High Lumbar Spinal Fusion Rates Using Cellular Bone Allograft Irrespective of Surgical Approach.

BACKGROUND: Mounting evidence demonstrates a promising safety and efficacy profile for spinal fusion procedures using cellular bone allograft (CBA). However, limited data exists on fusion outcomes stratified by surgical approach. The current study investigates the effectiveness of CBA in lumbar spinal fusion by surgical approach (ie, anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches). METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion with CBA (Trinity Elite) were enrolled into a prospective, multi-center, open-label clinical study (NCT02969616). Fusion status was assessed by an independent review of dynamic radiographs and computed tomography images. Clinical outcome measures included quality of life (QoL; EQ5D), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) for back pain and leg pain). Patient data extending to 24 months were analyzed in a post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients underwent interbody fusion (159 women; 93 men). Patients had a mean age of 58.3 years (SD 12.5), height of 168.3 cm (SD 10.2), and weight of 87.3 kg (SD 20.0) with a body mass index of 30.8 kg/m2 (SD 6.5). At 12 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.5%; fusion success was 98.1%, 100.0%, and 97.9% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. At 24 months, the overall fusion success rate for bridging bone was 98.9%; fusion success was 97.9%, 100.0%, and 98.8% for anterior, lateral, and posterior approaches, respectively. The surgical approach did not significantly impact fusion success. A significant (P < 0.0001) improvement in QoL, pain, and disability scores was also observed. Significant differences in the ODI, VAS, and EQ5D were observed between the treatment groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: CBA represents an attractive alternative to autograft alone, reporting a high rate of successful fusion and clinical outcomes across various surgical approaches. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of CBA for spinal fusion procedures, regardless of surgical approach, provides high rates of fusion with a favorable safety profile and improved patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02969616.

Esophageal perforation after anterior cervical spine surgery.

Objective: To report our updated experience in the management of esophageal perforation resulting from anterior cervical spine surgery, and to compare two wound management approaches. Methods: This is a retrospective review of patients managed for esophageal perforations resulting from anterior cervical spine surgery (2007-2020). We examine outcomes based on 2 wound management approaches: closed (closed incision over a drain) versus open (left open to heal by secondary intention). We collected data on demographics, operative management, resolution (resumption of oral intake), time to resolution, number of procedures needed for resolution, microbiology, length of stay, and neck morbidity. Results: A total of 13 patients were included (10 men). Median age was 52 years (range, 24-74 years). All patients underwent surgical drainage, repair, or attempted repair of perforation, hardware removal, and establishment of enteral access. Wounds were managed closed versus open (6 closed, 7 open). There were 2 early postoperative deaths due to acute respiratory distress syndrome and aspiration (open group), and 1 patient was lost to follow-up (closed group). Among the remaining 10 patients: resolution rate was 80% versus 100%, resolution in 30 days was 20% versus 100%, median number of procedures needed for resolution was 3 versus 1, and median hospital stay was 23 versus 14 days, for the closed and open groups, respectively. Conclusions: Esophageal perforation following anterior cervical spine surgery should be managed in a multidisciplinary fashion with surgical neck drainage, primary repair when feasible, hardware removal, and establishment of enteral access. We advocate open neck wound management to decrease the time-to-resolution, number of procedures, and length of stay.

Sacropelvic Fixation with Porous Fusion/Fixation Screws: A Technical Note and Retrospective Review.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to analyze our initial experience using a novel porous fusion/fixation screw (PFFS) for pelvic fixation and determine our rate of screw malposition requiring intraoperative repositioning. METHODS: We reviewed 83 consecutive patients who underwent sacropelvic fixation with PFFS at our institution from June 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 using intraoperative computed tomography-based computer-assisted navigation via an open posterior approach. Following PFFS insertion, intraoperative computed tomography scans were obtained to assess screw positioning. Demographic data were collected, and operative reports and patient images were reviewed to determine what implants were used and if any PFFS required repositioning. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (26M:48F) were included, and 57 (77.0%) had a prior sacroiliac joint or lumbar spine surgery. A stacked screw configuration was used in 62/74 cases (83.8%). A total of 235 PFFS were used and six (2.6%) were malpositioned. Of 88 cephalic screws placed in stacked configuration, 4 were malpositioned (4.5%) and 1/123 caudal screws were malpositioned (0.8%). One of 24 sacral-alar-iliac screws placed in a stand-alone configuration was malpositioned (4.2%). Malpositions included 4 medial, 1 lateral, and 1 inferior, and all were revised intraoperatively without major sequela. CONCLUSIONS: Although PFFSs are larger than traditional sacropelvic fixation screws, stacked sacral-alar-iliac instrumentation can be done safely with computer-assisted navigation. We found a low malposition rate in our initial series of patients, the majority being the cephalad screw in a stacked configuration. This isn't surprising, as these are placed after the caudal screws, which reduces the available corridor size and increases the placement difficulty.

