Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of microendoscopic laminotomy in patients with lumbar stenosis and concurrent degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), and to determine the effect of this procedure on spinal stability.

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 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

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):372–374.

The December 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Ketamine in scoliosis surgery; Teriparatide in osteoporotic spinal fractures; Trabecular metal in the spine?; Revision surgery a SPORTing chance?; The course of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis; Hip or lumbar spine: a common conundrum

Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis may entail both decompression and fusion. The knee-chest position facilitates the decompression, but fixation in this position risks fusion in kyphosis. This can be avoided by intra-operative re-positioning to the prone position. The aim of this study was to quantify the restoration of lordosis achieved by intra-operative repositioning and to assess the clinical and radiological outcome. A total of forty consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and stenosis were treated by posterior decompression and interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation. The screw insertion, decompression and interbody grafting were performed with the patient in the knee-chest position. The patient was then re-positioned to the fully prone position for fusion. Sagittal plane angles were measured pre-, intra- and post-operatively. Clinical assessment was performed using SF-36 scores and visual analogue scores for back and leg pain. The sagittal plane angle increased from median 16.0 degrees pre-operatively to 23.1 degrees post-operatively (p<0.01) and this was maintained at the last follow-up (mean 21 months). The SF-36 scores improved for 7 out of 8 domains and the physical score improved from 29% to 40% (p<0.05). The mean pain scores improved significantly from 7.5 to 3.8 for back pain and from 7.6 to 3.7 for leg pain (p<0.001). Lumbar spondylolisthesis was found to be associated with a reduction of normal lumbar lordosis and the knee-chest position exacerbates this loss of lordosis. Intra-operative repositioning restored lordosis to greater than the pre-operative angle and was associated with a good clinical outcome

Aims: Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis may entail both decompression and fusion. The knee-chest position facilitates decompression, but fixation in this position risks fusion in kyphosis. This can be avoided by intra-operative re-positioning to the prone position. The aim of our study was to quantify restoration of lordosis achieved by intra-operative repositioning and to assess clinical and radiological outcome. Patients and method: Thirty-six patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and stenosis were treated by posterior decompression and interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation. The decompression, interbody grafting and screw insertion were performed with the patient in the knee-chest position. The patient was repositioned to the prone position for fusion. Sagittal plane angles were measured pre, intra and post-operatively. Clinical assessment was performed using SF-36 scores and visual analogue scores for back and leg pain. Results: The median pre-operative sagittal angle between fused spinal segments was 16.0 degrees lordosis. Intra-operatively in the knee-chest position the sagittal angle was median 13.5 degrees and after changing to the prone position increased to median 27.1 degrees. On the initial post-operative lumbar radiographs the sagittal angle was 23.1 and this was maintained at 6 months post-operatively (22.5 degrees). Overall there was a mean increase in lordosis angle after repositioning of 7.1 degrees per operative level (p< 0.01). The SF-36 scores improved for 7 out of 8 domains and the physical score improved from 29% to 40% (p< 0.05). Mean pain scores improved from 7.5 to 3.8 for back pain and from 7.6 to 3.7 for leg pain (p< 0.001). Conclusion: Lumbar spondylolisthesis was found to be associated with a reduction of normal lumbar lordosis. The knee-chest position exacerbates this loss of lordosis. Intra-operative repositioning restores lordosis to greater than the pre-operative angle and was associated with a good clinical outcome

