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

To assess the effectiveness of dynamic stabilisation as a treatment for discogenic pain compared to standard treatment of interbody fusion. All patients were referred for a 2 year back-pain management programme. Patients with continued pain following conservative treatment underwent discography & MRI. Patients with painful degenerate discs on the above investigations were selected. Patients underwent interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) or dynamic stabilisation. Mean follow-up was 24 months with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. All patients had pre-operative ODI and VAS scores. Patients were then sent further questionnaires at 6 month intervals. The mean improvement in ODI following dynamic stabilisation was 20% (-20% → 56%), the mean improvement in the pain score was 2.4 (0→8). The mean improvement in ODI following interbody fusion was 11% (-14%→48%), the mean improvement in the pain score was 2.6 (-4→9). 10 patients in the dynamic stabilisation group had a greater than 20% improvement in ODI, 7 patients in the interbody fusion group had similar results. The above results demonstrate that dynamic stabilisation is at least as effective at treating discogenic pain as interbody fusion. The results however do question the validity of either interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) or dynamic stabilisation in the management of discogenic pain

Objective. To assess the effectiveness of dynamic stabilisation as a treatment for discogenic pain compared to standard treatment of interbody fusion. Study Design & Subjects. All patients were referred for a 2 year back-pain management programme. Patients with continued pain following conservative treatment underwent discography & MRI. Patients with painful degenerate discs on the above investigations were selected. Patients underwent interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) or dynamic stabilisation. Mean follow-up was 24 months with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Outcome Measures. All patients had pre-operative ODI and VAS scores. Patients were then sent further questionnaires at 6 month intervals. Results. The mean improvement in ODI following dynamic stabilisation was 20% (-20% → 56%), the mean improvement in the pain score was 2.4 (0→8). The mean improvement in ODI following interbody fusion was 11% (-14%→48%), the mean improvement in the pain score was 2.6 (-4→9). 10 patients in the dynamic stabilisation group had a greater than 20% improvement in ODI, 7 patients in the interbody fusion group had similar results. Conclusion. The above results demonstrate that dynamic stabilisation is at least as effective at treating discogenic pain as interbody fusion. The results however do question the validity of either interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) or dynamic stabilisation in the management of discogenic pain

We carried out a prospective study to determine whether the addition of a recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP-2) to a machined allograft spacer would improve the rate of intervertebral body fusion in the spine. We studied 77 patients who were to undergo an interbody fusion with allograft and instrumentation. The first 36 patients received allograft with adjuvant rhBMP-2 (allograft/rhBMP-2 group), and the next 41, allograft and demineralised bone matrix (allograft/demineralised bone matrix group). Each patient was assessed clinically and radiologically both pre-operatively and at each follow-up visit using standard methods. Follow-up continued for two years. Every patient in the allograft/rhBMP-2 group had fused by six months. However, early graft lucency and significant (> 10%) subsidence were seen radiologically in 27 of 55 levels in this group. The mean graft height subsidence was 27% (13% to 42%) for anterior lumbar interbody fusion, 24% (13% to 40%) for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and 53% (40% to 58%) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Those who had undergone fusion using allograft and demineralised bone matrix lost only a mean of 4.6% (0% to 15%) of their graft height. Although a high rate of fusion (100%) was achieved with rhBMP-2, significant subsidence occurred in more than half of the levels (23 of 37) in the lumbar spine and 33% (6 of 18) in the cervical spine. A 98% fusion rate (62 of 63 levels) was achieved without rhBMP-2 and without the associated graft subsidence. Consequently, we no longer use rhBMP-2 with allograft in our practice if the allograft has to provide significant structural support

