Oswestry Disability Index, PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) Global Physical Health, PROMIS Global Mental Health (GMH), and EuroQol5 scores were collected before the surgery and at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Bivariate correlation was conducted between Brief Resilience Scale scores and outcome measures at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients had baseline and 1 year outcome data. Compared with patients with high resilience, patients in the low-resilience group had a higher percentage of females (69.4% vs. 43.9%; P = 0.02), a higher BMI (32.7 vs. 30.1; P = 0.03), and lower preoperative Global Physical Health (35.8 vs. 38.9; P = 0.045), GMH (42.2 vs. 49.2; P < 0.001), and EuroQol scores (0.56 vs. 0.61; P = 0.01). At 3 months postoperatively, resilience was moderately correlated with GMH (r = 0.39) and EuroQol (r = 0.32). Similarly, at 1 year postoperatively, resilience was moderately correlated with GMH (r = 0.33) and EuroQol (r = 0.34). Comparable results were seen in multivariable regression analysis controlling for age, gender, number of levels fused, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index, procedure, anxiety/depression, and complications. CONCLUSIONS: Low preoperative resilience can negatively affect patient-reported outcomes 1 year after lumbar spinal fusion. Resiliency is a potentially modifiable risk factor, and surgeons should consider targeted interventions for at-risk patient groups.

Variability in expenses related to spine oncology care: comparison of payer-negotiated rates at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: As of 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires all hospitals to publish their commercially negotiated prices. To our knowledge, price variation of spine oncology diagnosis and treatments has not been previously investigated. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to characterize the availability and variation of prices for spinal oncology services among National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers (NCI-DCC). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: Cancer centers were identified; those that did not provide patient care or participate in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective System were excluded. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted to gather commercially negotiated prices by searching online for "[center name] price transparency OR machine-readable file OR chargemaster." Data obtained was queried using 44 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for imaging, procedures, and surgeries relevant to spine oncology. Comparison of prices was achieved by normalizing the median price for each service at each center to the estimated 2022 Medicare reimbursement for the center's Medicare Administrator Contractor. The ratios between the lowest and highest median commercial negotiated price within a center and across all centers were defined as "within-center ratio" and "across-center ratio" respectively. RESULTS: In total, 49 centers disclosed commercial payer-negotiated rates. Mean rate (±SD) for cervical corpectomy was $9,134 (±$10,034), thoracic laminectomy for neoplasm excision was $5,382 (±$5502), superficial bone biopsy was $1,853 (±$1,717), and single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) was $813 (±$232). Within-center ratios ranged from 5.0 (SPECT scan) to 17.8 (radiofrequency bone ablation). Across-center ratios (for codes with > 10 centers reporting) ranged from 9.0 (corpectomy, thoracic, lateral extra-cavitary) to 418.7 (anterior approach cervical corpectomy). CONCLUSIONS: Price transparency for spinal oncology remains elusive despite recent CMS regulatory oversight, with marked heterogeneity in the quality of published rates complicating patients' ability to "shop" for care. Additionally, there continues to be significant variation in commercial rates for spine oncology diagnosis and treatment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Despite regulation by CMS, prices for spinal oncology services are not uniformly available to patients and vary between NCI-DCC. The findings of this manuscript present potential barriers for patients to compare and obtain affordable care.