Vertebral augmentation plus short-segment fixation versus vertebral augmentation alone in Kümmell's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures of the thoracolumbar spine can progress to Kümmell's disease, an avascular vertebral osteonecrosis. Vertebral augmentation (VA)-vertebroplasty and/or kyphoplasty-is the main treatment modality, but additional short-segment fixation (SSF) has been recommended concomitant to VA. The aim is to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of VA + SSF versus VA alone. Systematic review, including comparative articles in Kümmell's disease, was performed. This study assessed the following outcome measurements: visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), anterior vertebral height (AVH), local kyphotic angle (LKA), operative time, blood loss, length of stay, and cement leakage. Six retrospective studies were included, with 126 patients in the VA + SSF group and 152 in VA alone. Pooled analysis showed the following: VAS, non-significant difference favoring VA + SSF: MD -0.61, 95% CI (-1.44, 0.23), I2 91%, p = 0.15; ODI, non-significant difference favoring VA + SSF: MD -9.85, 95% CI (-19.63, -0.07), I2 96%, p = 0.05; AVH, VA + SSF had a non-significant difference over VA alone: MD -3.21 mm, 95% CI (-7.55, 1.14), I2 92%, p = 0.15; LKA, non-significant difference favoring VA + SSF: MD -0.85°, 95% CI (-5.10, 3.40), I2 95%, p = 0.70. There were higher operative time, blood loss, and hospital length of stay for VA + SSF (p < 0.05), but with lower cement leakage (p < 0.05). VA + SFF and VA alone are effective treatment modalities in Kümmell's disease. VA + SSF may provide superior long-term results in clinical and radiological outcomes but required a longer length of stay.

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons.

PURPOSE: To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field. METHODS: Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique. CONCLUSION: A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

Comparison of complication rates between anterior versus posterior approaches for treating unstable Hangman's fracture. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Study design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Objective: To compare the complication rates associated with anterior and posterior approaches for the surgical treatment of unstable hangman's fractures. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to identify comparative studies reporting complications of anterior versus posterior approaches for the treatment of unstable hangman's fractures. Results: The search yielded 1163 papers from which 5 studies were fully included. One hundred fifteen (115) patients were operated on using an anterior approach versus 65 through a posterior approach. The average complication rates for the anterior and posterior approaches were 26.1 % and 13.8 %, respectively. No complications following the anterior approach required pharmacological or surgical intervention (Clavien-Dindo, Grade 1), while 88.9 % of complications following the posterior approach did (Clavien-Dindo, Grade 2). Conclusion: No significant differences in the complication rates were found when comparing anterior versus posterior surgery for treating a C2 traumatic spondylolisthesis. However, most of the complications presented in the posterior surgery group were more severe.

Wound Closure and Wound Dressings in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery From the AO Spine Surveillance of Post-Operative Management.

STUDY DESIGN: An e-mail-based online survey for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgeons. OBJECTIVE: Wound closure and dressing techniques may vary according to the discretion of the surgeon as well as geographical location. However, there are no reports on most common methods. The purpose of this study is to clarify the consensus. METHODS: An online survey was distributed via email to AO Spine members. Responses from 164 ASD surgeons were surveyed. The regions were divided into 5 regions: Europe and South Africa (ESA), North America (NA), Asia Pacific (AP), Latin America (LA), and Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Wound closure methods were evaluated by glue(G), staples(S), external non-absorbable sutures (ENS), tapes(T), and only subcuticular absorbable suture (SAS). Wound Dressings consisted of dry dressing (D), plastic occlusive dressing (PO), G, Dermabond Prineo (DP). RESULTS: The number of respondents were 57 in ESA, 33 in NA, 36 in AP, 22 in LA, and 16 in MENA. S (36.4%) was the most used wound closure method. This was followed by ENS (26.2%), SAS (14.4%), G (11.8%), and T (11.3%). S use was highest in ESA (44.3%), NA (28.6%), AP (31.7%), and MENA (58.8%). D was used by 50% of surgeons postoperatively. AP were most likely to use PO (36%). 21% of NA used DP, while between 0%-9% of surgeons used it in the rest of the world. CONCLUSION: Wound closure and dressings methods differ in the region. There are no current guidelines with these choices. Future studies should seek to standardize these choices.

