Treatment of ambulatory patients with metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 10% of patients with spinal metastases develop metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC), which left undiagnosed and untreated can lead to the loss of ambulation. Timely diagnosis and efficient multidisciplinary treatment are critically important to optimize neurological outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the most efficient treatment for ambulatory patients with MESCC. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment of mobile patients with MESCC in terms of outcomes described as local control (LC), ambulatory function, quality of life (QOL), morbidity, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 54 papers (4101 patients) were included. A trend toward improved LC with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared with conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) was demonstrated: random effects modeling 1-year LC rate 86% (95% CI 84%-88%) versus 81% (95% CI 74%-86%) (p > 0.05), respectively, and common effects modeling 1-year LC rate 85% (95% CI 82%-87%) versus 76% (95% CI 74%-78%) (p < 0.05). Surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy, either cEBRT or SBRT, showed no significant benefit in either LC (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65-1.19) or ambulatory function (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.83-2.74) compared with radiotherapy without surgery. There was a significant benefit of surgery compared with cEBRT regarding QOL, and furthermore SBRT alone provided long-term improvement in QOL. The type of treatment was not a significant predictor of OS, but fully ambulatory status was significantly associated with improved OS (HR 0.46-0.52, relative risk 1.79-2.3). Radiation-induced myelopathy is a rare complication of SBRT (2 patients [0.1%] in the included papers). The morbidity rate associated with surgery was relatively high, with a 10% wound complication rate and 1.6% hardware-failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT is an extremely promising treatment modality being integrated into treatment algorithms and provides durable LC. In mobile patients with MESCC, surgery does not improve LC, survival, or ambulatory function; nonetheless, there is a significant benefit of surgery in terms of QOL. In patients with MESCC without neurological deficit, the role of surgery is still debatable as studies demonstrate good LC for patients who undergo SBRT without preceding surgery. However, surgery can provide safe margins for the administration of the ablative dose of SBRT to the entire tumor volume within the constraints of spinal cord tolerance. Further randomized controlled trials are needed on the benefit of surgery before SBRT in mobile patients with MESCC. With the excellent results of separation surgery and SBRT, the role of highly invasive vertebrectomy is diminishing given the complication rate and morbidity of these procedures.

Epidemiology of spinal metastases, metastatic epidural spinal cord compression and pathologic vertebral compression fractures in patients with solid tumors: A systematic review.

Introduction: Spinal metastases (SM) are a frequent complication of cancer and may lead to pathologic vertebral compression fractures (pVCF) and/or metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC). Based on autopsy studies, it is estimated that about one third of all cancer patients will develop SM. These data may not provide a correct estimation of the incidence in clinical practice. Objective: This systematic review (SR) aims to provide a more accurate estimation of the incidence of SM, MESCC and pVCF in a clinical setting. Methods: We performed a SR of papers regarding epidemiology of SM, pVCF, and MESCC in patients with solid tumors conform PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted in the PubMed and Web of Science database using the terms epidemiology, prevalence, incidence, global burden of disease, cost of disease, spinal metastas*, metastatic epidural spinal cord compression, pathologic fracture, vertebral compression fracture, vertebral metastas* and spinal neoplasms. Papers published between 1975 and august 2021 were included. Quality was evaluated by the STROBE criteria. Results: While 56 studies were included, none of them reports the actual definition used for MESCC and pVCF, inevitably introducing heterogenity. The overall cumulative incidence of SM and MESCC is 15.67% and 2.84% respectively in patients with a solid tumor. We calculated a mean cumulative incidence in patients with SM of 9.56% (95% CI 5.70%-13.42%) for MESCC and 12.63% (95% CI 7.00%-18.25%) for pVCF. Studies show an important delay between onset of symptoms and diagnosis. Conclusions: While the overall cumulative incidence for clinically diagnosed SM in patients with a solid tumor is 15.67%, autopsy studies reveal that SM are present in 30% by the time they die, suggesting underdiagnosing of SM. Approximately 1 out of 10 patients with SM will develop MESCC and another 12.6% will develop a pVCF. Understanding these epidemiologic data, should increase awareness for first symptoms, allowing early diagnosis and subsequent treatment, thus improving overall outcome.

