The October 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Analysis of risk factors for non-fusion of bone graft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a clinical retrospective study; Does paraspinal muscle mass predict lumbar lordosis before and after decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis?; Return to work after surgery for lumbar disk herniation: a nationwide registry-based study; Can the six-minute walking test assess ambulatory function impairment in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy?; Complications after adult deformity surgery: losing more than sleep; Frailty limits how good we can get in adult spine deformity surgery

Abstract. Objectives. There is still controversy in the literature over whether Cervical Foraminotomy or Anterior Cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is best for treating cervical Radiculopathy. Numerous studies have focused on the respective complication rates of these procedures and outcome measures with a lack of due consideration to preoperative MRI findings. Proximal foraminal stenosis can theoretically be accessed via either approach. We aimed to investigate whether patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) favoured one approach over the other in patients with proximal foraminal stenosis. Methods. A single centre retrospective review of patients undergoing either ACDF or Cervical foraminotomy over the period 2012 to 2022. VAS, Neck disability index (NDI), EQ5DL and Patient Satisfaction on a Five Point Likert scale were obtained. Patients who had both an ACDF and a Foraminotomy were excluded. Axial MRI images were analysed and the location of the worst clinically relevant disc herniation stratified as follows: Central (1), Paracentral (2) and Foraminal (3). Correlations and average PROMs were analysed in SPSS. Results. PROMs scores were available for 33 ACDF patients and 37 Foraminotomy patients. Average surgery time in ACDF group was 167 minutes while Foraminotomy 142 minutes. Average Length of hospital stay was 6.24 days in the Foraminotomy group and 3.54 days in the ACDF group. 18 patients were excluded due to having both surgeries (2 of which developed CSF leaks postoperatively). Of the included patients there were no postoperative complications. 13 patients in the ACDF had Central or Paracentral stenosis in addition to proximal Foraminal stenosis, 3 patients in the Foraminotomy group had some significant Paracentral herniation just before the Proximal foramen. The majority of patients in both groups had pure proximal Foraminal stenosis (N= 17 (ACDF), 20 (Foraminotomy). The results showed no significant difference in PROMs between patients who received an ACDF or a Foraminotomy for Proximal foraminal stenosis (EQ5DL, NDI, and satisfaction, P= 0.268, 0.253 and 0.327). There was no correlation between location of the stenosis and PROM scores in either group. Conclusions. Our data suggest that Proximal foraminal stenosis can be effectively addressed by either an anterior ACDF or a Foraminotomy with no difference in complication rates. Foraminotomy has the benefit of no implant cost but longer hospital stay. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

The April 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy; Spine surgical site infections: a single debridement is not enough; Lenke type 5, anterior, or posterior: systematic review and meta-analysis; Epidural steroid injections and postoperative infection in lumbar decompression or fusion; Noninferiority of posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy; Identifying delays to surgical treatment for metastatic disease; Cervical disc replacement and adjacent segment disease: the NECK trial; Predicting complication in adult spine deformity surgery.

Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):347–355.

Aims

The optimal procedure for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of anterior cervical ossified posterior longitudinal ligament en bloc resection (ACOE) with posterior laminectomy and fusion with bone graft and internal fixation (PTLF) for the surgical management of patients with this condition.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a well-established spinal operation for cervical disc degeneration disease with neurological compromise. The procedure involves an anterior approach to the cervical spine with discectomy to relieve the pressure on the impinged spinal cord to slow disease progression. The prosthetic cage replaces the disc and can be inserted stand-alone or with an anterior plate that provides additional stability. The literature demonstrates that the cage-alone (CA) is given preference over the cage-plate (CP) technique due to better clinical outcomes, reduced operation time and resultant morbidity. This retrospective case-controlled study compared CA versus CP fixation used in single and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for myelopathy in a tertiary centre in Wales. A retrospective clinico-radiological analysis was undertaken, following ACDF procedures over seven years in a single tertiary centre. Inclusion criteria were patients over 18 years of age with cervical myelopathy who had at least six-month follow-up data. SPSS was used to identify any statistically significant difference between both groups. The data were analysed to evaluate the consistency of our findings in comparison to published literature. Eighty-six patients formed the study cohort; 28 [33%] underwent ACDF with CA and 58 [67%] with CP. The patient demographics were similar in both groups, and fusion was observed in all individuals. There was no statistical difference between the two constructs when assessing subsidence, clinical complication (dysphagia, dysphonia, infection), radiological parameters and reoperations. However, a more significant percentage [43% v 61%] of patients improved their cervical lordosis angle with CP treatment. Furthermore, the study yielded that surgery to upper cervical levels results in a higher incidence of dysphagia [65% v 35%]. Finally, bony growth across the cage was observed on X-ray in 12[43%] patients, a unique finding not mentioned in the literature previously. Our study demonstrates no overall difference between the two groups, and we recommend careful consideration of individual patient factors when deciding what construct to choose

The February 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: S2AI screws: At what cost?; Just how good is spinal deformity surgery?; Is 80 years of age too late in the day for spine surgery?; Factors affecting the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in robot-assisted surgery; Factors causing delay in discharge in patients eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion surgery; Anterior cervical discectomy or fusion and selective laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Surgery for cervical radiculopathy: what is the complication burden?; Hypercholesterolemia and neck pain; Return to work after surgery for cervical radiculopathy: a nationwide registry-based observational study.