Distal fusion in Duchenne scoliosis: the relevance of preoperative pelvic obliquity. A case series study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine clinical and radiographic outcomes for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) patients who underwent posterior spinal fusion from T2/3 to L5 (without pelvic fixation), at this single centre. METHODS: From January 2012 to January 2020, 29 consecutive DMD scoliosis patients underwent posterior spinal fusion using pedicle screws from T2/3 to L5 in a single center with a minimum of 3 years follow-up (FU). Radiologic measurements and chart review were performed. RESULTS: Twenty nine patients aged 14 ± 1.5 years were included. No patient was lost to FU. All patients had significant correction in Cobb angle, pelvic obliquity (PO) and lumbar lordosis (LL), without loss of correction at last FU. The mean values for preoperative, immediate postoperative and last FU were CA 62o, 15o and 17o, PO: 21o, 8o and 9o; and LL 10o, -41o and -41o respectively. Correction in CA was independent of any variable analysed including implant density, rod diameter, traction, or bone density. Regarding PO, it was inversely related to age and independent of all other variables. Factors associated with postoperative complications were age and respiratory function. CONCLUSIONS: It appears from our results that pelvic fixation might not always be required in DMD scoliosis surgery, when using pedicle screws with lowest instrumented vertebra at L5. However, larger preoperative PO values can be related with residual PO. It seems that probably related to the underlying condition, early surgery may decrease incidence of complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Is Indirect Decompression and Fusion More Effective than Direct Decompression and Fusion for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Instability? A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis.

Study design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Objective: Surgical alternatives to treat lumbar spinal stenosis and instability include indirect (ALIF, OLIF, and LLIF) and direct (TLIF or posterior lumbar interbody fusion) decompression and fusion interventions. Although both approaches have proven to be effective in reducing symptoms, it is unknown if there is any difference in effectiveness between them. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate postoperative pain and disability in patients treated whit indirect vs direct decompression and fusion approaches.Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature consulting several databases and identified studies that enrolled patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis and instability treated with indirect or direct decompression and fusion techniques. Our primary endpoints were the visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and the Japanese Orthopedics Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire 1 year after the procedure. Secondary outcomes included complication rate, blood loss, and surgical time.Results: Nine retrospective and comparative studies were included enrolling a total of 1004 participants. Both surgical strategies had satisfactory clinical outcomes with no significant difference at 1 year. Although the complication rate was similar for both groups, the profile of the adverse events was different. In addition, patients treated with indirect decompression and fusion had significantly less blood loss and operative times.Conclusions: Indirect and direct decompression and fusion techniques are similarly effective in treating patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and instability. The ID group had significantly lower intraoperative blood loss and surgical time values.

Spinous Process Splitting Laminectomy for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: 2D Operative Video.

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis involves an acquired reduction in the spinal canal diameter due to osteoarthritic changes on the disk, facet joints, and ligaments and may result in spinal cord or cauda equina compression.1 This process may lead to pain radiating to the legs, neurogenic claudication, and neurologic deficit. First-line treatment includes conservative care such as physical therapy, spinal injections, and lifestyle changes. If this strategy is insufficient to achieve symptom relief, surgical management is recommended.1,2 Surgery generally encompasses a decompression procedure through a posterior approach. There are several techniques to accomplish this in the context of severe bilateral stenosis including standard open laminectomy, unilateral laminectomy with bilateral decompression, and a tubular approach with bilateral decompression (e.g., "over-the-top technique").2 Among these, the spinous process splitting laminectomy has emerged as a strategy that allows decompressing the spinal canal through a familiar anatomy to the surgeon while respecting paravertebral muscles.3,4 This technique involves exposure of the laminae by cutting through the spinous process and then separating both halves and muscles attached at the sides. The main advantage is that the insertion of these paravertebral soft tissues is preserved, the required retraction is reduced and postoperative pain is decreased.4 Moreover, the learning curve to achieve a successful decompression employing the splitting laminectomy is substantially shorter than with other minimally invasive approaches, such as tubular. This video aims to show the steps to perform this technique (Video 1). We report the case of a 74-year-old male who presented with left sciatica and neurogenic claudication. The images showed multilevel degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, with severe bilateral compression at L4-5, without signs of instability. Surgical alternatives were discussed with the patient, and it was decided to perform an L4-5 spinous process splitting laminectomy. The patient had a good evolution with an unremarkable postoperative course.

