Aims. Chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease is sometimes treated with fusion. We compared the outcome of three different fusion techniques in the Swedish Spine Register: noninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF), instrumented posterolateral fusion (IPLF), and interbody fusion (IBF). Patients and Methods. A total of 2874 patients who were operated on at one or two lumbar levels were followed for a mean of 9.2 years (3.6 to 19.1) for any additional lumbar spine surgery. Patient-reported outcome data were available preoperatively (n = 2874) and at one year (n = 2274), two years (n = 1958), and a mean of 6.9 years (n = 1518) postoperatively and consisted of global assessment and visual analogue scales of leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol five-dimensional index, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and satisfaction with treatment. Statistical analyses were performed with competing-risks proportional hazards regression or analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline variables. Results. The number of patients with additional surgery were 32/183 (17%) in the PLF group, 229/1256 (18%) in the IPLF group, and 439/1435 (31%) in the IBF group. With the PLF group as a reference, the hazard ratio for additional lumbar surgery was 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.72) for the IPLF group and 2.13 (95% CI 1.45 to 3.12) for the IBF group. All patient-reported outcomes improved after surgery (p < 0.001) but were without statistically significant differences between the groups at the one-, two- and 6.9-year follow-ups (all p ≥ 0.12). Conclusion. The addition of interbody fusion to posterolateral fusion was associated with a higher risk for additional surgery and showed no advantages in patient-reported outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1526–1533

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the ability of morphological spinal parameters to predict the outcome of bracing in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and to establish a novel supine correction index (SCI) for guiding bracing treatment.

Background. The incidence of backpain is unknown in children because studies have been cross-sectional or longitudinal with few follow-ups of long intervals. Children cannot be expected to remember past events of backpain correctly. Therefore data-collection must be undertaken with short intervals and using other methods than questionnaires only. Methods and material. The 1208 children from grade 0 to grade 4, who participated in an intervention study (increased physical activity vs. “business-as-usual”) were followed with standardized questions submitted with weekly text-messages (SMS-Track). If they answered “yes” to backpain in the past week, their parents were called up, and the child was seen in person by health personnel. “Backpain” included any type of spinal pain. Results. Our interim analyses show that compliance was 92% for responding to text-messages. Over the total risk time of 35,238 weeks, 576 reported backpain at some time (individual range 0 to 11). The incidence ratio for gender was 0.72 for boys. The 2. nd. to 4. th. school-grades had significantly higher incidence ratios (1.4-2.1) when compared to grades 0 and 1. Conclusion. The results of these analyses show that it is possible to collect weekly incidence data on backpain in children. It was found to be surprisingly high

Introduction. Iatrogenic spondylolisthesis occurs infrequently after posterior decompression. Posterior surgery is challenging due to altered anatomy and scarring. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) allows indirect decompression, restoration of lordosis and fusion. Material and Methods. Retrospective review of 6 patients (5 female, 1 male, mean age 64±5.8 years) with iatrogenic spondylolisthesis (5 L4/L5; 1 L4/L5) treated with stand-alone ALIF (Synfix, BMP2). Assessment of pelvic incidence, listhesis, pre- and post-operative ODI, VAS, global lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis as outcome measurements. Results. The slippage was grade II at L4/L5 in 3 patients and grade I in 2 patients at L4/L5 and 1 patient at L5/S1. Average ODI dropped from 49±11% pre-operatively to 30±9% at 6 and to 25±6% at 12 months follow-up. VAS average dropped from 7±1 to 3±1 at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Average pelvic incidence was 54.6±8.0°. Global lordosis of 44.6±5.2° increased to 49.0±8.6°; Segmental lordosis in L4/5 was increased from 12.1±8.2° to 22.4±3.7° at 6 and 20.5±7.9° at 12 months. Cage migration due to severe osteoporosis occurred in 1 case after 5 months. Conclusion. Anterior interbody fusion offers good stabilization and restoration of lordosis in iatrogenic spondylolisthesis. In our group, ODI and VAS scores were improved. These early results encourage further investigations regarding long-term follow-ups and prospective studies in larger patient groups

