Treatment of failed cervical total disc replacements in a series of 53 cases and description of a management strategy.

PURPOSE: To describe modes of failure of cervical TDR, their related treatment strategies, and to describe a management strategy for the treatment of failed cervical TDR. METHODS: This retrospective study was based on a consecutive series of 53 cervical TDR patients who underwent removal or revision surgery. Chart review was conducted to collect general descriptive data, reasons for TDR removal/revision, duration from index implantation to re-operation, and the subsequent procedure performed. RESULTS: Among 53 patients, 36 underwent TDR removal and fusion, 16 underwent TDR removal and replacement with another TDR, and one patient's TDR was revised by repositioning. The mean duration from index surgery to removal/revision was 40.1 months (range: 3 days-222 months). In all cases, removal/revision surgery was completed without complication. The most common reason for removal was severe osteolysis, often involving C. acnes infection, and was primarily associated with one implant type. TDR removal and fusion were performed for subsidence, device migration, treatment of symptoms arising from posterior anatomy (facet joints, etc.), approach-related complications and pain. TDR replacement was feasible for hypermobility, metal allergy, implant locked in kyphosis, and oversized implant use. In one case of TDR malpositioning, the device was successfully revised into appropriate position. CONCLUSION: After cervical TDR failure, replacing a TDR with another implant can be feasible. Reasons for revision or removal after cervical TDR surgery include biomechanical failure, implant migration, surgeon or technical error, or biological reasons. The type of failure can help the surgeon create a strategy to address these complications.

Impact of previous lumbar spine surgery on the outcome of lumbar total disc replacement: analysis of prospective 5-year follow-up study data.

PURPOSE: It is sometimes anticipated that patients with prior spine surgery will have a compromised outcome from future procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare TDR outcomes in patients with prior lumbar spine surgery to those with no previous surgery. METHODS: Post hoc analysis was performed on 5-year follow-up data collected prospectively in the multi-centre FDA-regulated trial for the activL® Artificial Disc which involved 376 patients treated for single-level symptomatic disc degeneration. Clinical outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing back and leg pain, SF-36, adverse events, and re-operations. Radiographic outcomes included flexion/extension range of motion (ROM) and translation of the operated segment. Patients were divided into two groups: Prior Lumbar Surgery (PLS, n = 92) and No Prior Lumbar Surgery (NPLS, n = 284). RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar in the two groups. ODI, VAS, and SF-36 Physical Component Scale scores improved significantly (p < 0.05) from baseline in both groups with improvements maintained through 5-year post-TDR with no significant differences between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of serious device-related events, procedure-related events, or re-operations. While ROM was significantly less prior to TDR surgery in the PLS group, there was no significant difference in ROM at post-operative points. CONCLUSION: Prior lumbar spine surgery was not associated with compromised outcomes following TDR. These results are in line with reports from earlier studies with shorter follow-up, finding that non-destabilizing prior surgery is not a contra-indication for TDR provided that selection criteria are met. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Assessing lumbar vertebral bone quality: a methodological evaluation of CT and MRI as alternatives to traditional DEXA.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of various methods on the assessment of vertebral bone quality. METHODS: A consecutive series of 427 candidates for lumbar disc replacement with lumbar DEXA and MRI and/or CT scans were included. Two measurement techniques were used on CTs-a sagittal and axial. From axial images, the upper, mid, and lower portions of each vertebral body were measured. Four MRI vertebral bone quality (VBQ) calculations were generated using separate equations. RESULTS: All CT measures were highly correlated with each other, regardless of measurement or calculation method (range 0.925-0.995). Sagittal measurements were highly correlated with axial (r = 0.928, p < 0.001). CT values were correlated with DEXA (range 0.446-0.534). There was no benefit to measuring multiple axial images of each vertebral body vs. just midbody (r = 0.441 and 0.455, respectively). No MRI VBQ values were highly correlated with DEXA (r = - 0.103, p = 0.045). In receiver operating curve analysis, the area under the curve ranged from 0.539 to 0.558, indicating poor ability of VBQ to identify osteoporosis/osteopenia. CONCLUSION: CT produced values more closely related to DEXA, while MRI was less reliable for osteoporosis/osteopenia screening. On CT, there was no benefit to making multiple measurements for each vertebral body to calculate a composite. Measuring sagittal CT images produced values similar to axial and required less time. While assessing bone quality from existing images rather than getting an additional DEXA scan is appealing, the methods of measuring these images needs standardization to maximize their utility.

