Background. It has become increasingly important to conduct studies assessing clinical outcomes, reoperation rates, and revision rates to better define the indications and efficacy of lumbar spinal procedures and its association with symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (sASD). Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is defined as the radiographic change in the intervertebral discs adjacent to the surgically treated spinal level. SASD represents adjacent segment degeneration which causes pain or numbness due to post-operative spinal instability or nerve compression at the same level. The most common reason for early reoperation and late operation is sASD, therefore is in our best interest to understand the causes of ASD and make steps to limit the occurrence. Method. A comprehensive literature search was performed selecting Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or prospective studies published up to December 2023. Meta-analysis was performed on 38 studies that met the inclusion criteria and included data of clinical outcomes of patients who had degenerative disc disease, disc herniation, radiculopathy, and spondylolisthesis and underwent lumbar fusion or motion-preservation device surgery; and reported on the prevalence of ASD, sASD, reoperation rate, visual analogue score (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) improvement. Results. When compared to fusion surgery, a significant reduction of ASD, sASD and reoperation was observed in the cohort of patients that underwent motion-preserving surgery. Conclusion. Dynamic fusion constructs are treatment options that may help to prevent sASD. Conflicts of interest. This research was funded by Paradigm Spine. Sources of funding. Paradigm Spine

Despite the increasing prevalence of sleep apnoea, little information is available regarding its impact on the peri-operative outcome of patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion. Using a national database, patients who underwent lumbar fusion between 2006 and 2010 were identified, sub-grouped by diagnosis of sleep apnoea and compared. The impact of sleep apnoea on various outcome measures was assessed by regression analysis. The records of 84 655 patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion were identified and 7.28% (n = 6163) also had a diagnostic code for sleep apnoea. Compared with patients without sleep apnoea, these patients were older, more frequently female, had a higher comorbidity burden and higher rates of peri-operative complications, post-operative mechanical ventilation, blood product transfusion and intensive care. Patients with sleep apnoea also had longer and more costly periods of hospitalisation. . In the regression analysis, sleep apnoea emerged as an independent risk factor for the development of peri-operative complications (odds ratio (OR) 1.50, confidence interval (CI) 1.38;1.62), blood product transfusions (OR 1.12, CI 1.03;1.23), mechanical ventilation (OR 6.97, CI 5.90;8.23), critical care services (OR 1.86, CI 1.71;2.03), prolonged hospitalisation and increased cost (OR 1.28, CI 1.19;1.37; OR 1.10, CI 1.03;1.18). . Patients with sleep apnoea who undergo posterior lumbar fusion pose significant challenges to clinicians. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:242–8

Purpose. The behavioural change wheel methodology and social cognitive theory were combined to inform and develop a rehabilitation programme following lumbar fusion surgery (REFS). This qualitative study evaluated participant's experiences of lumbar fusion surgery, including REFS, to identify valued programme content (‘active ingredients’). Background. A feasibility-RCT suggested REFS achieved a meaningful impact in disability and pain self-efficacy compared to ‘usual care’ (p=0.014, p=0.007). In keeping with MRC guidance a qualitative evaluation was undertaken to understand possible mechanisms of action. Methods. Thematic analysis was utilised on data from semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, in a purposive sample (REFS n=10, ‘usual care’ n=10). Results. Three themes (8 sub-themes) were identified, which illuminated the experiences of 1) the impact of living with a chronic lumbar disorder 2) reflections on recovery, and 3) the experience of rehabilitation with(out) REFS. REFS participants identified valued programme content including the opportunity for vicarious learning, the shared rehabilitation experience, and expert physiotherapy. They were unable to identify pre-eminent programme content, in keeping with inter-dependent ‘active ingredients’. Abstraction with the overarching theme of ‘loss of self’ was evident for analysis across all themes. Conclusion. In conclusion the findings were theoretically congruous with other published works e.g. recent mega-ethnographic review of patients experience of chronic non-malignant pain. Two emergent areas were identified to inform future REFS iterations and better understand potential mechanisms of action. 1-Participants fear of harm appears directly attributable to the instillation of metalware, this association is mediated by inadequate advice. 2-Lumbar fusion surgery is not perceived as elective. No conflicts of interest. Funding; NIHR (Doctoral fellowship, awarded to J Greenwood)