The aim of most new implants for cervical disc replacement is to maintain or restore function. The Dynamic Cervical Implant (DCI(tm), Paradigm Spine) aims at combining the advantages of the gold standard fusion technique with the motion preservation philosophy. DCI has a limited motion: it works like a shock absorbing spring and may help to slow down adjacent segment degeneration. Between 2007 and 2009 we selected 79 patients aged 32 to 73 years for treatment with DCI at either one or two levels (10 patients). Indications were radiculopathies (n=45), axial pain (n=4) or spondylotic spinal stenosis (n=30) with out chronic myelopathy. Patients are followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Disc surgery was performed at C3/C4 (n=2), C4/5 (n=6), at C5/6 (n=43), C6/7 (n=37) and at C7/T1 (n=1). In flexion/extension radiographs motion rapidly increased after surgery. However, 5 of 19 treated levels were fused (seen at 6 or 12 months). After implant footprint was changed and larger sizes were provided only 2 of 67 segments fused. Still 96% of the patients rated their clinical result as excellent or good. There were no implant related complications or revision surgery. Disc replacement with DCI is a new strategy that is positioned in between anterior cervical fusion and disc prosthesis. Clinical results are as good as in anterior cervical fusion. Adjacent segment protection must be judged in future follow-ups. We were able to show that the change of implant footprint has significantly reduced fusion rate

Introduction. Internal transpedicular fixation for the treatment of scoliosis develops quite fast and is widely used in clinical practice. The purpose of the study was to assess the efficacy of internal transpedicular fixation in treatment of patients with scoliosis. Material and methods. The system of internal transpedicular fixation (Vertebra Stabilization System Ø 5.5-6.35, OIM, Turkey) was employed for treatment of 50 patients with scoliosis of various severity. There was 83% of female patients aged from 15 to 23 years. Clinical and radiological methods were used for assessment of treatment results. Results. An angle of scoliotic deformity measured 40-60° in 20 cases, 60-100° in 21 patients, and more than 100° in 9 cases. Two-staged procedure was produced for two patients, and one-staged intervention for 33 cases. The length of in-patient treatment was five days. The patients could sit on the bed on the next day after the surgery, walk after 3 days, and were discharged from the hospital after 5 days for the follow-up. The deformity was corrected by 95-100% in the group of patients with scoliosis of 40-60°. The deformity was corrected by 85-90% in the group of patients with scoliosis of 60-100°. One-staged procedure allowed for 70-75% correction in patients with scoliosis more than 100°. Discussion and conclusion. The results of treatment showed no loss of correction at one-year follow-up. Patient aged more than 20 showed changing the deformity angle by 2-5° due to degenerative changes of the spine. No complications associated with inflammation of soft tissues, broken metal constructs were observed in this cohort of patients. Long-term follow-ups were evaluated from one to two years. All the patients were satisfied with their cosmetic and functional result

Introduction. Recently published results suggest insertion of shorter screws in L5/S1 stand-alone anterior interbody fusion, fearing S1 nerve root violation. However, insertion of shorter screws led to screw fixation failure and new onset of S1 body fractures. Material and Methods. Retrospective review of patients with L5/S1 stand-alone anterior interbody fusion, focussing on screw length, radiological outcomes (especially metal work failure, screw fixation and S1 body fractures) and new onset of S1 nerve root irritation. Results. 38 patients were included (mean age 46.2±13.3 years, 21 females, 17 males). Fusion of the L5/S1 segment was performed in between 2003-2010; postoperative follow-up ranged from 2-24 months. 15 patients had multilevel surgery (7 multiple segmental fusion, 8 hybrid procedures). Screw length ranged from 20-30 mm. No patient had new postoperative S1 nerve root irritation. Interestingly, 2 patients out of the hybrid group had a new onset of L5 radiculopathy, concordant to the level of disc-replacement. Follow-up x-ray review showed no fracture of S1 body fractures in all patients. No evidence of screw loosening, migration or metal work failure was reported. Conclusion. In our opinion, this review showed that insertion of longer screws for stand-alone anterior interbody fusion in L5/S1 is safe. Longer screws offer better stabilization and seem to minimize risks like S1 body fractures. Short and long-term follow-ups were satisfactory regarding screw placement, migration and positioning of implants in all patients

Aims

The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of additional surgery in the lumbar spine and to describe long-term changes in patient-reported outcomes after surgery for lumbar disc herniation in adolescents and young adults.

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).

Aims

The aims of this study were to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) performed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

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.

We validated the North American Spine Society (NASS) outcome-assessment instrument for the lumbar spine in a computerised touch-screen format and assessed patients’ acceptance, taking into account previous computer experience, age and gender.

Fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic and radiologically-proven degenerative disease of the lumbar spine completed both the hard copy (paper) and the computerised versions of the NASS questionnaire. Statistical analysis showed high agreement between the paper and the touch-screen computer format for both subscales (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.94, 95% confidence interval (0.90 to 0.97)) independent of computer experience, age and gender. In total, 55% of patients stated that the computer format was easier to use and 66% preferred it to the paper version (p < 0.0001 among subjects expressing a preference). Our data indicate that the touch-screen format is comparable to the paper form. It may improve follow-up in clinical practice and research by meeting patients’ preferences and minimising administrative work.