Effectiveness of an Annular Closure Device to Prevent Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Secondary Analysis With 5 Years of Follow-up.

Importance: Patients with large annular defects following lumbar microdiscectomy for disc herniation are at increased risk for symptomatic recurrence and reoperation. Objective: To determine whether a bone-anchored annular closure device in addition to lumbar microdiscectomy resulted in lower reherniation and reoperation rates vs lumbar microdiscectomy alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial reports 5-year follow-up for enrolled patients between December 2010 and October 2014 at 21 clinical sites. Patients in this study had a large annular defect (6-10 mm width) following lumbar microdiscectomy for treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Statistical analysis was performed from November to December 2020. Interventions: Lumbar microdiscectomy with additional bone-anchored annular closure device (device group) or lumbar microdiscectomy only (control group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of symptomatic reherniation, reoperation, and adverse events as well as changes in leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and health-related quality of life when comparing the device and control groups over 5 years of follow-up. Results: Among 554 randomized participants (mean [SD] age: 43 [11] years; 327 [59%] were men), 550 were included in the modified intent-to-treat efficacy population (device group: n = 272; 270 [99%] were White); control group: n = 278; 273 [98%] were White) and 550 were included in the as-treated safety population (device group: n = 267; control group: n = 283). The risk of symptomatic reherniation (18.8% [SE, 2.5%] vs 31.6% [SE, 2.9%]; P < .001) and reoperation (16.0% [SE, 2.3%] vs 22.6% [SE, 2.6%]; P = .03) was lower in the device group. There were 53 reoperations in 40 patients in the device group and 82 reoperations in 58 patients in the control group. Scores for leg pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index, and health-related quality of life significantly improved over 5 years of follow-up with no clinically relevant differences between groups. The frequency of serious adverse events was comparable between the treatment groups. Serious adverse events associated with the device or procedure were less frequent in the device group (12.0% vs 20.5%; difference, -8.5%; 95% CI, -14.6% to -2.3%; P = .008). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients who are at high risk of recurrent herniation following lumbar microdiscectomy owing to a large defect in the annulus fibrosus, this study's findings suggest that annular closure with a bone-anchored implant lowers the risk of symptomatic recurrence and reoperation over 5 years of follow-up. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01283438.

Risk factors for early reherniation after lumbar discectomy with or without annular closure: results of a multicenter randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Reherniation after lumbar discectomy is classified as a failure and occurs in 3 to 18% of cases. Various risk factors for reherniation such as age, sex, body mass index, smoking, and size of annular defect have been reported. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for early reherniation after one-level lumbar discectomy with or without annular closure within 3 months after surgery. METHODS: This study is based on data analysis of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial in Europe. Patients included underwent standard lumbar discectomy-with or without implantation of an annular closure device (ACD). Enrollment of 554 patients in 21 centers in Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands, and France) started in 2010 and was completed in October 2014. A total of 276 patients were randomized to the ACD group (ACG) and 278 patients to the control group (CG). RESULTS: Four (1.5%) symptomatic reherniations occurred in the ACG and 18 (6.5%) in the CG. In the overall population, a significant correlation was found with recurrent herniation for disc degeneration (Pfirrmann p = 0.009) and a trend for current smoker status (p = 0.07). In CG, age ≥ 50 years (p = 0.05) and disc degeneration (Pfirrmann p = 0.026, Kellgren and Lawrence p = 0.013) were predictive factors for reherniation. CONCLUSION: In the current study, risk factors for early recurrent disc herniation after lumbar discectomy were age ≥ 50 years and moderate disc degeneration. The annular closure device reduced the risk of early reherniation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01283438.

