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 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has issued guidelines that state fusion for non-specific low back pain should only be performed as part of a randomised controlled trial, and that lumbar disc replacement should not be performed. Thus, spinal fusion and disc replacement will no longer be routine forms of treatment for patients with low back pain. This annotation considers the evidence upon which these guidelines are based.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1003–1005.

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).

A review of the current literature shows that there is a lack of consensus regarding the treatment of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis in children and adolescents. Most of the views and recommendations provided in various reports are weakly supported by evidence. There is a limited amount of information about the natural history of the condition, making it difficult to compare the effectiveness of various conservative and operative treatments. This systematic review summarises the current knowledge on spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis and attempts to present a rational approach to the evaluation and management of this condition in children and adolescents.

Wrong-level surgery is a unique pitfall in spinal surgery and is part of the wider field of wrong-site surgery. Wrong-site surgery affects both patients and surgeons and has received much media attention. We performed this systematic review to determine the incidence and prevalence of wrong-level procedures in spinal surgery and to identify effective prevention strategies. We retrieved 12 studies reporting the incidence or prevalence of wrong-site surgery and that provided information about prevention strategies. Of these, ten studies were performed on patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery and two on patients undergoing lumbar, thoracic or cervical spine procedures. A higher frequency of wrong-level surgery in lumbar procedures than in cervical procedures was found. Only one study assessed preventative strategies for wrong-site surgery, demonstrating that current site-verification protocols did not prevent about one-third of the cases. The current literature does not provide a definitive estimate of the occurrence of wrong-site spinal surgery, and there is no published evidence to support the effectiveness of site-verification protocols. Further prevention strategies need to be developed to reduce the risk of wrong-site surgery.

The June 2012 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: back pain; spinal fusion for tuberculosis; anatomical course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve; groin pain with normal imaging; the herniated intervertebral disc; obesity’s effect on the spine; the medicolegal risks of cauda equina syndrome; and intravenous lidocaine use and failed back surgery syndrome.

Patients with Bertolotti’s syndrome have characteristic lumbosacral anomalies and often have severe sciatica. We describe a patient with this syndrome in whom standard decompression of the affected nerve root failed, but endoscopic lumbosacral extraforaminal decompression relieved the symptoms.

We suggest that the intractable sciatica in this syndrome could arise from impingement of the nerve root extraforaminally by compression caused by the enlarged transverse process.

Between March 2000 and February 2006, we carried out a prospective study of 100 patients with a low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding grade II or below), who were randomised to receive a single-level and instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with either one or two cages. The minimum follow-up was for two years. At this stage 91 patients were available for review. A total of 47 patients received one cage (group 1) and 44 two cages (group 2). The clinical and radiological outcomes of the two groups were compared.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of post-operative pain, Oswestry Disability Score, clinical results, complication rate, percentage of post-operative slip, anterior fusion rate or posterior fusion rate. On the other hand, the mean operating time was 144 minutes (100 to 240) for patients in group 1 and 167 minutes (110 to 270) for those in group 2 (p = 0.0002). The mean blood loss up to the end of the first post-operative day was 756 ml (510 to 1440) in group 1 and 817 ml (620 to 1730) in group 2 (p < 0.0001).

Our results suggest that an instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with either one or two cages in addition to a bone graft around the cage has a low rate of complications and a high fusion rate. The clinical outcomes were good in most cases, regardless of whether one or two cages had been used.

Recurrence of back or leg pain after discectomy is a well-recognised problem with an incidence of up to 28%. Once conservative measures have failed, several surgical options are available and have been tried with varying degrees of success. In this study, 42 patients with recurrent symptoms after discectomy underwent less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (LI-PLIF). Clinical outcome was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires and visual analogue scales for back (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP). There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome measures (p < 0.001). The debate around which procedure is the most effective for these patients remains controversial.

Our results show that LI-PLIF is as effective as any other surgical procedure. However, given that it is less invasive, we feel that it should be considered as the preferred option.

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.

The April 2012 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at yoga for lower back pain, spinal tuberculosis, complications of spinal surgery, fusing the subaxial cervical spine, minimally invasive surgery and osteoporotic vertebral fractures, spinal surgery in the over 65s, and pain relief after spinal surgery

There have been few reports regarding the efficacy of posterior instrumentation alone as surgical treatment for patients with pyogenic spondylitis, thus avoiding the morbidity of anterior surgery. We report the clinical outcomes of six patients with pyogenic spondylitis treated effectively with a single-stage posterior fusion without anterior debridement at a mean follow-up of 2.8 years (2 to 5). Haematological data, including white cell count and level of C-reactive protein, returned to normal in all patients at a mean of 8.2 weeks (7 to 9) after the posterior fusion. Rigid bony fusion between the infected vertebrae was observed in five patients at a mean of 6.3 months (4.5 to 8) post-operatively, with the remaining patient having partial union. Severe back pain was immediately reduced following surgery and the activities of daily living showed a marked improvement. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was detected as the causative organism in four patients.

Single-stage posterior fusion may be effective in patients with pyogenic spondylitis who have relatively minor bony destruction.

The aim of this study was to determine whether obesity affects pain, surgical and functional outcomes following lumbar spinal fusion for low back pain (LBP).

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was made of those studies that compared the outcome of lumbar spinal fusion for LBP in obese and non-obese patients. A total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no difference in the pain and functional outcomes. Lumbar spinal fusion in the obese patient resulted in a statistically significantly greater intra-operative blood loss (weighted mean difference: 54.04 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.08 to 93.00; n = 112; p = 0.007) more complications (odds ratio: 1.91; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.18; n = 43858; p < 0.001) and longer duration of surgery (25.75 mins; 95% CI 15.61 to 35.90; n = 258; p < 0.001). Obese patients have greater intra-operative blood loss, more complications and longer duration of surgery but pain and functional outcome are similar to non-obese patients. Based on these results, obesity is not a contraindication to lumbar spinal fusion.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1395–1404.

We present an illustrative case using a modification of the Gaines procedure for the surgical management of patients with spondyloptosis. It involves excision of the inferior half of the body of L5 anteriorly combined with posterior reduction and fusion.

We describe the results of a prospective case series of patients with spondylolysis, evaluating a technique of direct stabilisation of the pars interarticularis with a construct that consists of a pair of pedicle screws connected by a U-shaped modular link passing beneath the spinous process. Tightening the link to the screws compresses bone graft in the defect in the pars, providing rigid intrasegmental fixation. We have carried out this procedure on 20 patients aged between nine and 21 years with a defect of the pars at L5, confirmed on CT. The mean age of the patients was 13.9 years (9 to 21). They had a grade I or less spondylolisthesis and no evidence of intervertebral degeneration on MRI. The mean follow-up was four years (2.3 to 7.3). The patients were assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). At the latest follow-up, 18 patients had an excellent clinical outcome, with a significant (p < 0.001) improvement in their ODI and VAS scores. The mean ODI score at final follow-up was 8%. Assessment of the defect by CT showed a rate of union of 80%. There were no complications involving the internal fixation.

The strength of the construct removes the need for post-operative immobilisation.