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

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (. sd. 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (. sd. 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); ‘good’ global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52). The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes. Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years

Aims. We compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of using a polyetheretherketone cage with (TiPEEK) and without a titanium coating (PEEK) for instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Materials and Methods. We conducted a randomised clinical pilot trial of 40 patients who were scheduled to undergo a TLIF procedure at one or two levels between L2 and L5. The Oswestry disability index (ODI), EuroQoL-5D, and back and leg pain were determined pre-operatively, and at three, six, and 12 months post-operatively. Fusion rates were assessed by thin slice CT at three months and by functional radiography at 12 months. Results. At final follow-up, one patient in each group had been lost to follow-up. Two patients in each of the PEEK and TiPEEK groups were revised for pseudarthrosis (p = 1.00). The rate of complete or partial fusion at three months was 91.7% in both groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in ODI or in radiological outcomes between the groups. Conclusion. Favourable results with identical clinical outcomes and a high rate of fusion was seen in both groups. The titanium coating appears to have no negative effects on outcome or safety in the short term. A future study to determine the effect of titanium coating is warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1366–72

The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion (presacral ALIF) is not widely reported, particularly with regard to the mid-term outcome. This prospective study describes the clinical outcomes, complications and rates of fusion at a follow-up of two years for 26 patients who underwent this minimally invasive technique along with further stabilisation using pedicle screws. The fusion was single-level at the L5-S1 spinal segment in 17 patients and two-level at L4–5 and L5-S1 in the other nine. The visual analogue scale for pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores were recorded pre-operatively and during the 24-month study period. The evaluation of fusion was by thin-cut CT scans at six and 12 months, and flexion-extension plain radiographs at six, 12 and 24 months. Significant reductions in pain and disability occurred as early as three weeks postoperatively and were maintained. Fusion was achieved in 22 of 24 patients (92%) at 12 months and in 23 patients (96%) at 24 months. One patient (4%) with a pseudarthrosis underwent successful revision by augmentation of the posterolateral fusion mass through a standard open midline approach. There were no severe adverse events associated with presacral ALIF, which in this series demonstrated clinical outcomes and fusion rates comparable with those of reports of other methods of interbody fusion

Aims. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) has been well validated in overweight and obese patients who are consequently subject to a higher radiation exposure. This prospective multicentre study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a novel lumbar localisation system for MITLIF in overweight patients. Patients and Methods. The initial study group consisted of 175 patients. After excluding 49 patients for various reasons, 126 patients were divided into two groups. Those in Group A were treated using the localisation system while those in Group B were treated by conventional means. The primary outcomes were the effective radiation dosage to the surgeon and the exposure time. Results. There were 62 patients in Group A and 64 in Group B. The mean effective dosage was 0.0217 mSv (standard deviation (. sd. ) 0.0079) in Group A and 0.0383 mSv (. sd. 0.0104) in Group B (p <  0.001). The mean fluoroscopy exposure time was 26.42 seconds (. sd. 5.91) in Group A and 40.67 seconds (. sd. 8.18) in Group B (p < 0.001). The operating time was 175.56 minutes (. sd. 32.23) and 206.08 minutes (. sd. 30.15) (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean pre-operative localisation time was 4.73 minutes (. sd. 0.84) in Group A and 7.03 minutes (. sd. 1.51) in Group B (p < 0.001). The mean screw placement time was 47.37 minutes (. sd. 10.43) in Group A and 67.86 minutes (. sd. 14.15) in Group B (p < 0.001). The pedicle screw violation rate was 0.35% (one out of 283) in Group A and 2.79% (eight out of 287) in Group B (p = 0.020). Conclusion. The study shows that the localisation system can effectively reduce radiation exposure, exposure time, operating time, pre-operative localisation time, and screw placement time in overweight patients undergoing MITLIF. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:944–50

Using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified national trends in revision spinal fusion along with a comprehensive comparison of comorbidities, inpatient complications and surgical factors of revision spinal fusion compared to primary spinal fusion.

