Objectives

Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation was evaluated after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures in a randomized, controlled clinical study performed for United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. PEMF significantly increased fusion rates at six months, but 12-month fusion outcomes for subjects at elevated risk for pseudoarthrosis were not thoroughly reported. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of PEMF treatment on subjects at increased risk for pseudoarthrosis after ACDF procedures.

Objectives. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine the safety and efficacy of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) compared with bone graft when used specifically for revision spinal fusion surgery secondary to pseudarthrosis. Methods. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched using defined search terms. The primary outcome measure was spinal fusion, assessed as success or failure in accordance with radiograph, MRI or CT scan review at 24-month follow-up. The secondary outcome measure was time to fusion. Results. A total of six studies (three prospective and three retrospective) reporting on the use of BMP2 met the inclusion criteria (203 patients). Of these, four provided a comparison of BMP2 and bone graft whereas the other two solely investigated the use of BMP2. The primary outcome was seen in 92.3% (108/117) of patients following surgery with BMP2. Although none of the studies showed superiority of BMP2 to bone graft for fusion, its use was associated with a statistically quicker time to achieving fusion. BMP2 did not appear to increase the risk of complication. Conclusion. The use of BMP2 is both safe and effective within the revision setting, ideally in cases where bone graft is unavailable or undesirable. Further research is required to define its optimum role. Cite this article: Mr P. Bodalia. Effectiveness and safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for adults with lumbar spine pseudarthrosis following spinal fusion surgery: A systematic review. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:145–152. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000418

The demand for spinal surgery and its costs have both risen over the past decade. In 2008 the aggregate hospital bill for surgical care of all spinal procedures was reported to be $33.9 billion. One key driver of rising costs is spinal implants. In 2011 our institution implemented a cost containment programme for spinal implants which was designed to reduce the prices of individual spinal implants and to reduce the inter-surgeon variation in implant costs. Between February 2012 and January 2013, our spinal surgeons performed 1493 spinal procedures using implants from eight different vendors. By applying market analysis and implant cost data from the previous year, we established references prices for each individual type of spinal implant, regardless of vendor, who were required to meet these unit prices. We found that despite the complexity of spinal surgery and the initial reluctance of vendors to reduce prices, significant savings were made to the medical centre.

Cite this article: 2015; 97-B:1102–5.

Using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified national trends in revision spinal fusion along with a comprehensive comparison of comorbidities, inpatient complications and surgical factors of revision spinal fusion compared to primary spinal fusion.

In 2009, there were 410 158 primary spinal fusion discharges and 22 128 revision spinal fusion discharges. Between 2002 and 2009, primary fusion increased at a higher rate compared with revision fusion (56.4% vs 51.0%; p < 0.001). In 2009, the mean length of stay and hospital charges were higher for revision fusion discharges than for primary fusion discharges (4.2 days vs 3.8 days, p < 0.001; USD $91 909 vs. $87 161, p < 0.001). In 2009, recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) was used more in revision fusion than in primary fusion (39.6% vs 27.6%, p < 0.001), whereas interbody devices were used less in revision fusion (41.8% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001).

In the multivariable logistic regression model for all spinal fusions, depression (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, p < 0.001), psychotic disorders (OR 1.49, p < 0.001), deficiency anaemias (OR 1.35, p < 0.001) and smoking (OR 1.10, p = 0.006) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges, adjusting for other variables. In terms of complications, after adjusting for all significant comorbidities, this study found that dural tears (OR 1.41; p < 0.001) and surgical site infections (OR 3.40; p < 0.001) had a greater chance of occurrence in revision spinal fusion discharges than in primary fusion discharges (p < 0.001). A p-value < 0.01 was considered significant in all final analyses.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:807–16.

Dysphagia is a common complication of anterior surgery of the cervical spine. The incidence of post-operative dysphagia may be as high as 71% within the first two weeks after surgery, but gradually decreases during the following months. However, 12% to 14% of patients may have some persistent dysphagia one year after the procedure. It has been shown that female gender, advanced age, multilevel surgery, longer operating time and severe pre-operative neck pain may be risk factors. Although the aetiology remains unclear and is probably multifactorial, proposed causes include oesophageal retraction, prominence of the cervical plate and prevertebral swelling. Recently, pre-operative tracheal traction exercises and the use of retropharyngeal steroids have been proposed as methods of reducing post-operative dysphagia.

We performed a systematic review to assess the incidence, aetiology, risk factors, methods of assessment and management of dysphagia following anterior cervical spinal surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:868–73.

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 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