Aims. A variety of surgical methods and strategies have been demonstrated for Andersson lesion (AL) therapy. In 2011, we proposed and identified the feasibility of stabilizing the spine without curettaging the vertebral or discovertebral lesion to cure non-kyphotic AL. Additionally, due to the excellent reunion ability of ankylosing spondylitis, we further came up with minimally invasive spinal surgery (MIS) to avoid the need for both bone graft and lesion curettage in AL surgery. However, there is a paucity of research into the comparison between open spinal fusion (OSF) and early MIS in the treatment of AL. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the clinical outcomes and radiological evaluation of our early MIS approach and OSF for AL. Methods. A total of 39 patients diagnosed with AL who underwent surgery from January 2004 to December 2022 were retrospectively screened for eligibility. Patients with AL were divided into an MIS group and an OSF group. The primary outcomes were union of the lesion on radiograph and CT, as well as the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores immediately after surgery, and at the follow-up (mean 29 months (standard error (SE) 9)). The secondary outcomes were total blood loss during surgery, operating time, and improvement in the radiological parameters: global and local kyphosis, sagittal vertical axis, sagittal alignment, and chin-brow vertical angle immediately after surgery and at the follow-up. Results. Data for 30 patients with AL were evaluated: 14 in the MIS group and 16 in the OSF group. All patients were followed up after surgery; no nonunion complications or instrumentation failures were observed in either group. No significant differences in the VAS and ODI scores were identified between the two groups. Mean ODI improved from 51 (SE 5) to 17 (SE 5) in the MIS group and from 52 (SE 6) to 19 (SE 5) in the OSF group at the follow-up. There were significant improvements in total blood loss (p = 0.025) and operating time (p < 0.001) between the groups. There was also no significant difference in local kyphosis six months postoperatively (p = 0.119). Conclusion. Early MIS is an effective treatment for AL. MIS provides comparable clinical outcomes to those treated with OSF, with less total blood loss and shorter operating time. Our results support and identify the feasibility of solid immobilization achieved by posterior instrumentation without bone graft via MIS for the treatment of AL. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):886–893

Aims. To report the development of the technique for minimally invasive lumbar decompression using robotic-assisted navigation. Methods. Robotic planning software was used to map out bone removal for a laminar decompression after registration of CT scan images of one cadaveric specimen. A specialized acorn-shaped bone removal robotic drill was used to complete a robotic lumbar laminectomy. Post-procedure advanced imaging was obtained to compare actual bony decompression to the surgical plan. After confirming accuracy of the technique, a minimally invasive robotic-assisted laminectomy was performed on one 72-year-old female patient with lumbar spinal stenosis. Postoperative advanced imaging was obtained to confirm the decompression. Results. A workflow for robotic-assisted lumbar laminectomy was successfully developed in a human cadaveric specimen, as excellent decompression was confirmed by postoperative CT imaging. Subsequently, the workflow was applied clinically in a patient with severe spinal stenosis. Excellent decompression was achieved intraoperatively and preservation of the dorsal midline structures was confirmed on postoperative MRI. The patient experienced improvement in symptoms postoperatively and was discharged within 24 hours. Conclusion. Minimally invasive robotic-assisted lumbar decompression utilizing a specialized robotic bone removal instrument was shown to be accurate and effective both in vitro and in vivo. The robotic bone removal technique has the potential for less invasive removal of laminar bone for spinal decompression, all the while preserving the spinous process and the posterior ligamentous complex. Spinal robotic surgery has previously been limited to the insertion of screws and, more recently, cages; however, recent innovations have expanded robotic capabilities to decompression of neurological structures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):809–817

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).

Aims

Psychoeducative prehabilitation to optimize surgical outcomes is relatively novel in spinal fusion surgery and, like most rehabilitation treatments, they are rarely well specified. Spinal fusion patients experience anxieties perioperatively about pain and immobility, which might prolong hospital length of stay (LOS). The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine if a Preoperative Spinal Education (POSE) programme, specified using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) and designed to normalize expectations and reduce anxieties, was safe and reduced LOS.