The December 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Rostral facet joint violations in robotic- and navigation-assisted pedicle screw placement; The inhibitory effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids on spinal fusion: an animal model;L5-S1 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is associated with increased revisions compared to L4-L5 TLIF at two years; Immediate versus gradual brace weaning protocols in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized clinical trial; Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualized, progressive walking, and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomized controlled trial; Usefulness and limitations of intraoperative pathological diagnosis using frozen sections for spinal cord tumours; Effect of preoperative HbA1c and blood glucose level on the surgical site infection after lumbar instrumentation surgery; How good are surgeons at achieving their alignment goals?

Introduction. In daily clinical practice, progression of spinal fusion is typically monitored during clinical follow-up using conventional radiography and Computed Tomography scans. However, recent research has demonstrated the potential of implant load monitoring to assess posterolateral spinal fusion in an in-vivo sheep model. The question arises to whether such a strain sensing system could be used to monitor bone fusion following lumbar interbody fusion surgery, where the intervertebral space is supported by a cage. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test human cadaveric lumbar spines in two states: after a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure combined with a pedicle-screw-rod-construct (PSR) and subsequently after simulating bone fusion. The study hypothesized that the load on the posterior instrumentation decreases as the segment stiffens due to simulated fusion. Method. A TLIF procedure with PSR was performed on eight human cadaveric spines at level L4-L5. Strain sensors were attached bilaterally to the rods to derive implant load changes during unconstrained flexion-extension (FE), lateral bending (LB) and axial rotation (AR) loads up to ±7.5Nm. The specimens were retested after simulating bone fusion between vertebrae L4-L5. In addition, the range of motion (ROM) was measured during each loading mode. Result. The ROM decreased in the simulated bone fusion state in all loading directions (p≤0.002). In both states, the measured strain on the posterior instrumentation was highest during LB motion. Furthermore, the sensors detected a significant decrease in the load induced rod strain (p≤0.002) between TLIF+PSR and simulated bone fusion state in LB. Conclusion. Implant load measured via rod strain sensors can be used to monitor the progression of fusion after a TLIF procedure when measured during LB of the lumbar spine. However, further research is needed to investigate the influence of daily loading scenarios expected in-vivo on the overall change in implant load

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the level of upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in frail patients undergoing surgery for adult spine deformity (ASD).

Aims. 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). Methods. 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. Results. There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion. This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620

The April 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Lengthening behaviour of magnetically controlled growing rods in early-onset scoliosis: a multicentre study; LDL, cholesterol, and statins usage cause pseudarthrosis following lumbar interbody fusion; Decision-making in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5; Does the interfacing angle between pedicle screws and support rods affect clinical outcomes after posterior thoracolumbar fusion?; Returning to the grind: how workload influences recovery post-lumbar spine surgery; Securing the spine: a leap forward with s2 alar-iliac screws in adult spinal deformity surgery.

The February 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Surgeon assessment of bone – any good?; Robotics reduces radiation exposure in some spinal surgery; Interbody fusion cage versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation; Is robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement an answer to the learning curve?; Acute non-traumatic spinal subarachnoid haematomas: a report of five cases and a systematic review of the literature; Is L4-L5 lateral interbody fusion safe and effective?

The October 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Cutting through surgical smoke: the science of cleaner air in spinal operations; Unlocking success: key factors in thoracic spine decompression and fusion for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; Deep learning algorithm for identifying cervical cord compression due to degenerative canal stenosis on radiography; Surgeon experience influences robotics learning curve for minimally invasive lumbar fusion; Decision-making algorithm for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5; Response to preoperative steroid injections predicts surgical outcomes in patients undergoing fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, as well as intraoperative factors, radiation exposure, and complication rates in adult patients with degenerative disorders of the thoracic and lumbar spines who have undergone robotic-navigated spinal surgery using a contemporary system.

Aims

Repeated lumbar spine surgery has been associated with inferior clinical outcomes. This study aimed to examine and quantify the impact of this association in a national clinical register cohort.

