Search

Study designRetrospective cohort study of prospectively accrued data.ObjectiveTo evaluate a large, prospective, multicentre dataset of surgically treated degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) cases on the contemporary risk of C5 palsy with surgical approach.Summary of background dataThe influence of surgical technique on postoperative C5 palsy after decompression for DCM is intensely debated. Comprehensive, covariate-adjusted analyses are needed using contemporary data.MethodsPatients with moderate to severe DCM were prospectively enrolled in the multicenter, randomized, Phase III CSM-Protect clinical trial and underwent either anterior or posterior decompression between Jan 31, 2012 and May 16, 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative C5 palsy, defined as the onset of muscle weakness by at least one grade in manual muscle test at the C5 myotome with slight or absent sensory disruption after cervical surgery. Two comparative cohorts were made based on the anterior or posterior surgical approach. Multivariate hierarchical mixed-effects logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for C5 palsy.ResultsA total of 283 patients were included, and 53.4% underwent posterior decompression. The total incidence of postoperative C5 palsy was 7.4% and was significantly higher in patients who underwent posterior decompression compared with anterior decompression (11.26% vs. 3.03%, P =0.008). After multivariable regression, the posterior approach was independently associated with greater than four times the likelihood of postoperative C5 palsy ( P =0.017). Rates of C5 palsy recovery were comparable between the two surgical approaches.ConclusionThe odds of postoperative C5 palsy are significantly higher after posterior decompression compared to anterior decompression for DCM. This may influence surgical decision-making when there is equipoise in deciding between anterior and posterior treatment options for DCM.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level-II.

Background and objectivesTraumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) remains a devastating condition with no proven effective treatment options available. In a prior single-arm study of patients with thoracic complete SCI (INSPIRE; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02138110), acute implantation of an investigational bioresorbable polymer scaffold (Neuro-Spinal Scaffold [NSS]) appeared to be safe through 24 months postimplantation and was associated with an American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) conversion rate that exceeded historical controls. Here, we evaluated whether NSS implantation demonstrates probable benefit for safety and neurological recovery in patients with thoracic complete SCI vs standard-of-care spine surgery.MethodsINSPIRE 2.0 was a randomized, controlled, parallel, multicenter study conducted at Level I trauma centers in the United States (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762655; funded by InVivo Therapeutics Corporation). Patients with AIS grade A, thoracic (T2-T12), nonpenetrating SCI requiring spine surgery ≤7 days postinjury were randomized (1:1, computer-generated allocation) to undergo NSS implantation or spine surgery alone (control group). Patients and follow-up International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI assessors were blinded. A predefined study success criterion required the proportion of patients with improvement of ≥1 AIS grade at 6 months postsurgery (primary endpoint) to be ≥20% higher in the NSS group than in the control group.ResultsTarget enrollment was reached (N = 20) with 10 patients randomized and analyzed in each group. At 6 months postsurgery, an improvement in the AIS grade was reported in 2 NSS patients (20%; both to AIS C) and 3 control group patients (30%; to AIS B [n = 2] or AIS C [n = 1]). No serious or unanticipated adverse device effects were reported. The study was closed to further follow-up because of not meeting its primary endpoint.ConclusionIn this small group of patients with thoracic complete (AIS A) SCI, implantation of an intraparenchymal bioresorbable scaffold did not produce probable clinical benefit. However, this study provides evidence that surgical intervention in an injured spinal cord parenchyma may be performed safely.

BackgroundLaminectomy with fusion (LF) and laminoplasty (LP) are common posterior decompression procedures used to treat multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). There is debate on their relative efficacy and safety for treatment of DCM. The goal of this study is to examine outcomes and costs of LF and LP procedures for DCM.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of adult patients (.05). Patients were successfully weaned off opioids at similar rates (LF: 88%, LP: 86%). Fixed and variable costs respectively with LF cases hospital were higher, 15.7% and 25.7% compared to LP cases (p=.03 and p

