What Is the Value Proposition of Evidence-Based Guidelines? An Application of the Operative Value Index for Lumbar Fusions.

BACKGROUND: Elective lumbar fusions have received criticism for inappropriate utilization. Here, we use a novel Operative Value Index (OVI) to assess whether "indicated," evidence-based lumbar fusions are associated with increased value (outcomes per dollar spent). METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of 294 patients undergoing elective lumbar fusions at a single large academic institution. All patients were preoperatively evaluated by a panel of neurosurgeons for concordance with evidence-based medicine (EBM), determined through guidelines from the North American Spine Society. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected for all patients both preoperatively and at 6-months postoperatively. Time-driven activity-based costing was employed to determine both direct and indirect intraoperative costs. The OVI was defined as the percent improvement in ODI per $1000 spent intraoperatively. Generalized linear mixed model regression, adjusting for confounders, was performed to assess whether EBM-concordant surgeries were associated with higher OVI. RESULTS: Of 294 elective lumbar fusions, 92.9% (n = 273) were EBM-concordant. The average total cost of an EBM-concordant lumbar fusion was $17,932 (supplies: $13,020; personnel: $4314), compared to $20,616 (supplies: $15,467; personnel: $4758) for an EBM-discordant fusion. Average OVI was 2.27 for a concordant fusion, compared to 0.11 for a discordant fusion. Generalized linear mixed model analysis revealed that EBM-concordant cases were associated with significantly higher OVI (ß-coefficient 2.0, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EBM-concordant fusions were associated with 2% greater improvement in ODI scores from baseline for every $1000 spent intraoperatively. Systematic methods for increasing guideline adherence for lumbar fusions could therefore improve value at scale.

Decompressive Hemicraniectomy After Cerebral Fat Embolism.

Fat embolism syndrome is a common occurrence after orthopedic trauma and surgery. Cerebral fat embolism (CFE) may arise after fat globules enter the arterial circulation. The neurological manifestations of CFE vary and generally carries a favorable outcome. A small number of reports exist regarding patients with CFE who experienced severe neurological deficits and significant edema on radiographic studies, and subsequently underwent decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC), some of which had full neurological recoveries. Here, we present the case of a 21-year-old male who presented after a motorcycle accident with multiple orthopedic injuries, who after fixation did not awake from anesthesia. The patient was ultimately found to have cerebral fat emboli, and developed significant edema and swelling. The patient underwent DHC with subsequent cranioplasty and returned to his neurological baseline seven months after his initial injury. DHC for CFE has been described in a few cases with some patients have had substantive recoveries, including the present case. This case emphasizes the importance of promptly recognizing and reversing elevated intracranial pressures and the possibility of promising recoveries.

Advances in diagnosis and management of atypical spinal infections: A comprehensive review.

Atypical spinal infections (ASIs) of the spine are a challenging pathology to management with potentially devastating morbidity and mortality. To identify patients with atypical spinal infections, it is important to recognize the often insidious clinical and radiographic presentations, in the setting of indolent and smoldering organism growth. Trending of inflammatory markers, and culturing of organisms, is essential. Once identified, the spinal infection should be treated with antibiotics and possibly various surgical interventions including decompression and possible fusion depending on spine structural integrity and stability. Early diagnosis of ASIs and immediate treatment of debilitating conditions, such as epidural abscess, correlate with fewer neurological deficits and a shorter duration of medical treatment. There have been great advances in surgical interventions and spinal fusion techniques for patients with spinal infection. Overall, ASIs remain a perplexing pathology that could be successfully treated with early diagnosis and immediate, appropriate medical, and surgical management.

