Search

BACKGROUND: Pedicle screw malposition may result in neurological complications following posterolateral lumbar fusions (PLF). While computer-assisted navigation (NAV) and intraoperative neuromonitoring (ION) have been shown to improve safety in deformity surgeries, their use in routine PLFs remain controversial. This study assesses the risk of complications and reoperation for pedicle screw revision following PLF with and without ION and/or NAV surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analyses were performed using the Truven Health MarketScan(®) databases to identify patients that had primary PLF with and without NAV and/or ION for degenerative lumbar disorders from years 2007–2015. Patients undergoing concomitant interbody fusions, spinal deformity surgery or fusion to the thoracic spine were excluded. Complications and reoperation for pedicle screw revision within 90 days of surgery were assessed. RESULTS: During the study period, 67,264 patients underwent PLFs. NAV only was used in 3.5% of patients, ION only in 17.9% and both NAV and ION in 0.8% of patients. In univariate analyses, there was a difference in the risk of neurological injuries among groups (NAV only: 1.4%, ION only: 0.8%, NAV and ION: 0.5%, No NAV or ION: 0.6%, P

Revision hip arthroplasty in the setting of periacetabular bone loss presents a significant challenge, as options for restoring bone loss are limited. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 may offer a solution by promoting bone growth to restore bone stock before implant reimplantation. Here we present a case of a patient with a periprosthetic acetabulum fracture, resulting in pelvic discontinuity as the result of significant periacetabular bone loss. Using a staged approach, periacetabular bone stock was nearly entirely reconstituted using recombinant BMPs and allograft, which resulted in stable fixation, but with abundant heterotopic bone formation. Recombinant BMP-2 offers a useful tool for restoring bone stock in complex hip arthroplasty revision cases with periacetabular bone loss; however, caution must be used as overabundant bone growth as heterotopic ossification may result.

Background: To analyze perioperative and radiographic outcomes following revision surgery using lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) performed entirely in the lateral position. Traditionally, patients undergoing interbody fusion in the lateral decubitus position are placed prone for pedicle screw fixation. However prone positioning carries known risks and may increase surgical time due to the need to re-drape and reposition. Little is published regarding revision surgery in a single position. Methods: Sixteen patients over the age of 18 with degenerative lumbar pathology who underwent a revision of previous lumbar fusion using interbody fusion via lateral access and revision of posterior instrumentation from a single surgeon met inclusion criteria. Patients who underwent combined procedures requiring repositioning or had inadequate preoperative imaging were excluded. Patients remained in the lateral decubitus position for the entirety of the procedure including interbody placement, revision of prior instrumentation, and pedicle screw fixation. Demographics, surgical details, and perioperative outcomes were reported. Results: The mean operative time was 211 minutes for all cases, 161 minutes for single-level procedures and 296 minutes for two-level procedures. Mean estimated blood loss was 206 cc. The mean patient age was 66, 70% of which were male. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.4 and Charleson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 3. All cases were performed on the lumbar spine (T12/L1–L4/L5), with the majority of procedures performed at the L2/3 level (44%). The mean pelvic incidence (PI) was 60 degrees (range, 41–71 degrees) with mean preoperative PI/lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch of 23.9 degrees. Mean postoperative PI/LL mismatch was 12 degrees. Conclusions: Revision surgery in the lateral position is feasible with complication rates comparable to published literature. The need to reposition is eliminated and single position surgery reduces operative time.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.To compare the efficacy of the use of either bisphosphonates or teriparatide on radiographic and functional outcomes of patients that had thoracolumbar spinal fusion.Controversy exists as to whether bisphosphonates interfere with successful spinal arthrodesis. An alternative osteoporosis medication is teriparatide, a synthetic parathyroid hormone that has an anabolic effect on osteoblast function. To date, there is limited comparative data on the influence of bisphosphonates or teriparatide on spinal fusion.A systematic search of medical reference databases was conducted for comparative studies on bisphosphonate or teriparatide use after thoracolumbar spinal fusion. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model for heterogeneity. Radiographic outcomes assessed include fusion rates, risk of screw loosening, cage subsidence, and vertebral fracture.No statistically significant differences were noted between bisphosphonates and control groups regarding fusion rate and risk of screw loosening (fusion: odds ratio [OR] = 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-5.56, P = 0.09; loosening: OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.14-1.48, P = 0.19). Teriparatide use was associated with higher fusion rates than bisphosphonates (OR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.55-3.42, P 0.0001). However, no statistically significant difference was noted between teriparatide and bisphosphonates regarding risk of screw loosening (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.12-1.18, P = 0.09). Lastly, bisphosphonate use was associated with decreased odds of cage subsidence and vertebral fractures compared to controls (subsidence: OR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.11-0.75, P = 0.01; fracture: OR = 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.48, P = 0.0007).Bisphosphonates do not appear to impair successful spinal fusion compared to controls although teriparatide use is associated with higher fusion rates than bisphosphonates. In addition, bisphosphonate use is associated with decreased odds of cage subsidence and vertebral fractures compared to controls that had spinal fusion.3.