Outcome and toxicity of hypofractionated image-guided SABR for spinal oligometastases.

BACKGROUND: To investigate progression free survival (PFS), local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) outcomes for patients treated with spine hypofractionated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) and to evaluate possible predictors of rapid progression in view of a correct patient selection for this potentially curative SABR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 59 patients with spinal metastases were treated with SABR. Patient selection criteria were the following: histologically proven diagnosis of a solid tumor, a World Health Organization (WHO) score ≤ 2, life expectancy > 6 months, Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) ≤ 12 points and presenting with radically treated oligometastatic disease (≤5 lesions) or stable polymetastatic disease with an oligoprogressive lesion. RESULTS: From March 2015 to June 2019, 59 patients were treated with Linac-based SABR to 64 spinal metastases with a median follow-up of 55 months. SABR was standard delivered every other day in 3 to 10 fractions with median prescription dose of 27 Gy (range 21-49 Gy).The 1-,2- and 5-year PFS was 98%, 85% and 75% for all patients. OS at 5 years for all patients was 92%. Metachronous lesions (p < 0.01; HR = 7.1) and oligometastatic (vs. oligoprogressive) lesions (p = 0.02; HR = 0.3) were associated with higher PFS in uni- and multivariate Cox regression analysis. No significant predictors in multivariate analysis were demonstrated for rapid progressors.Vertebral compression fractures developed de novo in 6.3% (4/64) of cases. The median time to fracture was 11 months (range 7-15) after treatment. No other adverse events ≥ 3 grade were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor control and toxicity after high-dose hypofractionated SABR was evaluated in patients with spinal oligometastases. High rates of efficacy and minimal toxicity were demonstrated. Oligometastatic patients with metachronous spinal metastases seem to benefit the most from SABR.

Clinical Implications of Vertebral Endplate Disruptions After Lumbar Discectomy: 3-Year Results from a Randomized Trial of a Bone-Anchored Annular Closure Device.

OBJECTIVE: Vertebral endplate disruptions (VEPD) are common findings on imaging after lumbar surgery. The objective of this study was to explore the clinical implications of VEPD development following lumbar discectomy with or without implant with a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD). METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial of patients with large postsurgical annular defects after limited lumbar discectomy who were randomized to additionally receive an ACD or no additional treatment. VEPD were identified on computed tomography and confirmed by an imaging core laboratory. Clinical outcomes included recurrent herniation, reoperation, Oswestry Disability Index, leg pain, and back pain. Patient follow-up in this study was 3 years. RESULTS: In the ACD group (n=272), the risk of reoperation was lower in patients with vs without VEPD (8% vs 24%, p<0.01), but no other clinical outcomes differed when stratified by VEPD prevalence or size. In the Control group (n=278), the risk of symptomatic reherniation was higher in patients with VEPD (41% vs 23%, p<0.01) and patients with the largest VEPD had the highest reoperation rates. Patient-reported outcomes were not associated with VEPD prevalence or size in the Control group. CONCLUSION: VEPD had no significant influence on patient-reported outcomes at 3 years after lumbar discectomy. VEPD increased the risk of recurrence in patients treated with lumbar discectomy only, but had no negative influence in patients treated with the ACD.

Clinical performance of a bone-anchored annular closure device in older adults.