Introduction and Aims: Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis may entail both decompression and fusion. The knee-chest position facilitates decompression, but fixation in this position risks fusion in kyphosis. This can be avoided by intra-operative re-positioning to the fully prone position. We aim to quantify restoration of lordosis achieved by this manoeuvre. Method: Thirty-six patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and stenosis were treated by posterior decompression and interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation (without interbody cages). There were 16 men and 20 women with a mean age of 58.2 years (32–80). The decompression, interbody grafting and screw insertion were performed with the patient in the knee-chest position. The patient was repositioned to the fully prone position for subsequent fusion. The sagittal plane angle was measured on the pre-operative, intra-operative and post-operative x-rays. Short-Form 36 (SF-36) scores and Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) for pain (0 to 10) were determined pre- and post-operatively. Results: Twenty-eight patients underwent single-level fusion, two patients had two levels, two patients had three levels and four patients had four levels fused. The mean pre-operative sagittal angle between the operated vertebrae was 15.7 degrees lordosis, and the intra-operative angle before re-positioning was 14.9 degrees. The mean immediate post-operative angle was 23.7, and at six-month follow-up the angle was 23.1. Overall there was a mean increase in lordosis angle after repositioning of 8.0 degrees per operative level (p< 0.01). The mean scores of the SF-36 improved in all eight domains and this was significant (p< 0.05) for social functioning (44.4 to 68.9), energy and vitality (36.0 to 49.5), pain (23.8 to 58.3) and general health perception (51.4 to 65.6). Mean VAS pain scores for back pain improved from 7.47 pre-operatively to 3.84 post-operatively (p< 0.001); and for leg pain improved from 7.56 to 3.78 (p< 0.001). No complications attributable to the manoeuvre occurred. Conclusion: Lumbar spondylolisthesis was found to be associated with reduction of normal lumbar lordosis. The knee-chest position for surgery exacerbates this loss of lordosis. Intra-operative repositioning restores lordosis to greater than the pre-operative angle, which may improve clinical outcome

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) is a common condition with many available treatment options. The Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Instability Classification (DSIC) scheme, based on a systematic review of best available evidence, was proposed by Simmonds et al. in 2015. This classification scheme proposes that the stability of the patient's pathology be determined by a surgeon based on quantitative and qualitative clinical and radiographic parameters. The purpose of the study is to utilise machine learning to classify DLS patients according to the DSIC scheme, offering a novel approach in which an objectively consistent system is employed. The patient data was collected by CSORN between 2015 and 2018 and included 224 DLS surgery cases. The data was cleaned by two methods, firstly, by deleting all patient entries with missing data, and secondly, by imputing the missing data using a maximum likelihood function. Five machine learning algorithms were used: logistic regression, boosted trees, random forests, support vector machines, and decision trees. The models were built using Python-based libraries and trained and tested using sklearn and pandas librairies. The algorithms were trained and tested using the two data sets (deletion and imputation cleaning methods). The matplotlib library was used to graph the ROC curves, including the area under the curve. The machine learning models were all able to predict the DSIC grade. Of all the models, the support vector machine model performed best, achieving an area under the curve score of 0.82. This model achieved an accuracy of 63% and an F1 score of 0.58. Between the two data cleaning methods, the imputation method was better, achieving higher areas under the curve than the deletion method. The accuracy, recall, precision, and F1 scores were similar for both data cleaning methods. The machine learning models were able to effectively predict physician decision making and score patients based on the DSIC scheme. The support vector machine model was able to achieve an area under the curve of 0.82 in comparison to physician classification. Since the data set was relatively small, the results could be improved with training on a larger data set. The use of machine learning models in DLS classification could prove to be an efficient approach to reduce human bias and error. Further efforts are necessary to test the inter- and intra-observer reliability of the DSIC scheme, as well as to determine if the surgeons using the scheme are following DLS treatment recommendations

Objective: To determine if there was any difference in standard spine outcome measures for single level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis treated by decompression and intertransverse fusion alone or with pedicle screw instrumentation. Methods: A prospective longitudinal cohort study was undertaken looking at 23 patients undergoing surgery for L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis with symptomatic spinal stenosis. Clinical outcome was assessed through specific outcome measures of walking distance(yards), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Back Functional Assessment (BFA) and Visual analogue score for pain(VAS). Results: Follow up was achieved in 21 patients (91%) and the mean length of follow up was 29 months (range 12–60 months). The mean age at operation was 66 years. In the uninstrumented group (n=12), the mean pre and post operative outcome scores were: walking distance (pre-122, post-950), ODI (pre-45, post-29), BFA (pre-23, post-31) and VAS (pre-83, post 49). In the instrumented group (n=11), the mean pre- and post operative outcome scores were: walking distance (pre-143, post-763), ODI (pre-54, post-33), BFA (pre-14, post 33) and VAS (pre-77, post-49). There was no statistically significant difference in improvement in each outcome measure between the two groups. Conclusion: Surgical decompression in degenerative spondylolisthesis aims to relieve symptoms of radicular pain and neurogenic claudication. However, the indications for instrumentation are controversial. Previous studies have shown an improved fusion rate with instrumentation but no difference in subjective patient satisfaction scores. We have used validated patient based outcome measures to assess clinical outcome. Our results show no statistically significant difference between single level L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with decompression with or without instrumentation