In which cases do surgeons specializing in total disc replacement perform fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate reasons and their frequency for why spine surgeons subspecializing in total disc replacement (TDR) performed lumbar fusion rather than TDR. METHODS: The study was based on a consecutive series of 515 patients undergoing lumbar TDR or fusion during a 5-year period by three surgeons specializing in TDR. For each fusion patient, the reason for not performing TDR was recorded. RESULTS: TDR was performed in 65.4% (n = 337) of patients and the remaining 34.6% (n = 178) underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF ± posterior instrumentation). Of the 178 fusion patients, the most common reason for fusion was combined factors related to severe degenerative changes (n = 59, 11.5% of the study population). The second most common reason was > Grade 1 spondylolisthesis (n = 32, 6.2%), followed by insurance non-coverage (n = 24, 4.7%), and osteopenia/osteoporosis (n = 13, 2.5%). Fusion patients were significantly older than TDR patients (52.5 vs. 41.6 years; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to gender (41.2% female vs. 43.8% female, p > 0.05) or the percentage of patients with single-level surgery (61.2% vs. 56.7%, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The most common reason for not performing lumbar TDR was related to anatomic factors that may compromise stability of the operated segment and/or TDR functionality. The older age of fusion patients may be related to these factors. This study found that many patients are appropriate candidates for lumbar TDR. However, even among TDR subspecialists, fusion is preferred when there are factors that cannot be addressed with TDR and/or may compromise implant functionality.

Analysis of re-operations after cervical total disc replacement in a consecutive series of 535 patients receiving the ProDisc-C device.

INTRODUCTION: One important factor in evaluating the safety of an implant is the rate of subsequent surgery and the reasons for surgery, particularly those that are related to possible problems with the implant. The purpose of this study was to determine the overall re-operation rate (including revisions, removals, device-related, procedure-related, adjacent segment, and others) for a large consecutive series of cervical TDR patients beginning with the first case experience, using a single device at a single institution. METHODS: Surgery records were reviewed to identify cervical TDR patients and those who underwent subsequent surgery. Cervical TDR cases involving ProDisc-C were identified, beginning with the first case performed in 2003 at a multisite spine specialty centre. Only patients who were at least 2 years post-operative were included, producing a consecutive series of 535 patients. There were 115 hybrids in the series (TDR at one level and fusion at an adjacent segment). Data collected included general demographics and level(s) operated. A surgery log through 12-31-18 was reviewed to identify re-operations occurring in the TDR patients. For each re-operation, the reason, duration from index surgery, and procedure were recorded. The mean duration from the index surgery to the search of the surgery log for re-operations was 78.3 months, range 24 to 181 months. RESULTS: Re-operation occurred in 30 patients (5.6%). These included: 3 TDR removals and revision to anterior discectomy and fusion (1 for migration, 1 for subsidence, and 1 for spondylosis), 1 TDR repositioning, 21 secondary surgeries for adjacent segment degeneration (5 of which were adjacent to fusion levels in hybrid procedures), 1 wound infection, 1 hematoma, and 2 received stimulators for pain control. There were no re- operations for device failure. In cases of re-operation for adjacent segment degeneration, the mean duration between the index surgery and re-operation was 47.3 months. CONCLUSION: The re-operation rate was 5.6%. No surgeries were performed for device failure. These results support the safety of the TDR device.

In which cases do surgeons specializing in total disc replacement perform fusion in patients with cervical spine symptoms?

PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate reasons and their frequency for why total disc replacement (TDR) specialty surgeons performed anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) rather than TDR. METHODS: A consecutive series of 464 patients undergoing cervical spine surgery during a 5-year period by three TDR specialty surgeons was reviewed. For each ACDF, the reason for not performing TDR was recorded. RESULTS: TDR was performed in 76.7% of patients (n = 356) and ACDF in 23.3% (n = 108). The most common reason for ACDF versus TDR was anatomical (conditions that may not be adequately addressed with TDR and/or may interfere with device function), which occurred in 64 of 464 patients (13.79%). The second most common reason was insurance (denial/lack of coverage n = 17, 3.23%), and deformity/kyphosis not addressable with TDR was noted in 13 (2.80%). Pseudoarthrosis repair led to ACDF in three patients (0.65%), two did not receive TDR due to osteoporosis (0.43%), and in two others (0.43%) ACDF was undertaken due to high risk of heterotopic ossification. There was one case (0.22%) each of: nickel allergy, trauma with posterior element fracture, TDR removal, multiple prior cervical spine surgeries, concern about artifact on future imaging studies, benign osteoblastic bone, and limitation to adequate surgical approach for TDR. ACDF patients' mean age was significantly greater than TDR patients' (55.3 vs. 46.7 years; p < 0.01). TDR group had significantly more single-level procedures than ACDF (60.8% vs. 43.5%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The most common reason for ACDF versus TDR was anatomy that may compromise segmental stability and/or TDR functionality. Older age and greater number of operated levels may be related to anatomical factors, primarily significant osteophytes and severely degenerated facets. These factors, as well as deformity/kyphosis, are more common in older patients and require multi-level treatment. This study found that many patients are good cervical TDR candidates; however, even among TDR specialists, ACDF may be preferred where it is prudent to not take undue risks. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Evaluating alternatives to dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for assessing bone quality in patients undergoing spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast lumbar bone quality and osteoporosis/osteopenia screening results via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), CT, and MRI. METHODS: A consecutive series of 426 candidates screened for lumbar disc replacement over a 5-year period beginning in 2018 was reviewed. Patients with a preoperative lumbar spine DEXA scan and a CT and/or MRI scan were included. The primary outcome measures included the bone mineral density (BMD) and osteoporosis or osteopenia classification from DEXA scans, Hounsfield units (HUs) for CT, and vertebral bone quality (VBQ) assessment for MRI. Patients were included if they had a DEXA scan within 1 year of an MRI or CT scan. DEXA BMD scores from composite or level-by-level reports were recorded. Asynchronous MRI and CT measurements were conducted using PACS. Interrater and intrarater reliability scores were generated for both CT and MRI measurements and ranged from 1.000 for MRI L1-4 scans to 0.683 for MRI VBQ. RESULTS: All 3 types of scans were statistically significantly correlated with one another; however, CT was more strongly correlated with the lumbar DEXA value (r = 0.439, p < 0.001). The correlation between MRI VBQ and DEXA was -0.103, (p < 0.045). The CT level-by-level measurements correlate with the corresponding level-by-level DEXA BMD values (correlation ranging from 0.531 to 0.289, p < 0.001 to p = 0.007). CT HU values were more strongly related to osteoporosis/osteopenia classification based on DEXA T-scores than were MRI VBQ values. Receiver operating characteristic analyses found that the area under the curve was 0.817 for CT and 0.539 for MRI. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that CT HUs more closely correlate to DEXA scores than MRI VBQ in this population of patients undergoing surgery for symptomatic disc degeneration. Thus, CT may be an alternative to DEXA for assessing VBQ in this population.