In 2009, there were 410 158 primary spinal fusion discharges and 22 128 revision spinal fusion discharges. Between 2002 and 2009, primary fusion increased at a higher rate compared with revision fusion (56.4% vs 51.0%; p < 0.001). In 2009, the mean length of stay and hospital charges were higher for revision fusion discharges than for primary fusion discharges (4.2 days vs 3.8 days, p < 0.001; USD $91 909 vs. $87 161, p < 0.001). In 2009, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) was used more in revision fusion than in primary fusion (39.6% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001), whereas interbody devices were used less in revision fusion (41.8% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001).

In the multivariable logistic regression model for all spinal fusions, depression (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, p < 0.001), psychotic disorders (OR 1.49, p < 0.001), deficiency anaemias (OR 1.35, p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.10, p = 0.006) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges, adjusting for other variables. In terms of complications, after adjusting for all significant comorbidities, this study found that dural tears (OR 1.41; p < 0.001) and surgical site infections (OR 3.40; p < 0.001) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges (p < 0.001). A p-value < 0.01 was considered significant in all final analyses.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:807–16.

To examine the relationship between obesity (BMI> 30) and the incidence of peri-operative complications, outcome of surgery and return to work in patients undergoing elective less invasive posterior lumbar inter-body fusion of the lumbar spine for low back pain and leg pain (“LI-PLIF”). 15 patients with BMI> 30 who underwent (“LI-PLIF”) were identified by reviewing the clinical notes and the pre-operative admission sheet from April 2005- to March 2007. All had suffered chronic low back pain for a minimum of 2 years that had proven unresponsive to conservative treatment. All patients underwent pre- and postoperative evaluations for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), short-form 36 (SF-36), and visual analogue scores (VAS). Minimum follow-up was for 12 months. Blood loss was dependent on BMI, number of levels, and surgical time. Post operative complication was more in the morbidly obese group than the in the obese. 10 patients (66.6%) returned to their normal pre-operative employment within the 12 months of the index procedure. There was a significant improvement in the ODI and in the VAS for back pain. Length of hospital stay was a mean of 3.3 days. Although surgery is technically more demanding our experience with less invasive posterior inter-body fusion has shown less incidence of post operative complication, less intra-operative blood loss and short in-patient hospital stay. We conclude that a high BMI should not be a contraindication to surgery in patients with degenerative low back pain. Ethics approval: None: Audit Interest Statement None

Methods

In this study of patients who underwent internal fixation without fusion for a burst thoracolumbar or lumbar fracture, we compared the serial changes in the injured disc height (DH), and the fractured vertebral body height (VBH) and kyphotic angle between patients in whom the implants were removed and those in whom they were not. Radiological parameters such as injured DH, fractured VBH and kyphotic angle were measured. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Greenough low back outcome scale and a VAS scale for pain.

Objectives. Loss of motion following spine segment fusion results in increased strain in the adjacent motion segments. However, to date, studies on the biomechanics of the cervical spine have not assessed the role of coupled motions in the lumbar spine. Accordingly, we investigated the biomechanics of the cervical spine following cervical fusion and lumbar fusion during simulated whiplash using a whole-human finite element (FE) model to simulate coupled motions of the spine. Methods. A previously validated FE model of the human body in the driver-occupant position was used to investigate cervical hyperextension injury. The cervical spine was subjected to simulated whiplash exposure in accordance with Euro NCAP (the European New Car Assessment Programme) testing using the whole human FE model. The coupled motions between the cervical spine and lumbar spine were assessed by evaluating the biomechanical effects of simulated cervical fusion and lumbar fusion. Results. Peak anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) strain ranged from 0.106 to 0.382 in a normal spine, and from 0.116 to 0.399 in a fused cervical spine. Strain increased from cranial to caudal levels. The mean strain increase in the motion segment immediately adjacent to the site of fusion from C2-C3 through C5-C6 was 26.1% and 50.8% following single- and two-level cervical fusion, respectively (p = 0.03, unpaired two-way t-test). Peak cervical strains following various lumbar-fusion procedures were 1.0% less than those seen in a healthy spine (p = 0.61, two-way ANOVA). Conclusion. Cervical arthrodesis increases peak ALL strain in the adjacent motion segments. C3-4 experiences greater changes in strain than C6-7. Lumbar fusion did not have a significant effect on cervical spine strain. Cite this article: H. Huang, R. W. Nightingale, A. B. C. Dang. Biomechanics of coupled motion in the cervical spine during simulated whiplash in patients with pre-existing cervical or lumbar spinal fusion: A Finite Element Study. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:28–35. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0100.R1