Quality Assessment for Reporting Complications and Adverse Events in Spinal Surgery: A Proposed 5-Item Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Reporting complications and/or adverse events after spinal surgical procedures enables the estimation of their prevalence and of their impact on patient outcomes. However, the documentation of complications is relatively infrequent and highly heterogeneous. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of complication and adverse event reporting in spinal surgery literature. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from 5 international, peer-reviewed, indexed spinal journals was performed. Included studies were published between January and December 2020 and reported the surgical results of spinal procedures. Data on the level of evidence and study design were collected and analyzed as well as whether the studies were single-center or multicenter studies. The quality of complication reports was evaluated through a 5-item checklist, with 5 questions divided into 3 parts: definition, evaluation, and report. RESULTS: Complications associated with spinal surgical procedures were reported in 292 studies. According to the level of evidence, significantly higher reporting quality was seen in level I and II studies compared with level III and IV studies (P = 0.003). Regarding the 5-item checklist, 49% (143/292) of studies fulfilled the definition section, 16.4% (48/292) fulfilled the evaluation section, and 92% (270/292) fulfilled the report section. CONCLUSIONS: Overall quality assessment when reporting complications in surgical spinal studies showed that only 13% (38/292) of publications that reported complications as part of the outcomes exhibited all items of the 5-item checklist. Additionally, significantly better reports were observed in level I studies compared with level II-IV studies.

A Novel Low-Cost Exoscopy Station for Training Neurosurgeons and Neurosurgery Trainees.

BACKGROUND: The loss of stereopsis and the need for markedly enhanced hand-eye coordination are obstacles to overcome when performing exoscopic procedures, but both should improve with training. Our objectives were to describe an exoscopy training station and to compare time and performance of a given microsurgical technique among neurosurgery residents and junior neurosurgeons. METHODS: We designed a low-cost exoscopy training station featuring a notebook computer, a webcam, and a light-emitting diode source. Surgeons and surgical trainees with no experience in exoscopy were enrolled and divided into 2 groups (trainees and controls). Performance and time in suture placement were evaluated by a skilled observer in both groups at baseline and 3 days later. Between evaluations, trainees completed an exoscopy training module. RESULTS: There were 22 participants divided equally into 2 groups. At baseline, trainees had a greater percentage of proper sutures than controls (58% vs. 35%), but they were also slower (32 minutes vs. 25 minutes). On final evaluation, not only were trainees approximately 14 minutes faster than at baseline (P = 0,03), but also their successful suture rate had increased by 18% (final rate 76%, P = 0.02). Moreover, controls were faster compared with baseline by 6 minutes (P = 0.003), but their percentage of successful sutures did not increase (final rate 38%, P = 0.49). The change from baseline to final evaluation favored trainees for both outcomes (P = 0.03 and P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Using the exoscopy training station, the trainees were able to improve their time and performance of exoscopy compared with the controls.

Reporting Complications in Spinal Surgery-a Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Many efforts are expended to improve health care quality in the surgical treatment of spinal conditions. However, the prevalence of reporting complications in spinal surgeries is highly heterogeneous, which is partially due to the lack of a universal and comprehensive system. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in 5 international and indexed spine journals from January to December 2020. All clinical studies that had surgical procedures in any spinal region were classified according to level of evidence, study design, category of spinal condition, and primary outcome. The prevalence and quality of complication reporting were evaluated through a checklist. RESULTS: Of 455 articles screened, complications were reported in 64.2% (292 articles). A significant higher prevalence of reports was observed in randomized compared with nonrandomized studies (P < 0.05). In 89 articles, at least 1 classification was used to report complications, with 12 different classification systems employed in the total sample. Timing to record complications was as follows: 47 (16.1%) articles reported complications at 30 days, 31 (10.6%) reported complications at 90 days, and 88 (30.1%) reported complications during all follow-ups. In 126 (43.1%) articles, complications were not mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Almost one-third of spine surgical studies did not report complications in their results despite reporting clinical outcomes. The evidence quality of the study was directly related with the reporting of complications. A high heterogeneity regarding complication reporting was seen in the literature.