Lumbar Total Disk Replacement Device Removals and Revisions Performed During a 20-Year Experience with 2141 Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study with prospective patient contact attempted to collect current data. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to investigate the incidence and reasons for lumbar total disk replacement (TDR) removal or revision. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A concern regarding lumbar TDR was safety, particularly the need for device removal or revision. This may be particularly important considering removal/revision requires repeat anterior exposure with an increased risk of vascular injury. METHODS: Data were collected for a series of 2141 lumbar TDR patients, beginning with the first case experience in 2000. The mean follow-up was 78.6 months. For each case of device removal/revision, the reason, duration from index surgery, and procedure performed were recorded. RESULTS: Of 2141 patients, 27 (1.26%) underwent TDR removal or revision. Device removal was performed in 24 patients (1.12%), while three patients underwent revision (0.14%). Of the 24 removals, 12 were due to migration and/or loosening, three developed problems post-trauma, two developed lymphocytic reaction to device materials, two had ongoing pain, and there was one case of each: TDR was too large, vertebral body fracture (osteoporosis), lytic lesion, device subsidence and facet arthrosis, and infection seeded from a chest infection 146 months post-TDR. The three revisions were for Core repositioning (technique error), device repositioning after displacement, and core replacement due to wear/failure. With respect to timing, 37.0% of removals/revisions occurred within one-month postimplantation. Of note, 40.7% of removals/revisions occurred in the first 25 TDR cases performed by individual surgeons. There was one significant vascular complication occurring in a patient whose TDR was removed due to trauma. This was also the only patient among 258 with ≥15-year follow-up who underwent removal/revision. CONCLUSION: In this large consecutive series, 1.26% of TDRs were removed/revised. The low rate over a 20 year period supports the safety of these devices.

Clinical Outcome of Lumbar Hybrid Surgery in a Consecutive Series of Patients with Long-term Follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study combined with attempted prospective patient contact to collect current data. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate long-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing lumbar hybrid surgery (total disc replacement (TDR) at one level and fusion at an adjacent level. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration are affected at more than one level. Lumbar TDR was introduced as a fusion alternative; however, some disc levels are not amenable to TDR and fusion is preferable at such levels. Hybrid surgery was introduced as an option to fusing multiple levels. METHODS: A consecutive series of 305 patients undergoing lumbar hybrid surgery was identified beginning with the first case experience in 2005. Operative and clinical outcome data including visual analog scales (VAS) assessing back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and re-operations were collected. The mean follow-up duration was 67.1 months. RESULTS: There were statistically significant improvements (P<0.01) in the mean values of all three clinical outcome measures: VAS back pain scores improved from 6.7 to 3.3; leg pain improved from 4.3 to 2.0; and ODI scores improved from 45.5 to 24.6. There were no significant differences in pain and function scores for patients with minimum 10-year follow-up vs. those with shorter follow-up duration. Re-operation occurred in 16.1% of patients, many of which involved removal of posterior instrumentation at the fusion level (6.2% of study group, 38.8% of re-operations). Re-operation involving the TDR level occurred in 9 patients (2.9%), only 3 of which (1.0%) involved TDR removal/revision. CONCLUSION: This study supports that for many patients with multilevel symptomatic disc degeneration, hybrid surgery is a viable surgical option. Significant improvements were demonstrated in pain and function scores with no diminished improvement in scores among patients with more than 10-year follow-up.

Is the Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Justified During Lumbar Anterior Approach Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) became widely used in spine surgery to reduce the risk of iatrogenic nerve injury. However, the proliferation of IONM has fallen into question based on effectiveness and costs, with a lack of evidence supporting its benefit for specific spine surgery procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of IONM and the rate of neurological injury associated with anterior lumbar spinal surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on a consecutive series of 359 patients undergoing lumbar anterior approach surgery for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), total disc replacement (TDR), or hybrid (ALIF with TDR) for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration. Patients undergoing any posterior spine surgery were excluded. Operative notes were reviewed to identify any changes in IONM and the surgeon's response. Clinic notes were reviewed up to 3 months postoperatively for indications of iatrogenic nerve injury. RESULTS: There were 3 aberrant results with respect to IONM. Changes in IONM of a lower extremity occurred for 1 patient (0.3%). The surgeon evaluated the situation and there was no observable reason for the IONM change. Upon waking, the patient was found to have no neurological deficit. There were 2 cases of neurologic deficits in this population, which were classified as false-negatives of IONM (0.56%, 95% CI: 0.1% to 1.8%). In both cases, the patients were found to have a foot drop after the anterior approach surgery. CONCLUSION: In this study, there was 1 false-positive and 2 false-negative results of IONM. These data suggest that IONM is not beneficial in this population. However, many surgeons may feel obligated to use IONM for medicolegal reasons. There is a need for future studies to delineate cases in which IONM is beneficial and the type of monitoring to use, if any, for specific spine surgery types. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study questions the routine use of IONM in anterior lumbar approach surgery for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration. This has significant implications related to the cost of this practice.

