Does Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use Reduce Pseudarthrosis Rates in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries?

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2, or BMP for short) is a popular biological product used in spine surgeries to promote fusion and avoid the morbidity associated with iliac crest autograft. BMP's effect on pseudarthrosis in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates of pseudarthrosis in single-level TLIF with and without concurrent use of BMP. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a single academic institution. Adults undergoing primary single-level TLIF with a minimum of 1 year of clinical and radiographic follow-up were included. BMP use was determined by operative notes at index surgery. Non-BMP cases with iliac crest bone graft were excluded. Pseudarthrosis was determined using radiographic and clinical evaluation. Bivariate differences between groups were assessed by independent t test and χ 2 analyses, and perioperative characteristics were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight single-level TLIF patients were included. The mean age was 59.3 years, and 52.0% were women. There were no demographic differences between patients who received BMP and those who did not. Pseudarthrosis rates in patients treated with BMP were 6.2% vs 7.5% in the no BMP group (P = 0.756). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between patients who received BMP (3.7%) vs those who did not receive BMP (7.5%, P = 0.314). Patients who underwent revision surgery for pseudarthrosis more commonly had diabetes with end-organ damage (revised 37.5% vs not revised 1.4%, P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated no reduction in reoperation for pseudarthrosis related to BMP use (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-3.7, P = 0.269). Diabetes with end-organ damage (OR 112.6,95% CI 5.7-2225.8, P = 0.002) increased the risk of reoperation for pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSIONS: BMP use did not reduce the rate of pseudarthrosis or the number of reoperations for pseudarthrosis in single-level TLIFs. Diabetes with end-organ damage was a significant risk factor for pseudarthrosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BMP is frequently used "off-label" in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; however, little data exists to demonstrate its safety and efficacy in this procedure.

Reassessing the minimum two-year follow-up standard after lumbar decompression surgery: a 2-months follow-up seems to be an acceptable minimum.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Academic orthopedic journals and specialty societies emphasize the importance of two-year follow-up for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) after spine surgery, but there are limited data evaluating the appropriate length of follow-up. PURPOSE: To determine whether PROMs, as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), would change significantly after 2-months postoperatively after lumbar decompression surgery for disc herniation or spinal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively and consecutively enrolled patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery between 2020 and 2021 from a single surgeon spine registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred sixty-nine patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: ODI, achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID), revisions. METHODS: Patients without a preoperative baseline score were excluded. Completion of the ODI questionnaire was assessed at the follow-up points. The median ODI was compared at time baseline, 2-month, 1-year and 2-year follow-up. Risk of reoperation was assessed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify at-risk ODI thresholds of requiring reoperation. RESULTS: Median ODI significantly improved at all time points compared to baseline (median baseline ODI: 40; 2-month ODI: 16, p=.001; 1-year ODI: 11.1, p=.001; 2-year ODI: 8, p=.001). Post-hoc analysis demonstrated no difference between 2-months, 1-year and 2-year postoperative ODI (p=.9, p=.468, p=.606). The MCID was met in 87.9% of patients at 2 months, 80.7% at 1 year, and 87.3% at 2 years postoperatively. Twelve patients (7.7%) underwent revision surgery between 2 months and 2 years after the index surgery (median time to revision: 5.6 months). ROC curve analysis demonstrated that an ODI score ≥24 points at 2-months yielded a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 71.8% for predicting revision after lumbar decompression (AUC=0.758; 95% CI: 0.613-0.903). The Youden optimal threshold value of ≥24 points at 2-month postop ODI yielded an odd ratio (OR) for revision of 15.3 (CI: 1.8-131.8; p=.004). The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 15.4% and 98.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Two-year clinical follow-up may not be necessary for future peer-reviewed lumbar decompression surgery studies given that ODI plateaus at 8 weeks. Patients with a score ≥24 points at 2-months postoperatively have a higher risk of requiring a second surgery within the first two years and warrant continued follow-up.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5 has a low rate of complications in appropriately selected patients when using a standardized surgical technique.

