Search

Study Design: An in vitro biomechanical study in porcine thoracic spine segments comparing range of motion (ROM) in segmental versus multiple nonsegmental ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) sublaminar wire constructs.Objective: To determine the effect of varying instrumentation (wire) density in an UHMWPE sublaminar wire construct for patients with early-onset scoliosis (EOS) to find an optimal wire density, which allows maximum growth whereas still providing adequate correction and fixation.Summary Of Background Data: UHMWPE sublaminar wires in a segmental construct did not negatively affect longitudinal spinal growth during a 24-week period in an ovine model; application in growth guidance system for EOS may therefore be feasible. To avoid ectopic bone formation as much as possible, a reduction of instrumented levels, without affecting spinal stabilization, is desirable.Methods: ROM of 9 porcine thoracic spines (T6-T14) was determined in flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation up to ± 4 Nm. Tests were performed for the uninstrumented spine in a segmental construct with UHMWPE sublaminar wires and dual pedicle screws at the most caudal level, and in four nonsegmental constructs that were attained by stepwise removal of the most caudal wire.Results: Segmental instrumentation led to a decrease in total ROM by approximately 70% for both FE and LB. A stepwise increase in ROM with decreasing number of consecutively instrumented levels was most clearly observed in LB. However, consistent significant but also relevant substantial differences in ROM for both FE and LB were noted only when comparing two and one consecutively instrumented end levels (P < 0.05).Conclusion: A construct with two consecutive end levels instrumented with UHMWPE sublaminar wires seems to provide the best balance between spinal stabilization and minimizing the number of instrumented levels and thereby surgical exposure, which is crucial for allowing longitudinal growth.Level Of Evidence: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Web-based multicenter study.Objective: The aim of the study was to assess and compare the management strategy for traumatic thoracolumbar fractures between German and Dutch spine surgeons.Summary Of Background Data: To date, there is no evidence-based treatment algorithm for thoracolumbar spine fractures, thereby an international controversy concerning optimal treatment exists.Methods: In this web-based multicenter study (www.spine.hostei.com), computed tomography scans of traumatic thoracolumbar fractures (T12-L2) were evaluated by German and Dutch spine surgeons. Supplementary case-specific information such as age, sex, height, weight, neurological status, and injury mechanism were provided.By using a questionnaire, fractures were classified according to the AO-Magerl Classification, followed by 6 questions concerning the treatment algorithm. Data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 21, 76, Chicago, IL). The interobserver agreement was determined by using Cohen κ. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.Results: Twelve surgeons (6 per country) evaluated each 91 cases. The fractures were classified as AO Type A in 82% (898 votes), Type B in 14% (150 votes), and Type C in 4% (44 votes). No significant difference concerning the AO Classification between German and Dutch spine surgeons was found. Overall German spine surgeons had a lower threshold concerning the indication for surgical treatment (Ger 87% vs. NL 30%; P < 0.05). There was a consensus about operative stabilization of AO Type B and C injuries and injuries with neurologic deficit, whereas a discrepancy in the therapeutic algorithm for AO Type A fractures was observed. This difference was most pronounced regarding the indication for posterior (Ger 96.6%; NL 41.2%; P < 0.05) and circumferential stabilization (Ger 53.4%; NL 0%; P < 0.05) for burst fractures.Conclusion: There is a consensus to stabilize AO Type B and C fractures, whereas country-specific differences in the treatment of Type A fractures, especially in case of burst fractures, occur. Prospective, controlled multicenter outcome studies may provide more evidence in optimal treatment for thoracolumbar fractures.Level Of Evidence: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A prospective, Phase IV, multicenter, randomized study.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare vertebral fusion success rates following posterolateral fusion [(PLF)/posterolateral intertransverse fusion (PITF)] surgery. The surgical procedure combined posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and PLF with internal fixation over one or two levels using silicated calcium phosphate (SiCaP) or bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2 as graft material in patients with a degenerative disorder of the lumbar spine.Summary Of Background Data: Few controlled trials have evaluated the bone graft materials available to surgeons treating patients with spinal disorders, including degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and disc herniation.Methods: Following randomization, the surgical procedure consisting of PLIF and PLF with internal fixation over one or two levels was performed using SiCaP or BMP-2. No other osteoconductive/osteoinductive graft materials were permitted. Spinal fusion was assessed radiographically at ≤24 months. Clinical outcomes (pain on visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36) and adverse events (AEs) were monitored.Results: One hundred three patients were enrolled. At 12 months, fusion was achieved in 25 of 35 (71.4%) of the SiCaP and 20 of 27 (74.1%) of the BMP-2 group, respectively (P = 1.000). At 24 months, the fusion rate was 78.6% and 84.8% for SiCaP and BMP-2, respectively (P = 0.5613). Clinical outcomes improved similarly in both groups over time. AEs were consistent with this surgical population.Conclusion: SiCaP was safe and well tolerated in patients with degenerative spinal disorders requiring PLF and provided fusion rates similar to BMP-2.Level Of Evidence: 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]