Background: Lumbar discectomy is a common surgical procedure in middle-aged adults. However, outcomes of lumbar discectomy among older adults are unclear. Methods: Lumbar discectomy patients with an annular defect ≥6 mm width were randomized to receive additional implantation with a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD, n=272) or no additional implantation (controls, n=278). Over 3 years follow-up, main outcomes were symptomatic reherniation, reoperation, and the percentage of patients who achieved the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) without a reoperation for leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) score, and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) score. Results were compared between older (≥60 years) and younger (<60 years) patients. We additionally analyzed data from two postmarket ACD registries to determine consistency of outcomes between the randomized trial and postmarket, real-world results. Results: Among all patients, older patients suffered from crippling or bed-bound preoperative disability more frequently than younger patients (57.9% vs 39.1%, p=0.03). Among controls, female sex, higher preoperative ODI, and current smoking status, but not age, were associated with greater risk of reherniation and reoperation. Compared to controls, the ACD group had lower risk of symptomatic reherniation (HR=0.45, p<0.001) and reoperation (HR=0.54, p=0.008), with risk reductions comparable in older vs younger patients. The percentage of patients achieving the MCID without a reoperation was higher in the ACD group for leg pain (81% vs 72%, p=0.04), ODI (82% vs 73%, p=0.03), PCS (85% vs 75%, p=0.01), and MCS (59% vs 46%, p=0.007), and this benefit was comparable in older versus younger patients. Comparable benefits in older patients were observed in the postmarket ACD registries. Conclusion: Outcomes with lumbar discectomy and additional bone-anchored ACD are superior to lumbar discectomy alone. Older patients derived similar benefits with additional bone-anchored ACD implantation as younger patients.

Comparison of treatments for lumbar disc herniation: Systematic review with network meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient outcomes of lumbar discectomy with bone-anchored annular closure (LD + AC), lumbar discectomy (LD), and continuing conservative care (CC) for treatment of lumbar disc herniation refractory to initial conservative management. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several treatment options are available to patients with refractory symptoms of lumbar disc herniation, but their comparative efficacy is unclear. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to compare efficacy of LD + AC, LD, and CC for treatment of lumbar disc herniation. Outcomes included leg pain, back pain, disability (each reported on a 0-100 scale), reherniation, and reoperation. Data were analyzed using random effects network meta-analysis. RESULTS: This review included 14 comparative studies (8 randomized) involving 3947 patients-11 studies of LD versus CC (3232 patients), 3 studies of LD + AC versus LD (715 patients), and no studies of LD + AC versus CC. LD was more effective than CC in reducing leg pain (mean difference [MD] -10, P < .001) and back pain (MD -7, P < .001). LD + AC was more effective than LD in reducing risk of reherniation (odds ratio 0.38, P < .001) and reoperation (odds ratio 0.33, P < .001). There was indirect evidence that LD + AC was more effective than CC in reducing leg pain (MD -25, P = .003), back pain (MD -20, P = .02), and disability (MD -13, P = .02) although the treatment effect was smaller in randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: Results of a network meta-analysis show LD is more effective than CC in alleviating symptoms of lumbar disc herniation refractory to initial conservative management. Further, LD + AC lowers risk of reherniation and reoperation versus LD and may improve patient symptoms more than CC.

Annular closure in lumbar microdiscectomy for prevention of reherniation: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patients with large annular defects after lumbar discectomy for disc herniation are at high risk of symptomatic recurrence and reoperation. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to determine whether a bone-anchored annular closure device, in addition to lumbar microdiscectomy, resulted in lower reherniation and reoperation rates plus increased overall success compared with lumbar microdiscectomy alone. DESIGN: This is a multicenter, randomized superiority study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with symptoms of lumbar disc herniation for at least 6 weeks with a large annular defect (6-10 mm width) after lumbar microdiscectomy were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The co-primary end points determined a priori were recurrent herniation and a composite end point consisting of patient-reported, radiographic, and clinical outcomes. Study success required superiority of annular closure on both end points at 2-year follow-up. METHODS: Patients received lumbar microdiscectomy with additional bone-anchored annular closure device (n=276 participants) or lumbar microdiscectomy only (control; n=278 participants). This research was supported by Intrinsic Therapeutics. Two authors received study-specific support morethan $10,000 per year, 8 authors received study-specific support less than $10,000 per year, and 11 authors received no study-specific support. RESULTS: Among 554 randomized participants, 550 (annular closure device: n=272; control: n=278) were included in the modified intent-to-treat efficacy analysis and 550 (annular closure device: n=267; control: n=283) were included in the as-treated safety analysis. Both co-primary end points of the study were met, with recurrent herniation (50% vs. 70%, P<.001) and composite end point success (27% vs. 18%, P=.02) favoring annular closure device. The frequency of symptomatic reherniation was lower with annular closure device (12% vs. 25%, P<.001). There were 29 reoperations in 24 patients in the annular closure device group and 61 reoperations in 45 control patients. The frequency of reoperations to address recurrent herniation was 5% with annular closure device and 13% in controls (P=.001). End plate changes were more prevalent in the annular closure device group (84% vs. 30%, P<.001). Scores for back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and health-related quality of life at regular visits were comparable between groups over 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients at high risk of herniation recurrence after lumbar microdiscectomy, annular closure with a bone-anchored implant lowers the risk of symptomatic recurrence and reoperation. Additional study to determine outcomes beyond 2 years with a bone-anchored annular closure device is warranted.