Single-Position Surgery versus Lateral-Then-Prone-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the outcomes of single-position (SP) circumferential lumbar interbody fusion in lateral decubitus versus dual-position (DP) fusion. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to identify comparative studies reporting the outcomes of SP lumbar interbody fusion versus DP. For risk of bias assessment, the ROBINS-I (risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions) tool was used. RESULTS: Four comparative studies were included from an initial search of 3780 papers. All 4 studies were retrospective cohort studies comparing outcomes of SP versus DP LLIF. A total of 349 patients were operated using SP versus 254 using DP. All studies involved reported operating time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, change in segmental lordosis, and complications. From a general perspective, baseline variables were similar in both groups in all the studies and all reported a significant decrease in operative time and length of stays with SP. CONCLUSIONS: Literature comparing SP versus lateral-then-prone lumbar fusion shows a tendency toward shorter operating time and hospital stays in SP lumbar fusion while maintaining similar perioperative outcomes.

COVID-19 Impact Among Spine Surgeons in Latin America.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in spine surgeons in Latin America. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to Latin American spine surgeons from April 4 to 6, 2020. Surgeon characteristics were recorded. The impact of COVID-19 on economic well-being, work, and mental health were also determined. All variables were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred four surgeons answered the complete survey; most of them were male (96.6%), the average age was 47.7 years; 58.8% (n = 120) were orthopedic surgeons and 41.2% (n = 84) were neurosurgeons. The majority of the respondents were from Argentina (59.8%, n = 122), followed by Brazil (17.2%, n = 35), Chile (6.4%, n = 13), and Mexico (5.9%, n = 12). Most of the surgeons reported performing emergency procedures only during the pandemic (76.5%, n = 156). Half used telemedicine or online consultation modalities (54.4%, n = 111). The average concern about the financial situation due to the pandemic was 7.53 in a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the worst scenario). Twenty-two percent (n = 45) of the surgeons had a score over 10 in the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; scores higher than 10 needs referral to confirm depression diagnosis). Young age and neurosurgery as a specialty were associated with higher PHQ-9 scores. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has an impact in the daily working practice and financial situation of spine surgeons in Latin America. The long-term psychological impact should be taken into consideration to avoid a heavier burden for health care providers.

Partial Sacrectomy for Resection of a Sacral Chordoma: 2-Dimensional Operative Video.

Sacral chordomas are infrequent tumors that arise from remnants of the notochord. They are most often found in the sacrum and skull-base.1,2 These lesions rarely metastasize and usually have an indolent and oligosymptomatic clinical course. Chordomas show low sensitivity to standard radiation therapy and chemotherapy. Operative resection with wide resection margins offers the best long-term prognosis, including longer survival and local control.1,3 However, achieving a complete resection with oncological margins may be difficult because of the anatomic complexity of the sacrococcygeal region.4 The main complications of sacral resection include infections, wound closure defects, and anorectal and urogenital dysfunction. The rate of these complications is significantly increased when the tumor involves the S2 level or above. We report the case of a 64-yr-old male who presented with progressive sacrococcygeal pain and a feeling of incomplete evacuation. A heterogeneous, osteolytic lesion was found at the sacrococcygeal region. Full body imaging tests were negative for other lesions. A computed tomography (CT) guided biopsy was made. We usually use the midline approach in case we have to include the needle path in the resection. The pathology confirmed a sacrococcygeal, low-grade chordoma. We decided to perform an en bloc resection. A posterior, partial sacrectomy was planned distal to the S4 level.

Neurosurgery versus orthopedic surgery: Who has better access to minimally invasive spinal technology?

