Which parameters are relevant in sagittal balance analysis of the cervical spine? A literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical spine is part of the spine with the most mobility in the sagittal plane. It is important for surgeons to have reliable, simple and reproducible parameters to analyse the cervical. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This study is a systematic review and a critique of current parameters to help improve the study of cervical spinal balance. We conducted a systematic search of PUBMED/MEDLINE for literature published since January 2014. Only studies written in English and containing abstracts were considered for inclusion. The search performed was: «C7 slope¼ OR «T1 slope¼ OR «C2C7 offset¼ OR «C2C7 lordosis¼ OR «cervical SVA (sagittal vertical axis)¼ OR «TIA (thoracic inlet angle)¼ (Lee et al., J Spinal Disord Tech 25(2):E41-E47, 2012) OR «SCA (spino-cranial angle)¼. Exclusion criteria were purely post-operative and cadaveric analysis, studies performed with CT scan or MRI, studies on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, traumatology studies and no standing analysis of the cervical spine. Relevance was confirmed by investigators if cervical parameters was a major criteria of the study. RESULTS: 138 articles were found by the electronic search. After complete evaluation 20 articles were selected. The large majority of papers used the same parameters C2_C7 lordosis, C2-C7 SVA, T1 slope or C7 slope and T1 slope/cervical lordosis mismatch. Janusz reported a new parameter using a retrospective cohort of patient with cervical radiculopathy: the TIA (thoracic inlet angle). Le Huec reported an other new parameter based on a prospective study of asymptomatic volunteer: the spino-cranial angle (SCA). This parameter is highly correlated with the C7 slope and the cervical lordosis. Other studies reported parameters that are more global balance analysis including the cervical spine than cervical spine balance itself. CONCLUSION: The most important parameters to analyse the cervical sagittal balance according to the literature available today for good clinical outcomes are the following: C7 or T1 slope, average value 20°, must not be higher than 40°. cSVA must not be less than 40°C (mean value 20 mm). SCA (spine cranial angle) must stay in a norm (83° ± 9°). Future studies should focus on those three parameters to analyse and compare pre and post op data and to correlate the results with the quality of life improvement.

What are the risk factors for dislocation in primary total hip arthroplasty? A multicenter case-control study of 128 unstable and 438 stable hips.

INTRODUCTION: Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a leading reason for surgical revision. The risk factors for dislocation are controversial, particularly those related to the patient and to the surgical procedure itself. The differences in opinion on the impact of these factors stem from the fact they are often evaluated using retrospective studies or in limited patient populations. This led us to carry out a prospective case-control study on a large population to determine: 1) the risk factors for dislocation after THA, 2) the features of these dislocations, and 3) the contribution of patient-related factors and surgery-related factors. HYPOTHESIS: Risk factors for dislocation related to the patient and procedure can be identified using a large case-control study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, prospective case-control study was performed between January 1 and December 31, 2013. Four patients with stable THAs were matched to each patient with a dislocated THA. This led to 566 primary THA cases being included: 128 unstable, 438 stable. The primary matching factors were sex, age, initial diagnosis, surgical approach, implantation date and type of implants (bearing size, standard or dual-mobility cup). RESULTS: The patients with unstable THAs were 67±12 [37-73]years old on average; there were 61 women (48%) and 67 men (52%). Hip osteoarthritis (OA) was the main reason for the THA procedure in 71% (91/128) of the unstable group. The dislocation was posterior in 84 cases and anterior in 44 cases. The dislocation occurred within 3 months of the primary surgery in 48 cases (38%), 3 to 12 months after in 23 cases (18%), 1 to 5years after in 20 cases (16%), 5 to 10years after in 17 cases (13%) and more than 10years later in 20 cases. The dislocation recurred within 6 months of the initial dislocation in 23 of the 128 cases (18%). The risk factors for instability were a high ASA score with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.93 (95% CI: 1.4-2.6), neurological disability (cognitive, motor or psychiatric disorders) with an OR of 3.9 (95% CI: 2.15-7.1), history of spinal disease (lumbar stenosis, spinal fusion, discectomy, scoliosis and injury sequelae) with an OR of 1.89 (95% CI: 1.0-3.6), unrepaired joint capsule (all approaches) with an OR of 4.1 (95% CI: 2.3-7.37), unrepaired joint capsule (posterior approach) with an OR of 6.0 (95% CI: 2.2-15.9), and cup inclination outside Lewinnek's safe zone (30°-50°) with OR of 2.4 (95% CI: 1.4-4.0). DISCUSSION: This large comparative study isolated important patient-related factors for dislocation that surgeons must be aware of. We also found evidence that implanting the cup in 30° to 50° inclination has a major impact on preventing dislocation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; case-control study.

Meta-analysis of the effects of genetic polymorphisms on intervertebral disc degeneration.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic low back pain is a significant public health issue. Both its direct and indirect cost represents tens of billions of US dollars. Although chronic low back pain can be the result of many factors, the predominant cause is disc degeneration. Recent studies have shown genetic involvement in up to 74% of cases. This study aimed to evaluate genetic risk factors of disc degeneration by performing a systematic analysis of association studies. The objective is to provide a guide for practice by assessing the clinical relevance of current information. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a meta-analysis of 3122 items collected from 6 databases. 74 articles were selected according to our inclusion criteria. 18 (24%) could be grouped into 16 meta-analyses of 16 mutations in 12 genes. The statistics of the meta-analysis were conducted through Revman 5.1 software. RESULTS: The items included are 10,250 cases and 14,136 controls. The GOLD range from 3.42 to 0.38. Two alleles were significantly associated with disc degeneration: IL-6 rs1800797 and MMP-9 rs17576 and one proved to be protective: IL-6 rs1800795. 13 meta-analyses did not yield significant results and methodological heterogeneity. DISCUSSION: The results highlight the lack of methodological rigor in most of the studies. The absence of international clinical and radiological classification of early disc degeneration, limits the homogeneity of studies. Understanding which populations are predisposed to this significant public health problem may change our approach to diagnostic and therapeutic methods. This work opens up enormous opportunities to provide a genetic solution and consider new diagnostic and therapeutic means to this public health problem.

DiscoGel® in patients with discal lumbosciatica. Retrospective results in 25 consecutive patients.

INTRODUCTION: Discogenic lumbosciatica is a common disorder in patients between 30 and 40 years old. Because of the frequency and socio-professional impact of this entity, it represents a real public health problem. DiscoGel® is a class III medical device used for nucleolysis to avoid discectomy. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this treatment in patients with discogenic lumbosciatica following unsuccessful conservative medical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center study including 25 patients who were treated with DiscoGel® between 2010 and 2011 at Niort Hospital, France. The severity of lumbar and radicular pain was assessed by a verbal numeric scale (VNS) and patient satisfaction. Patients were classified as successes or failures. RESULTS: Treatment was found to reduce the severity of lumbar pain in 73% and of radicular pain in 80% of patients in the success group. Treatment was a failure in 64% of patients. A comparison of the two groups showed that a preoperative MODIC 2 MRI signal of the adjacent vertebral end plate was significantly associated with treatment failure (Chi(2)=8572, P < 0.01). DISCUSSION: The VNS for lumbar pain and radicular pain decreased in 42% and 50% of patients respectively after the use of DiscoGel®. In our series, DiscoGel® treatment was unsuccessful for discogenic lumbosciatica in 16 patients. These results do not support others in the literature. A lack of statistical power could partly explain these results. The most important result of this study is found in the subgroup analysis which suggests that indications for DiscoGel® treatment could be modified in the future in relation to preoperative imaging data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.