BackgroundGiven the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to activities of daily living and cost, it is critical to fully understand the health care economic impact of enabling technologies. The use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM) during spine surgery has long been controversial. Questions pertaining to utility, medico-legal considerations, and cost-effectiveness continue to be unresolved. The purpose of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness by assessing quality-of-life due to adverse events averted, decreased postoperative pain, decreased revision rates, and improved patient reported outcomes (PROs).MethodsThe study patient population was extracted from a large multicenter database collected by a single, national IOM provider. Over 50,000 patient charts were abstracted and included in this analysis. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the second panel on cost-effectiveness health and medicine. Health-related utility was derived from questionnaire answers and expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for IOM. A value under the commonly accepted United States-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. Scenario (including litigation), probabilistic (PSA), and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration.ResultsThe primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2-years following index surgery. On average, index surgery for patients with IOM costs are approximately $1,547 greater than non-IOM cases. The base case assumed an inpatient Medicare population however multiple outpatient and payer scenarios were assessed in the sensitivity analysis. From a health system perspective IOM is cost-effective, yielding better utilities but at a higher cost than the non-IOM strategy (ICER $60,734 per QALY). From a societal perspective the IOM strategy was dominant, suggesting that better outcomes were achieved at less cost. Except for an entirely privately insured population, alternative scenarios such as, outpatient and a 50:50 Medicare/privately insured population sample also demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Notably, IOM benefits were unable to overcome the sheer costs associated many litigation scenarios, but the data was severely limited. In the 5,000 iteration PSA, at a WTP of $100,000, 74% of simulations using IOM were cost-effective.ConclusionsThe use of IOM in spine surgery is cost-effective in most scenarios examined. In the emerging and rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and the health care system.

BackgroundMultilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (mACDF) is the gold standard for multilevel spinal disease; although safe and effective, mACDF can limit regular spinal motion and contribute to adjacent segment disease (ASD). Hybrid surgery, composed of ACDF and cervical disc arthroplasty, has the potential to reduce ASD by retaining spinal mobility. This study examined the safety of hybrid surgery by utilizing administrative claims data to compare real-world rates of subsequent surgery and post-procedural hospitalization within populations of patients undergoing hybrid surgery versus mACDF for multilevel spinal disease.MethodsThis observational, retrospective analysis used the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Database from July 2013 through June 2020. Propensity score matched cohorts of patients who received hybrid surgery or mACDF were established based on the presence of spinal surgery procedure codes in the claims data and followed over a variable post-period. Rates of subsequent surgery and post-procedural hospitalization (30- and 90-day) were compared between hybrid surgery and mACDF cohorts.ResultsA total of 430 hybrid surgery patients and 2,136 mACDF patients qualified for the study; average follow-up was approximately 2 years. Similar rates of subsequent surgery (Hybrid: 1.9 surgeries/100 patient-years; mACDF: 1.8 surgeries/100 patient-years) were observed for the two cohorts. Hospitalization rates were also similar across cohorts at 30 days post-procedure (Hybrid: 0.67% hospitalized/patient-year; mACDF: 0.87% hospitalized/patient-year). At 90 days post-procedure, hybrid surgery patients had slightly lower rates of hospitalization compared to mACDF patients (0.23% versus 0.42% hospitalized/patient-year; p

BackgroundBased on 6-month data from the InVivo Study of Probable Benefit of the Neuro-Spinal Scaffold for Safety and Neurological Recovery in Patients with Complete Thoracic Spinal Cord Injury (INSPIRE) study (NCT02138110), acute implantation of an investigational bioresorbable polymer device (Neuro-Spinal Scaffold [NSS]) appeared to be safe in patients with complete thoracic spinal cord injury (SCI) and was associated with an ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) conversion rate that exceeded historical controls.ObjectiveTo evaluate outcomes through 24 months postimplantation.MethodsINSPIRE was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, single-arm study. Eligible patients had traumatic nonpenetrating SCI with a visible contusion on MRI, AIS A classification, neurological level of injury at T2-T12, and requirement for open spine surgery ≤96 hours postinjury.ResultsNineteen patients underwent NSS implantation. Three patients had early death determined by investigators to be unrelated to the NSS or its implantation procedure. Seven of 16 evaluable patients (44%) had improvement of ≥1 AIS grade at 6 months (primary end point) to AIS B (n = 5) or AIS C (n = 2). Three patients with AIS B at 6 months had further neurological improvement to AIS C by 12 (n = 2) and 24 (n = 1) months, respectively; none have deteriorated per latest available follow-up. No unanticipated or serious adverse device effects were reported.ConclusionIn this small group of patients with complete thoracic SCI, acute NSS implantation within the spinal cord appeared to be safe with no long-term neurological issues identified during the 24-month follow-up. Patients remain stable, with additional AIS conversions observed in some patients at 12 months and beyond. These data further support the safety and probable benefit of NSS implantation in this patient population.

BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgery to treat cervical degenerative disc disease. Use of an anterior spacer and plate system (ASPS) results in increased disc height, higher fusion rate, lower subsidence rate, and lower complication rate than a spacer alone.1,2 However, anterior cervical plating is associated with complications, such as dysphagia, plate-screw dislodgment, soft tissue injury, neural injury, and esophageal perforation.3-9 To potentially reduce these drawbacks, integrated spacer and plate (ISP) systems have gained popularity.MethodsFrom November 2009 to October 2013, a total of 84 consecutive patients who underwent 2-level ACDF using ISP or ASPS were reviewed for clinical and radiographic outcomes. Patient-reported visual analog scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores, fusion rates, and hardware failure were determined at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery.ResultsForty-three patients received ISP and 41 patients received ASPS. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between the 2 groups. Perioperative characteristics were similar, except for operative time. Postoperatively, no significant differences in VAS or NDI scores or fusion status were found. At the proximal surgical level only, there was a trend toward an earlier observed radiographic fusion rate in ASPS vs ISP, but this finding was not statistically significant (P = 0.092). One case of long-term dysphagia was reported in each group. Neither group had implant failures up to 2 years.ConclusionsThe ISP system for 2-level ACDF compared to traditional ASPS has comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes up to 2 years postoperatively. There may be a trend toward an earlier observed radiographic fusion in the ASPS group, but there was no difference in long-term dysphagia rate.Clinical relavanceIntegrated spacer and traditional anterior spacer for 2-level ACDF has similar clinical and radiographical outcome.Level of evidence: 4

Background: Given the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to motion preservation, activities of daily living, and cost, it is critical to fully understand the healthcare economic impact of new devices being tested in large FDA randomized controlled trials (RCT). The purpose of this analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the novel Total Posterior Spine (TOPS™) System investigational device compared with the trial control group, standard transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TOPS™ compared with TLIF. Methods: The study patient population was extracted from a multicenter RCT with current enrollment at n=121 with complete 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness, expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcomes were health-related utility, presented as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost, calculated in US dollars. Analysis was conducted following Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness Health and Medicine recommendations. The base case analysis utilized SF-36 survey data from the RCT. Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. A cohort Markov model was constructed to analyze perioperative and postoperative costs and QALYs for both TOPS™ and control groups. Scenario, probabilistic, and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration. Results: The primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2 years after index surgery. From a health system perspective, assuming a 50/50 split between Medicare and private payers, the TOPS™ cohort is cost-effective 2 years postoperatively ($6158/QALY) compared with control. At 6 years and beyond, TOPS™ becomes dominant, irrespective of payer mix and surgical setting. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000/QALY, 63% of all 5000 input parameter simulations favor TOPS, even with a $4000 upcharge vs TLIF. Discussion: The novel TOPS™ device is cost-effective compared with TLIF and becomes the dominant economic strategy over time. Conclusions: In the emerging, rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and society.

Acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) can result in severe, lifelong neurological deficits. After SCI, Rho activation contributes to collapse of axonal growth cones, failure of axonal regeneration, and neuronal loss. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b/3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of Rho inhibitor VX-210 (9 mg) in patients after acute traumatic cervical SCI. The study enrolled patients 14-75 years of age with acute traumatic cervical SCIs, C4-C7 (motor level) on each side, and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) Grade A or B who had spinal decompression/stabilization surgery commencing within 72 h after injury. Patients were randomized 1:1 with stratification by age (

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate whether anterior cervical spine surgery offers sustained (7 years) relief in patients with cervicogenic headaches (CGHs), and evaluate the difference between cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for 1 and 2-level surgeries from a multicenter randomized clinical trial. METHODS:A post hoc analysis was performed of 575 patients who underwent one or 2-level CDA or ACDF for symptomatic cervical spondylosis as part of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Assessment of pain and functional outcome was done with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in the trial. We used the NDI headache component to assess headache outcome. RESULTS:For both 1- and 2-level CDA and ACDF groups, there was significant headache improvement from preoperative baseline out to 7 years (p < 0.0001). For 1-level surgeries, headache improvement was similar for both groups at the 7-year point. For 2-level treatment, CDA patients had significantly improved headache scores versus ACDF patients at the 7-year point (p = 0.016). CONCLUSION:The headache improvement noted at early follow-up was sustained over the long-term period with ACDF and CDA populations. In the case of 2-level operations, CDA patients demonstrated significantly greater benefit compared to ACDF patients over the long-term. Sinuvertebral nerve irritation at the unco-vasculo-radicular junction and anterior dura may be the cause of CGH. Therefore, it is possible that improved cervical kinematics and preservation of range of motion at adjacent uncovertebral joints in CDA may contribute to the observed difference between the groups.