Aims: The aim of this study was to reassess the rate of neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications associated with L4-L5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) undertaken using a standardized preoperative assessment and surgical technique. Methods: This was a multicentre retrospective study involving consecutively enrolled patients who underwent L4-L5 LLIF by seven surgeons at seven institutions in three countries over a five-year period. The demographic details of the patients and the details of the surgery, reoperations and complications, including femoral and non-femoral neuropraxia, thigh pain, weakness of hip flexion, and abdominal complications, were analyzed. Neurological and psoas-related complications attributed to LLIF or posterior instrumentation and persistent symptoms were recorded at one year postoperatively. Results: A total of 517 patients were included in the study. Their mean age was 65.0 years (SD 10.3) and their mean BMI was 29.2 kg/m2 (SD 5.5). A mean of 1.2 levels (SD 0.6) were fused with LLIF, and a mean of 1.6 (SD 0.9) posterior levels were fused. Femoral neuropraxia occurred in six patients (1.2%), of which four (0.8%) were LLIF-related and two (0.4%) had persistent symptoms one year postoperatively. Non-femoral neuropraxia occurred in nine patients (1.8%), one (0.2%) was LLIF-related and five (1.0%) were persistent at one year. All LLIF-related neuropraxias resolved by one year. A total of 32 patients (6.2%) had thigh pain, 31 (6.0%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. Weakness of hip flexion occurred in 14 patients (2.7%), of which eight (1.6%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. No patients had bowel injury, three (0.6%) had an intraoperative vascular injury (not LLIF-related), and five (1.0%) had ileus. Reoperations occurred in five patients (1.0%) within 30 days, 37 (7.2%) within 90 days, and 41 (7.9%) within one year postoperatively. Conclusion: LLIF involving the L4-L5 disc level has a low rate of persistent neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications in patients with the appropriate indications and using a standardized surgical technique.

Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Increases Operative Efficiency and Maintains Safety in Revision Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Multi-centre retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning. METHOD: A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1 to 4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the US and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P <0.05. RESULTS: 101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P =0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P =0.668) was similar between groups.Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P =0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150mL P-LLIF vs. 182mL L-LLIF, P =0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3d, P =0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements. CONCLUSION: P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Creating Consensus in the Definition of Spinopelvic Mobility.

INTRODUCTION: The term "spinopelvic mobility" is most often applied to motion within the spinopelvic segment. It has also been used to describe changes in pelvic tilt between various functional positions, which is influenced by motion at the hip, knee, ankle and spinopelvic segment. In the interest of establishing a consistent language for spinopelvic mobility, we sought to clarify and simplify its definition to create consensus, improve communication, and increase consistency with research into the hip-spine relationship. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the Medline (PubMed) library to identify all existing articles pertaining to spinopelvic mobility. We reported on the varying definitions of spinopelvic mobility including how different radiographic imaging techniques are used to define mobility. RESULTS: The search term "spinopelvic mobility" returned a total of 72 articles. The frequency and context for the varying definitions of mobility were reported. 41 papers used standing and upright relaxed-seated radiographs without the use of extreme positioning, and 17 papers discussed the use of extreme positioning to define spinopelvic mobility. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that the definitions of spinopelvic mobility is not consistent in the majority of published literature. We suggest descriptions of spinopelvic mobility independently consider spinal motion, hip motion, and pelvic position, while recognizing and describing their interdependence.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion - clinical outcomes, fusion rates and complications with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.

BACKGROUND: The authors report an Australian experience of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with respect to clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complications, with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and other graft materials. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of LLIF patients 2011-2021. LLIFs performed lateral decubitus by four experienced surgeons past their learning curve. Graft materials classified rhBMP-2 or non-rhBMP-2. Patient-reported outcomes assessed by VAS, ODI, and SF-12 preoperatively and postoperatively. Fusion rates assessed by CT postoperatively at 6 and 12 months. Complications classified minor or major. Clinical outcomes and complications analysed and compared between rhBMP-2 and non-rhBMP-2 groups. RESULTS: A cohort of 343 patients underwent 437 levels of LLIF. Mean age 67 ± 11 years (range 29-89) with a female preponderance (65%). Mean BMI 29kg/m2 (18-56). Most common operated levels L3/4 (36%) and L4/5 (35%). VAS, ODI and SF-12 improved significantly from baseline. Total complication rate 15% (53/343) with minor 11% (39/343) and major 4% (14/343). Ten patients returned to OR (2-wound infection, 8-further instrumentation and decompression). Most patients (264, 77%) received rhBMP-2, the remainder a non-rhBMP-2 graft material. No significant differences between groups at baseline. No increase in minor or major complications in the rhBMP-2 group compared to the non-rhBMP-2 group respectively; (10.6% vs 13.9% [p = 0.42], 2.7% vs 8.9% [p < 0.01]). Fusion rates significantly higher in the rhBMP-2 group at 6 and 12 months (63% vs 40%, [p < 0.01], 92% vs 80%, [p < 0.02]). CONCLUSION: LLIF is a safe and efficacious procedure. rhBMP-2 in LLIF produced earlier and higher fusion rates compared to available non-rhBMP-2 graft substitutes.