Five-year Follow-up of a Prospective Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Trial Evaluating a PEEK-on-Ceramic Cervical Disc Replacement.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective trial comparing the investigation group to propensity matched historic control group. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 5-year results of single-level PEEK-on-ceramic cervical total disc replacement (TDR) compared to a propensity matched anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) control group. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical TDR has gained acceptance as treatment for symptomatic disc degeneration. The design and materials used in these devices continue to evolve. METHODS: Data were collected in the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial for the PEEK-on-ceramic Simplify(®) Cervical Artificial Disc (n=150) with comparison to a propensity matched ACDF control group (n=117). All patients were treated for single-level cervical disc degeneration with radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. Clinical outcome was based on composite clinical success (CCS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing pain, re-operations, and satisfaction. Radiographic measures included segmental range of motion (ROM), disc space height, and heterotopic ossification (HO). Evaluations were performed pre-operatively and post-operatively within 2 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12 months, and annually thereafter. RESULTS: At 5-year follow-up, CCS was significantly greater with TDR than ACDF (91.1% vs. 74.6%; P<0.01). In the TDR group, the mean NDI score was 63.3 pre-operatively, reduced significantly to 23.1 at 6 weeks and remained below 20 throughout 5-year follow-up. In the ACDF group, the mean pre-operative NDI score was 62.4, decreasing to 33.7 at 6 weeks, and ranged from 25.9 to 21.5 throughout follow-up. Mean NDI scores were significantly lower in TDR group at all post-operative points (P<0.05). Mean TDR ROM was 7.3o pre-operatively and 10.1o at 5 years. Bridging HO occurred in 9%. With TDR, there were 6 re-operations (4.0%) vs. 11 (9.4%) with ACDF (P>0.40). CONCLUSION: PEEK-on-ceramic TDR produced significantly improved outcomes maintained throughout 5-year follow-up, were similar or superior to ACDF, supporting TDR in appropriately selected patients.

Removals and Revisions of Cervical Total Disc Replacement Devices in a Consecutive Series of 1626 Patients Beginning With the First Case Experience in 2003.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the rate of cervical total disc replacement (TDR) device removal or revision. BACKGROUND: Cervical TDR has gained acceptance as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in appropriately selected patients. There have been concerns over device safety, one measure of which is subsequent surgery related to device problems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 1626 patients undergoing cervical TDR from 2003 to June 2021 were included, consisting of TDRs up to 3 levels and hybrids (TDR and fusion). TDR removal or revision surgeries and reasons for these surgeries, procedures performed, and duration from index procedure were recorded. Data were analyzed to determine the removal/revision rate and factors possibly related to these events. RESULTS: There were 24 removals/revisions (1.48%) in the 1626 patients. Removal was performed in 23 cases (1.41%) and revision in 1 (0.06%). Among removal cases, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion was performed in 18 and TDR was replaced with another TDR in 5. Removals with fusion included 5 cases of osteolysis with/without Cutibacterium acnes , 4 device displacement/migration, 4 posterior spinal pathology, and one for each of the following: metal allergy, approach-related complications, malpositioning, subsidence, and hypermobility. The revision involved TDR repositioning 3 days after index surgery. There were 66 patients for whom a minimum of 10-year follow-up was confirmed, and none had removal/revision surgery 10 or more years after index surgery. There was no relationship between the occurrence of removal/revision and age, sex, body mass index, or physician experience (learning curve). The removal/revision rate was significantly higher in FDA trials versus postapproval (4.1% vs . 1.3%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this large consecutive series of patients, 1.48% of cervical TDRs were removed/revised. The low rate of removals/revisions over a long period of time provides support for the devices' safety. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Evaluation of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed Using a Stand-Alone, Integrated Fusion Cage.

BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has been performed for many years. Often, posterior supplemental fixation has been used to provide additional stability to the operated segment. Interbody implants have evolved to incorporate unique designs, polyetheretherketone, integrated screws, and surface texture. With these changes, the need for supplemental posterior fixation has been debated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of stand-alone ALIF. METHODS: A surgery log was reviewed to identify the consecutive series of 58 patients undergoing ALIF using a STALIF stand-alone cage from March 2011 (first case) to December 2018 (minimum 24 months postoperative) with a mean follow-up of 30.6 months. All patients were treated for symptomatic degenerative conditions. Charts were reviewed to collect general patient information, operative data, and patient-reported outcomes, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scales (VAS) separately assessing back pain and leg pain, and re-operations. For patients who were not seen recently in clinic for follow-up, current outcome data were collected through mailings. RESULTS: The mean operative blood loss was 52.1 mL. There was a statistically significant improvement in mean ODI scores from 41.7 preoperatively to 21.0 at follow-up (P < 0.01). There was also significant improvement (P < 0.01) in VAS back pain (6.0-2.5) and leg pain (4.1-1.3). Subsequent surgery was performed on 9 patients. Reasons for re-operation were pseudoarthrosis (n = 3), progressive cage subsidence (n = 1), foraminal stenosis at the index level (n = 1), metal allergy reaction (n = 2), adjacent segment degeneration (n = 1), and ongoing pain (n = 1). There were no cases of device failure, vertebral body fracture, or screws backing out of the implant. DISCUSSION: Stand-alone ALIF was associated with statistically significant improvements in ODI scores, back pain, and leg pain. The re-operation rate for clear pseudoarthrosis or cage subsidence was 6.8%. These results support that stand-alone ALIF produces good outcomes in patients treated for symptomatic disc degeneration while avoiding the use of posterior fixation and its complication risk and cost. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study support that stand-alone ALIF is a viable procedure for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration unresponsive in patients who have failed nonoperative care and who do not have specific indications for supplemental posterior instrumentation.

The use of a new high-speed shielded curved drill is associated with improved intraoperative and clinical outcomes after cervical corpectomy and fusion procedures: a retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an effective technique to address multi-level degenerative cervical myelopathy. However, as the number of surgical levels increases, the outcomes worsen with respect to complication rates, range of motion and length of surgery. This study aimed to determine the clinical outcome of ACCF procedures performed using a new distally curved and shielded drilling device. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 43 ACCF procedures in which the device was used for osteophyte removal. Patient files were reviewed to assess the early clinical results and complications following ACCF. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using patient neck and arm pain scores and SF-36 questionnaires. Hospitalization characteristics were compared with historical controls. RESULTS: All procedures were uneventful and without major complications or neurological deterioration. Single-level ACCF procedures required an average of 71 min and followed by an average hospitalization of 3.3 days. Osteophyte removal, verified by intraoperative imaging, was satisfactory. Average neck pain score was improved by 0.9 points (p = 0.24). Average arm pain score was improved by 1.8 points (p = 0.06). SF-36 scores were improved in all domains. CONCLUSIONS: The new curved device enabled safe and efficient removal of osteophytes sparing adjacent vertebral removal in ACCF procedures, thus improving the clinical outcome.

Assessment of pedicle screw placement accuracy, procedure time, and radiation exposure using a miniature robotic guidance system.