Summary Statement. Spinal flexibility in bending and axial torque has been shown to exhibit very modest changes with advancing disc degeneration. This study is the first to address the possible relationship in pure anterior shear and no clear relationship was observed. Introduction. Disc degeneration (DD) is a risk factor for low back pain. Stable or unstable spine segments may be treated with an isolated decompression or instrumented stabilization, respectively. The effect of DD on spinal flexibility has been addressed by several groups in bending but not in shear; a highly relevant load direction in the lumbar spine is anterior shear. The objective of our study was to determine the effect of DD on anterior translation and specimen stiffness under shear loading in an in vitro model of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods. Magnetic resonance images were obtained for human cadaveric lumbar FSUs (N=30). Disc degeneration was assessed with the Pfirrmann five-point grading scale. Three surgeons independently graded the discs and the grade common to at least two of the surgeons was assigned to that specimen. Each specimen was then tested in three sequential states: intact, facet destabilization, and disc destabilization, with the latter two states representing the clinical scenario of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The specimens were loaded with a constant 300 N axial compressive force, representing body weight, combined with a cyclic anterior shear force (5–250 N). Vertebral translation was tracked with an optoelectronic motion capture system. Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and multiple comparison Dunn's tests were performed to determine the effect of DD on anterior translation and specimen stiffness. Results. There was only one specimen with disc grade V, and it was grouped with specimens with disc grade IV for the statistical analyses. DD had no effect on anterior translation or specimen stiffness for the intact and disc destabilization conditions. In the facet destabilization condition, specimens with disc grade II translated more than those with disc grades IV and V (p=0.03). Stiffness increased with DD in the facet destabilization condition (ANOVA p=0.04; Dunn's test was not significant). However, we re-analyzed the data with each surgeon's disc grades and found no significant differences in any of the specimen conditions for all three surgeons. Discussion. In the original data analysis, the translation results showed a trend to reduced anterior translation in shear with advancing degeneration only in the facet destabilization condition. These results suggest that shear stiffness of an intact specimen is not affected by overall degeneration, except in the case where the facets are not competent to resist load. In the subsequent data analyses, no significant effects were found. These findings indicate the sensitivity of the analyses to the assignment of disc grade. There are numerous disc grading scales reported in the literature and it is not clear which scale best defines disc degeneration. We are continuing to assess our methods to determine the most appropriate method of defining disc degeneration by disc grade

Aims. Patients may present with concurrent symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, with surgical treatment being indicated for both. Whether arthroplasty of the hip or spinal surgery should be performed first remains uncertain. Materials and Methods. Clinical scenarios were devised for a survey asking the preferred order of surgery and the rationale for this decision for five fictional patients with both OA of the hip and degenerative lumbar disorders. These were symptomatic OA of the hip and: 1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurological claudication; 2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; 3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; 4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and 5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. This survey was sent to 110 members of The Hip Society and 101 members of the Scoliosis Research Society. The choices of the surgeons were compared among scenarios and between surgical specialties using the chi-squared test. The free-text comments were analyzed using text-mining. Results. Responses were received from 51 hip surgeons (46%) and 37 spine surgeons (37%). The percentages of hip surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ differed significantly among scenarios: 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (p < 0.001). The percentages of spine surgeons recommending ‘hip first’ were 49% for scenario 1; 70% for scenario 2; 19% for scenario 3; 78% for scenario 4; and 0% for scenario 5. There were significant differences between the groups for scenarios 3 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘hip first’; p = 0.012) and 4 (more hip surgeons recommended ‘spine first’; p = 0.006). Conclusion. In patients with coexistent OA of the hip and degenerative disorders of the spine, the question of ‘hip or spinal surgery first’ elicits relatively consistent answers in some clinical scenarios, but remains controversial in others, even for experienced surgeons. The nature of neurological symptoms can influence surgeons’ decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):37–44

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore risk factors for complications associated with dural tear (DT), including the types of DT, and the intra- and postoperative management of DT.

The June 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Less is more in pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis; Paracetamol out of favour in spinal pain but effective for osteoarthritis; Local wound irrigation to reduce infection?; Lumbar facet joint effusion: a reliable prognostic sign?; SPORT for the octogenarian; Neurological deterioration following traumatic spinal cord injury; PROMS in spinal surgery