Multidisciplinary conference for complex surgery leads to improved quality and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Complex surgery for adult spinal deformity has high rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Preoperative discussions of high-risk operative spine patients at a multidisciplinary conference may contribute to decreased rates of these adverse outcomes through appropriate patient selection and surgical plan optimization. With this goal, we implemented a high-risk case conference involving orthopedic and neurosurgery spine, anesthesia, intraoperative monitoring neurology, and neurological intensive care. METHODS: Included in this retrospective review were patients ≥ 18 years old meeting one of the following high-risk criteria: 8 + levels fused, osteoporosis with 4 + levels fused, three column osteotomy, anterior revision of the same lumbar level, or planned significant correction for severe myelopathy, scoliosis (> 75˚), or kyphosis (> 75˚). Patients were categorized as Before Conference (BC): surgery before 2/19/2019 or After Conference (AC): surgery after 2/19/2019. Outcome measures include intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperations. RESULTS: 263 patients were included (96 AC, 167 BC). AC was older than BC (60.0 vs 54.6, p = 0.025) and had lower BMI (27.1 vs 28.9, p = 0.047), but had similar CCI (3.2 vs 2.9 p = 0.312), and ASA Classification (2.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.790). Surgical characteristics, including levels fused (10.6 vs 10.7, p = 0.839), levels decompressed (1.29 vs 1.25, p = 0.863), 3 column osteotomies (10.4% vs 18.6%, p = 0.080), anterior column release (9.4% vs 12.6%, p = 0.432), and revision cases (53.1% vs 52.4%, p = 0.911) were similar between AC and BC. AC had lower EBL (1.1 vs 1.9L, p < 0.001) and fewer total intraoperative complications (16.7% vs 34.1%, p = 0.002), including fewer dural tears (4.2% vs 12.6%, p = 0.025), delayed extubations (8.3% vs 22.8%%, p = 0.003), and massive blood loss (4.2% vs 13.2%, p = 0.018). Length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups (7.2 vs 8.2 days, 0.251). AC had a lower incidence of deep surgical site infections (SSI, 1.0% vs 6.6%, p = 0.038), but a higher rate of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy (18.8% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). Other postoperative complications were similar between groups. AC had lower rates of reoperation at 30 (2.1% vs 8.4%, p = 0.040) and 90 days (3.1 vs 12.0%, p = 0.014) and lower readmission rates at 30 (3.1% vs 10.2%, p = 0.038) and 90 days (6.3 vs 15.0%, p = 0.035). On logistic regression, AC patients had higher odds of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy and lower odds of delayed extubation, intraoperative RBC, and intraoperative salvage blood. CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of a multidisciplinary high-risk case conference, 30- and 90-day reoperation and readmission rates, intraoperative complications, and postoperative deep SSIs decreased. Hypotensive events requiring vasopressors increased, but did not result in longer LOS or greater readmissions. These associations suggest a multidisciplinary conference may help improve quality and safety for high-risk spine patients. particularly through minimizing complications and optimizing outcomes in complex spine surgery.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior posterior surgery improves operative efficiency, improves perioperative outcomes, and maintains radiological outcomes comparable with traditional anterior posterior fusion at minimum 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The advantages of lateral single position surgery (LSPS) in the perioperative period has previously been demonstrated, however 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively. PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSPS versus gold-standard FLIP STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Four hundred forty-two patients undergoing lumbar fusion via LSPS or FLIP OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and reasons for reoperation at 30-days, 90-days, 1-year, and 2-years. Radiographic outcomes included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, and segmental lumbar lordosis. METHODS: Patients were grouped as LSPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure under the same anesthetic. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2-years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<.05. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-two patients met inclusion, including 352 LSPS and 90 FLIP patients. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs 56.9; p≤.001) and smoking status (7% vs 16%; p=.023) between the LSPS and FLIP groups. LSPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p<.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p<.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p<.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs 3.61 days; p<.001) compared to FLIP. LSPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9% vs 34.4%; p=.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p<.001). No differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%LSPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=.125), 90-day (5.1%LSPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.441). LSPS group had a significantly lower preoperative PI-LL (4.1° LSPS vs 8.6°FLIP, p=.018), and a significantly greater postoperative LL (56.6° vs 51.8°, p = .006). No significant differences were noted in rates of fusion (94.3% LSPS vs 97.8% FLIP; p=.266) or subsidence (6.9% LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.260). CONCLUSIONS: LSPS and circumferential fusions have similar outcomes at 2-years post-operatively, while reducing perioperative complications, improving perioperative efficiency and safety.