Increasing numbers of posterior lumbar fusions are being performed. The purpose of this study was to identify trends in demographics, mortality and major complications in patients undergoing primary posterior lumbar fusion. We accessed data collected for the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for each year between 1998 and 2008 and analysed trends in the number of lumbar fusions, mean patient age, comorbidity burden, length of hospital stay, discharge status, major peri-operative complications and mortality. An estimated 1 288 496 primary posterior lumbar fusion operations were performed between 1998 and 2008 in the United States. The total number of procedures, mean patient age and comorbidity burden increased over time. Hospital length of stay decreased, although the in-hospital mortality (adjusted and unadjusted for changes in length of hospital stay) remained stable. However, a significant increase was observed in peri-operative septic, pulmonary and cardiac complications. Although in-hospital mortality rates did not change over time in the setting of increases in mean patient age and comorbidity burden, some major peri-operative complications increased. These trends highlight the need for appropriate peri-operative services to optimise outcomes in an increasingly morbid and older population of patients undergoing lumbar fusion.

The lordosis distribution index (LDI) describes distribution of lumbar lordosis, measured as the % of lower lumbar lordosis (L4-S1) compared to global lordosis (L1-S1) with normal value 50–50%. Maldistributed LDI is associated with higher revision in short lumbar fusions, 4 vertebrae1. We hypothesise maldistributed LDI is also associated with mechanical failure in longer fusions. Retrospective review of 29 consecutive ASD patients, aged 55+, undergoing long lumbar fusion, 4 levels, with >3-years follow-up. LDI, pelvic incidence (PI) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were measured on pre- and post-op whole spine standing X-rays (Fig A and B). Patients were categorized according to their pelvic incidence (PI) and postoperative LDI: Normal (LDI 50 80), Hypolordotic (LDI < 50), or Hyperlordotic (LDI > 80) and assessed for failure rate compared to normal LDI and PI <60. Mean follow-up 4.5 years. 19 patients had mechanical failures including junctional failure and metalware fracture. PI >60o was associated with higher mechanical failure rates (Chi^2 p<0.05). Hypolordotic LDI was associated with 82% mechanical failure (Chi^2 p<0.001), Hyperlordotic 88% mechanical failure (Chi^2 p<0.001) and Normal 8% mechanical failure (Table 1). Maldistributed LDI, whether Hyperlordotic or Hypolordotic, correlated with 10× greater mechanical failure rate compared to Normal LDI in long fusions. LDI is a useful measurement that should be considered, especially in high PI patients

Background and Purpose. The UK's NIHR and Australia's NHMRC have funded two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if lumbar fusion surgery (LFS) is more effective than best conservative care (BCC) for adults with persistent, severe low back pain (LBP) attributable to lumbar spine degeneration. We aimed to describe clinicians’ decision-making regarding suitability of patient cases for LFS or BCC and level of equipoise to randomise participants in the RCTs. Methods. Two online cross-sectional surveys distributed via UK and Australian professional networks to clinicians involved in LBP care, collected data on clinical discipline, practice setting and preferred care of five patient cases (ranging in age, pain duration, BMI, imaging findings, neurological signs/symptoms). Clinicians were also asked about willingness to randomise each patient case. Results. Of 174 responses (73 UK, 101 Australia), 70 were orthopaedic surgeons, 34 neurosurgeons, 65 allied health professionals (AHPs), 5 others. Most worked in public health services only (92% UK, 45% Australia), or a mix of public/private (36% Australia). Most respondents chose BCC as their first-choice management option for all five cases (81–93% UK, 83–91% Australia). For LFS, UK surgeons preferred TLIF (36.4%), whereas Australian surgeons preferred ALIF (54%). Willingness to randomise cases ranged from 37–60% (UK mean 50.7%), and 47–55% (Australian mean 51.9%); orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons were more willing than AHPs. Conclusion. Whilst BCC was preferred for all five patient cases, just over half of survey respondents in both the UK and Australia were willing to randomise cases to either LFS or BCC, indicating clinical equipoise (collective uncertainty) needed for RCT recruitment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No specific funding obtained for the surveys. DB, SA, AG and NEF have funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK (FORENSIC-UK NIHR134859); NEF, DB and SA have funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC FORENSIC-Australia GA268233). AG has funding from Orthopaedic Research UK (combined with British Association of Spine Surgeons and British Scoliosis Society) and Innovate UK. NEF is funded through an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (ID: 2018182)

