How Do Standing Neutral, Supine Lateral, Standing Flexion, and Standing Extension Radiographs Compare in Detecting the Presence and Magnitude of Stable and Dynamic Spondylolisthesis?

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend standing radiographs as the most appropriate imaging for detecting degenerative spondylolisthesis, although reliable evidence about the standing position is absent. To our knowledge, no studies have compared different radiographic views and pairings to detect the presence and magnitude of stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the percentage of new patients presenting with back or leg pain with stable (3 mm or greater listhesis on standing radiographs) and dynamic (3 mm or greater listhesis difference on standing-supine radiographs) spondylolisthesis? (2) What is the difference in the magnitude of spondylolisthesis between standing and supine radiographs? (3) What is the difference in the magnitude of dynamic translation among flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine radiographic pairs? METHODS: This cross-sectional, diagnostic study was performed at an urban, academic institution between September 2010 and July 2016; 579 patients 40 years or older received a standard radiographic three-view series (standing AP, standing lateral, and supine lateral radiographs) at a new patient visit. Of those individuals, 89% (518 of 579) did not have any of the following: history of spinal surgery, evidence of vertebral fracture, scoliosis greater than 30°, or poor image quality. In the absence of a reliable diagnosis of dynamic spondylolisthesis using this three-view series, patients may have had flexion and extension radiographs, and approximately 6% (31 of 518) had flexion and extension radiographs. A total of 53% (272 of 518) of patients were female, and the patients had a mean age of 60 ± 11 years. Listhesis distance (in mm) was measured by two raters as displacement of the posterior surface of the superior vertebral body in relation to the posterior surface of the inferior vertebral body from L1 to S1; interrater and intrarater reliability, assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients, was 0.91 and 0.86 to 0.95, respectively. The percentage of patients with and the magnitude of stable spondylolisthesis was estimated on and compared between standing neutral and supine lateral radiographs. The ability of common pairs of radiographs (flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine) to detect dynamic spondylolisthesis was assessed. No single radiographic view or pair was considered the gold standard because stable or dynamic listhesis on any radiographic view is often considered positive in clinical practice. RESULTS: Among 518 patients, the percentage of patients with spondylolisthesis was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%) on standing radiographs alone, and the percentage of patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis was 11% (95% CI 8% to 13%) on the standing-supine pair. Standing radiographs detected greater listhesis than supine radiographs did (6.5 ± 3.9 mm versus 4.9 ± 3.8 mm, difference 1.7 mm [95% CI 1.2 to 2.1 mm]; p < 0.001). Among 31 patients, no single radiographic pairing identified all patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis. The listhesis difference detected between flexion-extension was no different from the listhesis difference detected between standing-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.0 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.2 mm [95% CI -0.5 to 1.0 mm]; p = 0.53) and flexion-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.5 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.7 mm [95% CI 0.0 to 1.5]; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This study supports current clinical guidelines that lateral radiographs should be obtained with patients in the standing position, because all cases of stable spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or greater were detected on standing radiographs alone. Each radiographic pair did not detect different magnitudes of listhesis, and no single pair detected all cases of dynamic spondylolisthesis. Clinical concern for dynamic spondylolisthesis may justify standing neutral, supine lateral, standing flexion, and standing extension views. Future studies could identify and evaluate a set of radiographic views that provides the greatest capacity to diagnose stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Use of bilobed partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is logistically superior in prolonged management of a highly lethal aortic injury.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a viable technique for management of noncompressible torso hemorrhage. The major limitation of the current unilobed fully occlusive REBOA catheters is below-the-balloon ischemia-reperfusion complications. We hypothesized that partial aortic occlusion with a novel bilobed partial (p)REBOA-PRO would result in the need for less intraaortic balloon adjustments to maintain a distal goal perfusion pressure as compared with currently available unilobed ER-REBOA. METHODS: Anesthetized (40-50 kg) swine randomized to control (no intervention), ER-REBOA, or pREBOA-PRO underwent supraceliac aortic injury. The REBOA groups underwent catheter placement into zone 1 with initial balloon inflation to full occlusion for 10 minutes followed by gradual deflation to achieve and subsequently maintain half of the baseline below-the-balloon mean arterial pressure (MAP). Physiologic data and blood samples were collected at baseline and then hourly. At 4 hours, the animals were euthanized, total blood loss and urine output were recorded, and tissue samples were collected. RESULTS: Baseline physiologic data and basic laboratories were similar between groups. Compared with control, interventions similarly prolonged survival from a median of 18 minutes to over 240 minutes with comparable mortality trends. Blood loss was similar between partial ER-REBOA (41%) and pREBOA-PRO (51%). Partial pREBOA-PRO required a significantly lower number of intraaortic balloon adjustments (10 ER-REBOA vs. 3 pREBOA-PRO, p < 0.05) to maintain the target below-the-balloon MAP. The partial ER-REBOA group developed significantly increased hypercapnia, fibrin clot formation on TEG, liver inflammation, and IL-10 expression compared with pREBOA-PRO. CONCLUSION: In this highly lethal aortic injury model, use of bilobed pREBOA-PRO for a 4-hour partial aortic occlusion was logistically superior to unilobed ER-REBOA. It required less intraaortic balloon adjustments to maintain target MAP and resulted in less inflammation.