The Impact of Global Spinal Alignment on Standing Spinopelvic Alignment Change After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The interactions between hip osteoarthritis (OA) and spinal malalignment are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of total hip arthroplasty (THA) on standing spinopelvic alignment. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing THA for OA with pre-and postoperative full-body radiographs were included. Standing spinopelvic parameters were measured. Contralateral hip was graded on the Kellgren-Lawrence scale. Pre-and postoperative alignment parameters were compared by paired t-test. The severity of preoperative thoracolumbar deformity was measured using TPA. Linear regression was performed to assess the impact of preoperative TPA and changes in spinal alignment. Patients were separated into low and high TPA (<20 or >/=20 deg) and change in parameters were compared between groups by t-test. Similarly, the influence of K-L grade, age, and PI were also tested. RESULTS: 95 patients were included (mean age 58.6 yrs, BMI 28.7 kg/m2, 48.2% F). Follow-up radiographs were performed at mean 220 days. Overall, the following significant changes were found from pre-to postoperative: SPT (14.2 vs. 16.1, P = 0.021), CL (-8.9 vs. -5.3, P = .001), TS-CL (18.2 vs. 20.5, P = .037) and SVA (42.6 vs. 32.1, P = .004). Preoperative TPA was significantly associated with the change in PI-LL, SVA, and TPA. High TPA patients significantly decreased SVA more than low TPA patients. There was no significant impact of contralateral hip OA, PI, or age on change in alignment parameters. CONCLUSION: Spinopelvic alignment changes after THA, evident by a reduction in SVA. Preoperative spinal sagittal deformity impacts this change. Level of evidence: III.

Comparative Analysis of Inpatient Opioid Consumption Between Different Surgical Approaches Following Single Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate inpatient MME administration associated with different lumbar spinal fusion surgeries. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of Grade I or II spondylolisthesis, stenosis, degenerative disc disease or pars defect who underwent one-level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) or one-level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) or Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) through traditional MIS, anterior-posterior position or single position approaches between L2-S1. Outcome measures included patient demographics, surgical procedure and approach, perioperative clinical characteristics, incidence of ileus and inpatient MME. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA with a post-hoc Tukey Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test with post-hoc Mann-Whitney test. MME was calculated as per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and previous literature. Significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: Mean age differed significantly between MIS TLIF (55.6 ± 12.5 years) and all other groups (Open TLIF 57.1 ± 12.5, SP ALIF/LLIF 57.9 ± 9.9, TP ALIF/LLIF 50.9 ± 12.7, Open ALIF/LLIF 58.4 ± 15.5). MIS TLIF had the shortest LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Total MME was significantly different between MIS TLIF and Open ALIF/LLIF (172.5 MME vs 261.1 MME, P = .044) as well as MIS TLIF and TP ALIF/LLIF (172.5 MME vs 245.4 MME, P = .009). There were no significant differences in MME/hour and incidence of ileus between all groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing MIS TLIF had lower inpatient opioid intake compared to TP and SP ALIF/LLIF, as well as shorter LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Thus, it appears that the advantages of minimally invasive surgery are seen in minimally invasive TLIFs.