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate differences in neurosurgeons versus orthopedists access to technologies needed to perform minimally invasive spine surgeries (MISS) in Latin America. METHODS: We sent a survey to members of AO Spine Latin America (January 2020), and assessed the following variables; nationality, level of hospital (primary, secondary, and tertiary), number of spinal operations performed per year, spinal pathologies addressed, the number of minimally invasive spine operations performed/year, and differences in access to MISS spinal technology between neurosurgeons and orthopedists. RESULTS: Responses were returned from 306 (25.6) members of AO Spine Latin America representing 20 different countries; 57.8% of respondents were orthopedic surgeons and 42.4% had over 10 years of experience. Although both specialties reported a lack of access to most of the technologies, the main difference between the two was greater utilization/access of neurosurgeons to operating microscope (e.g., 84% of the neurosurgeons vs. 39% of orthopedic spine surgeons). CONCLUSION: Although both specialties have limited access to MISS spinal technologies, orthopedic spine surgeons reported significantly lower access to operating microscopes versus neurosurgeons (P < 0.01).

Access to Technology and Education for the Development of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Techniques in Latin America.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate access to the technologies and education needed to perform minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) in Latin America. METHODS: We designed a questionnaire to evaluate surgeons' practice characteristics, access to different technologies, and training opportunities for MISS techniques. The survey was sent to members and registered users of AO Spine Latin from January 6-20, 2020. The major variables studied were nationality, specialty (orthopedics or neurosurgery), level of hospital (primary, secondary, tertiary), number of surgeries performed per year by the spine surgeon, types of spinal pathologies commonly managed, and number of MISS performed per year. Other variables involved specific access to different technologies: intraoperative fluoroscopy, percutaneous screws, cages, tubular retractors, microscopy, intraoperative computed tomography, neuronavigation imaging, and bone morphogenetic protein. Finally, participants were asked about main obstacles to performing MISS and their access to education on MISS techniques in their region. RESULTS: The questionnaires were answered by 306 members of AO Spine Latin America across 20 different countries. Most answers were obtained from orthopedic surgeons (57.8%) and those with over 10 years of experience (42.4%). Most of the surgeons worked in private practice (46.4%) and performed >50 surgeries per year (44.1%), but only 13.7% performed >50 MISS per year, mainly to manage degenerative pathologies (87.5%). Most surgeons always had access to fluoroscopy (79%). Only 26% always had access to percutaneous screws, 24% to tubular retractors, 34.3% to cages (anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion, or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion), and 43% to microscopy. Regarding technologies, 71% reported never having access to navigation, 83% computed tomography, and 69.3% bone morphogenetic protein. The main limitations expressed for widely used MISS technologies were the high implant costs (69.3%) and high navigation costs (49.3%). Most surgeons claimed access to online education activities (71%), but only 44.9% reported access to face-to-face events and 28.8% to hands-on activities, their limited access largely because the courses were expensive (62.7%) or few courses were available on MISS in their region (51.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Most surgeons in Latin America have limited resources to perform MISS, even in private practice. The main constraints are implant costs, access to technologies, and limited face-to-face educational opportunities.

Barriers of neurophysiology monitoring in spine surgery: Latin America experience.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) has become valuable in spine surgery. Unfortunately, it is not always available in many spine centers, especially in developing countries. Our aim was to evaluate the accessibility and barriers to IOM in spine surgery in Latin America. METHODS: We designed a questionnaire to evaluate the characteristics of surgeons and their opinions on the usefulness of IOM for different spine operations. The survey was sent to 9616 members and registered users of AO Spine Latin America (AOSLA) from August 1, 2019, to August 21, 2019. Major variables studied included nationality, years of experience, specialty (orthopedics or neurosurgery), level of complexity of the hospital, number of spine surgeries performed per year by the spine surgeon, the types of spinal pathologies commonly managed, and how important IOM was to the individual surgeon. General questions to evaluate use included accessibility, limitations of IOM usage, management of IOM changes, and the legal value of IOM. The results were analyzed and compared between neurosurgeon and orthopedics, level of surgeon experience, and country of origin. RESULTS: Questionnaires were answered by 200 members of AOSLA from 16 different countries. The most common responses were obtained from orthopedic surgeons (62%), those with more than 10 years of practice (54%); majority of surgeons performed more than 50 spine surgeries per year (69%) and treated mainly spine degenerative diseases (76%). Most surgeons think that IOM has a real importance during surgeries (92%) and not just a legal value. Although surgeons mostly considered IOM essential to scoliosis surgery in adolescents (70%), thoracolumbar kyphosis correction (68%), and intramedullary tumors (68%), access to IOM was limited to 57% for economic reasons. Of interest, in 64% of cases, where IOM was available and significant change occurred, the actual operative procedures were significantly altered. CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that 68% of spine surgeons believe IOM to be indispensable for complex spine surgery, cost remains the main barrier to its use/availability in Latin America.