BackgroundWith the COVID-19 pandemic disrupting many facets of our society, physicians and patients have begun using telemedicine as a platform for the delivery of health care. One of the challenges in implementing telemedicine for the spine care provider is completing a comprehensive spinal examination. Currently, there is no standardized methodology to complete a full spinal examination through telemedicine.MethodsWe propose a novel, remote spinal examination methodology that is easily implemented through telemedicine, where the patient is an active participant in the successful completion of his or her examination. This type of examination has been validated in a neurology setting. To facilitate the telemedicine visit, we propose that video instruction be shared with the patient prior to the telemedicine visit to increase the efficacy of the examination.ResultsSince the issuance of stay-at-home order across the states, many spine practices around the country have rapidly adopted and increased their telemedicine program to continue provide care for patients during COVID-19 pandemic. At a tertiary academic center in a busy metropolitan area, nearly 700 telemedicine visits were successfully conducted during a 4-week period. There were no remote visits being done prior to the shutdown.ConclusionsImplementation of our proposed remote spinal examination has the potential to serve as a guideline for the spine care provider to efficiently assess patients with spine disease using telemedicine. Because these are only suggestions, providers should tailor examination to each individual patient's needs.Level of evidenceV.Clinical relevanceIt is likely that physicians will incorporate telemedicine into health care delivery services even after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides because of telemedicine's efficiency in meeting patient needs. Using the standard maneuvers provided in our study, spine care providers can perform a nearly comprehensive spine examination through telemedicine. Further studies will be needed to validate the reproducibility and reliability of our methodology.

Objective Traditionally, laminectomy has been the preferred surgical approach for the resection of intradural spinal tumors. Recent trends towards minimally invasive techniques have generated interest in hemilaminectomy as an effective alternative surgical approach to resect spinal tumors. However, it remains unclear if the potential benefits of hemilaminectomies, used in other routine spinal procedures, apply to intradural spinal tumors. This report presents a six-year single institutional analysis of open resection of intradural tumors using laminectomies as compared to hemilaminectomies. Methods A single institution, multisurgeon, retrospective review of 52 patients undergoing resection of intradural spinal tumors over a six-year period was performed. Estimated blood loss, operative time, post-operative complications, length of stay, and post-operative clinical spinal instability were analyzed and compared between the two surgical techniques. Results The mean follow-up was 34 and 20 months for the laminectomy and hemilaminectomy groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in operative times between the two groups (hemilaminectomy: 250.13±76.44 minutes, laminectomy: 244.49±92.85 minutes; p=0.43). Similarly, there was no difference in overall estimated blood loss (hemilaminectomy: 125±74 cc, laminectomy: 256.05±320.8 cc; p=0.27) or mean hospital length of stay (hemilaminectomy: 4.00±2.12 days, laminectomy: 5.26±3.0 days; p=0.60). No patient in either surgical group had post-operative evidence of clinical spinal instability. Conclusion Hemilaminectomy is a viable approach for the resection of intradural spinal tumors, with similar rates of post-operative complications to laminectomy when using an open surgical approach. The laminectomy allows for bilateral exposure of the entire spinal canal and neural foramina; and continues to be the preferred method for resection of large tumors with complex morphology.

Abstract Background Multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (mACDF) is the gold standard for multilevel spinal disease; although safe and effective, mACDF can limit regular spinal motion and contribute to adjacent segment disease (ASD). Hybrid surgery, composed of ACDF and cervical disc arthroplasty, has the potential to reduce ASD by retaining spinal mobility. This study examined the safety of hybrid surgery by utilizing administrative claims data to compare real-world rates of subsequent surgery and post-procedural hospitalization within populations of patients undergoing hybrid surgery versus mACDF for multilevel spinal disease. Methods This observational, retrospective analysis used the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Database from July 2013 through June 2020. Propensity score matched cohorts of patients who received hybrid surgery or mACDF were established based on the presence of spinal surgery procedure codes in the claims data and followed over a variable post-period. Rates of subsequent surgery and post-procedural hospitalization (30- and 90-day) were compared between hybrid surgery and mACDF cohorts. Results A total of 430 hybrid surgery patients and 2,136 mACDF patients qualified for the study; average follow-up was approximately 2 years. Similar rates of subsequent surgery (Hybrid: 1.9 surgeries/100 patient-years; mACDF: 1.8 surgeries/100 patient-years) were observed for the two cohorts. Hospitalization rates were also similar across cohorts at 30 days post-procedure (Hybrid: 0.67% hospitalized/patient-year; mACDF: 0.87% hospitalized/patient-year). At 90 days post-procedure, hybrid surgery patients had slightly lower rates of hospitalization compared to mACDF patients (0.23% versus 0.42% hospitalized/patient-year; p