Evaluation of Health-related Quality of Life Improvement in Patients Undergoing Cervical Versus Shoulder Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of outcomes in cervical spine and shoulder arthroscopy patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess differential improvements in health-related quality of life for cervical spine surgery compared with shoulder surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An understanding of outcome differences between different types of orthopedic surgeries is helpful in counseling patients about expected postoperative recovery. This study compares outcomes in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with arthroscopic shoulder surgery using computer-adaptive Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing cervical spine surgery (1-level or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement) or arthroscopic shoulder surgery (rotator cuff repair±biceps tenodesis) were grouped. Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS: Cervical spine (n=127) and shoulder (n=91) groups were similar in sex (25.8% vs. 41.8% female, P =0.731) but differed in age (51.6±11.6 vs. 58.60±11.2, P <0.05), operative time (148.3±68.6 vs. 75.9±26.9 min, P <0.05), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.0±0.5, P =0.001), smoking status (15.7% vs. 4.4%, P =0.008), and length of stay (1.1±1.0 vs. 0.3±0.1, P =0.000). Spine patients had worse physical function (36.9 ±12.6 vs. 49.4±8.6, P <0.05) and greater pain interference (67.0±13.6 vs. 61.7±4.8, P =0.001) at baseline. Significant improvements were seen in all domains by 3 months for both groups, except for physical function after shoulder surgery. Spine patients had greater physical function improvements at all timepoints (3.33 vs. -0.43, P =0.003; 4.81 vs. 0.08, P =0.001; 6.5 vs. -5.24, P =<0.05). Conversely, shoulder surgery patients showed better 6-month improvement in pain intensity over spine patients (-8.86 vs. -4.46, P =0.001), but this difference resolved by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical spine patients had greater relative early improvement in physical function compared with shoulder patients, whereas pain interference and intensity did not significantly differ between the 2 groups after surgery. This will help in counseling patients about relative difference in recovery and improvement between the 2 surgery types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Effect of Pelvic Sagittal Tilt and Axial Rotation on Functional Acetabular Orientation.

Accurate and reproducible acetabular component positioning is among the most important technical factors affecting outcomes of total hip arthroplasty. Although several studies have investigated the influence of pelvic tilt and obliquity on functional acetabular anteversion, the effect of pelvic axial rotation has not yet been established. We analyzed a generic simulated pelvis created using preoperative full-body standing and sitting radiographs. A virtual acetabulum was placed in 144 different scenarios of acetabular anteversion and abduction angles. In each scenario, the effects of pelvic tilt and pelvic axial rotation on different combinations of acetabular orientations were assessed. The change in acetabular anteversion was 0.75° for each 1° of pelvic tilt and was most linear in abduction angles of 40°±45°. The change in acetabular anteversion was 0.8° for each 1° of pelvic axial rotation. Surgeons may consider adjusting acetabular anteversion in fixed axial pelvic deformities when the degree of deformity affects functional acetabular positioning, assessed from preoperative standing and sitting weight-bearing radiographs. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(1):e27-e30.].

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Expandable Cages.