Retrospective cohort study.Assess differences between staged (≤3 days) and same-day surgery in perioperative factors, radiographic measures, and complications.Surgical adult spinal deformity correction may require combined anterior and posterior approaches. To modulate risk, some surgeons perform surgery that is expected to be longer and/or more complex in two stages. Prior studies comparing staged (≥7 days) and same-day surgery demonstrated mixed results and none have examined results with shorter staging intervals.Retrospective review of adults undergoing combined anterior/posterior approaches for spinal deformity over a 3-year period at a single institution (n=92). Univariate differences between staged and same-day surgery were assessed with chi-squared, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests. Generalized estimating equations assessed whether differences in perioperative outcomes between groups remained after adjusting for differences in demographic and surgical characteristics.In univariate analyses, staged surgery was associated with a length of stay (LOS) 3 days longer than same-day surgery (9.2 vs. 6.3 days, p.001), and greater operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirement, and days in intensive care unit (p.001 for each). Staged surgery had a higher rate of thrombotic events (p = .011) but did not differ in readmission rates or other complications. Radiographically, improvements in Cobb angle (average 13° vs. 17°, p = .028), lumbar lordosis (average 14° vs. 23°, p = .019), and PI-LL mismatch (average 10° vs. 2° p = .018) were greater for staged surgery, likely related to more extensive use of osteotomies in the staged group. After risk adjustment, taking into account the procedural specifics including longer fusion constructs and greater number of osteotomies, LOS no longer differed between staged and same-day surgery; however, the total operative time was 98 minutes longer for staged surgery (p.001). Differences in blood loss between groups was accounted for by differences in operative time and patient and surgical characteristics.Although univariate analysis of our results were in accordance with previously published works, multivariate analysis allowing individual case risk adjustment revealed that LOS was not significantly increased in the staged group as reported in previous studies. There was no difference in infection rates as previously described but an increase in thrombotic events was observed.Level III.

