Aims. To report the development of the technique for minimally invasive lumbar decompression using robotic-assisted navigation. Methods. Robotic planning software was used to map out bone removal for a laminar decompression after registration of CT scan images of one cadaveric specimen. A specialized acorn-shaped bone removal robotic drill was used to complete a robotic lumbar laminectomy. Post-procedure advanced imaging was obtained to compare actual bony decompression to the surgical plan. After confirming accuracy of the technique, a minimally invasive robotic-assisted laminectomy was performed on one 72-year-old female patient with lumbar spinal stenosis. Postoperative advanced imaging was obtained to confirm the decompression. Results. A workflow for robotic-assisted lumbar laminectomy was successfully developed in a human cadaveric specimen, as excellent decompression was confirmed by postoperative CT imaging. Subsequently, the workflow was applied clinically in a patient with severe spinal stenosis. Excellent decompression was achieved intraoperatively and preservation of the dorsal midline structures was confirmed on postoperative MRI. The patient experienced improvement in symptoms postoperatively and was discharged within 24 hours. Conclusion. Minimally invasive robotic-assisted lumbar decompression utilizing a specialized robotic bone removal instrument was shown to be accurate and effective both in vitro and in vivo. The robotic bone removal technique has the potential for less invasive removal of laminar bone for spinal decompression, all the while preserving the spinous process and the posterior ligamentous complex. Spinal robotic surgery has previously been limited to the insertion of screws and, more recently, cages; however, recent innovations have expanded robotic capabilities to decompression of neurological structures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):809–817

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. Methods. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study was a multicentre randomized controlled trial with recruitment from September 2006 to February 2012. A total of 247 patients with one- or two-level central lumbar spinal stenosis, stratified by the presence of DS, were randomized to decompression alone or decompression with fusion. The five-year Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), visual analogue scales for back and leg pain, and patient-reported satisfaction, decreased pain, and increased walking distance. The reoperation rate was recorded. Results. Five-year follow-up was completed by 213 (95%) of the eligible patients (mean age 67 years; 155 female (67%)). After five years, ODI was similar irrespective of treatment, with a mean of 25 (SD 18) for decompression alone and 28 (SD 22) for decompression with fusion (p = 0.226). Mean EQ-5D was higher for decompression alone than for fusion (0.69 (SD 0.28) vs 0.59 (SD 0.34); p = 0.027). In the no-DS subset, fewer patients reported decreased leg pain after fusion (58%) than with decompression alone (80%) (relative risk (RR) 0.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.97). The frequency of subsequent spinal surgery was 24% for decompression with fusion and 22% for decompression alone (RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.8)). Conclusion. Adding fusion to decompression in spinal stenosis surgery, with or without spondylolisthesis, does not improve the five-year ODI, which is consistent with our two-year report. Three secondary outcomes that did not differ at two years favoured decompression alone at five years. Our results support decompression alone as the preferred method for operating on spinal stenosis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):705–712

Aims

Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) injury is a complication after periacetabular osteo-tomy (PAO) using an anterior approach, which might adversely affect the outcome. However, no prospective study has assessed the incidence and severity of this injury and its effect on the clinical outcomes over a period of time for longer than one year after PAO. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and severity of the symptoms of LFCN injury for ≥ three years after PAO and report its effect on clinical outcomes.

The August 2023 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Changes in paraspinal muscles correspond to the severity of degeneration in patients with lumbar stenosis; Steroid injections are not effective in the prevention of surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy; A higher screw density is associated with fewer mechanical complications after surgery for adult spinal deformity; Methylprednisolone following minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a large prospective single-institution study; Occupancy rate of pedicle screw below 80% is a risk factor for upper instrumented vertebral fracture following adult spinal deformity surgery; Deterioration after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: an observational study from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network

Aims. Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common skeletal system disease that has been partly attributed to genetic variation. However, the correlation between genetic variation and pathological changes in LSS is insufficient, and it is difficult to provide a reference for the early diagnosis and treatment of the disease. Methods. We conducted a transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) of spinal canal stenosis by integrating genome-wide association study summary statistics (including 661 cases and 178,065 controls) derived from Biobank Japan, and pre-computed gene expression weights of skeletal muscle and whole blood implemented in FUSION software. To verify the TWAS results, the candidate genes were furthered compared with messenger RNA (mRNA) expression profiles of LSS to screen for common genes. Finally, Metascape software was used to perform enrichment analysis of the candidate genes and common genes. Results. TWAS identified 295 genes with permutation p-values < 0.05 for skeletal muscle and 79 genes associated for the whole blood, such as RCHY1 (PTWAS = 0.001). Those genes were enriched in 112 gene ontology (GO) terms and five Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathways, such as ‘chemical carcinogenesis - reactive oxygen species’ (LogP value = −2.139). Further comparing the TWAS significant genes with the differentially expressed genes identified by mRNA expression profiles of LSS found 18 overlapped genes, such as interleukin 15 receptor subunit alpha (IL15RA) (PTWAS = 0.040, PmRNA = 0.010). Moreover, 71 common GO terms were detected for the enrichment results of TWAS and mRNA expression profiles, such as negative regulation of cell differentiation (LogP value = −2.811). Conclusion. This study revealed the genetic mechanism behind the pathological changes in LSS, and may provide novel insights for the early diagnosis and intervention of LSS. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):387–396