Poly(I:C) primes primary human glioblastoma cells for an immune response invigorated by PD-L1 blockade.

Prognosis of glioblastoma remains dismal, underscoring the need for novel therapies. Immunotherapy is generating promising results, but requires combination strategies to unlock its full potential. We investigated the immunomodulatory capacities of poly(I:C) on primary human glioblastoma cells and its combinatorial potential with programmed death ligand (PD-L) blockade. In our experiments, poly(I:C) stimulated expression of both PD-L1 and PD-L2 on glioblastoma cells, and a pro-inflammatory secretome, including type I interferons (IFN) and chemokines CXCL9, CXCL10, CCL4 and CCL5. IFN-ß was partially responsible for the elevated PD-1 ligand expression on these cells. Moreover, real-time PCR and chloroquine-mediated blocking experiments indicated that poly(I:C) triggered Toll-like receptor 3 to elicit its effect. Cocultures of poly(I:C)-treated glioblastoma cells with peripheral blood mononuclear cells enhanced lymphocytic activation (CD69, IFN-γ) and cytotoxic capacity (CD107a, granzyme B). Additional PD-L1 blockade further propagated immune activation. Besides activating immunity, poly(I:C)-treated glioblastoma cells also doubled the attraction of CD8+ T cells, and to a lesser extent CD4+ T cells, via a mechanism which included CXCR3 and CCR5 ligands. Our results indicate that by triggering glioblastoma cells, poly(I:C) primes the tumor microenvironment for an immune response. Secreted cytokines allow for immune activation while chemokines attract CD8+ T cells to the front, which are postulated as a prerequisite for effective PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Accordingly, additional blockade of the concurrently elevated tumoral PD-L1 further reinforces the immune activation. In conclusion, our data proposes poly(I:C) treatment combined with PD-L1 blockade to invigorate the immune checkpoint inhibition response in glioblastoma.