Purpose Glaucoma is a major cause of vision loss due to retinal ganglion cell (RGC) degeneration. Therapeutic intervention controls increased IOP, but neuroprotection is unavailable. NogoReceptor1 (NgR1) limits adult central nervous system (CNS) axonal sprouting and regeneration. We examined NgR1 blocking decoy as a potential therapy by defining the pharmacokinetics of intravitreal NgR(310)-Fc, its promotion of RGC axonal regeneration following nerve crush, and its neuroprotective effect in a microbead glaucoma model. Methods Human NgR1(310)-Fc was administered intravitreally, and levels were monitored in rat vitreal humor and retina. Axonal regeneration after optic nerve crush was assessed by cholera toxin β anterograde labeling. In a microbead model of glaucoma with increased IOP, the number of surviving and actively transporting RGCs was determined after 4 weeks by retrograde tracing with Fluro-Gold (FG) from the superior colliculus. Results After intravitreal bolus administration, the terminal half-life of NgR1(310)-Fc between 1 and 7 days was approximately 24 hours. Injection of 5 μg protein once per week after optic nerve crush injury significantly increased RGCs with regenerating axons. Microbeads delivered to the anterior chamber increased pressure, and caused 15% reduction in FG-labeled RGCs of control rats, with a 40% reduction in large diameter RGCs. Intravitreal treatment with NgR1(310)-Fc did not reduce IOP, but maintained large diameter RGC density at control levels. Conclusions Human NgR1(310)-Fc has favorable pharmacokinetics in the vitreal space and rescues large diameter RGC counts from increased IOP. Thus, the NgR1 blocking decoy protein may have efficacy as a disease-modifying therapy for glaucoma.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Suboptimal pedicle screw placement may cause neurological complications following posterolateral lumbar fusions (PLF). To decrease the risk of these complications, computer-assisted navigation (CAN) and intraoperative neuromonitoring such as electromyography (EMG) are often used during PLF to ensure safe pedicle screw placement. While CAN and EMG can improve the safety of pedicle screw placement, their routine use in PLF remains controversial. No studies have directly compared the risk of neurological complications following pedicle screw placement in PLF with and without CAN or EMG. PURPOSE Evaluate the risk of neurological injuries and risk of reoperation for pedicle screw revision/removal in patients that had PLF with and without computer-assisted navigation and/or intraoperative electromyography. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective database study. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients undergoing posterolateral lumbar fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES Neurological injuries and risk of reoperation for pedicle screw revision/removal. METHODS Retrospective longitudinal analyses were performed using the MarketScan databases from 2007 to 2014. Patients undergoing PLF surgery with and without CAN and/or EMG for degenerative lumbar disorders were identified via ICD-9-CM and CPT codes. Exclusion criteria were: age RESULTS From 2007 to 2014, 10,246 patients underwent PLFs (age 60±12 years, 58% female). CAN only was used in 5.5% of patients, EMG only in 20% and CAN and EMG in 0.87% of patients. Overall, CAN only use increased from 2.7% in 2007 to 8.72% in 2014 (p CONCLUSIONS In this retrospective review of national administrative data, we found a steady increase in the use of CAN for PLFs from 2007 to 2014. The risk of neurological complications following primary PLFs is low and the routine use of CAN and/or EMG may not decrease this risk. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Several pharmacological approaches to promote neural repair and recovery after CNS injury have been identified. Blockade of either astrocyte-derived chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) or oligodendrocyte-derived NogoReceptor (NgR1) ligands reduces extrinsic inhibition of axonal growth, though combined blockade of these distinct pathways has not been tested. The intrinsic growth potential of adult mammalian neurons can be promoted by several pathways, including pre-conditioning injury for dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons and macrophage activation for retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). Singly, pharmacological interventions have restricted efficacy without foreign cells, mechanical scaffolds or viral gene therapy. Here, we examined combinations of pharmacological approaches and assessed the degree of axonal regeneration. After mouse optic nerve crush injury, NgR1-/- neurons regenerate RGC axons as extensively as do zymosan-injected, macrophage-activated WT mice. Synergistic enhancement of regeneration is achieved by combining these interventions in zymosan-injected NgR1-/- mice. In rats with a spinal dorsal column crush injury, a preconditioning peripheral sciatic nerve axotomy, or NgR1(310)ecto-Fc decoy protein treatment or ChondroitinaseABC (ChABC) treatment independently support similar degrees of regeneration by ascending primary afferent fibers into the vicinity of the injury site. Treatment with two of these three interventions does not significantly enhance the degree of axonal regeneration. In contrast, triple therapy combining NgR1 decoy, ChABC and preconditioning, allows axons to regenerate millimeters past the spinal cord injury site. The benefit of a pre-conditioning injury is most robust, but a peripheral nerve injury coincident with, or 3 days after, spinal cord injury also synergizes with NgR1 decoy and ChABC. Thus, maximal axonal regeneration and neural repair are achieved by combining independently effective pharmacological approaches.