A variety of surgical methods and strategies have been demonstrated for Andersson lesion (AL) therapy. In 2011, we proposed and identified the feasibility of stabilizing the spine without curettaging the vertebral or discovertebral lesion to cure non-kyphotic AL. Additionally, due to the excellent reunion ability of ankylosing spondylitis, we further came up with minimally invasive spinal surgery (MIS) to avoid the need for both bone graft and lesion curettage in AL surgery. However, there is a paucity of research into the comparison between open spinal fusion (OSF) and early MIS in the treatment of AL. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the clinical outcomes and radiological evaluation of our early MIS approach and OSF for AL. A total of 39 patients diagnosed with AL who underwent surgery from January 2004 to December 2022 were retrospectively screened for eligibility. Patients with AL were divided into an MIS group and an OSF group. The primary outcomes were union of the lesion on radiograph and CT, as well as the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores immediately after surgery, and at the follow-up (mean 29 months (standard error (SE) 9)). The secondary outcomes were total blood loss during surgery, operating time, and improvement in the radiological parameters: global and local kyphosis, sagittal vertical axis, sagittal alignment, and chin-brow vertical angle immediately after surgery and at the follow-up.Aims
Methods
This systematic review aims to identify 3D predictors derived from biplanar reconstruction, and to describe current methods for improving curve prediction in patients with mild adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. A comprehensive search was conducted by three independent investigators on MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Search terms included “adolescent idiopathic scoliosis”,“3D”, and “progression”. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were carefully defined to include clinical studies. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool (QUIPS) and Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS), and level of evidence for each predictor was rated with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. In all, 915 publications were identified, with 377 articles subjected to full-text screening; overall, 31 articles were included.Aims
Methods
To determine the major risk factors for unplanned reoperations (UROs) following corrective surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) and their interactions, using machine learning-based prediction algorithms and game theory. Patients who underwent surgery for ASD, with a minimum of two-year follow-up, were retrospectively reviewed. In total, 210 patients were included and randomly allocated into training (70% of the sample size) and test (the remaining 30%) sets to develop the machine learning algorithm. Risk factors were included in the analysis, along with clinical characteristics and parameters acquired through diagnostic radiology.Aims
Methods
People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials.Aims
Methods