Background: Minimally invasive surgical transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an increasingly common procedure for the treatment of lumbar degenerative pathologies. The MIS-TLIF technique often results in less soft-tissue injury compared with the open TLIF technique, reducing postoperative pain and recovery time1-3. However, the narrow surgical aperture of this minimally invasive technique has increased the difficulty of interbody cage placement. Expandable cages were designed to improve ease of insertion, improve visualization around the cage on insertion, reduce neurological retraction and injury by passing the nerve root with the implant in a collapsed state, and enable better disc-height and lordosis restoration on expansion4. Description: This procedure is performed with the patient under general anesthesia and in a prone position. The appropriate spinal level is identified with use of fluoroscopy, and bilateral paramidline approaches are made utilizing the Wiltse intermuscular approach. Pedicle screws are placed bilaterally. A pedicle-based retractor or tubular retractor is passed along the Wiltse plane, and bilateral inferior facetectomies are performed. A foraminotomy is performed, including a superior facetectomy on the side with compression of the exiting nerve root. A thorough discectomy with end-plate preparation is performed. The disc space is sized with use of trial components. The cage is then implanted with a pre-expansion height less than the trialed height and is expanded under fluoroscopy. After expansion, the cage is backfilled with allograft and local autograft. Finally, the rods are contoured and reduced bilaterally, followed by closure in a multilayered approach. Alternatives: Nonoperative alternatives to the minimally invasive TLIF technique include physical therapy or epidural corticosteroid injections. When surgical intervention is indicated, there are several approaches that can be utilized during lumbar interbody fusion, including the posterior, direct lateral, anterior, or oblique approaches5. Rationale: Expandable cages are designed to be inserted in a collapsed configuration and expanded once placed into the interbody space. This design offers numerous potential advantages over static alternatives. The low-profile, expandable cages require less impaction during placement, minimizing iatrogenic end-plate damage. Additionally, expandable cages require less thecal and nerve-root retraction and provide a larger surface footprint once expanded. Expected Outcomes: The MIS-TLIF technique has been shown to significantly reduce back pain, leg pain, and disability, and to significantly increase function, with most improvements observed after 12 months postoperatively. Patients may experience a 51% and 39% reduction in visual analogue pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores, respectively6. The results for expandable cages compared with traditional static cages in TLIF surgery require further study. Important Tips: The technique utilized during insertion and placement of interbody cages plays an important role in cage subsidence. To reduce the risk of cage subsidence, cages should be placed level with the end plate and in contact with the apophyseal ring anteriorly. Additionally, caution should be taken when expanding the cage to ensure that the cage is not overexpanded, which may also increase the risk of mechanical failure and intraoperative subsidence.It is critical to understand the flexibility of the disc space and the osseous quality of the patient in order to know how much expansion may be applied through the cage without subsidence.If bullet-type cages are utilized, the tip of the cage should cross midline of the vertebral body to avoid generating iatrogenic scoliosis.Spine bone density should be investigated preoperatively in at-risk patients in order to identify osteoporotic patients, who are at greater risk for subsidence and instrumentation failure.Although advances in device technology are welcomed, surgeons should maintain a strong focus on technique to reduce complications and improve clinical outcomes when utilizing expandable cages. Acronyms & Abbreviations: TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionMRI = magnetic resonance imagingCT = computed tomographyPEEK = polyetheretherketoneAP = anterioposteriorEMG = electromyographyDVT = deep vein thrombosisPE = pulmonary embolusODI = Oswestry Disability IndexEXP = expandable.

Single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion: an overview of terminology, concepts, rationale and the current evidence base.

PURPOSE: To provide definitions and a conceptual framework for single position surgery (SPS) applied to circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine. METHODS: Narrative literature review and experts' opinion. RESULTS: Two major limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been (a) a perceived need to reposition the patient to the prone position for posterior fixation, and (b) the lack of a robust solution for fusion at the L5/S1 level. Recently, two strategies for performing single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion have been described. The combination of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position (LALIF), LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (pPSF) in the lateral decubitus position is known as lateral single-position surgery (LSPS). Prone LLIF (PLLIF) involves transpsoas LLIF done in the prone position that is more familiar for surgeons to then implant pedicle screw fixation. This can be referred to as prone single-position surgery (PSPS). In this review, we describe the evolution of and rationale for single-position spinal surgery. Pertinent studies validating LSPS and PSPS are reviewed and future questions regarding the future of these techniques are posed. Lastly, we present an algorithm for single-position surgery that describes the utility of LALIF, LLIF and PLLIF in the treatment of patients requiring AP lumbar fusions. CONCLUSIONS: Single position surgery in circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine includes posterior fixation in association with any of the following: lateral position LLIF, prone position LLIF, lateral position ALIF, and their combination (lateral position LLIF+ALIF). Preliminary studies have validated these methods.