Lumbar fusion surgery is an established procedure for the treatment of several spinal pathologies. Despite numerous techniques and existing devices, common surgical trends in lumbar fusion surgery are scarcely investigated. The purpose of this Canada-based study was to provide a descriptive portrait of current surgeons’ practice and implant preferences in lumbar fusion surgery while comparing findings to similar investigations performed in the United Kingdom. Canadian Spine Society (CSS) members were sampled using an online questionnaire which was based on previous investigations performed in the United Kingdom. Fifteen questions addressed the various aspects of surgeons’ practice: fusion techniques, implant preferences, and bone grafting procedures. Responses were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics. Of 139 eligible CSS members, 41 spinal surgeons completed the survey (29.5%). The most common fusion approach was via transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF) with 87.8% performing at least one procedure in the previous year. In keeping with this, 24 surgeons (58.5%) had performed 11 to 50 cases in that time frame. Eighty-six percent had performed no lumbar artificial disc replacements over their last year of practice. There was clear consistency on the relevance of a patient specific management (73.2%) on the preferred fusion approach. The most preferred method was pedicle screw fixation (78%). The use of stand-alone cages was not supported by any respondents. With regards to the cage material, titanium cages were the most used (41.5%). Published clinical outcome data was the most important variable in dictating implant choice (87.8%). Cage thickness was considered the most important aspect of cage geometry and hyperlordotic cages were preferred at the lower lumbar levels. Autograft bone graft was most commonly preferred (61.0%). Amongst the synthetic options, DBX/DBM graft (64.1%) in injectable paste form (47.5%) was preferred. In conclusion, findings from this study are in partial agreement with previous work from the United Kingdom, but highlight the variance of practice within Canada and the need for large-scale clinical studies aimed to set specific guidelines for certain pathologies or patient categories

Introduction and Objective. Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, TLIF) represent the most popular techniques in performing an interbody fusion amongst spine surgeons. Pseudarthrosis, cage migration, subsidence or infection can occur, with subsequent failed surgery, persistent pain and patient’ bad quality of life. The goal of revision fusion surgery is to correct any previous technical errors avoiding surgical complications. The most safe and effective way is to choose a naive approach to the disc. Therefore, the anterior approach represents a suitable technique as a salvage operation. The aim of this study is to underline the technical advantages of the anterior retroperitoneal approach as a salvage procedure in failed PLIF/TLIF analyzing a series of 32 consecutive patients. Materials and Methods. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients’ data in patients who underwent ALIF as a salvage procedure after failed PLIF/TLIF between April 2014 to December 2019. We recorded all peri-operative data. In all patients the index level was exposed with a minimally invasive anterior retroperitoneal approach. Results. Thirty-two patients (average age: 46.4 years, median age 46.5, ranging from 21 to 74 years hold- 16 male and 16 female) underwent salvage ALIF procedure after failed PLIF/TLIF were included in the study. A minimally invasive anterior retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine was performed in all patients. In 6 cases (18.7%) (2 infection and 4 pseudarthrosis after stand-alone IF) only anterior revision surgery was performed. A posterior approach was necessary in 26 cases (81.3%). In most of cases (26/32, 81%) the posterior instrumentation was overpowered by the anterior cage without a previous revision. Three (9%) intraoperative minor complications after anterior approach were recorded: 1 dural tear, 1 ALIF cage subsidence and 1 small peritoneal tear. None vascular injuries occurred. Most of patients (90.6%) experienced an improvement of their clinical condition and at the last follow-up no mechanical complication occurred. Conclusions. According to our results, we can suggest that a favourable clinical outcome can firstly depend from technical reasons an then from radiological results. The removal of the mobilized cage, the accurate endplate and disc space preparation and the cage implant eliminate the primary source of pain reducing significantly the axial pain, helping to realise an optimal bony surface for fusion and enhancing primary stability. The powerful disc distraction given by the anterior approach allows inserting large and lordotic cages improving the optimal segmental lordosis restoration

Aims

To determine the effectiveness of prone traction radiographs in predicting postoperative slip distance, slip angle, changes in disc height, and lordosis after surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine.

