The June 2023 Spine Roundup. 360. 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

The April 2023 Spine Roundup. 360. 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

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 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

The February 2023 Spine Roundup. 360. 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

The October 2023 Spine Roundup. 360. 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 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?

The December 2023 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Does size matter in adolescent pedicle screws?; Effect of lumbar fusion and pelvic fixation rigidity on hip joint stress: a finite element analysis; Utility of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of lumbar spondylolysis in adolescent patients; Rett syndrome-associated scoliosis a national picture

The June 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Intraoperative navigation increases the projected lifetime cancer risk in patients undergoing surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Intrawound vancomycin powder reduces delayed deep surgical site infections following posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Characterizing negative online reviews of spine surgeons; Proximal junctional failure after surgical instrumentation in adult spinal deformity: biomechanical assessment of proximal instrumentation stiffness; Nutritional supplementation and wound healing: a randomized controlled trial

The August 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Laminectomy adjacent to instrumented fusion increases adjacent segment disease; Influence of the timing of surgery for cervical spinal cord injury without bone injury in the elderly: a retrospective multicentre study; Lumbar vertebral body tethering: single-centre outcomes and reoperations in a consecutive series of 106 patients; Machine-learning algorithms for predicting Cobb angle beyond 25° in female adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients; Pain in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Teriparatide prevents surgery for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture

Purpose. To question the reliability of Thoracic Spine pain as a red flag and symptoms of a possible cause of Serious Spinal Pathology (SSP). Methods. The clinical notes and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) results of patients presenting to the Sheffield Spinal Service with Thoracic spine symptoms but no signs were retrospectively reviewed over the period of 2 year (September 2008-August 2010). The clinical reason for request of Thoracic MRIs were noted and the patient notes were reviewed to determine their presentation, length of time of symptoms, age and also it was noted whether any other recognized red flag symptoms were present. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients referred with known SSP or myelopathic symptoms. Results. 57 thoracic spine MRI requests were made in total by the orthopaedic spinal teams for patients presenting with thoracic spine pain in the time period. 8 patients were excluded as per criteria as they were referred with known SSP as were 4 other patients with a history of previous cancer. 45 patients presented with thoracic spine pain but no other red flag signs or symptoms of these none had MRI evidence of serious spinal pathology or indeed anything pathological indicating the cause of their symptoms. Conclusion. The majority of those presenting to orthopaedic spinal clinic with thoracic spine pain alone with no other red flag signs have no pathological cause. Thoracic pain is a widely accepted indicator (red flag) of potential serious spinal pathology. The findings from this review would not support thoracic pain alone as an indicator of SSP

Generally, it is considered to be safe in preventing iatrogenic instability if half of the facet joint is left intact during decompression surgeries. By removing half of the facets can we get adequate decompression of the nerve roots? Is there a difference at different levels in the lower lumbar spine? What is the inclination of the facet joint at each level and how does it affect the stability?. Retrospective study. We analysed 200 consecutive magnetic reasonance imaging (MRI) scans of the lumbosacral spine at L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 levels. We measured the difference in the distance from midline to the lateral border of the foramen and from midline to the middle of the facet joint at each level on either sides. The angle of the facet joint was also noted. The distance to the foramen from the level of the middle of the facet joints seem to be between 5-6mm lateral at every level. The angle of the facet joints at L3/4 is 35.9°+/−7.4°, while at L4/5 it is 43.2°+/−8.0°, and at L5/S1 it is 49.4°+/−10.1°. In lumbar spine decompression surgeries, after the midline decompression extending up to half of the facet joints, a further undercutting of the facet joints to 5-6mm is therefore required to completely decompress the nerve root in the foramen. The more coronal orientation of the facet joint at L5/S1 conforms better stability than that at L3/4level. Therefore, stabilisation of the spine should be considered if more than 2cm of the posterior elements are removed from midline at L3/4 level