Background: Laminectomy with fusion (LF) and laminoplasty (LP) are common posterior decompression procedures used to treat multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). There is debate on their relative efficacy and safety for treatment of DCM. The goal of this study is to examine outcomes and costs of LF and LP procedures for DCM. Methods: This is a retrospective review of adult patients (.05). Patients were successfully weaned off opioids at similar rates (LF: 88%, LP: 86%). Fixed and variable costs respectively with LF cases hospital were higher, 15.7% and 25.7% compared to LP cases (p=.03 and p

BackgroundTarlov cyst disease is a collection of cerebrospinal fluid between the endoneurium and perineurium of spinal, usually sacral, nerve roots. These cysts can become symptomatic in 20% of patients, causing lower back pain, radiculopathy, bladder and bowel dysfunction necessitating medical or surgical intervention. Different surgical and non-surgical modalities have been described for the treatment of symptomatic Tarlov cysts. However, there has been no published study that examined types of surgical techniques side by side. Our study presents a preliminary experience in the surgical management of symptomatic Tarlov cysts using two surgical techniques: cyst fenestration and nerve root imbrication.MethodsRetrospective chart review and analysis was done for all patients who underwent surgical intervention for symptomatic Tarlov cyst(s) in the period 2007-2013. Operative reports, preoperative and postoperative clinic visit reports were reviewed. The surgical techniques of cyst fenestration and nerve root imbrication were each described in terms of intraoperative parameters, hospital course and outcome. Modified MacNab criteria were used for evaluation of the final clinical outcome.ResultsThirty-six surgical patients were identified. Three had repeat surgery (total of 39 operations). The median age was 51 years (range, 26-84 years). Eighty-six percent were females. The presenting symptoms were low back pain (94%), sensory radiculopathy (69%), bladder and bowel dysfunction (61%), sexual dysfunction (17%) and motor dysfunction (8%). Cyst fenestration was performed in 12 patients (31%) and nerve root imbrication was done in 27 (69%). All patients in the fenestration group but only 67% in the imbrication group had fibrin glue injection into the cyst or around the reconstructed nerve root. The overall surgery-related complication rate was 28%. The complication rate was 5/12 (42%) in the fenestration group and 6/27 (22%) in the imbrication group. At the time of the last clinic visit, improved clinical outcome was noted in 9/11 (82%) and 20/25 (80%) in the fenestration and the imbrication group, respectively.ConclusionsCyst fenestration and nerve root imbrication are both surgical techniques to treat symptomatic Tarlov cyst(s), and both can result in clinical improvement.

OBJECTIVE:To study risk factors of secondary lumbar discectomy (LD) for recurrent herniated lumbar disc (HLD) and identify methods to lower the rate of recurrence. METHODS:Data from 160 patients who underwent primary LD were collected retrospectively. Demographic features, radiologic findings including Pfirrmann disc degeneration, and surgical information were analyzed to compare risks between revision and non-revision patients. RESULTS:The revision rate was 15% (24 patients), and the mean follow-up was 28.3 months. HLD recurrence was not related to any demographic characteristics. Primary and secondary LD were most common at the L4-5 level, but the level of operation was not significantly associated with revision. Primary LD most commonly had a Pfirrmann disc degeneration grade of 3, followed by 4. For recurrent HLD, Pfirrmann grade 4 was most common and was statistically significant (p

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a novel hyper-crosslinked carbohydrate polymer (HCCP) for the repair of critical-sized bone defects in comparison to two alternative treatments: autologous bone and poly(lactide-co-glycolide) with hyaluronic acid (PLGA/HA). Bilateral critical-sized defects were created in the lateral femoral condyles of skeletally mature New Zealand White rabbits, and they were subsequently implanted with HCCP, PLGA/HA, or autologous bone in a randomized manner. Clinical and behavioral observations were made daily, and radiological and histopathological evaluations were performed at 4, 10, and 16 weeks postimplantation. Defects implanted with HCCP showed progressive bone regeneration and bridging of the defect without adverse histological events. No signs of infection or inflammation associated with the implant material were observed in all animals that received HCCP implantation. A radiographic assessment performed at 16 weeks post-implantation showed significantly higher bone density and volume in defects implanted with HCCP compared to PLGA/HA. No statistically significant difference was observed in bone density and volume between HCCP and autologous bone. These findings demonstrate that HCCP is biocompatible, osteoconductive, and capable of promoting bone regeneration in vivo; therefore, it is suitable for both tissue engineering and the repair of critical-sized bone defects.