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

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

We evaluated the efficacy of Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (E-BMP-2) in a mini-pig model of spinal anterior interbody fusion. A total of 14 male mini-pigs underwent three-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion using polyether etherketone (PEEK) cages containing porous hydroxyapatite (HA). Four groups of cages were prepared: 1) control (n = 10 segments); 2) 50 μg E-BMP-2 (n = 9); 3) 200 μg E-BMP-2 (n = 10); and 4) 800 μg E-BMP-2 (n = 9). At eight weeks after surgery the mini-pigs were killed and the specimens were evaluated by gross inspection and manual palpation, radiological evaluation including plain radiographs and micro-CT scans, and histological analysis. Rates of fusion within PEEK cages and overall union rates were calculated, and bone formation outside vertebrae was evaluated. One animal died post-operatively and was excluded, and one section was lost and also excluded, leaving 38 sites for assessment. This rate of fusion within cages was 30.0% (three of ten) in the control group, 44.4% (four of nine) in the 50 μg E-BMP-2 group, 60.0% (six of ten) in the 200 μg E-BMP-2 group, and 77.8% (seven of nine) in the 800 μg E-BMP-2 group. Fusion rate was significantly increased by the addition of E-BMP-2 and with increasing E-BMP-2 dose (p = 0.046). In a mini-pig spinal anterior interbody fusion model using porous HA as a carrier, the implantation of E-BMP-2-loaded PEEK cages improved the fusion rate compared with PEEK cages alone, an effect that was significantly increased with increasing E-BMP-2 dosage. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:217–23

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

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

We conducted a prospective, randomised study of 42 cervical interbody fusions undertaken with either an autologous tricortical graft or a cage. The factors assessed in the two groups were: (1) time taken to achieve fusion; (2) neck disability index; (3) pain score; (4) interbody height ratio; (5) interbody angle and (6) the influence of smoking on fusion. No statistical difference was seen in the time taken to achieve fusion, neck disability index, interbody height ratio, or interbody angles. Smoking did not have any effect on the fusion process. The pain score was significantly lower in the tricortical graft group at six months. We conclude that both methods of fusion give similar results, although tricortical graft fusion is cheaper than cage fusion, and is more effective in reducing the pain score

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

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

To assess adverse events related to XLIF approach in lumbar degenerative disease. Recently novel minimally disruptive spine procedure eXtreme lateral Interbody Fusion i.e XLIF has been developed. It is 90 (off the midline true lateral approach, which allows large graft placement, excellent disc height restoration and indirect decompression at the stenotic motion segment. We describe our experience in 28 patients. Retrospective review of records of patients undergoing surgery between July 2008- Jan 2010. Presenting complaints, number of levels performed and complications (medical, approach, or implant related) were audited. Results: 28 patients (17 female: 11 male) with median age of 47 yrs, range (38-75) formed the study group. Average stay was 4 days. All patients had MRI of lumbar spine. 2/3 rd patients had low back pain as their presenting complaint. All patients had nerve monitoring through out the procedure. There were 12 single, 15 two level and 1 three level cases (total 45 levels). 14/28 patients underwent plating at the same time. EBL was 100ml. There were 11/45 adverse events (24.4%). 6 events were approach, 4 were implant bone interface and 1 medical related. Major complication occurred in 1 patient (3.6%). 2/3 rd of patients, were better after the surgery. Almost negligible blood loss, low infection rate and short average stay seemed to work in favour of this approach. Complications are there as (with any new procedure) our results indicate, but these are manageable and less common with this technique. This did not require Ethics approval and there was no grant or industry support for the above

Aim. To assess the safety of Zero Profile Interbody fusion (Zero P) device in Anterior Cervical Decompression and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative cervical stenosis. Method. 89 consecutive patients treated with Zero P interbody device from September 2009 to September 2012 were included in this retrospective study. Inclusion criterion: degenerative cervical stenosis with myelopathy, persistent radiculopathy after at least 3 months of failed conservative management. Exclusion criterion: Paediatric population; patients with infection, metastatic disease and trauma. There were 39 females, 50 males with mean age of 55 (ranging from 24 to 84 years). 56 (64%) had surgery at 1 level, 31 (35%) at 2 levels, 1 (1%) at 3 levels. Total number of levels operated were 121. Common levels operated were C56 (62%) and C67 (47%). Majority were operated due to radicular symptoms, 56 (64%) had radicular symptoms, 28(31%) had myelopathy and 5 (5%) Myeloradiculopathy. Results. All had a minimum of 6 months follow up (maximum 2 years). No patient had cage subsidence or extrusion. 1 had superficial infection which settled with antibiotics, 10 (11%) had dysphagia which settled in 6 to12 weeks. Conclusions. Our study demonstrates that ACDF with Zero P can be considered a safe option in management of patients with cervical degenerative stenosis. We would will also recommend a prospective randomised study as a follow on to this retrospective study. Preoperative kyphosis or lordosis did not change the outcome or make the surgical technique any more difficult, hence this implant can also be used in these circumstances. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained

Introduction

Lumbar spinal pain can be a consequence of discogenic pain. After failure of conservative management, lumbar fusions are popular and considered the gold standard. However, these techniques are associated with significant morbidity.

