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

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

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

The December 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Rostral facet joint violations in robotic- and navigation-assisted pedicle screw placement; The inhibitory effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids on spinal fusion: an animal model;L5-S1 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is associated with increased revisions compared to L4-L5 TLIF at two years; Immediate versus gradual brace weaning protocols in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized clinical trial; Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualized, progressive walking, and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomized controlled trial; Usefulness and limitations of intraoperative pathological diagnosis using frozen sections for spinal cord tumours; Effect of preoperative HbA1c and blood glucose level on the surgical site infection after lumbar instrumentation surgery; How good are surgeons at achieving their alignment goals?

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

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

The April 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Lengthening behaviour of magnetically controlled growing rods in early-onset scoliosis: a multicentre study; LDL, cholesterol, and statins usage cause pseudarthrosis following lumbar interbody fusion; Decision-making in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5; Does the interfacing angle between pedicle screws and support rods affect clinical outcomes after posterior thoracolumbar fusion?; Returning to the grind: how workload influences recovery post-lumbar spine surgery; Securing the spine: a leap forward with s2 alar-iliac screws in adult spinal deformity surgery.

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.

The February 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Surgeon assessment of bone – any good?; Robotics reduces radiation exposure in some spinal surgery; Interbody fusion cage versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation; Is robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement an answer to the learning curve?; Acute non-traumatic spinal subarachnoid haematomas: a report of five cases and a systematic review of the literature; Is L4-L5 lateral interbody fusion safe and effective?

The October 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Cutting through surgical smoke: the science of cleaner air in spinal operations; Unlocking success: key factors in thoracic spine decompression and fusion for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; Deep learning algorithm for identifying cervical cord compression due to degenerative canal stenosis on radiography; Surgeon experience influences robotics learning curve for minimally invasive lumbar fusion; Decision-making algorithm for the surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5; Response to preoperative steroid injections predicts surgical outcomes in patients undergoing fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the level of upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) in frail patients undergoing surgery for adult spine deformity (ASD).

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, as well as intraoperative factors, radiation exposure, and complication rates in adult patients with degenerative disorders of the thoracic and lumbar spines who have undergone robotic-navigated spinal surgery using a contemporary system.

Aims

Repeated lumbar spine surgery has been associated with inferior clinical outcomes. This study aimed to examine and quantify the impact of this association in a national clinical register cohort.

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.

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).

We examined the reliability of radiological findings in predicting segmental instability in 112 patients (56 men, 56 women) with a mean age of 66.5 years (27 to 84) who had degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. They underwent intra-operative biomechanical evaluation using a new measurement system. Biomechanical instability was defined as a segment with a neutral zone > 2 mm/N. Risk factor analysis to predict instability was performed on radiographs (range of segmental movement, disc height), MRI (Thompson grade, Modic type), and on the axial CT appearance of the facet (type, opening, vacuum and the presence of osteophytes, subchondral erosion, cysts and sclerosis) using multivariate logistic regression analysis with a forward stepwise procedure. The facet type was classified as sagittally orientated, coronally orientated, anisotropic or wrapped.

Stepwise multivariate regression analysis revealed that facet opening was the strongest predictor for instability (odds ratio 5.022, p = 0.009) followed by spondylolisthesis, MRI grade and subchondral sclerosis. Forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression indicated that spondylolisthesis, MRI grade, facet opening and subchondral sclerosis of the facet were risk factors. Symptoms evaluated by the Short-Form 36 and visual analogue scale showed that patients with an unstable segment were in significantly more pain than those without. Furthermore, the surgical procedures determined using the intra-operative measurement system were effective, suggesting that segmental instability influences the symptoms of lumbar degenerative disease.

Fracture of a pedicle is a rare complication of spinal instrumentation using pedicular screws, but it can lead to instability and pain and may necessitate extension of the fusion. Osteosynthesis of the fractured pedicle by cerclage-wire fixation and augmentation of the screw fixation by vertebroplasty or temporary elongation of the fixation, allows stabilisation without sacrifice of the adjacent healthy segment. We describe three patients who developed a fracture of the pedicle in the most caudal instrumented vertebra early after lumbar spinal fusion.

During revision surgery the pedicles were reduced and secured by a soft cerclage wire bilaterally. Fusion was obtained at the site of the primary instrumentation and healing of the pedicles was achieved. Cerclage wiring of the fractured pedicle seems to be safe and avoids permanent extension of the fusion without the sacrifice of an otherwise healthy segment.