Study designA nonrandomized, two-armed prospective study.ObjectiveWater-tight dural closure is paramount to the prevention of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage and associated complications. Synthetic polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel has been used as an adjunct to sutured dural repair; however, its expansion postoperatively is a concern for neurological complications. A low-swell formulation of PEG sealant was introduced as DuraSeal Exact Spine Sealant System (DESS). A Post-Approval Study was performed primarily to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DESS for spinal dural repair compared to current alternatives, in a large patient population, reflecting a real-world practice.MethodsA total of 36 sites in the United States enrolled 429 patients treated with DESS as an adjunct to dural repair in the spinal sealant group and 406 patients treated with all other modalities in the control arm, from October 2011 to June 2016. The primary endpoint was the incidence of CSF leak within 90 days of operation. The secondary endpoints evaluated were deep surgical site infection and neurological serious adverse events.ResultsThe CSF leakage in the DESS group (6.6%) was not significantly different from the control group (6.5%) (p = .83), and there was no significant difference in the time to first leak. The two groups had no significant differences in deep surgical site infection (1.6% versus control 2.1%, p = .61) or proportion of subjects with neurological serious adverse events (2.9% versus control 1.6%, p = .516).ConclusionsDuraSeal Exact Spinal Sealant is safe when compared to current alternatives for spinal dural repair.

PurposeDespite being an extremely successful procedure, recurrent disc herniation is one of the most common post-discectomy complications in the lumbar spine and contributes significant health care and socioeconomic costs. Patients with large annular defects are at a high risk for reherniation, but an annular closure device (ACD) has been designed to reduce reherniation risk in this population and may, in turn, help control direct health care costs after discectomy.Patients and methodsThis analysis examined the 90-day post-discectomy cost estimates among ACD-treated (n=272) and control (discectomy alone; n=278) patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Direct medical costs were estimated based on 2017 Humana and Medicare claims. Index discectomies were assumed to occur in an outpatient (OP) setting, whereas repeat discectomies were assumed to be 60% in OP and 40% in inpatient (IP). A sensitivity analysis was performed on this assumption. The device cost was not included in the analysis in order to focus on costs in the 90-day post-operative period.ResultsWithin 90 days of follow-up, post-operative complications occurred in 3.3% of the ACD patients and 8.6% of the control patients (P=0.01). The average 90-day cost to treat an ACD patient was $10,257 compared to $11,299 per control patient for a 80:20 distribution of Commercial:Medicare coverage ($1,042 difference). This difference varied from $687 with 100% Medicare to $1,132 with 100% Commercial coverage. Varying the IP vs OP distribution resulted in a cost difference range of $968 to $1,156 with the ACD.ConclusionAugmenting discectomy with an ACD in high-risk patients with a large annular defect reduced reherniation and reoperation rates, which translated to a reduction of direct health care costs between $687 and $1,156 per patient during the 90-day post-operative period. Large annular defect patients are an easily identifiable high-risk population. Operative strategies that reduce complication risks in these patients, such as the ACD, could be advantageous from both patient care and economic perspectives.

In this study, we sought to assess the safety and accuracy of sacropelvic fixation performed with image-guided sacroiliac screw placement using postoperative computed tomography and X-rays. The sacroiliac screws were placed with navigation in five patients. Intact specimens were mounted onto a six-degrees-of-freedom spine motion simulator. Long lumbosacral constructs using bilateral sacroiliac screws and bilateral S1 pedicle and iliac screws were tested in seven cadaveric spines. Nine sacroiliac screws were well-placed under an image guidance system (IGS); one was placed poorly without IGS with no symptoms. Both fixation techniques significantly reduced range of motion (P

