RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Various strategies have been used to reduce pedicle screw loosening following lumbar instrumented fusion, but all strategies have limitations. In this prospective multicenter cohort study, outcomes of elderly patients with reduced bone density who underwent primary or revision fusion surgery using a novel technique of pedicle screw augmentation with demineralized bone fiber (DBF) anchors were evaluated. METHODS: This study included elderly patients (aged >65 years) with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-confirmed reduced bone density who required lumbar pedicle screw fixation and were treated with supplemental DBF allograft anchors during primary or revision surgery. The need for DBF anchors was determined by evaluating preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans (for revision surgery) and by the surgeons' tactile feedback intraoperatively during pedicle screw insertion and removal. After determining the pedicle screw void diameter with a sizing instrument, DBF anchors and pedicle screws of the same diameter were placed into the void. CT scans were obtained on postoperative day 2 to assess pedicle breach, pedicle fracture, or anchor material extrusion and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to assess screw loosening. Thereafter, to minimize radiation exposure, CT scans were only performed for recurrence of pain. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (79% women; mean age, 74 years) received 50 lumbosacral pedicle screws augmented with DBF anchors. Most surgeries (n = 18, 78%) were revisions, and most anchors were inserted into revision pedicle screw trajectories (n = 33, 66%). Day-2 CT scans revealed no pedicle breach/fracture or extrusion of anchor material. During a mean follow-up of 15 months (12-20 months), no screw loosening was detected, and no patient required pedicle screw revision surgery. There were no adverse events attributable to DBF allografts. CONCLUSIONS: DBF allograft anchors appear to be safe and effective for augmenting pedicle screws during revision surgeries in female elderly patients with reduced bone density. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinically, DBF reduced the rate of pedicle screw loosening in patients with reduced bone density. A significant reduction in screw loosening can decrease the need for revision surgeries, which are costly and carry additional risks. Enhanced bone integration from the DBF may promote better healing and long-term stability.
RESUMO
Background and Objective: This is a narrative review with the objective to discuss available assistive technologies for spinal surgery. Characteristics, costs, and compatibility of the different systems are summarized and recommendations made regarding acquiring these technologies. The availability of assistive technologies in spine surgery continues to evolve rapidly. The literature is lacking a collective summary of the available technologies and guidelines for acquisition. This is a narrative review which (I) presents an up-to-date summary of the currently available assistive technologies in spinal surgery; (II) makes comment on the utility of imaging, navigation, and robotics; (III) makes recommendations for the utility of the platform based on hospital size and (IV) discuss factors involved in negotiating for the purchase of these new technologies. Methods: We assemble the most up-to-date collection of description, characteristics and pricing of assistive technologies in spinal surgery. We compare and contrast these technologies and make recommendations regarding acquisition. Key Content and Findings: These technologies require a learning-curve for the surgeon and the operating room staff to understand how to use them efficiently. Surgeons need to be involved in the process of purchase decisions. Surgeons occupy a unique position in the health care infrastructure as their approach to care has significant ramifications on both the quality and cost of care. Surgeons should maintain conviction that their training and practice has allowed the use of these technologies to provide safer and more effective care for patients. Conclusions: Assistive technologies and prostheses for spinal fusion are evolving rapidly. This article serves as an encompassing reference to the current technologies. These technologies will play a significant role in the delivery of spinal health care in the future. All stakeholders stand to benefit from the increased value these technologies bring to patient care.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior lumbar fusion surgery is increasing by an estimated 24% annually in the United States. There is a paucity of precise anatomic guidelines to help surgeons determine the appropriate anterior access incision site. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the available anterior surface landmarks for the L4/L5 and L5/S1 disk levels to the disk levels determined by fluoroscopy, with the goal of creating a guide for surgical incision sites in anterior lumbar access surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing anterior lumbar spinal exposure for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), total disk replacement (TDR), or a combination of the two procedures at levels L4/L5 and/or L5/S1. PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients (n=183) undergoing primary ALIF and/or TDR surgery from June 2018 to April 2021 at the study sites were assessed for inclusion, and 18 patients were excluded. The remaining 165 patients were included in the study, and a total of 208 surgical levels were exposed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. At each level, the distance from the symphysis pubis to the target disk level (SD distance) and the distance from the symphysis pubis to the umbilicus (SU distance) were measured, and the SD/SU ratio was calculated. Paired 2-tailed t tests were used to assess significant differences (p<.05). An R2 (coefficient of determination) test was used to assess variability of the SD distance, SU distance, and SD/SU ratio at each level. METHODS: All physiologic and anatomic measures were collected prospectively by the investigators, including intraoperative measurements of SD and SU. Demographic and previous health history data were collected at the time of study enrollment. RESULTS: The mean age of the 165 study participants was 48±14 years (range 18-80 years), and 97 (61%) were male. A total of 208 disk levels were exposed: 140 at L5/S1 and 68 at L4/L5. For the L5/S1, the SD ranged from 0 to 12.5 cm, with a mean of 5.2±1.9 cm (95% CI 4.88-5.52). For the L4/L5 level, the SD ranged from 6 to 15.5 cm, with a mean of 10.7±2.3 cm (95% CI 10.2-11.2). SD/SU ratios at both levels were lower in overweight (body mass index [BMI] 25-29.9) and obese (BMI 30-34.9) groups than in normal body mass index groups. There was no significant difference in SD/SU ratios between females and males at either L5/S1 (p=.39) or L4/L5 (p=.66). CONCLUSION: Clinically important variability in SD distances (≥9.5 cm) was observed for both the L5/S1 and L4/L5 disk levels. SD/SU ratios provided more consistent estimates of disk location than SD distance alone, but they still displayed substantial variability. Thus, intraoperative fluoroscopy remains mandatory to accurately plan the surgical incision for anterior lumbar access surgery.