A percutaneous trans-sacral technique may address these for L4/L5 and/or L5/S1 alone spinal fusions. Our unit has adopted this technique and presents our initial experience of 51 patients and preliminary results.

Aims. To determine the effectiveness of prone traction radiographs in predicting postoperative slip distance, slip angle, changes in disc height, and lordosis after surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine. Methods. A total of 63 consecutive patients with a degenerative spondylolisthesis and preoperative prone traction radiographs obtained since 2010 were studied. Slip distance, slip angle, disc height, segmental lordosis, and global lordosis (L1 to S1) were measured on preoperative lateral standing radiographs, flexion-extension lateral radiographs, prone traction lateral radiographs, and postoperative lateral standing radiographs. Patients were divided into two groups: posterolateral fusion or posterolateral fusion with interbody fusion. Results. The mean changes in segmental lordosis and global lordosis were 7.1° (SD 6.7°) and 2.9° (SD 9.9°) respectively for the interbody fusion group, and 0.8° (SD 5.1°) and -0.4° (SD 10.1°) respectively for the posterolateral fusion-only group. Segmental lordosis (ρ = 0.794, p < 0.001) corrected by interbody fusion correlated best with prone traction radiographs. Global lumbar lordosis (ρ = 0.788, p < 0.001) correlated best with the interbody fusion group and preoperative lateral standing radiographs. The least difference in slip distance (-0.3 mm (SD 1.7 mm), p < 0.001), slip angle (0.9° (SD 5.2°), p < 0.001), and disc height (0.02 mm (SD 2.4 mm), p < 0.001) was seen between prone traction and postoperative radiographs. Regression analyses suggested that prone traction parameters best predicted correction of slip distance (Corrected Akaike’s Information Criterion (AICc) = 37.336) and disc height (AICc = 58.096), while correction of slip angle (AICc = 26.453) was best predicted by extension radiographs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) cut-off showed, with 68.3% sensitivity and 64.5% specificity, that to achieve a 3.0° increase in segmental lordotic angle, patients with a prone traction disc height of 8.5 mm needed an interbody fusion. Conclusion. Prone traction radiographs best predict the slip distance and disc height correction achieved by interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. To achieve this maximum correction, interbody fusion should be undertaken if a disc height of more than 8.5 mm is attained on preoperative prone traction radiographs. Level of Evidence: Level II Prognostic Study. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1062–1071

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. People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods. An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results. There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion. This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620

Introduction and Objective. Almost 60% of the population can expect to experience low back pain (LBP) during their life. Several radiological tools are used to investigate LBP. However, adequate evidence is unavailable to support the use of single photon emission computer tomography (SPECT) in patients with LBP. The objective of this study is to assess the role and efficiency of SPECT in evaluation and management of patients with LBP. Method. Ninety-two patients with LBP were examined and assessed. All the patients received a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and were referred for a SPECT. We interpreted the modic and degenerative changes found on the MRI and compared it with SPECT tracer uptake. SPECT was used to identify the pain generator and then a surgical plan was made. Data was analyzed for pain improvement in those who underwent surgical treatment to establish the accuracy of CT SPECT in identification of primary pain generator. Results. A total of 184 patients were included in the study who underwent diagnostic CT-SPECT between January 2013 and December 2019. One hundred of them were females and Eighty four males; the mean age was 47.6 years. 111 patients underwent surgery in the form of interbody fusion or posterolateral fusion. 16 patients positive tracer uptake was at asymptomatic level or unrelated. In 3 patients SPECT identified screw sites as pain generator and in all 3 patients screws were removed with good pain relief. Overall axial pain as measured with Numeric rating scale was preoperatively 9.13 ± 0.7 and improved to 4.54 ± 2.3 at 6 months postoperative follow up. MRI changes have been analyzed and correlation studied with relation to SPECT findings. Conclusion. Due to its high precision and sensitivity compared to other radiological modalities, SPECT demonstrated the ability to aid in clinical diagnosis. CT SPECT reveals information that becomes vital in deciding further management. In this study, we exemplified that SPECT scan can give indication for pain generator in axial spine pain and aid in surgical intervention

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