Aims. As the population ages and the surgical complexity of lumbar spinal surgery increases, the preoperative stratification of risk becomes increasingly important. Understanding the risks is an important factor in decision-making and optimizing the preoperative condition of the patient. Our aim was to determine whether the modified five-item frailty index (mFI-5) and nutritional parameters could be used to predict postoperative complications in patients undergoing simple or complex lumbar spinal fusion. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 584 patients who had undergone lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar spinal disease. The 'simple' group (SG) consisted of patients who had undergone one- or two-level posterior lumbar fusion. The 'complex' group (CG) consisted of patients who had undergone fusion over three or more levels, or combined anterior and posterior surgery. On admission, the mFI-5 was calculated and nutritional parameters collected. Results. Complications occurred in 9.3% (37/396) of patients in the SG, and 10.1% (19/167) of patients in the CG. In the SG, the important predictors of complications were age (odds ratio (OR) 1.036; p = 0.002); mFI-5 (OR 1.026 to 2.411, as score increased to 1 ≥ 2 respectively. ;. p = 0.023); albumin (OR 11.348; p < 0.001); vitamin D (OR 2.185; p = 0.032); and total lymphocyte count (OR 1.433; p = 0.011) . In the CG, the predictors of complications were albumin (OR 9.532; p = 0.002) and vitamin D (OR 3.815; p = 0.022). Conclusion. The mFI-5 and nutritional status were effective predictors of postoperative complications in the SG, but only nutritional status was successful in predicting postoperative complications in the CG. The complexity of the surgery, as well as the preoperative frailty and nutritional status of patients, should be considered when determining if it is safe to proceed with lumbar spinal fusion. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1717–1722

Lumbar fusion remains the gold standard for the treatment of discogenic back pain. Total disc replacement has fallen out of favor in many institutions. Other motion preservation alternatives, such as nucleus replacement, have had limited success and none are commercially available at this time. Two prospective, nonrandomized multicenter studies of lumbar disc nucleus replacement using the PerQdisc 2.0 nucleus replacement device in patients with lumbar discogenic back pain. Early clinical results are presented. A total of 16 patients from 4 international sites (Germany, Paraguay, Canada and Belgium) were enrolled in the trial between May 2019 and February 2021. Data collection points include baseline and postoperatively at 1, 2, 6, and 12 months. Clinical outcome measures were obtained from the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-12V2, Analgesic Score (AS), and radiographic assessments. Prospectively gathered data on patient reported outcomes, neurological outcome, surgical results, radiological analysis, and any adverse events. 16 patients had successful implantation of the device. There have been no expulsions of the device. Early postoperative results are available in 13/16 patients at 6 months and 11/16 patients at 12 months. There have been 4 (25%) revision surgeries 3–12 months post implantation between the two trials. 12 of 13 (92%) patients had Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in ODI at 6 months and 10 of 11 (91%) at 12 months. Mean decrease in ODI from baseline to 12 months was 44.8. At 12 months 8 (73%) patients are not taking pain medication, 1 (9%) patient is taking a narcotic for pain management. 73% of patients are working without restrictions at 12 months post implant. Early clinical and technical results are encouraging. Long term follow up is essential and is forthcoming. Additional patient recruitment and data points are ongoing. FDA/Drug Status Investigational/Not approved

