Search

Background: This study aimed to assess whether preoperative Hounsfield unit (HU) values differ in short-term clinical outcomes after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery. Methods: In a retrospective analysis, 109 patients undergoing LLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD) were reviewed. Preoperative Computed Tomography (CT) scans measured HU values at the L1–L4 vertebrae, dividing patients into low and high HU groups. After conducting a cluster analysis of preoperative Hounsfield unit (HU) values, patients were categorized into low and high HU groups using propensity score matching (PSM). The outcomes measured one-year post-surgery included pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scales for Low Back Pain (NRSLBP), Leg Pain (NRSLP), and Leg Numbness (NRSLN)) and quality of life (Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire: JOABPEQ). Results: After PSM, there were 26 patients in each group. Significant improvements were noted in both low and high HU groups post-surgery, with the low HU group showing a decrease in NRSLBP from 6.2 to 3.7, NRSLP from 7.4 to 2.5, and NRSLN from 6.4 to 3.0. The high HU group exhibited similar improvements (NRSLBP: 6.5 to 3.6, NRSLP: 6.3 to 2.5, NRSLN: 6.2 to 2.4). JOABPEQ scores improved significantly in both groups across all domains, with no significant differences observed. Preoperative HU values have little correlation with the short-term outcomes of pain and quality of life in LLIF surgery. Conclusions: This study suggests reconsidering the role of HU values following indirect decompression via LLIF, particularly in evaluating pain and patient-reported outcome measures in patients with LDD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial. Objectives: No prospective studies have directly compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). We compared the short-term radiographic, clinical outcomes, and some complications of the unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) (UPS) vs bilateral PPS (BPS) fixation in short-level spinal fusion with LLIF for LDD. Methods: This was a prospective randomized controlled study of 33 patients who underwent UPS or BPS fixation after LLIF for LDD; 18 patients were assigned to the UPS group and 15 patients to the BPS group. Clinical outcomes, complication rates, and fusion rates were assessed. Results: The two groups were similar in age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, and level of surgery. Blood loss, length of hospital stay, and numeric rating scale score one year after surgery did not differ between groups. The operative time was longer in the BPS than UPS group (120.2 vs 88.8 min, respectively; P =.029). Both groups showed improvement in disc height and dural sac in the immediate postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which did not differ significantly between groups. The subsidence grade and fusion rate did not differ, but cage subsidence was more severe in the UPS than BPS group. Conclusion: Unilateral and bilateral PPS fixation after LLIF yielded similar short-term clinical and radiological outcomes. However, severe cage subsidence was more common in the UPS group, which suggests that BPS fixation after LLIF may be a better choice over the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study design: Retrospective case-series study Objectives: To assess (1) low cone beam CT (CBCT) mediated intraoperative navigation to limit radiation exposure without compromising surgical accuracy, and (2) the potential of intraoperative C-arm CBCT navigation to augment pedicle screw (PS) placement accuracy in AIS surgery compared to pre-surgery CT-based planning. Methods: The first part involved a prospective phantom study, comparing radiation doses for conventional CT, and standard (6sDCT) and a low dose (5sDCT) Artis Zeego®-imaging. Next, 5sDCT- and 6sDCT-navigation were compared on PS accuracy and radiation exposure during AIS correction. The final part compared surgical AIS deformity correction through intraoperative 5sDCT navigation to a matched cohort treated using conventional pre-surgery CT-scans for navigation. Outcome parameters included operation time, skin dose (SD), dose area product (DAP), intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and PS deviation rates. Results: The phantom study demonstrated a reduction in radiation for the 5sDCT protocol. Moreover, 5sDCT-imaged patients (n = 15) showed a significantly lower SD (-27.41%) and DAP (-30.92%), without compromising PS accuracy compared with 6sDCT-settings (n = 15). Finally, AIS correction through intraoperative CBCT C-arm navigation (n = 27) significantly reduced screw deviation rates (6.83% versus 10.75%, P =.016) without increasing operation times, compared with conventional CT (n = 37). Conclusions: Intraoperative navigation using a CBCT C-arm system improved the accuracy of PS insertion and reduced surgery time. Moreover, it reduced radiation exposure compared with conventional CT, which was further curtailed by adapting the low-dose 5sDCT protocol. In short, our study highlights the benefits of intraoperative CBCT navigation for PS placement in AIS surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A retrospective observational study. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Global Alignment and Proportion (GAP) score and mechanical failure (MF) following corrective fusion surgery with planned 2-stage surgery using lateral lumbar interbody fusion in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: Fifty-four patients (2 men, 52 females, aged 70.3 years) were included. MF, proximal junctional failure (PJF), and rod breakage (RB) occurred in 46.3% (25/54), 22.2% (12/54), and 29.6% (16/54) of patients, respectively. The immediate postoperative GAP scores were compared between patients with MF and without MF (MF+ and MF-, respectively). GAP scores in groups with and without PJF or RB were also compared. Results: Patients were grouped according to the GAP score for spinopelvic alignment: 23 (42.6%) as proportioned, 22 (40.7%) as moderately disproportioned, and 9 (16.7%) as severely disproportioned. The pre- and postoperative spinopelvic parameters did not differ significantly between the MF- and MF+ groups except pelvic incidence. Postoperatively, the mean pelvic incidence—lumbar lordosis changed to <10° in both groups. The GAP score and 3 categories of GAP scores did not differ significantly between the PJF- and PJF+ groups or between the RB+ and RB- groups. Conclusion: Multiple factors can cause PJF and RB, and the patient's background may affect the ability to use the GAP score to predict MF. Further research may be needed in the future using modified GAP scores with additional factors in ASD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]