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. 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. Methods. This is a population-based study from the Norwegian Registry for Spine surgery (NORspine). We included 26,723 consecutive cases operated for lumbar spinal stenosis or lumbar disc herniation from January 2007 to December 2018. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), presented as the proportions reaching a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS; defined as an ODI raw score ≤ 22) and ODI raw and change scores at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the Global Perceived Effect scale, the numerical rating scale for pain, the EuroQoL five-dimensions health questionnaire, occurrence of perioperative complications and wound infections, and working capability. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine how the number of previous operations influenced the odds of not reaching a PASS. Results. The proportion reaching a PASS decreased from 66.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 65.4 to 66.7) in cases with no previous operation to 22.0% (95% CI 15.2 to 30.3) in cases with four or more previous operations (p < 0.001). The odds of not reaching a PASS were 2.1 (95% CI 1.9 to 2.2) in cases with one previous operation, 2.6 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.0) in cases with two, 4.4 (95% CI 3.4 to 5.5) in cases with three, and 6.9 (95% CI 4.5 to 10.5) in cases with four or more previous operations. The ODI raw and change scores and the secondary outcomes showed similar trends. Conclusion. We found a dose-response relationship between increasing number of previous operations and inferior outcomes among patients operated for degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine. This information should be considered in the shared decision-making process prior to elective spine surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):422–430

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(3):199–201.

Aims. To compare the efficacy of decompression alone (DA) with i) decompression and fusion (DF) and ii) interspinous process device (IPD) in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Outcomes of interest were both patient-reported measures of postoperative pain and function, as well as the perioperative measures of blood loss, operation duration, hospital stay, and reoperation. Methods. Data were obtained from electronic searches of five online databases. Included studies were limited to randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) which compared DA with DF or IPD using patient-reported outcomes such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), or perioperative data. Patient-reported data were reported as part of the systematic review, while meta-analyses were conducted for perioperative outcomes in MATLAB using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Forest plots were generated for visual interpretation, while heterogeneity was assessed using the I. 2. -statistic. Results. A total of 13 articles met the eligibility criteria. Of these, eight compared DA with DF and six studies compared DA with IPD. Patient-rated outcomes reported included the ODI and ZCQ, with mixed results for both types of comparisons. Overall, there were few statistically significant and no clinically significant differences in patient-rated outcomes. Study quality varied greatly across the included articles. Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes revealed DF to result in greater blood loss than DA (MD = 406.74 ml); longer operation duration (MD = 108.91 min); and longer postoperative stay in hospital (MD = 2.84 days). Use of IPD in comparison to DA led to slightly reduced operation times (MD = –25.18 min), but a greater risk of reoperation compared to DA (RR = 2.70). Conclusion. Currently there is no evidence for the use of DF or IPD over DA in both patient-rated and perioperative outcomes. Indeed, both procedures can potentially lead to greater cost and risk of complications, and therefore, a stronger evidence base for their use should be established before they are promoted as routine options in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a common entity and increasing in prevalence. Limited evidence is available regarding patient reported outcomes comparing primary vs revision surgery for those undergoing lumbar decompression, with or without fusion. Evidence available suggest a lower rate of improvement in the revision group. The aim of this study was to assess patient reported outcomes in patients undergoing revision decompression, with or without fusion, when compared to primary surgery. Patient data was collected from the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression without or without fusion were included. Patients under 18, undergoing discectomy, greater than two level decompressions, concomitant cervical or thoracic spine surgery were excluded. Demographic data, smoking status, narcotic use, number of comorbidities as well as individual comorbidities were included in our propensity scores. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression were matched in a four:one ratio according to their scores, whilst a separate matched cohort was created for those undergoing primary vs revision decompression and fusion. Continuous data was compared using a two-tailed t-test, whilst categorical variables were assessed using chi-square test. A total of 555 patients were included, with 444 primary patients matched to 111 revision surgery patients, of which 373 (67%) did not have fusion. Patients undergoing primary decompression with fusion compared to revision patients were more likely to answer yes to “feel better after surgery” (87.8% vs 73.8%, p=0.023), “undergo surgery again” (90.1% vs 76.2%, P=0.021) and “improvement in mental health” (47.7% vs 28.6%, p=0.03) at six months. There was no difference in either of these outcomes at 12 or 24 months. There was no difference between the groups ODI, EQ-5D, SF 12 scores at any time point. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression alone showed no difference in PROMs at any time point. In a matched cohort, there appears to be no difference in improvement in PROMS between patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression, with or without fusion, at two year follow-up. This would suggest similar outcomes can be obtained in revision cases