Bilateral phrenic nerve palsy after posterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery: a rare event after surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed C5 weakness is a known entity in cervical spine surgery, although with varied clinical presentation and poorly understood mechanism of action. We describe the first case in the literature of a bilateral C5 palsy leading to bilateral phrenic nerve dysfunction following a posterior cervical decompression and fusion. CASE REPORT: A 76-year-old male presented with low back pain and was diagnosed as myelopathic. On initial neurological examination, he could not ambulate without assistance and was unsteady on tandem gait. The initial cervical MRI and CT scan showed advanced multilevel degenerative changes of the cervical spine with severe cord compression and myelomalacia. The patient underwent C3-C6 posterior cervical decompression & fusion (PCDF). He awoke with his baseline examination without neurophysiological monitoring changes intraoperatively or C5 root EMG activity. Post-operative MRI of the cervical spine was performed and showed an excellent decompression. The patient was neurologically stable and discharged to a rehabilitation facility. Patient developed a delayed bilateral C5P on postoperative day (POD) 74. Delayed bilateral C5P and phrenic nerve damage was determined to cause this patient's dyspnea. PM&R consult recommended placement of diaphragmatic pacers. However, clinically his respiratory function, as well as motor deficits, have gradually improved. CONCLUSION: Bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, a severe complication of cervical spine surgery, may cause respiratory distress and upper limb weakness. C5P, the underlying cause, may arise from various factors. Early detection and management of diaphragmatic weakness with physical therapy and pacers are crucial, emphasizing the need for vigilance by healthcare professionals and surgeons.

Ventriculostomy Associated with Reduced Mortality in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Compared to Parenchymal ICP Monitoring: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on whether intracranial pressure (ICP)-guided therapy with an intraparenchymal fiberoptic monitor (IPM) or an external ventricular drain (EVD) leads to superior outcomes. Our goal is to determine the relationship between ICP-guided therapy with an EVD or IPM and mortality. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of severe traumatic brain injury cases that required IPM or EVD placement for ICP-guided therapy from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020. The data were obtained from the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation registry. RESULTS: A total of 2305 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 1048 (45.5%) IPM and 1257 (54.5%) EVD placed. Inpatient mortality occurred in 337 (32.2%) and 334 (26.6%) patients in the IPM and EVD cohorts, respectively (P = 0.003). Even among those treated medically only, inpatient mortality occurred in 171 (30.8%) of those with an IPM and in 100 (23.4%) of those with an EVD (P = 0.010). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, P < 0.001), lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score (OR 1.16, P < 0.001), requiring surgery (OR 1.22, P = 0.049), and an IPM (OR 1.40, P = 0.001) were significant predictors of mortality. Propensity score-adjusted analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighted method revealed a 28% decrease in mortality and a 14% decrease in length of hospital stay with EVD use when adjusting for age, sex, GCS, Injury Severity Score, surgery, and Hispanic ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: A significant mortality benefit was associated with the use of EVD compared to IPM. This mortality benefit was observed regardless of whether patients required surgery or not.

Does axial cervical pain improve with surgical fusion? A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Axial neck pain is a prevalent condition that causes significant morbidity and productivity loss. This study aimed to review the current literature and define the impact of surgical intervention on the management of cervical axial neck pain. METHODS: A search was conducted of three databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies written in the English language with a minimum 6-month follow-up. The analysis was limited to patients with axial neck pain/cervical radiculopathy and preoperative/postoperative Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Literature reviews, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, surveys, and case studies were excluded. Two patient groups were analyzed: the arm pain predominant (pAP) cohort and the neck pain predominant (pNP) cohort. The pAP cohort had preoperative VAS neck scores that were lower than the arm scores, whereas the pNP cohort was defined as having preoperative VAS neck scores higher than the arm scores. A 30% reduction in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores from the baseline represented the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria, involving a total of 5221 patients. Patients with pAP showed a slightly higher percent reduction in PROM scores from baseline than those with pNP. The NDI reduction in patients with pNP was 41.35% (mean change in NDI score 16.3/mean baseline NDI score 39.42) (p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had a reduction of 45.12% (15.86/35.15) (p < 0.0001). Surgical improvement was slightly but similarly greater in pNP patients compared with pAP patients (16.3 vs 15.86 points, respectively; p = 0.3193). Regarding VAS scores, patients with pNP had a greater reduction in neck pain, with a change from baseline of 53.4% (3.60/6.74, p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had a change from baseline of 50.3% (2.46/4.89, p < 0.0001). The difference in VAS scores for neck pain improvement was significant (3.6 vs 2.46, p < 0.0134). Similarly, patients with pNP had a 43.6% (1.96/4.5) improvement in VAS scores for arm pain (p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had 66.12% (4.43/6.7) improvement (p < 0.0001). The VAS scores for arm pain were significantly greater in patients with pAP (4.43 vs 1.96 points, respectively; p < 0.0051). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, despite significant variations in the existing literature, there is mounting evidence that surgical intervention can lead to clinically meaningful improvements in patients with primary axial neck pain. The studies suggest that patients with pNP tend to have better improvement in neck pain than in arm pain. In both groups, the average improvements exceeded the MCID values and reached substantial clinical benefit in all studies. Further research is necessary to identify which patients and underlying pathologies will benefit most from surgical intervention for axial neck pain because it is a multifaceted condition with many causes.