Aims

The number of patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy has increased. In many countries, public hospitals have limited capacity. This has resulted in long waiting times for elective treatment and a need for supplementary private healthcare. It is uncertain whether the management of patients and the outcome of treatment are equivalent in public and private hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare the management and patient-reported outcomes among patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy in public and private hospitals in Norway, and to assess whether the effectiveness of the treatment was equivalent.

The December 2022 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis protocol on a Level 1 trauma centre patient database; Non-specific spondylodiscitis: a new perspective for surgical treatment; Disc degeneration could be recovered after chemonucleolysis; Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy- anterior cervical discectomy and fusion “hybrid” procedures: how does the alignment look?; Rivaroxaban or enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; Surgical site infection: when do we have to remove the implants?; Determination of a neurologic safe zone for bicortical S1 pedicle placement; Do you need to operate on unstable spine fractures in the elderly: outcomes and mortality; Degeneration to deformity: when does the patient need both?

Aims

Cervical radiculopathy is a significant cause of pain and morbidity. For patients with severe and poorly controlled symptoms who may not be candidates for surgical management, treatment with transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) has gained widespread acceptance. However, a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting their use balanced against perceived high risks of the procedure potentially undermines the confidence of clinicians who use the technique. We undertook a systematic review of the available literature regarding CTFESI to assess the clinical efficacy and complication rates of the procedure.

AO Spine Guideline for Using Osteobiologics in Spine Degeneration project is an international collaborative initiative to identify and evaluate evidence on existing use of osteobiologics in spine degenerative diseases. It aims to formulate clinically relevant and internationally applicable guidelines ensuring evidence-based, safe and effective use of osteobiologics. The current focus is the use of osteobiologics in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgeries. The guideline development is planned in three phases. Phase 1- Evidence synthesis and Recommendation; Phase 2- Guideline with osteobiologics grading and Validation; Phase 3- Guideline dissemination and Development of a clinical decision support tool. The key questions formulating the guidelines for the use of osteobiologics will be addressed in a series of systematic reviews in Phase 1. The evidence synthesized by the systematic reviews will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology, including expert panel discussions to formulate a recommendation. In Phase 2, osteobiologics will be graded based on evidence and the grading will be integrated with the recommendation from Phase 1, and thus formulate a guideline. The guideline will be further validated by prospective clinical studies. In the third phase, dissemination of the proposed guideline and development of a decision support tool is planned. AO-GO aims to bridge an important gap between quality of evidence and use of osteobiologics in spine fusion surgeries. With a holistic approach the guideline aims to facilitate evidence-based, patient-oriented decision-making process in clinical practice, thus stimulating further evidence-based studies regarding osteobiologics usage in spine surgeries

In recent years, machine learning (ML) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), a particular subset of ML, have been adopted by various areas of healthcare. A number of diagnostic and prognostic algorithms have been designed and implemented across a range of orthopaedic sub-specialties to date, with many positive results. However, the methodology of many of these studies is flawed, and few compare the use of ML with the current approach in clinical practice. Spinal surgery has advanced rapidly over the past three decades, particularly in the areas of implant technology, advanced surgical techniques, biologics, and enhanced recovery protocols. It is therefore regarded an innovative field. Inevitably, spinal surgeons will wish to incorporate ML into their practice should models prove effective in diagnostic or prognostic terms. The purpose of this article is to review published studies that describe the application of neural networks to spinal surgery and which actively compare ANN models to contemporary clinical standards allowing evaluation of their efficacy, accuracy, and relatability. It also explores some of the limitations of the technology, which act to constrain the widespread adoption of neural networks for diagnostic and prognostic use in spinal care. Finally, it describes the necessary considerations should institutions wish to incorporate ANNs into their practices. In doing so, the aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for spinal surgeons to understand the relevant aspects of neural networks.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1442–1448.

Aims. Whether to perform hybrid surgery (HS) in contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when treating patients with multilevel cervical disc degeneration remains a controversial subject. To resolve this we have undertaken a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes from HS with ACDF in this condition. Methods. Seven databases were searched for studies of HS and ACDF from inception of the study to 1 September 2019. Both random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to evaluate the overall effect of the C2-C7 range of motion (ROM), ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), heterotopic ossification (HO), complications, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Odom’s criteria, blood loss, and operating and hospitalization time. To obtain more credible results contour-enhanced funnel plots, Egger’s and Begg’s tests, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results. In total, 17 studies involving 861 patients were included in the analysis. HS was found to be superior to ACDF in maintaining C2-C7 ROM and ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, but HS did not reduce the incidence of associated level ASD. Also, HS did not cause a higher rate of HO than ACDF. The frequency of complications was similar between the two techniques. HS failed to achieve more favourable outcomes than ACDF using the NDI, VAS, JOA, and Odom’s scores. HS did not show any more advantages in operating or hospitalization time but did show reduction in blood loss. Conclusion. Although HS maintained cervical kinetics, it failed to reduce the incidence of ASD. This finding differs from previous reports. Moreover, patients did not show more benefits from HS with respect to symptom improvement, prevention of complications, and clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):981–996