Validation of topographic hybrid single-photon emission computerized tomography with computerized tomography scan in patients with and without nonspecific chronic low back pain. A prospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The evidence for the treatment for nonspecific chronic low back pain (ns CLBP) is very weak. Besides the complexity of the pain experience, a good biological marker or tool enabling identification of a pain generator is lacking. Hybrid imaging, combining single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) with computerized tomography (CT) scan, has been proposed as useful in the diagnostic workup of patients with CLBP. PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity of SPECT-CT in patients with ns CLBP (Group I) as compared with patients without CLBP (Group II). STUDY DESIGN: A prospective comparative study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Two hundred patients were enrolled: 96 in Group I and 104 in Group II. OUTCOME MEASURES: Only the physiological measurement of the incidence of hot spots was performed. The hot spots were rated as follows: 0=normal; 1=slightly colored (no hot spot on whole-body bone scan); and 2=clear hot spot (can be identified on the whole-body bone scan and confirmed on SPECT). To analyze the interobserver agreement when using this scoring system, a second independent reading was performed for 50 randomly chosen records. METHODS: Two hundred patients divided into two groups were referred to the department of Medical and Molecular Imaging for a topographic SPECT-CT. The first group consisted of patients with ns CLBP, diagnosed by a neurosurgeon. The control group consisted of patients referred for SPECT-CT for non-spinal conditions. Hot spots were assessed for all patients. A second independent reading, blinded for the results of the first reader, was performed on 25 randomly selected patients in each group. This study was investigator initiated, and no funding was received. None of the authors or their proxies have a potential conflict of interest. RESULTS: The odds of finding a normal image in the control group are 2.05 times higher than in Group I. The sensitivity score equals 2.37, meaning that the probability of detecting a hot spot (levels 1 or 2) is more than two times higher in Group I. When focusing on level 2 hot spots only, this score rises to 7.02, indicative of a high sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Single-photon emission computerized tomography with computerized tomography might have potential in the diagnostic workup of patients with ns CLBP, owing to its higher sensitivity when compared with other advanced medical imaging modalities.

Trabecular metal spacers as standalone or with pedicle screw augmentation, in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: This prospective randomized comparative trial compared radiological and clinical outcome of Trabecular Metal™ (TM) spacers in PLIF, used as standalone (SA) devices, to TM spacers in PLIF with pedicle screw fixation (PF), in patients with single-level degenerative disc disease (DDD). METHODS: Patients (n = 80) with chronic low back pain and single-level degenerative disc were randomly assigned to the SA PLIF (n = 40) or PLIF with PF (n = 40). The primary radiological outcome was the evaluation of a long-term (±6 years; range 6.0-7.7 years) stable construct measured by dynamic X-rays. CT scan does not allow judging the bony bridging between vertebrae, because of Tantalum artefacts. The clinical evaluation (6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months) consisted of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, intensity of low back pain (Visual Analogue Scale) and quality of life (Short Form-36). RESULTS: At 6-year follow-up, X-rays showed a stable construct in 94 % of patients treated by SA TM-500 spacers and in 97 % of those with additional PF. Neither subsidence nor migration was observed in either the SA or the PF group. The average improvement in ODI scores at 24-month clinical follow-up was 14.4 and 13.8 for the SA and PF group, respectively. The VAS score showed an average improvement of 6.4 (SA) and 6.7 (PF), 2 years after implantation. No significant difference between groups was observed at all the evaluation points. CONCLUSION: In this study, TM spacers were found to provide a solid construct at more than 6-year follow-up after PLIF for DDD both with and without additional pedicle fixation. The clinical, but also radiological results were not significantly different between both cohorts. Future studies focusing on the differences of SA and PF at L4/5 level should be powered to study differences in post-surgery stability at the long term.

A prospective multicenter registry on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral levels with the use of the O-arm imaging system and StealthStation Navigation.

STUDY DESIGN: An international, multicenter, prospective, postmarketing clinical registry to record the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, using the O-arm Complete Multidimensional Surgical Imaging System with StealthStation Navigation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in common neurosurgical practice and assess the patient's radiation exposure. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several imaging techniques have been used to increase accurate pedicle screw placement. The O-arm 3-dimensional (3D) imaging (Medtronic Navigation, Louisville, CO), an intraoperative computed tomographic (CT) scan, combined with an existing navigation system was reported to further increase accuracy of screw placement, especially because an intraoperative 3D scan provides information for screw adjustment before wound closure. METHODS: Patients already planned for instrumented spinal surgery were operated while using the O-arm as imaging device and the StealthStation Navigation (Medtronic Navigation, Louisville, CO) as navigation tool. At the end of all pedicle screw insertions, the placement was classified according to a validated method. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement based on the intraoperative 3D scan and the surgeon's perception of correct screw placement were assessed as well as the radiation doses the patient received during the entire procedure. RESULTS: During a 16-month period, a total of 1922 screws in 353 patients were evaluated. In 97.5%, the screws were correctly placed. Only 2.5% of the screws were considered as misplaced, and 1.8% of the screws were revised during the same procedure. When the surgeon perceived the screws to be correctly placed, the CT scan verified his assessment in 98.5% of the cases. The mean radiation dose was comparable with half the dose of a 64 multislice CT scan. CONCLUSION: The use of the O-arm in combination with a navigation system increases the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. The accuracy of the surgeon's perception and the need to limit the radiation dose for the patient justify an additional CT scan only after careful assessment of the potential additional value.