Assessing Postoperative Pseudarthrosis in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) on Dynamic Radiographs Using Novel Angular Measurements.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of operative patients at a single institution. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to validate a novel method of detecting pseudarthrosis on dynamic radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A common complication after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is pseudarthrosis. A previously published method for detecting pseudarthrosis identifies a 1 mm difference in interspinous motion (ISM), which requires calibration of images and relies on anatomic landmarks difficult to visualize. An alternative is to use angles between spinous processes, which does not require calibration and relies on more visible landmarks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ISM was measured on dynamic radiographs using the previously published linear method and new angular method. Angles were defined by lines from screw heads to dorsal points of spinous processes. Angular cutoff for fusion was calculated using a regression equation correlating linear and angular measures, based on the 1 mm linear cutoff. Pseudarthrosis was assessed with both cutoffs. Sensitivity, specificity, inter-reliability and intrareliability of angular and linear measures used postoperative computed tomography (CT) as the reference. RESULTS: A total of 242 fused levels (81 allograft, 84 polyetheretherketone, 40 titanium, 37 standalone cages) were measured in 143 patients (mean age 52.0±11.5, 42%F). 36 patients (66 levels) had 1-year postoperative CTs; 13 patients (13 levels) had confirmed pseudarthrosis. Linear and angular measurements closely correlated ( R =0.872), with 2.3° corresponding to 1 mm linear ISM. Potential pseudarthroses was found in 28.0% and 18.5% levels using linear and angular cutoffs, respectively. Linear cutoff had 85% sensitivity, 87% specificity; angular cutoff had 85% sensitivity, 96% specificity for detecting CT-validated pseudarthrosis. Interclass correlation coefficients were 0.974 and 0.986 (both P <0.001); intrarater reliability averaged 0.953 and 0.974 ( P <0.001 for all) for linear and angular methods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The angular measure for assessing potential pseudarthrosis is as sensitive as and more specific than published linear methods, has high interobserver reliability, and can be used without image calibration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Improved Surgical Correction Relative to Patient-Specific Ideal Spinopelvic Alignment Reduces Pelvic Nonresponse for Severely Malaligned Adult Spinal Deformity Patients.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pelvic compensation following adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery may impair quality of life and result in persistent pathologic lower extremity compensation. Ideal age-specific alignment targets have been proposed to improve surgical outcomes, though it is unclear whether reaching these ideal targets reduces rates of pelvic nonresponse following surgery. Our aim was to assess the relationship between pelvic nonresponse, age-specific alignment, and lower-limb compensation following surgery for ASD. METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study. ASD patients were grouped: those who did not improve in Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab pelvic tilt (PT) modifier (pelvic nonresponders [PNR]), and those who improved (pelvic responders [PR]). Groups were propensity score matched for preoperative PT and assessed for differences in spinal and lower extremity alignment. Rates of pelvic nonresponse were compared across patient groups who were undercorrected, overcorrected, or matched age-specific postoperative alignment targets. RESULTS: A total of 146 surgical ASD patients, 47.9% of whom showed pelvic nonresponse following surgery, were included. After propensity score matching, PNR (N = 29) and PR (N = 29) patients did not differ in demographics, preoperative alignment, or levels fused; however, PNR patients have less preoperative knee flexion (9° vs 14°, P = 0.043). PNR patients had inferior postoperative pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) alignment (17° vs 3°) and greater pelvic shift (53 vs 31 mm). PNR and PR patients did not differ in rates of reaching ideal age-specific postoperative alignment for sagittal vertical axis (SVA) or PI-LL, though patients who matched ideal PT had lower rates of PNR (25.0% vs 75.0%). For patients with moderate and severe preoperative SVA, more aggressive correction relative to either ideal postoperative PT or PI-LL was associated with significantly lower rates of pelvic nonresponse (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with moderate to severe baseline truncal inclination, more aggressive surgical correction relative to ideal age-specific PI-LL was associated with lower rates of pelvic nonresponse. Postoperative alignment targets may need to be adjusted to optimize alignment outcomes for patients with substantial preoperative sagittal deformity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings increase our understanding of the poor outcomes that occur despite ideal realignment. Surgical correction of severe global sagittal deformity should be prioritized to mitigate these occurrences.