Background: Given the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to activities of daily living and cost, it is critical to fully understand the health care economic impact of enabling technologies. The use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM) during spine surgery has long been controversial. Questions pertaining to utility, medico-legal considerations, and cost-effectiveness continue to be unresolved. The purpose of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness by assessing quality-of-life due to adverse events averted, decreased postoperative pain, decreased revision rates, and improved patient reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: The study patient population was extracted from a large multicenter database collected by a single, national IOM provider. Over 50,000 patient charts were abstracted and included in this analysis. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the second panel on cost-effectiveness health and medicine. Health-related utility was derived from questionnaire answers and expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for IOM. A value under the commonly accepted United States-based willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. Scenario (including litigation), probabilistic (PSA), and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration. Results: The primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2-years following index surgery. On average, index surgery for patients with IOM costs are approximately $1,547 greater than non-IOM cases. The base case assumed an inpatient Medicare population however multiple outpatient and payer scenarios were assessed in the sensitivity analysis. From a health system perspective IOM is cost-effective, yielding better utilities but at a higher cost than the non-IOM strategy (ICER $60,734 per QALY). From a societal perspective the IOM strategy was dominant, suggesting that better outcomes were achieved at less cost. Except for an entirely privately insured population, alternative scenarios such as, outpatient and a 50:50 Medicare/privately insured population sample also demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Notably, IOM benefits were unable to overcome the sheer costs associated many litigation scenarios, but the data was severely limited. In the 5,000 iteration PSA, at a WTP of $100,000, 74% of simulations using IOM were cost-effective. Conclusions: The use of IOM in spine surgery is cost-effective in most scenarios examined. In the emerging and rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and the health care system.

Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a lifetime of disability stemming from loss of motor, sensory, and autonomic functions; these losses, along with increased comorbid sequelae, negatively impact health outcomes and quality of life. Early decompression surgery post-SCI can enhance patient outcomes, but does not directly facilitate neural repair and regeneration. Currently, there are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacological therapies to augment motor function and functional recovery in individuals with traumatic SCI. After an SCI, the enzyme, Rho, is activated by growth-inhibitory factors and regulates events that culminate in collapse of the neuronal growth cone, failure of axonal regeneration, and, ultimately, failure of motor and functional recovery. Inhibition of Rho activation is a potential treatment for injuries such as traumatic SCI. VX-210, an investigational agent, inhibits Rho. When administered extradurally after decompression (corpectomy or laminectomy) and stabilization surgery in a phase 1/2a study, VX-210 was well tolerated. Here, we describe the design of the SPRING trial, a multicenter, phase 2b/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of VX-210 (NCT02669849). A subset of patients with acute traumatic cervical SCI is currently being enrolled in the United States and Canada. Medical, neurological, and functional changes are evaluated at 6 weeks and at 3, 6, and 12 months after VX-210 administration. Efficacy will be assessed by the primary outcome measure, change in upper extremity motor score at 6 months post-treatment, and by secondary outcomes that include question-based and task-based evaluations of functional recovery.

While management of appendicular fractures has been well described in the setting of osteopetrosis, there is limited information on managing fractures of the axial spine. Here we present an osteopetrotic patient with multiple traumatic multiple, comminuted, unstable cervical spinal fractures managed with non-operative stabilization, and provide a review of the pathophysiology, genetic characteristics, and special considerations that must be explored when determining operative versus non-operative management of spinal injury in osteopetrosis. A PubMed query was performed for English articles in the literature published up to June 2016, and used the following search terms alone and in combination: "osteopetrosis", "spine", "fractures", "osteoclasts", and "operative management". Within four months after initial injury, treatment with halo vest allowed for adequate healing. The patient was asymptomatic with cervical spine dynamic radiographs confirming stability at four months. On four-year follow up examination, the patient remained without neck pain, and CT scan demonstrated partially sclerotic fracture lines with appropriate anatomical alignment. In conclusion, external halo stabilization may be an effective option for treatment of multiple unstable acute traumatic cervical spine fractures in patients with osteopetrosis. Given the challenge of surgical stabilization in osteopetrosis, further research is necessary to elucidate the optimal form of treatment in this select patient population.