[Post-op paraspinal atrophy: Does the approach matter?] / Atrofia paraespinal postoperatoria. ¿El abordaje importa?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the level of post-op muscle atrophy related to the different approaches used in segmental lumbar fusion for degenerative disease (midline vs. Wiltse vs. MIS TLIF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational, cross sectional, multicenter, descriptive and retrospective study was performed including a series of patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. We analyzed 45 patients (24 females), with a mean age of 58.7 years, undergoing surgery in 5 surgical centers between 2015 and 2018. A one-level instrumented fusion, from L3 to S1 was performed (7 cases L3-L4, 25 cases L4-L5 and 13 cases L5-S1). In 15 cases, a midline approach was used; in 15, a Wiltse approach was used, and in 15 cases, an MIS TLIF approach was used. All the patients were studied preoperatively and for at least 6 months after surgery (mean follow-up 14.6 months) with magnetic resonance imaging. The images were analyzed by three specialists in spine surgery. Two variables were considered to compare the level of atrophy before and after surgery: cross-sectional area (CSA) of the multifidus muscle (MM) and spinal erector muscles (SEM) and the fat infiltration level (FI) using the Kjaer visual classification. The analyses were conducted using the RStudio (1.1.383 version) statistical software, and the P values obtained were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the approaches in terms of MM atrophy. The comparison of P for CSA and the SEM evidenced differences between MIS TLIF versus midline (P = 0.018) and midline versus Wiltse (P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: The minimally invasive approaches used for decompression and lumbar monosegmental arthrodesis had more impact on the EMs than on the MM. Randomized controlled trials might be useful to validate the results of this investigation.

[Spino-pelvic sagittal parameters in an asymptomatic population in Argentina]. / Parámetros sagitales espino-pélvicos en una población asintomática Argentina.

OBJECTIVES: To assess and describe spinal and pelvic sagittal parameters in a series of 100 Argentinian volunteers. METHODS: Lateral full-spine X-rays were obtained prospectively from 100 volunteers (30 males and 70 females), average age 34.1 years. All the volunteers were asymptomatic at the time of the study. Full-length left lateral spine radiographs (36'' cassette) were made using Kodak Elite CR equipment. The authors made determinations for the digital X-rays using Surgimap®, version 2.2.9.9.2. The following parameters were recorded: C7 SVA, C2-C7 CL, TK, LL, TPA, T1SPi, PI, PT, SS, L4-S1 angle, L1-L4 angle, PI-LL mismatch and CTPA. The data were analyzed using Medcalc 11.2 software. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each parameter according to its own measure score and distribution. Estimates of 95% reference and confidence intervals were calculated for each parameter. P = 0.05 was set as the threshold for statistical significance. Volunteers were classified using the Roussouly morphometric classification system. RESULTS: Respective means for the above-listed variables were: CL -10.04, TK 30.14, T1SPi -6.5, L1-L4 -12.45, L4-S1 -46.16, CTPA 2.5, TPA 4.65, PT 11.22, PI 48.04, LL -59. 10, PI-LL -11.11, C7 SVA mm -23.68. Plus/minus two standard deviations (SD) for the variables were: CL (-33.26, 13.12); TK (17.15, 43.30); T1SPi (-11.78, -1.25), L1-L4 (-25.55, 0.25), L4-S1 (-64.44, -27.55), CTPA (0.33, 4.80), TPA (-8.64, 18.22), PT (-1.99, 24.75), PI (25.23, 71.44), LL (-78.74, -39.89), PI-LL (-29.10, 7.04), and C7 SVA mm (-79.45, 32.08). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective series of 100 adult volunteers, normal values for spinal and pelvic sagittal parameters were determined in Argentinian adults.