Clinical outcome of monosegmental total disc replacement for lumbar disc disease with ball-and-socket prosthesis (Maverick): prospective study with four-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Arthrodesis is considered to be the reference treatment for degenerative disc disease (DDD), if the symptoms are refractory to conservative management. The drawback of arthrodesis is, besides a percentage of non-union, the reduced mobility that might generate an increased load and risk for degeneration of the adjacent levels. Total disc replacement (TDR) implants may overcome this problem. The long-term clinical effect and radiographic evaluation of motion preservation after implantation, however, have been subject to several nonconclusive studies. This study evaluated the long-term clinical and radiographic results and the safety of TDR with the Maverick prosthesis for surgical treatment of monosegmental DDD. METHODS: TDR was performed in 50 consecutive patients with monosegmental DDD using the Maverick device. Patients were followed prospectively for disability, quality of life, pain intensity and frequency, as well as working status and return to sports, during 48 months. Motion preservation was assessed on neutral and dynamic radiographs at 48 months. RESULTS: The disability, pain intensity and frequency, and quality of life improved significantly at the 6-week follow-up, which was maintained over the full 48 months following Maverick implantation. Preoperatively, 80% of the patients stopped working and 86% halted sports activities. Four years after surgery, 85% of patients were again working and 79% took up their normal sports activities. Radiographic assessment showed that motion at the index level is maintained 48 months after TDR. No major complications were encountered. CONCLUSION: In this study, TDR with the Maverick prosthesis at one lumbar segment reduced pain and disability and improved quality of life as well as the general condition. Motion was preserved at the operated level, 48 months after surgery. The long-term effect on adjacent levels needs further follow-up.

Electromagnetic navigation technology for more precise electrode placement in the foramen ovale: a technical report.

Introduction. Interventional pain management techniques require precise positioning of needles or electrodes, therefore fluoroscopic control is mandatory. This imaging technique does however not visualize soft tissues such as blood vessels. Moreover, patient and physician are exposed to a considerable dose of radiation. Computed tomography (CT)-scans give a better view of soft tissues, but there use requires presence of a radiologist and has proven to be laborious and time consuming. Objectives. This study is to develop a technique using electromagnetic (EM) navigation as a guidance technique for interventional pain management, using CT and/or magnetic resonance (MRI) images uploaded on the navigation station. Methods. One of the best documented interventional procedures for the management of trigeminal neuralgia is percutaneous radiofrequency treatment of the Gasserian ganglion. EM navigation software for intracranial applications already exists. We developed a technique using a stylet with two magnetic coils suitable for EM navigation. The procedure is followed in real time on a computer screen where the patient's multislice CT-scan images and three-dimensional reconstruction of his face are uploaded. Virtual landmarks on the screen are matched with those on the patient's face, calculating the precision of the needle placement. Discussion. The experience with EM navigation acquired with the radiofrequency technique can be transferred to other interventional pain management techniques, for instance, for the placement of a neuromodulation electrode close to the Gasserian ganglion. Currently, research is ongoing to extend the software of the navigation station for spinal application, and to adapt neurostimulation hardware to the EM navigation technology. This technology will allow neuromodulation techniques to be performed without x-ray exposure for the patient and the physician, and this with the precision of CT/MR imaging guidance.