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

Aims

We compared decompression alone to decompression with fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, with or without degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). The aim was to evaluate if five-year outcomes differed between the groups. The two-year results from the same trial revealed no differences.

The April 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. 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 Roundup. 360. 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 use of intraoperative navigation and robotic surgery for minimally invasive lumbar fusion has been increasing over the past decade. The aim of this study is to evaluate postoperative clinical outcomes, intraoperative parameters, and accuracy of pedicle screw insertion guided by intraoperative navigation in patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion interbody using intraoperative 3D navigation since December 2021 were included. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 1, 3, and 6 months. Screw placement accuracy, measured by Gertzbein and Robbins classification, and facet joint infringement, measured by Yson classification, were assessed by intraoperative Cone Beam CT scans performed at the end of instrumentation. Finally, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and screw insertion time were evaluated. This study involved 50 patients with a mean age of 63.7 years. VAS decreased from 65.8±23 to 20±22 (p<.01). ODI decreased from 35.4%±15 to 11.8%±14 (p<.01). An increase of SF-36 from 51.5±14 to 76±13 (p<.01) was demonstrated. The accuracy of “perfect” and “clinically acceptable” pedicle screw fixation was 89.5% and 98.4%, respectively. Regarding facet violation, 96.8% of the screws were at grade 0. Finally, the average screw insertion time was 4.3±2 min, hospital stay was 4.2±0.8 days, operation time was 205±53 min, and blood loss was 169±107 ml. Finally, a statistically significant correlation of operation time with hospital stay, blood loss and placement time per screw was found. We demonstrated excellent results for accuracy of pedicle screw fixation and violation of facet joints. VAS, ODI and SF-36 showed statistically significant improvements from the control at one month after surgery. Navigation with intraoperative 3D images represents an effective system to improve operative performance in the surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis

Aims. The aim of this study was to reassess the rate of neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications associated with L4-L5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) undertaken using a standardized preoperative assessment and surgical technique. Methods. This was a multicentre retrospective study involving consecutively enrolled patients who underwent L4-L5 LLIF by seven surgeons at seven institutions in three countries over a five-year period. The demographic details of the patients and the details of the surgery, reoperations and complications, including femoral and non-femoral neuropraxia, thigh pain, weakness of hip flexion, and abdominal complications, were analyzed. Neurological and psoas-related complications attributed to LLIF or posterior instrumentation and persistent symptoms were recorded at one year postoperatively. Results. A total of 517 patients were included in the study. Their mean age was 65.0 years (SD 10.3) and their mean BMI was 29.2 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.5). A mean of 1.2 levels (SD 0.6) were fused with LLIF, and a mean of 1.6 (SD 0.9) posterior levels were fused. Femoral neuropraxia occurred in six patients (1.2%), of which four (0.8%) were LLIF-related and two (0.4%) had persistent symptoms one year postoperatively. Non-femoral neuropraxia occurred in nine patients (1.8%), one (0.2%) was LLIF-related and five (1.0%) were persistent at one year. All LLIF-related neuropraxias resolved by one year. A total of 32 patients (6.2%) had thigh pain, 31 (6.0%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. Weakness of hip flexion occurred in 14 patients (2.7%), of which eight (1.6%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. No patients had bowel injury, three (0.6%) had an intraoperative vascular injury (not LLIF-related), and five (1.0%) had ileus. Reoperations occurred in five patients (1.0%) within 30 days, 37 (7.2%) within 90 days, and 41 (7.9%) within one year postoperatively. Conclusion. LLIF involving the L4-L5 disc level has a low rate of persistent neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications in patients with the appropriate indications and using a standardized surgical technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):53–61

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.