Spine surgeon versus AI algorithm full-length radiographic measurements: a validation study of complex adult spinal deformity patients.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal measurements play an integral role in surgical planning for a variety of spine procedures. Full-length imaging eliminates distortions that can occur with stitched images. However, these images take radiologists significantly longer to read than conventional radiographs. Artificial intelligence (AI) image analysis software that can make such measurements quickly and reliably would be advantageous to surgeons, radiologists, and the entire health system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this study. Preoperative full-length standing anterior-posterior and lateral radiographs of patients that were previously measured by fellowship-trained spine surgeons at our institution were obtained. The measurements included lumbar lordosis (LL), greatest coronal Cobb angle (GCC), pelvic incidence (PI), coronal balance (CB), and T1-pelvic angle (T1PA). Inter-rater intra-class correlation (ICC) values were calculated based on an overlapping sample of 10 patients measured by surgeons. Full-length standing radiographs of an additional 100 patients were provided for AI software training. The AI algorithm then measured the radiographs and ICC values were calculated. RESULTS: ICC values for inter-rater reliability between surgeons were excellent and calculated to 0.97 for LL (95% CI 0.88-0.99), 0.78 (0.33-0.94) for GCC, 0.86 (0.55-0.96) for PI, 0.99 for CB (0.93-0.99), and 0.95 for T1PA (0.82-0.99). The algorithm computed the five selected parameters with ICC values between 0.70 and 0.94, indicating excellent reliability. Exemplary for the comparison of AI and surgeons, the ICC for LL was 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) and 0.93 for CB (0.90-0.95). GCC, PI, and T1PA could be determined with ICC values of 0.81 (0.69-0.87), 0.70 (0.60-0.78), and 0.94 (0.91-0.96) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AI algorithm presented here demonstrates excellent reliability for most of the parameters and good reliability for PI, with ICC values corresponding to measurements conducted by experienced surgeons. In future, it may facilitate the analysis of large data sets and aid physicians in diagnostics, pre-operative planning, and post-operative quality control.

Randomized Trial of Augmented Pelvic Fixation in Patients Undergoing Thoracolumbar Fusion for Adult Spine Deformity: Initial Results from a Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal configuration for spinopelvic fixation during multilevel spine fusion surgery for adult spine deformity remains unclear. Postoperative sacroiliac (SI) joint pain, S2AI screw loosening and implant breakage could be related to continued motion of the SI joint with use of only a single point of fixation across the SI joint. METHODS: Prospective, international, multicenter randomized controlled trial of 222 patients with adult spine deformity scheduled for multilevel (4 or more levels) spine fusion surgery with pelvic fixation. Subjects were randomized to sacroalar (S2) iliac (S2AI) screws alone for pelvic fixation or S2AI + triangular titanium implants placed cephalad to S2AI screws. Quad rod techniques were not allowed or used. Baseline spinal deformity measures were read by an independent radiologist. Site-reported perioperative adverse events were reviewed by a clinical events committee. Quality of life questionnaires and other clinical outcomes are in process with planned 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen participants were assigned to S2AI and 109 to S2AI + titanium triangular implants (TTI). 35/222 (16%) of all subjects had a history of SI joint pain or were diagnosed with SI joint pain during preoperative workup. Three-month follow-up was available in all but 4 subjects. TTI placement was successful in 106 of 109 (98%) subjects assigned to TTI. In 2 cases, TTI could not be placed due to anatomical considerations. Three TTI ventral iliac breaches were observed, all of which were managed non-surgically. One TTI subject had a transverse sacral fracture and 1 TTI subject had malposition of the implant requiring removal. CONCLUSIONS: SI joint pain is common in patients with adult spinal deformity who are candidates for multilevel spine fusion surgery. Concurrent placement of TTI parallel to S2AI screws during multilevel spine fusion surgery is feasible and safe. Further follow-up will help to determine the clinical value of this approach to augment pelvic fixation.

Opioid Use Prior to Adult Spine Deformity Correction Surgery is Associated With Worse Pre- and Postoperative Back Pain and Prolonged Opioid Demands.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter database post-hoc analysis. OBJECTIVES: Opioids are frequently prescribed for painful spinal conditions to provide pain relief and to allow for functional improvement, both before and after spine surgery. Amidst a current opioid epidemic, it is important for providers to understand the impact of opioid use and its relationship with patient-reported outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pre-/postoperative opioid consumption surrounding ASD and assess patient-reported pain outcomes in older patients undergoing surgery for spinal deformity. METHODS: Patients ≥60 years of age from 12 international centers undergoing spinal fusion of at least 5 levels and a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome scores were collected using the Numeric Rating Scale for back and leg pain (NRS-B; NRS-L) at baseline and at 2 years following surgery. Opioid use, defined based on a specific question on case report forms and question 11 from the SRS-22r questionnaire, was assessed at baseline and at 2-year follow-up. RESULT: Of the 219 patients who met inclusion criteria, 179 (81.7%) had 2-year data on opioid use. The percentages of patients reporting opioid use at baseline (n = 75, 34.2%) and 2 years after surgery (n = 55, 30.7%) were similar (P = .23). However, at last follow-up 39% of baseline opioid users (Opi) were no longer taking opioids, while 14% of initial non-users (No-Opi) reported opioid use. Regional pre- and postoperative opioid use was 5.8% and 7.7% in the Asian population, 58.3% and 53.1% in the European, and 50.5% and 40.2% in North American patients, respectively. Baseline opioid users reported more preoperative back pain than the No-Opi group (7.0 vs 5.7, P = .001), while NRS-Leg pain scores were comparable (4.8 vs 4, P = .159). Similarly, at last follow-up, patients in the Opi group had greater NRS-B scores than Non-Opi patients (3.2 vs 2.3, P = .012), but no differences in NRS-Leg pain scores (2.2 vs 2.4, P = .632) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, almost one-third of surgical ASD patients were consuming opioids both pre- and postoperatively world-wide. There were marked international variations, with patients from Asia having a much lower usage rate, suggesting a cultural influence. Despite both opioid users and nonusers benefitting from surgery, preoperative opioid use was strongly associated with significantly more back pain at baseline that persisted at 2-year follow up, as well as persistent postoperative opioid needs.