[Trajectory of lumbar and sacral pedicular screws: Comparison between midline versus wiltse approach]. / Trayectoria de los tornillos pediculares lumbares y sacros: Comparación entre el abordaje por linea media versus el abordaje posterolateral tipo wiltse.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the posterolateral Wiltse approach and conventional Midline approach in short lumbosacral fusions in terms of the angle of convergence of pedicle screws. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed computed tomography (CT) images of 76 lumbar and sacral pedicular screws that had been placed using a conventional midline approach (CA) (n = 38) and a Wiltse posterolateral approach (WA) (n = 38). All patients underwent short lumbosacral fusions from L3 to S1 for degenerative spinal disease. Screws with a bone gap >4 mm in any direction, cases with previous pedicular implants, and those with coronal plane curves >20° were excluded. RESULTS: Considering all implants, the angle of convergence was 23.3° (±15.8). The mean angulation in the WA group was 29.3° (±9.7), whereas in the CA group it was 17.2° (±0.6). This difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In short, lumbosacral fusion employing the Wiltse approach allowed placement of pedicle implants with more convergence than the conventional midline approach. The clinical relevance of this is unknown, and prospective randomized studies are needed to clarify this.

Impacto psicosocial de la pandemia por COVID-19 en cirujanos de columna argentinos / Psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Argentine spinal surgeons

Objetivo: Evaluar el impacto psicosocial de la pandemia por COVID-19 en los cirujanos de columna de Argentina. Material y métodos: Se envió un cuestionario diseñado específicamente a los cirujanos de columna de Argentina entre el 4-6 de abril del 2020. Las preguntas incluyeron variables demográficas, económicas, laborales y la escala de depresión PHQ-9. Las variables fueron comparadas y analizadas y las diferencias estadísticamente significativas remarcadas. Resultados: Respondieron en forma completa la encuesta 122 cirujanos de columna de Argentina, la mayoría hombres (97%), la edad promedio fue de 44 años; la mitad (n: 61) eran traumatólogos y la otra mitad neurocirujanos. La mayoría respondieron estar solo haciendo cirugías de emergencia (84%, n: 102). La preocupación promedio respecto a la situación financiera fue de 7.8 en una escala de 1 al 10. El 20% (n: 24) tenía un score superior a 10 en la escala de PHQ-9. Los cirujanos más jóvenes y los neurocirujanos tenían estadísticamente scores de PHQ-9 más altos. Conclusión: Se evaluó el impacto durante la pandemia por COVID-19 en la situación laboral y financiera de los cirujanos de columna encuestados. El impacto psicológico en el largo plazo debe ser considerado, para evitar secuelas en este grupo de profesionales de la salud.

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the psycho-social impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in spine surgeons in Argentina. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to Argentina spine surgeons from April 4-6th, 2020. Questions regarding demographics, economic, working status and the PHQ-9 score were included. All variables were compared, analyzed and statistically significant differences were recorded. Results: 122 surgeons from Argentina answered the complete survey, most of them were male (97 %), the average age was 44 years; half (n: 61) of them were orthopedic surgeons and half neurosurgeons. Most of the surgeons reported performing emergency procedures only during the pandemic (84 %, n: 102). The average concern about the financial situation due to the pandemic was 7.8 in a scale of 1 to 10. Twenty percent (n: 24) of the surgeons had a score over 10 in the PHQ-9. Young age and neurosurgery as a specialty were statistically related with higher PHQ-9 scores. Conclusions: COVID-19 impact ́s in working practice and financial situation of Argentina ́s spine surgeons that answered this survey was evaluated. The long-term psychological impact should be taken into consideration to avoid a heavier burden for health care providers.