The June 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Characteristics and comparative study of thoracolumbar spine injury and dislocation fracture due to tertiary trauma; Sublingual sufentanil for postoperative pain management after lumbar spinal fusion surgery; Minimally invasive bipolar technique for adult neuromuscular scoliosis; Predictive factors for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis; Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and lumbar fusion surgery at level L4/5; Does recall of preoperative scores contaminate trial outcomes? A randomized controlled trial; Vancomycin in fibrin glue for prevention of SSI; Perioperative nutritional supplementation decreases wound healing complications following elective lumbar spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

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.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has biomechanical advantages due to the preservation of ligamentous structures (ALL/PLL), and optimal cage height afforded by the strength of the apophyseal ring. We compare the biomechanical motion stability of multiple levels LLIF (4 segments) utilising PEEK interbody 26mm cages to stand-alone cage placement and with supplemental posterior fixation with pedicle screw and rods. Six lumbar human cadaver specimens were stripped of the paraspinal musculature while preserving the discs, facet joints, and osteoligamentous structures and potted. Specimens were tested under 5 conditions: intact, posterior bilateral fixation (L1-L5) only, LLIF-only, LLIF with unilateral fixation and LLIF with bilateral fixation. Non-destructive testing was performed on a universal testing machine (MTS Systems Corp) to produce flexion-extension, lateral-bending, and axial rotation using customized jigs and a pulley system to define a non-constraining load follower. Three-dimensional spine motion was recorded using a motion device (Optotrak). Results are reported for the L3-L4 motion segment within the construct to allow comparison with previously published works of shorter constructs (1-2 segments). In all conditions, there was an observed decrease in ROM from intact in flexion/extension (31%-89% decrease), lateral bending (19%-78%), and axial rotation (37%-60%). At flexion/extension, the decreases were statistically significant (p<0.007) except for stand-alone LLIF. LLIF+unilateral had similar decreases in all planes as the LLIF+bilateral condition. The observed ROM within the 4-level construct was similar to previously reported results in 1-2 levels for stand-alone LLIF and LLIF+bilateral. Surgeons may be concerned about the biomechanical stability of an approach utilizing stand-alone multilevel LLIF. Our results show that 4-level multilevel LLIF utilizing 26 mm cages demonstrated ROM comparable to short-segment LLIF. Stand-alone LLIF showed a decrease in ROM from the intact condition. The addition of posterior supplemental fixation resulted in an additional decrease in ROM. The results suggest that unilateral posterior fixation may be sufficient

Aims

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.

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.

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion cages combined with autologous bone graft is the current clinical gold standard treatment for spinal fusion, however, bone graft harvest increases surgical time, risk of infection and chronic pain. We describe novel low-stiffness 3D Printed titanium interbody cages without autologous bone graft and assessed their biological performance in a pre-clinical in vivo interbody fusion model in comparison to the gold standard, PEEK with graft. Titanium interbody spacers were 3D Printed with a microporous (Ti1: <1000μm) and macroporous (Ti2: >1000μm) design. Both Ti1 and Ti2 had an identical elastic modulus (stiffness), and were similar to the elastic modulus of PEEK. Interbody fusion was performed on L2-L3 and L4-L5 vertebral levels in 24 skeletally mature sheep using Ti1 or Ti2 spacers, or a PEEK spacer filled with iliac crest autograft, and assessed at 8 and 16 weeks. We quantitatively assessed bone fusion, bone area, mineral apposition rate and bone formation rate. Functional spinal units were biomechanically tested to analyse range of motion, neutral zone, and stiffness. Results: Bone formation in macroporous Ti2 was significantly greater than microporous Ti1 treatments (p=.006). Fusion scores for Ti2 and PEEK demonstrated greater rates of bone formation from 8 to 16 weeks, with bridging rates of 100% for Ti2 at 16 weeks compared to just 88% for PEEK and 50% for Ti1. Biomechanical outcomes significantly improved at 16 versus 8 weeks, with no significant differences between Ti and PEEK with graft. This study demonstrated that macroporous 3D Printed Ti spacers are able to achieve fixation and arthrodesis with complete bone fusion by 16 weeks without the need for bone graft. These significant data indicate that low-modulus 3D Printed titanium interbody cages have similar performance to autograft-filled PEEK, and could be reliably used in spinal fusion avoiding the complications of bone graft harvesting

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