Aims. The aims of this study were first, to determine if adding fusion to a decompression of the lumbar spine for spinal stenosis decreases the rate of radiological restenosis and/or proximal adjacent level stenosis two years after surgery, and second, to evaluate the change in vertebral slip two years after surgery with and without fusion. Methods. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study (SSSS) was conducted between 2006 and 2012 at five public and two private hospitals. Six centres participated in this two-year MRI follow-up. We randomized 222 patients with central lumbar spinal stenosis at one or two adjacent levels into two groups, decompression alone and decompression with fusion. The presence or absence of a preoperative spondylolisthesis was noted. A new stenosis on two-year MRI was used as the primary outcome, defined as a dural sac cross-sectional area ≤ 75 mm. 2. at the operated level (restenosis) and/or at the level above (proximal adjacent level stenosis). Results. A total of 211 patients underwent surgery at a mean age of 66 years (69% female): 103 were treated by decompression with fusion and 108 by decompression alone. A two-year MRI was available for 176 (90%) of the eligible patients. A new stenosis at the operated and/or adjacent level occurred more frequently after decompression and fusion than after decompression alone (47% vs 29%; p = 0.020). The difference remained in the subgroup with a preoperative spondylolisthesis, (48% vs 24%; p = 0.020), but did not reach significance for those without (45% vs 35%; p = 0.488). Proximal adjacent level stenosis was more common after fusion than after decompression alone (44% vs 17%; p < 0.001). Restenosis at the operated level was less frequent after fusion than decompression alone (4% vs 14%; p = 0.036). Vertebral slip increased by 1.1 mm after decompression alone, regardless of whether a preoperative spondylolisthesis was present or not. Conclusion. Adding fusion to a decompression increased the rate of new stenosis on two-year MRI, even when a spondylolisthesis was present preoperatively. This supports decompression alone as the preferred method of surgery for spinal stenosis, whether or not a degenerative spondylolisthesis is present preoperatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1343–1351

Abstract. Objective. Flexible stabilisation has been utilised to maintain spinal mobility in patients with early-stage lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Previous literature has not yet established any non-fusion solution as a viable treatment option for patients with severe posterior degeneration of the lumbar spine. This feasibility study evaluates the mean five-year outcomes of patients treated with the TOPS (Total Posterior Spine System) facet replacement system in the surgical management of lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods. Ten patients (2 males, 8 females, mean age 59.6) were enrolled into a non-randomised prospective clinical study. Patients were evaluated with standing AP, lateral, flexion and extension radiographs and MRI scans, back and leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) and the SF-36 questionnaires, preoperatively, 6 months, one year, two years and latest follow-up at a mean of five years postoperatively (range 55–74 months). Flexion and extension standing lumbar spine radiographs were obtained at 2 years to assess range of motion (ROM) at the stabilised segment. Results. The clinical outcome scores for the cohort improved significantly across all scoring systems. Radiographs at 2 years did not reveal any loss of position or loosening of metal work. There were two incidental durotomies and no failures at 5 years with no patient requiring revision surgery. Conclusions. The TOPS implant maintains clinical improvement and motion in the surgical management of LSS and spondylolisthesis, indicating it can be considered an option for these indications

Endoscopic spine surgery is a promising and minimally invasive technique for the treatment of disc herniation and spinal stenosis. However, the literature on the outcome of interlaminar endoscopic decompression (IED) versus conventional microsurgical technique (CMT) in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis is scarce. We analyzed 88 patients (IED: 36/88, 40.9%; CMT: 52/88, 59.1%) presenting with lumbar central spinal stenosis between 2018–2020. Surgery-related (operation time, complications, time to hospital release (THR), ASA score, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count (WBC), side (unilateral/bilateral), patient-reported (ODI, NRS (leg-, back pain), eQ5D, COMI), and radiological (preoperative dural sack cross-sectional area (DSCA), Shizas score (SC), left (LRH) and right (RRH) lateral recess heights, left (LFA) and right (RFA) facet angle) parameters were extracted. Complication (most often re-stenosis due to hematoma and/or residual sensorimotor deficits) rates were higher in the endoscopic (38.9%) than microsurgical (13.5%) treatment group (p<0.01). Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with 3 weeks and 1 year postoperatively evaluated ODI, COMI, eQ5D, NRS leg, or NRS back values in our cohort. We did not observe significant differences in the endoscopic versus microsurgical group for the patient-reported outcomes. Age, THR, SC, CRP, and DSCA revealed significant correlations with patient-centered outcomes and should be considered in future studies. Endoscopic treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis was similarly successful as the conventional microsurgical approach, although it was associated with higher complication rates in our single-center study experience. This was probably because of the surgeons' lack of experience with this method and the resulting different learning curve compared with the conventional technique

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.