Clinical Outcomes with and without Adherence to Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Fusion Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) patients are treated with instrumented fusion, following EBM guidelines, and typically have excellent clinical outcomes. However, not all lumbar fusion procedures adhere to EBM guidelines, typically due to a lack of prospective data. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study compared outcomes of DS lumbar fusion patients treated according to EBM guidelines (EBM concordant) to lumbar fused patients with procedures that did not have clear EBM literature that supported this treatment, the goal being to examine the value of present EBM to guide clinical care. METHODS: A total of 125 DS patients were considered EBM concordant, while 21 patients were EBM discordant. Pre- and postsurgical ODI scores were collected. Clinical outcomes were stratified into substantial clinical benefit (SCB ΔODI >10 points), minimal clinical importance benefit (MCID ΔODI ≥ 5 points), no MCID (ΔODI < 5 points), and a group that showed no change or worsening ODI. Fisher's exact and χ2 tests for categorical variables, Student's t-test for continuous variables, and descriptive statistics were used. Statistical tests were computed at the 95% level of confidence. RESULTS: Analysis of 125 degenerative spondylolisthesis patients was performed comparing preoperative and postoperative (6 months) ODI scores. ODI improved by 8 points in the EBM concordant group vs. 2.1 points in the EBM discordant group (p = 0.002). Compliance with EBM guidelines was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.93 for achieving MCID ([CI]: 1.12-7.58, p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Patients whose lumbar fusions met EBM criteria had better self-reported outcomes at six months than those who did not meet the requirements. A greater knowledge set is needed to help further support EBM-guided patient care.

Lumbar Synovial Cysts-Should You Fuse or Not?

BACKGROUND: Spinal synovial cysts are lesions that most commonly occur in the lumbar region. The need for an instrumented spinal fusion in addition to lumbar decompression with removal of the synovial cyst is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that select patients who underwent decompression with instrumented fusion for lumbar synovial cysts would be less likely to have subsequent surgery (SS) in a 2-year period than patients treated with laminectomy alone. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed using IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Patients who had a lumbar synovial cyst diagnosis and laminectomy surgery with or without fusion surgery were included in this study. Patients were tracked for SS 2 years after surgery. Laminectomy patients were propensity score-matched to laminectomy with fusion (LF) patients using a 2:1 ratio. The log-rank test and Cox regression were used to compare the cumulative incidence of SS between groups. RESULTS: There were 7664 and 1631 patients treated with laminectomy and LF before matching. After matching, there were 2212 laminectomy and 1631 LF patients and patient characteristics were balanced. The 2-year incidence of recurrent SS was 3.1% ([CI]: 2.2%, 4.0%) and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.9%, 2.5%) laminectomy and LF, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, LF had a statistically significant lower risk of recurrent SS (hazard ratio: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.32-0.97]; P -value: .04). CONCLUSION: All patients who had concomitant lumbar fusion showed decreased chance of having a cyst- or noncyst-related recurrence SS when compared with all patients undergoing laminectomy alone, regardless of diagnosis at the time of SS.