Introduction. The placement of a large interbody implant allows for a larger surface area for fusion, vis a vis, via retroperitoneal direct anterior, antero-lateral and lateral approaches. At the same time, spinal navigation facilitates a minimally invasive fixation for inserting posterior pedicle screws. We report on the first procedures in the United Kingdom performed by a single-surgeon at a single- centre using navigated robot-assisted spine surgery without the need for guide-wires. Materials and Methods. Whilst positioned in the supine or lateral position, a routine supine anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and/or antero-lateral ALIF (AL-ALIF) and/or lateral lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) is performed. The patient is then turned prone or kept in the single lateral position (SPL) for insertion of the posterior screws performed under robotic guidance. Intraoperative CT scan 3D images captured then are sent to the Robotic software platform for planning of the screw trajectories and finally use again at the end of the procedure to confirm screw accuracy. We identified 34 consecutive patients from October 2019 to January 2020 who underwent robotic assisted spine surgery. The demographic, intraoperative, and perioperative data of all these patients were reviewed and presented. Results. Of the 34 patients, 65 levels were treated in total using 204 screws. Of the 21 patients (60%) who underwent single-level fixation, 14 of them (67%) were treated at the L5/S1 level, 3 at L3/L4, 3 at L4/L5 and 1 at L2/L3 level. The remaining 13 patients (40%) underwent multi-level fixation, of which 4 were adult scoliosis. 15 underwent a supine ALIF approach, 1 underwent AL-ALIF, 8 patients underwent combined LLIF and AL-ALIF approach in a lateral decubitus, whilst 9 underwent pure LLIF approach (of which 3 patients were in the single position lateral) and one patient had previous TLIF surgery. The average estimated blood loss was 60 cc. The average planning time was 10 min and the average duration of surgery was 50 min. The average patient age was 54 years and 64% (22/34) were male. The average BMI was 28.1 kg/m. 2. There were no re-interventions due to complications or mal positioned screws. Conclusion. Minimally invasive spine surgery using robot-assisted navigation yields an improved level of accuracy, decreased radiation exposure, minimal muscle disruption, decreased blood loss, shorter operating theatre time, length of stay, and lower complication rates. Further follow-up of the patients treated will help compare the clinical outcomes with other techniques

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the differences in spinal imaging characteristics between subjects with or without lumbar developmental spinal stenosis (DSS) in a population-based cohort. Methods. This was a radiological analysis of 2,387 participants who underwent L1-S1 MRI. Means and ranges were calculated for age, sex, BMI, and MRI measurements. Anteroposterior (AP) vertebral canal diameters were used to differentiate those with DSS from controls. Other imaging parameters included vertebral body dimensions, spinal canal dimensions, disc degeneration scores, and facet joint orientation. Mann-Whitney U and chi-squared tests were conducted to search for measurement differences between those with DSS and controls. In order to identify possible associations between DSS and MRI parameters, those who were statistically significant in the univariate binary logistic regression were included in a multivariate stepwise logistic regression after adjusting for demographics. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported where appropriate. Results. Axial AP vertebral canal diameter (p < 0.001), interpedicular distance (p < 0.001), AP dural sac diameter (p < 0.001), lamina angle (p < 0.001), and sagittal mid-vertebral body height (p < 0.001) were significantly different between those identified as having DSS and controls. Narrower interpedicular distance (OR 0.745 (95% CI 0.618 to 0.900); p = 0.002) and AP dural sac diameter (OR 0.506 (95% CI 0.400 to 0.641); p < 0.001) were associated with DSS. Lamina angle (OR 1.127 (95% CI 1.045 to 1.214); p = 0.002) and right facet joint angulation (OR 0.022 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.247); p = 0.002) were also associated with DSS. No association was observed between disc parameters and DSS. Conclusion. From this large-scale cohort, the canal size is found to be independent of body stature. Other than spinal canal dimensions, abnormal orientations of lamina angle and facet joint angulation may also be a result of developmental variations, leading to increased likelihood of DSS. Other skeletal parameters are spared. There was no relationship between DSS and soft tissue changes of the spinal column, which suggests that DSS is a unique result of bony maldevelopment. These findings require validation in other ethnicities and populations. Level of Evidence: I (diagnostic study). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):725–733

Aims. While previously underappreciated, factors related to the spine contribute substantially to the risk of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). These factors must be taken into consideration during preoperative planning for revision THA due to recurrent instability. We developed a protocol to assess the functional position of the spine, the significance of these findings, and how to address different pathologies at the time of revision THA. Patients and Methods. Prospectively collected data on 111 patients undergoing revision THA for recurrent instability from January 2014 to January 2017 at two institutions were included (protocol group) and matched 1:1 to 111 revisions specifically performed for instability not using this protocol (control group). Mean follow-up was 2.8 years. Protocol patients underwent standardized preoperative imaging including supine and standing anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and lateral radiographs. Each case was scored according to the Hip-Spine Classification in Revision THA. Results. Survival free of dislocation at two years was 97% in the protocol group (three dislocations, all within three months of surgery) versus 84% in the control group (18 patients). Furthermore, 77% of the inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized by supine AP pelvis imaging alone. Conclusion. Using the Hip-Spine Classification System in revision THA, we demonstrated a significant decrease in the risk of recurrent instability compared with a control group. Without the use of this algorithm, 77% of inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized and incorrect treatment may have been instituted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:817–823