STUDY DESIGN: Controlled, cadaveric implantation trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a robotic guidance system on screw placement accuracy, amount of radiation exposure, and length of procedure time during percutaneous pedicle screw implantation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Pedicle screws are associated with low complication rates, and several computer-assisted image guidance systems exist that facilitate accurate screw placement. However, these systems may represent substantial radiation exposure risk to patients and surgeons. METHODS: We implanted 234 pedicle screws in 12 cadavers (study group: 15 surgeons, 197 screws, and 10 specimens; control group: 2 surgeons, 37 screws, and 2 specimens). We measured procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation exposure and evaluated screw placement accuracy with computed tomography scans. To evaluate the learning curve, we compared measurements with those of an experienced robotic guidance user through the 2-sample (heteroscedastic), 1-tail t test (P< 0.05). RESULTS: Relative to control, the study group had fewer screw placement deviations (average, 2.6±0.7 mm vs. 1.1±0.4 mm; P<0.0001), fewer pedicle wall breaches of 4 mm or greater (average, 5.4% vs. 1.5%), lower surgeon radiation exposure (average, 136 mrem vs. 4.2 mrem), lower fluoroscopy time per screw (average, 33.0 s vs. 0.9 s), and shorter procedure time (average, 1.98 h vs. 1.23 h). Use of robotic guidance increased the accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement by 58%, thereby reducing the risk of neurologic injury (as measured by breaches >4 mm), new-user radiation exposure (by 98.2%), and procedure time (by 36%). CONCLUSIONS: The advantages associated with a robotic guidance system may make the surgeon more at ease about offering minimally invasive or percutaneous surgical options to patients and more comfortable about implementing pedicle-based fixation in general. This advanced technology may also allow inclusion of patients with complicated anatomic deformities, who are often excluded from pedicle screw-based surgery options.

Cervical Total Disk Replacement: Available Implant Size Matters.

STUDY DESIGN: This study was a post hoc analysis of data collected from 2 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trials. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to: (1) measure disk space heights adjacent to the level to be treated with a total disk replacement (TDR); (2) analyze cervical disk space heights to be replaced with TDR; and (3) investigate the frequency of use of a smaller height TDR when available. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical TDR produces outcomes noninferior or superior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. While the restoration of the height of a collapsed, degenerated disk is a surgical goal, there are potential problems with overdistracting the segment with an implant. METHODS: Disk heights were measured using radiographs from the 1-level Simplify Cervical Artificial Disk IDE trial, producing values for 259 levels adjacent to the treated level and 162 treated levels. The device is available in 4, 5, and 6 mm heights. The 4 mm height became available only after treatment was 13% complete in the single-level trial and was available for all of the 2-level trial. RESULTS: Measurements of 259 adjacent levels found that 55.2% of disk spaces had a height of <4 mm. Among operated levels, 82.7% were <4 mm. When a 4 mm TDR was available, it was used in 38.4% of operated levels in the 1-level trial and 54.3% of levels in the 2-level trial. CONCLUSIONS: Among nonoperated levels, 55.2% were of height <4 mm, suggesting that TDRs of greater heights may potentially overdistract the disk space. The 4 mm TDR was selected by surgeons in 49.4% of all implanted levels, suggesting a preference for smaller TDR height. Further investigation is warranted to determine if the lower height implants are related to clinical and/or radiographic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Prospective, multicenter study of 2-level cervical arthroplasty with a PEEK-on-ceramic artificial disc.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a PEEK-on-ceramic cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) device for the treatment of 2-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy and/or myelopathy. METHODS: The study was a prospective, nonrandomized, historically controlled FDA investigational device exemption trial evaluating the Simplify Cervical Artificial Disc for use at 2 levels. The anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) control group was derived from a propensity score-matched (using subclassification) cohort of patients who participated in an earlier prospective trial in which similar indications were used. The follow-up duration was 24 months. The primary outcome was a 4-point composite success classification. Other validated clinical and radiographic assessments were also evaluated. RESULTS: The investigational group (n = 182) was compared with patients who underwent ACDF (n = 170) in a historical control group using propensity score analysis. The overall composite success rate was statistically significantly greater in the cTDR group compared with the ACDF group (86.7% vs 77.1%; p < 0.05). The mean Neck Disability Index scores improved significantly in both groups, with cTDR significantly lower at some follow-up points. At the 24-month follow-up, a minimum 15-point improvement in Neck Disability Index scores was achieved in 92.9% of the cTDR group and 83.5% of the ACDF group (p > 0.05). In both groups, neck and arm pain scores improved significantly (p < 0.05) by 6 weeks and improvement was maintained throughout follow-up. Segmental range of motion was maintained at both treated segments in the cTDR group. MRI performed in the cTDR group at 24 months postoperatively found minimal changes in facet joint degeneration. The rate of subsequent surgical intervention was 2.2% in the cTDR group and 8.8% in the ACDF group. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the growing body of literature supporting cTDR for 2-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy. cTDR showed a superior overall success rate compared to ACDF, while maintaining motion. These results support that the Simplify disc is a viable alternative to ACDF in appropriately selected patients with 2-level cervical spondylosis.

