Establishment and Validation of Nomograms and Web Calculators for Different Cement Leakage Risk Types in Pedicle Screw Augmentation for Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis in Osteoporotic Vertebrae.

BACKGROUND: The use of cement in pedicle screw augmentation (PSA) enhances the pullout force of pedicle screws in vertebrae affected by osteoporosis. Risks involved in the use of cement for PSA include nerve injury and vascular damage caused by cement leakage. METHODS: This study included all patients who received PSA for degenerative lumbar stenosis in osteoporotic vertebrae from January 2014 to May 2022. Postoperative computed tomography was used to assess cement leakage. Correlation analysis and logistic regression analyses were used to establish the associated clinical or radiological factors, which were then used to construct nomograms and web calculators. RESULTS: The study comprised 181 patients including 886 screws inserted into 443 vertebrae. Perivertebral cement leakage was significantly associated with female sex, decreased bone mineral density, solid screws, and scattered cement distribution. Cement leakage through segmental veins (type S, 72.1%), leakage through basivertebral veins (type B, 23.9%), and instrument-related leakage (type I, 13.9%) accounted for most cement leakage. Patients with lower bone mineral density and scattered cement distribution were more likely to experience type S or type B leakage. Our analysis data showed that cement augmentation with cannulated and fenestrated screws tended toward concentrated cement distribution. Creation and verification of each nomogram additionally showcased the prognostic capability and medical significance of the corresponding model. CONCLUSIONS: Nomograms and web-based calculators can accurately forecast the probability of cement leakage. PSA should be routinely performed using cannulated and fenestrated screws, along with a moderate amount of high-viscosity cement, with continuous monitoring using fluoroscopy.

Anatomic distribution of basivertebral foramen with a magistral form in vertebral bodies of T10~L5 and its clinical significance for extensive epidural cement leakage in cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation: a multicenter case-control study.

BACKGROUND: There are no reports discussing anatomic distribution of basivertebral foramen (BVF) in the osteoporotic vertebral body, which is critical in the analysis of the risk of epidural cement leakage (ECL) after cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation (CAPSF). METHODS: 371 osteoporotic patients using 1898 cement-augmented screws were included. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) was used to determine the frequency, width, height, and depth of magistral BVF in T10~L5. Additionally, we measured the distance between BVF and the left/right borders of vertebral body as well as the distance between BVF and upper/lower endplates. Following CAPSF, the severity of ECL and the position of pedicle screws were determined by postoperative CT. Finally, significant risk factors for extensive ECL were identified through binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 2968 vertebral bodies ranging from T10 to L5, 801 (42.2%) had a magistral BVF. From T10 to L5, the frequency of magistral BVF appeared to gradually increase. The magistral BVF was much closer to the upper endplate and the depth accounted for about a quarter of anteroposterior diameter of vertebral body. Overall, there were 19 patients (5.1%) and 32 screws (1.7%) with extensive ECL, nine of whom had neurological symptoms. The independent risk factors for extensive ECL were the magistral BVF (OR = 8.62, P < 0.001), more volume of cement injected (OR = 1.57, P = 0.031), reduced distance from screw tip to vertebral midline (OR = 0.76, P = 0.003) and vertebral posterior wall (OR = 0.77, P < 0.001) respectively. CONCLUSION: When planning a CAPSF procedure, it is important to consider anatomical distribution of BVF and improve screw implantation methods.

What is the Preferable Method for the C3 and C7 Segments in Unilateral Open-Door Laminoplasty for Patients Diagnosed with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy?

BACKGROUND: Traditional C3-C7 unilateral open-door laminoplasty (UOLP) often leads to various postoperative complications as a result of damage of cervical posterior muscles and nuchal ligaments. We aimed to thoroughly evaluate postoperative outcomes after our modified UOLP versus traditional UOLP in treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (MCSM). METHODS: Seventy-six patients with MCSM who underwent the modified UOLP with C3 laminectomy and C7 upper hemilaminectomy (40 patients) or traditional C3-C7 UOLP (36 patients) were included. Preoperative and postoperative cervical radiologic parameters, as well as clinical and surgical outcomes, were evaluated. RESULTS: Postoperatively, Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores improved significantly more in the modified UOLP group than in the traditional UOLP group (P = 0.028), whereas visual analog scale scores and Neck Disability Index improved similarly in both groups. Follow-up scores for Japanese Orthopaedic Association, Neck Disability Index, and visual analog scale were not significantly different between the 2 groups. At the final follow-up, the C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis and T1 slope increased in the traditional UOLP group and did not change in the modified UOLP group and were unchanged in the modified UOLP group. The C2-C7 Cobb angle decreased significantly in the traditional UOLP group and did not change in the modified UOLP group. The modified UOLP group lost less cervical posterior muscle area compared with the traditional UOLP group (3.72% ± 3.54% vs. 6.67% ± 2.81%; P < 0.001). The range of motion in the modified UOLP group was significantly greater than in the traditional UOLP group at the final follow-up (P < 0.001). Also, the modified UOLP group experienced a notable reduction in operative time, blood loss volume, and postoperative hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend performing our modified UOLP with C3 laminectomy and C7 upper hemilaminectomy instead of traditional C3-C7 UOLP.

Comparison of safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To compare modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disorders in order to assess its safety and effectiveness. METHODS: From January 2016 to January 2021, 74 patients who received single-segment M-TLIF were examined. A total of 74 patients having single-segment PLIF during the same time period were included in a retrospective controlled study using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. The two groups were compared in terms of the fusion rate, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the visual analogue scale of low back pain (VAS), the perioperative condition, the postoperative complications, and the postoperative neighbouring segment degeneration. RESULTS: All patients had surgery satisfactorily and were monitored for at least a year afterwards. The baseline values for the two groups did not significantly differ. The interbody fusion rate between PLIF (98.65%) and M-TLIF (97.30%) was not significantly different. In the follow-up, the M-TLIF group's VAS score for low back and leg pain was lower than that of the PLIF group. The ODI score of the M-TLIF group was lower than that of the PLIF group at 7 days and 3 months following surgery. Both groups' post-op VAS and ODI scores for low back and leg pain were much lower than those from before the procedure. In M-TLIF group, the operation time, drainage tube extraction time, postoperative bed rest time and hospital stay time were shorter, and the amount of intraoperative blood loss was less. Compared with those before operation, the height of intervertebral space and intervertebral foramen were significantly increased in both groups during postoperative follow-up (P < 0.05). The postoperative complications and adjacent segment degeneration of M-TLIF were significantly lower than those of PLIF. CONCLUSIONS: M-TLIF is a safe and effective treatment for lumbar degenerative disorders, with a high fusion rate and no significant difference between M-TLIF and PLIF. M-TLIF's efficacy and safety are comparable to that of PLIF, particularly in terms of early relief of low back pain and improvement in quality of life following surgery. Therefore, M-TLIF technology can be popularized and applied in clinic.