Search

Background: Proximal junction kyphosis (PJK) is the postsurgical radiographic event seen in the surgical plane after the fusion of a spinal deformity. Unfavorable health outcomes have been reported in symptomatic PJK patients compared to non-PJK patients., Methods: The data for adult scoliosis patients who underwent curve correction were extracted from the hospital database. Pelvic and spinal parameters were measured and calculated to compare four predictive formulae for occurrences of PJK. Formula 1. Restoration of hypothetical values of lumbar lordosis (LL) and thoracic kyphosis (TK) according to pelvic incidence (PI). Formula 2. Evaluation of global sagittal alignment. Formula 3. Restoration of the apex of LL to its hypothetical position according to the spine shape. Formula 4. Evaluation of positive-sum and negative-sum of (LL + TK)., Results: A total number of cases were 52. There were 14 cases of PJK. The incidence of PJK was 26.9%, and the mean age for PJK cases was 63.2 ± 5.2. The excellent predictor for occurrences of PJK was formula 3. Postsurgical sagittal apexes of lumbar lordosis were located in their hypothetical position in 24 cases, and 12.5% of these cases developed PJK. While sagittal apexes were not located in their hypothetical position in 28 patients, PJK occurred in 39.3% of them ( P =0.03, OR: 4.53, (95% CI: 1.09-18.9)). The second good predictor for occurrences of PJK was formula 2 (GSA >45° versus GSA <45° OR = 2.5, (95% CI: 0.67-9.38), P =0.17). The other two formulae (1 and 4) were not good predictors for occurrences of PJK., Conclusion: Among the four proposed formulae for predicting occurrences of PJK, the position of the sagittal apex of lumbar lordosis is an excellent predictor of the development of PJK, followed by GSA. Hypothetical values of LL and TK, and positive or negative-sum of (LL + TK), are weak predictors for occurrences of PJK., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Daudi R. Manini et al.)

Background: Biomechanical properties of rods determine their ability to correct spinal deformity and prevention of postoperative sagittal and coronal changes. The selection of a proper rod material is crucial due to their specific mechanical properties that influence the surgical outcome. The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cobalt chromium rods versus titanium rods for the treatment of spinal deformity by a systematic review and meta-analysis., Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library were searched for observational and biomechanical studies comparing cobalt chromium and titanium rods in terms of correction rate, thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, incidence of rod fracture, fatigue life of contoured rod, bending stiffness of rods, and occurrence of proximal junctional kyphosis. The demographic data and mean values of outcomes of interest were extracted from each group and compared by their mean difference as an overall outcome measure. The Review Manager software (RevMan 5.3) was utilized at a 95% significance level., Results: Eleven eligible studies with 641 participants for 7 observational studies and 35 samples for 4 biomechanical studies were identified. There were no significant differences between cobalt chromium and titanium rods in the correction rate of spinal deformity. Postoperative thoracic kyphosis was well restored in the cobalt chromium group with statistical significance ( p value = 0.009). The incidence of rod fracture was high in titanium rods compared to cobalt chromium rods with significant difference ( p value = 0.0001). Proximal junctional kyphosis occurs more in the cobalt chromium group with a significant difference ( p value = 0.0009). No statistical significance between two materials in terms of lumbar lordosis, fatigue of life, and bending stiffness of rods., Conclusion: The cobalt chromium rod is better than titanium rod for effective correction of spinal deformity and postoperative stability of the spine. However, the use of cobalt chromium rods is associated with increased risk of proximal junctional kyphosis., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article., (Copyright © 2020 Frank D. Shega et al.)

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been used very successfully in enhancing bone fusion in animal experiments. Also, the efficaciousness of PRP in other specialties of medicine such as dentistry, dermatology ophthalmology, and sports medicine is well documented. But the use of PRP to augment bone fusion after spinal surgery in humans is still controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the role of PRP in enhancing spinal fusion by fastening the rate of new bone formation and decreasing pain after spinal surgery in humans., Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library studies that compared PRP versus control in enhancing spinal fusion after deformity correction., Results: Five retrospective studies with 253 participants and nine prospective cohort studies with 460 participants were identified. The bone fusion rate was excellent for studies that used a high platelet concentration in PRP relative to control (odds ratio (OR) = 4.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) (2.13, 8.83), and P < 0.05) while bone fusion was poor to studies that used a low concentrate of platelet in PRP relative to control. The rate of new bone formation was high in the PRP group compared to the control group with the mean difference in Hounsfield unit (HU) 144.91 (95% CI (80.63, 209.18), P < 0.05). Time to bone fusion was short in the PRP group during the first six months of surgery relative to the control group with a mean difference of -2.03 (95% CI (-2.35, -1.7); P < 0.05). No difference was found in pain reduction by visual analog score (VAS) between the PRP group and control., Conclusion: PRP facilitates new bone formation and bone fusion with a minimum concentration of the growth factor 5 times that of the peripheral blood. PRP stimulatory effects are not continuous and are very effective within six months of implantation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Daudi R. Manini et al.)