Does Preoperative Opiate Choice Increase Risk of Postoperative Infection and Subsequent Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Opioids are commonly prescribed for chronic pain before spinal surgery and research has shown an increased rate of postoperative adverse events in these patients. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the incidence of 2-year subsequent surgical procedures and postoperative adverse events in patients undergoing lumbar fusion with or without 90-day preoperative opioid use. We hypothesized that patients using preoperative opioids would have a higher incidence of subsequent surgery and adverse outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Optum Pan-Therapeutic Electronic Health Records database including adult patients who had their first lumbar fusion between 2015 and 2018. The daily average preoperative opioid dosage 90 days before fusion was determined as morphine equivalent dose and further categorized into high dose (morphine equivalent dose >100 mg/day) and low dose (1-100 mg/day). Clinical outcomes were compared after adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 23,275 patients were included, with 2112 patients (10%) using opioids preoperatively. There was a significantly higher incidence of infection compared with nonusers (12.3% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.01). There was no association between subsequent fusion surgery (7.9% vs. 7.5%; P = 0.52) and subsequent decompression surgery (4.1% vs. 3.6%; P = 0.3) between opioid users and nonusers. Regarding postoperative infection risk, low-dose users showed significantly higher incidence (12.7% vs. 10.1%; P < 0.01), but high-dose users did not show higher incidence than nonusers (7.5% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous studies, opioid use was significantly associated with a higher incidence of 2-year postoperative infection compared with nonuse. Low-dose opioid users had higher postoperative infection rates than did nonusers.

Increased Surgeon-specific Experience and Volume is Correlated With Improved Clinical Outcomes in Lumbar Fusion Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: The present study design was that of a single center, retrospective cohort study to evaluate the influence of surgeon-specific factors on patient functional outcomes at 6 months following lumbar fusion. Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis identified the present study population. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to evaluate surgeon-specific variable effects on patient-reported outcomes such as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the effect of North American Spine Society (NASS) concordance on outcomes in the setting of variable surgeon characteristics. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar fusion is one of the fastest growing procedures performed in the United States. Although the impact of surgeon-specific factors on patient-reported outcomes has been contested, studies examining these effects are limited. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective cohort study analyzing a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis by 1 of 5 neurosurgery fellowship trained spine surgeons. The primary outcome was improvement of ODI at 6 months postoperative follow-up compared with preoperative ODI. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were identified for analysis. Overall, 62% of the study population achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI score at 6 months. Years in practice and volume of lumbar fusions were statistically significant independent predictors of MCID ODI on multivariable logistic regression ( P =0.0340 and P =0.0343, respectively). Concordance with evidence-based criteria conferred a 3.16 (95% CI: 1.03, 9.65) times greater odds of achieving MCID. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that traditional surgeon-specific variables predicting surgical morbidity such as experience and procedural volume are also predictors of achieving MCID 6 months postoperatively from lumbar fusion. Independent of surgeon factors, however, adhering to evidence-based guidelines can lead to improved outcomes.

Intraoperative chyle leak repair during right-sided anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Iatrogenic chyle leak (CL) following lymphatic vessel damage is an uncommon but serious complication of neck dissections. In the setting of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), left-sided CL are an exceedingly rare complication, with an incidence of only 0.02 %. Only three cases of right-sided CL during an ACDF have been reported. The case presented is the first right-sided CL to be successfully identified intraoperatively and treated. Intraoperative and postoperative management are discussed. This case will hopefully bring clinical and surgical awareness to providers caring for patients undergoing an ACDF.

Does the Number of Levels of Decompression Have an Impact on the Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Study in Single-Level Fused Patients.