Background. The rate of subsidence for lumbar fusion surgery is variable from 7- 89%. Subsidance can affect the outcome of surgery by compramising alignment, foraminal height and stability. Modic changes have been shown to affect the stiffness and strength of the vertebral end plate and shown to affect both fusion rates and clinical outcome. Ongoing laboratory investigations into the material properties of the degenerate lumbar spine show modic changes affect the end plate and trabecular bone mechanics. This study aims to bridge this basic science research into clinical practice. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all patients in two tertiary spinal centres who have undergone lumbar interbody fusion with the implantation of a ‘cage’ over the past 6 years were analysed by two independent spinal surgeons. Pre-operative MRI findings were correlated with post-operative interbody cage subsidence after 1 year. Results. A total of 108 Interbody cages were included. Comparison of demographics did not reveal and significant between group variations. Comparison made between those displaying no modic changes and those displaying any of the three modic change types revealed a significantly higher subsidence rate in those displaying modic changes (p=0.003). Subgroup analysis showed that Type 2 modic changes (n=27) had a significantly higher subsidence rate (p=0.002). Those displaying type 3 modic changes (n=7) did not have any incidents of subsidence. Conclusions. Type 2 modic changes are associated with a higher rate of Lumbar interbody cage subsidence in this study. Those displaying type 3 changes seem to be protected from interbody cage subsidence. No Conflict of Interest. Funding: Produced as part of a research grant from the Gwen Fish Trust and Action Arthritis

Several surgical options have been utilised to treat patients with back dominant lumbar disc disease. The purpose of our study was to compare the outcomes in patients who underwent lumbar fusion with an expandable interbody device (B-TWIN) using different surgical techniques (PLIF, TLIF or posterolateral screws alone). Observational study, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Patients underwent a single level lumbar fusion. Group A: PLIF with B-Twin cage; Group B: TLIF with B-Twin cage and unilateral pedicle screw fixation and Group C: bilateral posterolateral screw fixation alone. Functional outcomes were assessed using: SF-36, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Distress and Risk Assessment Method scores (DRAM) and the visual analogue pain scores (VAS). There were 32 patients, 24 female and 8 male. Average age was 45 (range 33-63). Average follow up was12 months (range 2-36). Level of spinal fusion was 2 L3/4, 11 L4/5 and 13 L5/S1. Mean hospital stay was 5.8 days. VAS improved in all 3 groups A 5.83 – 5; B 8 – 4.83; C 5.71 – 2.3. ODI improved in all 3 groups A 0.5 – 0.35; B 0.51 – 0.44, C 0.42 – 0.16. There was no statistical difference on comparison of the three groups. There were no operative complications. One patient broke her interdody device during a all in the first post-operative week requiring a subsequent procedure. Lumbar interbody fusions can safely be performed using an expandable interbody device. Good functional outcomes can be achieved in the majority of well selected patients

Purpose. Posterior lumbar fusion using minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques are reported to minimise postoperative pain, soft tissue damage and length of hospital stay when compared to the traditional open procedure. Methods. This is a review of patients who underwent MIS for posterolateral lumbar fusion in a single practice over a 2-year period. Results. Twenty-eight patients underwent this procedure. The median age was 57 (range 34-80). Male:female ratio was 1:1. The most common symptom was radicular pain (n=26). Two patients had back pain without radicular symptoms. Primary degenerative spondylolisthesis was seen in 22 patients and post-laminectomy spondylolisthesis in 3 patients. Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw fixation was the commonest procedure (20) while the rest had pedicle screw fixation and inter-transverse fusion. Along with fusion, nerve root decompression alone was performed in 19, while 5 had decompression of the central spinal canal. Intra-operative navigation was used to assist screw placement in 5 patients. The typical hospital stay was 3 days. All but two patients were mobilised the same or the following day. Twenty-one patients with radiculopathy (80%) reported improvement in VAS at 6-months. One patient suffered irreversible nerve root injury (L5). Significant pedicle breach without nerve injury by a screw was seen in one patient. Conclusion. Minimally invasive TLIF and pedicle screw fixation lumbar degenerative condition is a safe procedure with complications comparable to traditional open techniques. Minimal muscle dissection and soft tissue damage allows for earlier ambulation and reduced hospital stay. The procedure however required longer operative time and increased exposure to intra-operative x-rays