Obesity is an increasing public health concern associated with increased perioperative complications and expense in lumbar spine fusions. While open and mini-open fusions such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) are more challenging in obese patients, new MIS procedures like oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLLIF) may improve perioperative outcomes in obese patients relative to TLIF and MIS-TLIF. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of obesity on perioperative outcomes in OLLIF, MIS-TLIF, and TLIF. This is a retrospective cohort study. We included patients who underwent OLLIF, MIS-TLIF, or TLIF on three or fewer spinal levels at a single Minnesota hospital after conservative therapy had failed. Indications included in this study were degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, spondylosis, herniation, stenosis, and scoliosis. We measured demographic information, body mass index (BMI), surgery time, blood loss, and hospital stay. We performed summary statistics to compare perioperative outcomes in MIS-TLIF, OLLIF, and TLIF. We performed multivariate regression to determine the effects of BMI on perioperative outcomes controlling for demographics and number of levels on which surgeries were operated. OLLIF significantly reduces surgery time, blood loss, and hospital stay compared to MIS-TLIF, and TLIF for all levels. MIS-TLIF and TLIF do not differ significantly except for a slight reduction in hospital stay for two-level procedures. On multivariate analysis, a one-point increase in BMI increased surgery time by 0.56 ± 0.47 minutes (p = 0.24) in the OLLIF group, by 2.8 ± 1.43 minutes (p = 0.06) in the MIS-TLIF group, and by 1.7 ± 0.43 minutes (p < 0.001) in the TLIF group. BMI has positive effects on blood loss for TLIF (p < 0.001) but not for OLLIF (p = 0.68) or MIS-TLIF (p = 0.67). BMI does not have significant effects on length of hospital stay for any procedure. Obesity is associated with increased surgery time and blood loss in TLIF and with increased surgery time in MIS-TLIF. Increased surgery time may be associated with increased perioperative complications and cost. In OLLIF, BMI does not affect perioperative outcomes. Therefore, OLLIF may reduce the disparity in outcomes and cost between obese and non-obese patients

Aims

Chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease is sometimes treated with fusion. We compared the outcome of three different fusion techniques in the Swedish Spine Register: noninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF), instrumented posterolateral fusion (IPLF), and interbody fusion (IBF).

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore risk factors for complications associated with dural tear (DT), including the types of DT, and the intra- and postoperative management of DT.

Introduction. Augmentation of spinal fusion using bone grafts is largely mediated by the osteoinductive potential of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) that reside in cancellous bone. Iliac crest (IC) is a common autograft, but its use presents an increased risk for donor-site pain, morbidity and infection. Degenerative facet joints (FJ) harvested during facetectomy might servce as alternative local grafts. In this study, we conducted an intra-individual comparison of the osteogenic potential of MSC from both sources. Methods. IC and degenerative FJ were harvested from 8 consecutive patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery for spinal stenosis. MSC were isolated by collagenase digestion, selected by plastic adherence and minimally expanded for downstream assays. Clonogenic and osteogenic potential was evaluated by colony formation assays in control and osteogenic culture medium. Osteogenic properties, including alkaline phosphatase (ALP) induction, matrix mineralization and type I collagen mRNA and protein expression were characterized using quantitative histochemical staining and reverse transcription PCR. Spontaneous adipogenesis was analysed by adipocyte enumeration and gene expression analysis of adipogenic markers. Results. Average colony-forming efficiency in osteogenic medium was equal between IC (38±12%) and FJ (36±11%). Osteogenic potential at the clonal level was 55±26 and 68±17% for IC and FJ MSC, respectively. Clonogenic and osteogenic potential were significantly negatively associated with donor age. Osteogenic differentiation led to significant induction of ALP activity in IC (6-fold) and FJ (8-fold) MSC. Matrix mineralization quantified by Alizarin red staining was increased by osteogenic differentiation, yet similar between both MSC sources. Protein expression of type I collagen was enhanced during osteogenesis and significantly greater in IC MSC. Correspondingly, COL1A2 mRNA expression was higher in osteogenically differentiated MSC from IC. Adipocyte numbers showed significant differences between IC (63±60) and FJ (18±15) MSC under osteogenic conditions. Negative (GREM1) and positive (FABP4) adipogenic markers were not differentially expressed between sources. Conclusion. MSC from IC and degenerative FJ largely display similar clonogenic and osteogenic properties in vitro. Differences at the molecular level are not likely to impair the osteoinductive capacity of FJ MSC. Facetectomy samples are viable bone autografts for intervertebral spinal fusion