Introduction The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) 2014 lumbar fusion guidelines for stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) support surgical decompression and fusion as an effective treatment option for symptomatic stenosis associated with DS. The association between the number of levels decompressed in patients with single-level fusion and clinical outcomes has never been published. Methods A retrospective analysis of a single-center, prospectively collected database was performed on 77 patients to compare the effect of the number of decompression levels in patients that received single-level fusion surgery. A total of 77 patients met the criteria. Group one had one level decompressed, group two had two levels decompressed, and group three had three or four levels decompressed. All patients received lumbar fusion surgery at a single spinal level. Outcomes at six months included: Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) (ΔODI ≥ 10 points); Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) (ΔODI ≥ 5); no MCID (ΔODI <5 points). Student's t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc comparison using unpaired two-tailed student's t-test with Holm-Bonferroni correction were performed. p -values were ranked from smallest to largest, and alpha level adjustments were made.  Results A sub-analysis of each group's clinical outcomes showed that patients with two levels decompressed reached greater clinical outcomes. SCB was obtained by approximately 60% (group one: 12.5% vs. group three: 40%) of the patients. A total of 77.6% (38/49) achieved MCID (group one: 62.5% vs. group three: 55%). Single-level fused patients with two levels of decompression showed an improvement of 48% from baseline ODI, as opposed to group one: 17.85% and group three: 21.1%. Patients belonging to group two showed the lowest rate of no improvement. Baseline ODI scores were similar upon presentation (p=0.46), and the difference was found among groups after six months of follow-up (p=0.009). Post hoc comparison showed statistical significance in the comparison between group two and group three (p=0.009, alpha value: 0.017). Conclusion The addition of more than two levels of decompression to single-level fused patients might be associated with poor clinical outcomes and spinal instability.

Incidence of Pseudarthrosis and Subsequent Surgery After Cervical Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Review of a National Health Care Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Cervical pseudarthrosis is a postoperative adverse event that occurs when a surgically induced fusion fails to establish bone growth connecting the 2 regions. It has both clinical and financial implications and may result in significant patient morbidity; it continues to be one of the leading causes of pain after surgery. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study was performed. Patients in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) database, 18-64 years old, who underwent elective cervical fusions during 2015-2019 were included. Patients with trauma, infection, or neoplasm were excluded. Patients were followed for 2 years from surgical fusion for occurrence of pseudarthrosis. After pseudarthrosis, subsequent surgery was documented, and cumulative incidence curves, adjusted for patient/procedure characteristics, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated. Risk factors were evaluated with multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 45,584 patients. The 1-year and 2-year incidence of pseudarthrosis was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.9%-2.2%) and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-3.5%), respectively. Factors significantly associated with increased risk of pseudarthrosis were female gender, current/previous substance abuse, previous spinal pain in the cervical/thoracic/lumbar spine, and Elixhauser score ≥5. Factors significantly associated with decreased risk of pseudarthrosis were anterior cervical approach, use of an interbody cage, and 2-level or 3-level anterior instrumentation. The 1-year and 2-year incidence of subsequent surgery in patients with pseudarthrosis was 11.7% (95% CI, 9.6%-13.7%) and 13.8% (95% CI, 11.5%-16.2%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical pseudarthrosis and subsequent surgery still occur at a low rate. Surgical factors such as anterior approach, interbody cage use, and anterior instrumentation may reduce pseudarthrosis risk.

Telemedicine in Neurosurgery During the COVID-19 Outbreak: Where We Are 1 Year Later.

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine use skyrocketed in March 2020 on implementation of shelter-in-place measures owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Within the past year, shelter-in-place measures were lifted and the COVID-19 vaccine was released, resulting in many neurosurgeons returning to in-person outpatient clinics. This study aimed to determine the extent of usage of telemedicine in neurosurgery 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients who received neurosurgical care at a single institution from February 1 to April 18 of the years 2020 and 2021 was performed. The inclusion criteria were met by 11,592 patients. During the 2 study periods, 1465 patients underwent surgery, 7083 were seen in clinic via an in-person meeting, and 3044 were assessed via telemedicine. RESULTS: At 1 year after the COVID-19 outbreak, telemedicine usage was at 81.3% of the initial volume on implementation of shelter-in-place measures. In-person outpatient visits increased 40.2% from the early pandemic volume. Among the 4 neurosurgery divisions, telemedicine usage remained high in tumor and functional neurosurgery, significantly increased in vascular neurosurgery, and decreased in spine neurosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine use in neurosurgery clinics continues 1 year after the COVID-19 outbreak. Even after the lifting of shelter-in-place measures, many neurosurgeons still use telemedicine, while the operative volume remains stable. Owing to the limited physical examination that can be performed via current telemedicine platforms, telemedicine use in spine neurosurgery is lower than peak use during the early pandemic, while use has remained high among tumor, vascular, and functional neurosurgery.