Spine Patient Satisfaction With Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Original research, cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate patient satisfaction with spine care delivered via telemedicine. Identify patient- and visit-based factors associated with increased satisfaction and visit preference. METHODS: Telemedicine visits with a spine surgeon at 2 practices in the United States between March and May 2020 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients were sent an electronic survey recording overall satisfaction, technical or clinical issues encountered, and preference for a telemedicine versus an in-person visit. Factors associated with poor satisfaction and preference of telemedicine over an in-person visit were identified using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 772 responses were collected. Overall, 87.7% of patients were satisfied with their telemedicine visit and 45% indicated a preference for a telemedicine visit over an in-person visit if given the option. Patients with technical or clinical issues were significantly less likely to achieve 5 out of 5 satisfaction scores and were significantly more likely to prefer an in-person visit. Patients who live less than 5 miles from their surgeon's office and patients older than 60 years were also significantly more likely to prefer in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: Spine telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with high patient satisfaction. Additionally, 45% of respondents indicated a preference for telemedicine versus an in-patient visit in the future. In light of these findings, telemedicine for spine care may be a preferable option for a subset of patients into the future.

Indirect Decompression for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of symptomatic lumbar stenosis has traditionally included laminectomy for direct decompression. With increasing options for lumbar interbody fusion, there has been growing interest in indirect decompression to treat degenerative stenosis. The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether indirect decompression via anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) can provide symptomatic relief in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Secondary purposes were to (1) identify risk factors for failure of indirect decompression and (2) to identify risk factors for failure to obtain relief and to compare outcomes between patients undergoing stand-alone ALIF versusand those in whom ALIF was supplemented with posterior instrumentation. METHODS: Chart review was performed on a consecutive series of 568 patients undergoing single-level ALIF without posterior decompression to treat degenerative stenosis during a 5-year period. Failure of indirect decompression was defined as return to the operating room for direct decompression. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare patients who underwent stand-alone ALIF (n = 247) vs those in whom supplemental posterior instrumentation was used (ALIF + PI; n = 321). RESULTS: Reoperation due to failure of indirect decompression occurred in 4.0% (23/568) of patients. The only factor related to failure was age. Patients older than 60 years were more likely to fail indirect decompression than were younger patients (7.0% vs 3.1%, P < 0.05). ALIF and ALIF + PI subgroups both improved significantly when comparing preoperative to postoperative mean scores on Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back pain, and leg pain (all P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between these groups, including reoperation rate for direct decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect decompression via ALIF was effective in treating appropriately selected patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Older patients are at higher risk for failure of indirect decompression-potentially because of greater osseous stenosis as well as subsidence due to age-related diminished bone density with subsequent loss of distraction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study supports that indirect decompression via ALIF is a viable alternative to direct decompression in appropriately selected patients with degenerative stenosis.

Cervical Total Disc Replacement: Novel Devices.

This article reviews the available literature for novel cervical total disc replacement devices, including ones which are available inside and outside of the United States. It includes biomechanical consideration as well as design characteristics and clinical data when available.