Cervical Deformity Correction Fails to Achieve Age-Adjusted Spinopelvic Alignment Targets.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether surgical cervical deformity (CD) patients meet spinopelvic age-adjusted alignment targets, reciprocal, and lower limb compensation changes. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. METHODS: CD was defined as C2-C7 lordosis >10°, cervical sagittal vertical angle (cSVA) >4 cm, or T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL) >20°. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years and undergoing surgical correction with complete baseline and postoperative imaging. Published formulas were used to create age-adjusted alignment target for pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), sagittal vertical angle (SVA), and lumbar lordosis and thoracic kyphosis (LL-TK). Actual alignment was compared with age-adjusted ideal values. Patients who matched ±10-year thresholds for age-adjusted targets were compared with unmatched cases (under- or overcorrected). RESULTS: A total of 120 CD patients were included (mean age, 55.1 years; 48.4% women; body mass index, 28.8 kg/m2). For PT, only 24.4% of patients matched age-adjusted alignment, 51.1% overcorrected for PT, and 24.4% undercorrected. For PI-LL, only 27.6% of CD patients matched age-adjusted targets, with 49.4% overcorrected and 23% undercorrected postoperatively. Forty percent of patients matched age-adjusted target for SVA, 41.3% overcorrected, and 18.8% undercorrected. CD patients who had worsened in TS-CL or cSVA postoperatively displayed increased TK (-41.1° to -45.3°, P = 1.06). With lower extremity compensation, CD patients decreased in ankle flexion angle postoperatively (6.1°-5.5°, P = 0.036) and trended toward smaller sacrofemoral angle (199.6-195.6 mm, P = 0.286) and knee flexion (2.6° to -1.1°, P = 0.269). CONCLUSIONS: In response to worsening CD postoperatively, patients increased in TK and recruited less lower limb compensation. Almost 75% of CD patients did not meet previously established spinopelvic alignment goals, of whom a subset of patients were actually made worse off in these parameters following surgery. This finding raises the question of whether we should be looking at the entire spine when treating CD.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion shows equivalent results to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at one-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: This study compares perioperative and 1-year outcomes of lateral decubitus single position circumferential fusion (L-SPS) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for degenerative pathologies. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective chart review of patients undergoing AP fusion with L-SPS or MIS TLIF. Demographics and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared using independent samples t tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 445 patients were included: 353 L-SPS, 92 MIS TLIF. The L-SPS cohort was significantly older with fewer diabetics and more levels fused. The L-SPS cohort had significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, radiation dosage, and length of stay compared to MIS TLIF. 1-year follow-up showed that the L-SPS cohort had higher rates of fusion (97.87% vs. 81.11%; p = 0.006) and lower rates of subsidence (6.38% vs. 38.46%; p < 0.001) compared with MIS TLIF. There were significantly fewer returns to the OR within 1 year for early mechanical failures with L-SPS (0.0% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001). 1-year radiographic outcomes revealed that the L-SPS cohort had a greater LL (56.6 ± 12.5 vs. 51.1 ± 15.9; p = 0.004), smaller PI-LL mismatch (0.2 ± 13.0 vs. 5.5 ± 10.5; p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in amount of change in VAS scores between cohorts. Similar results were seen after propensity-matched analysis and sub-analysis of cases including L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS: L-SPS improves perioperative outcomes and does not compromise clinical or radiographic results at 1-year follow-up compared with MIS TLIF. There may be decreased rates of early mechanical failure with L-SPS.

Spinal exposure for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position: anatomical and technical considerations.

PURPOSE: Single position surgery has demonstrated to reduce hospital length of stay, operative times, blood loss, postoperative pain, ileus, and complications. ALIF and LLIF surgeries offer advantages of placing large interbody devices under direct compression and can be performed by a minimally invasive approach in the lateral position. Furthermore, simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column is possible in the lateral position without the need for patient repositioning. The purpose of this study is to outline the anatomical and technical considerations for performing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS: Surgical technique and technical considerations for reconstruction of the anterior column in the lateral position by ALIF at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels. RESULTS: Topics outlined in this review include: Operating room layout and patient positioning; surgical anatomy and approach; vessel mobilization and retractor placement for L4-5 and L5-S1 lateral ALIF exposure, in addition to comparative technique of disc space preparation, trialing and implant placement compared to the supine ALIF procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior exposure performed in the lateral decubitus position allows safe-, minimally invasive access and implant placement in ALIF. The approach requires less peritoneal and vessel retraction than in a supine position, in addition to allowing simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior columns when performing 360° Anterior-Posterior fusion.