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Lumbar Fusion in Patients with Previously Treated Cervical Myelopathy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of surgically treated cervical myelopathy and lumbar pathology requiring fusion present complex challenges, and literature describing patient-reported outcomes in this cohort beyond patients with tandem spinal stenosis is sparse. This has led to unclear guidelines in the literature. We present the first dataset comparing patient-reported outcomes for lumbar fusion in patients with isolated lumbar pathology versus patients with a history of surgically treated cervical myelopathy. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected lumbar fusion database, variables of interest included demographics, comorbidities, type and levels of fusion, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: Of 325 patients identified, 309 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 29 patients had previous cervical surgery to address cervical myelopathy. Median time between cervical and lumbar surgery was 4.0 years (range, 0.3-19.7). There was no statistical difference in preoperative ODI score (24.8 vs. 25.6, P = 0.687), 6-month postoperative ODI score (17.3 vs. 18.7, P = 0.459), change in ODI score (7.5 vs. 6.9, P = 0.673), or minimal clinically important difference for ODI score (62.1% vs. 58.6%, P = 0.710) in patients who had undergone cervical surgery versus patients who had not. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of previously treated cervical myelopathy have a similar rate of clinically relevant improvement after lumbar fusion compared with patients without such history. As such, these patients appear to benefit from lumbar fusion surgery to the same degree as patients without a history of surgically treated cervical myelopathy.

A Review of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Decompression for Radiculopathy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With this manuscript the authors sought to write a succinct review of the origins, as well as the latest advancements in endoscopic spine surgery to serve as a reference frame for physicians looking to learn this approach. RECENT FINDINGS: At its infancy, the indications for posterolateral and transforaminal endoscopic decompression remained narrow, which prevented the procedure from gaining rapid traction during those days. However, more recently the tides have turned and an increasing number of surgeons are starting to adopt this technique given all its advantages. With the advent of higher quality camera systems and instruments, indications to use a minimally invasive option have gotten significantly broader. The most basic indication for the use of this technology is a soft disc herniation causing compromise of a neural structure that has failed to be managed successfully with non-surgical therapies. The use of endoscopic techniques provides significant advantages to patient outcomes and patient recovery. Endoscopic procedures should not be used as a blanket approach to nerve root decompression, as they certainly have limitations. Most contraindications to this procedure are relative and serve mostly as points to consider when selecting the methods to address neural compression. As these techniques become more widely accepted, we expect its reach and indications to continue to broaden and diversify. The full integration of navigation technologies will likely leapfrog this procedure into the mainstream use.

Combined Anterior Osteophytectomy and Cricopharyngeal Myotomy for Treatment of DISH-Associated Dysphagia.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of patients with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) with dysphagia who underwent cricopharyngeal myotomy (CPM) in conjunction with anterior osteophytectomy (OP). METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of 9 patients that received combined intervention by neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists. Inclusion criteria for surgery consisted of patients who failed to respond to conservative treatments for dysphagia and had evidence of both upper esophageal dysfunction and osteophyte compression. We present the largest series in literature to date including patients undergoing combined OP and CPM. RESULTS: A total of 88.9% (8/9) of the patients who underwent OP and CPM showed improvement in their symptoms. Of the aforementioned group, 22.2% of these patients had complete resolution of their symptoms, 11.1% did not improve, and only 2 patients showed recurrence of their symptoms. None of the patients in whom surgery was performed required reoperation or suffered serious complication related to the surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Based on the literature results, high rate of improvements in dysphagia, and low rate of complications, combined OP and CPM procedures may be beneficial to a carefully selected group of patients.

Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Current Usage.

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide in industrialized nations. The pathology underlying chronic low back pain is associated with numerous factors. Lumbar degenerative disc disease is a potential major source of low back pain. There are numerous treatment modalities and options. Nonsurgical treatment options exist in the form of pain management through a combination of anti-inflammatory medications and steroid injections, physical therapy and lifestyle modifications. This article reviews the history and current trends in use for lumbar toral disc arthroplasty for degenerative disc disease treatment. Furthermore, indications, contraindications, and complications management are discussed.