Study designProspective study.ObjectiveBecause single-level disk arthroplasty or arthrodesis in the lower subaxial spine improves headaches after surgery, we studied whether this effect may be better appreciated after two-level arthroplasty.MethodsWe performed an independent post hoc analysis of two concurrent prospective randomized investigational device exemption trials for cervical spondylosis, one for single-level treatment and the other for two adjacent-level treatments.ResultsFor the one-level study, baseline mean headache scores significantly improved at 60 months for both the cervical disk arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) groups (p

BackgroundThe cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion.ObjectiveCost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years.MethodsData were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate.ResultsThe cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34 377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was -$165 103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY in all scenarios (-$225 816 per QALY to $22 071 per QALY).ConclusionThis study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality.AbbreviationsACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusionAWP, average wholesale priceCE, cost-effectivenessCEA, cost-effectiveness analysisCPT, Current Procedural TerminologycTDR, cervical total disc replacementCUA, cost-utility analysisDDD, degenerative disc diseaseDRG, diagnosis-related groupFDA, US Food and Drug AdministrationICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratioIDE, Investigational Device ExemptionNDI, neck disability indexQALY, quality-adjusted life yearsRCT, randomized controlled trialRTW, return-to-workSF-12, 12-Item Short Form Health SurveyVAS, visual analog scaleWTP, willingness-to-pay.

Arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint (SIJ) for surgical treatment of SIJ dysfunction has regained interest among spine specialists. Current techniques described in the literature most often utilize intraoperative fluoroscopy to aid in implant placement; however, image guidance for SIJ fusion may allow for minimally invasive percutaneous instrumentation with more precise implant placement. In the following cases, we performed percutaneous stereotactic navigated sacroiliac instrumentation using O-arm® multidimensional surgical imaging with StealthStation® navigation (Medtronic, Inc. Minneapolis, MN). Patients were positioned prone and an image-guidance reference frame was placed contralateral to the surgical site. O-arm® integrated with StealthStation® allowed immediate auto-registration. The skin incision was planned with an image-guidance probe. An image-guided awl, drill and tap were utilized to choose a starting point and trajectory. Threaded titanium cage(s) packed with autograft and/or allograft were then placed. O-arm® image-guidance allowed for implant placement in the SIJ with a small skin incision. However, we could not track the cage depth position with our current system, and in one patient, the SIJ cage had to be revised secondary to the anterior breach of sacrum.

IntroductionThere is increasing interest in the role of cervical total disc replacement (TDR) as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Multiple prospective randomized studies with minimum 2 year follow-up have shown TDR to be at least as safe and effective as ACDF in treating symptomatic degenerative disc disease at a single level. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of cervical TDR using the Mobi-C(®) with ACDF at 5-year follow-up.MethodsThis prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted as a Food and Drug Administration regulated Investigational Device Exemption trial across 23 centers with 245 patients randomized (2:1) to receive TDR with Mobi-C(®) Cervical Disc Prosthesis or ACDF with anterior plate and allograft. Outcome assessments included a composite overall success score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scales (VAS) assessing neck and arm pain, Short Form-12 (SF-12) health survey, patient satisfaction, major complications, subsequent surgery, segmental range of motion, and adjacent segment degeneration.ResultsThe 60-month follow-up rate was 85.5% for the TDR group and 78.9% for the ACDF group. The composite overall success was 61.9% with TDR vs. 52.2% with ACDF, demonstrating statistical non-inferiority. Improvements in NDI, VAS neck and arm pain, and SF-12 scores were similar between groups and were maintained from earlier follow-up through 60 months. There was no significant difference between TDR and ACDF in adverse events or major complications. Range of motion was maintained with TDR through 60 months. Device-related subsequent surgeries (TDR: 3.0%, ACDF: 11.1%, p

Objective To evaluate whether anterior cervical spine surgery offers sustained (7 years) relief in patients with cervicogenic headaches (CGHs), and evaluate the difference between cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for 1 and 2-level surgeries from a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Methods A post hoc analysis was performed of 575 patients who underwent one or 2-level CDA or ACDF for symptomatic cervical spondylosis as part of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Assessment of pain and functional outcome was done with the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in the trial. We used the NDI headache component to assess headache outcome. Results For both 1- and 2-level CDA and ACDF groups, there was significant headache improvement from preoperative baseline out to 7 years (p < 0.0001). For 1-level surgeries, headache improvement was similar for both groups at the 7-year point. For 2-level treatment, CDA patients had significantly improved headache scores versus ACDF patients at the 7-year point (p = 0.016). Conclusion The headache improvement noted at early follow-up was sustained over the long-term period with ACDF and CDA populations. In the case of 2-level operations, CDA patients demonstrated significantly greater benefit compared to ACDF patients over the long-term. Sinuvertebral nerve irritation at the unco-vasculo-radicular junction and anterior dura may be the cause of CGH. Therefore, it is possible that improved cervical kinematics and preservation of range of motion at adjacent uncovertebral joints in CDA may contribute to the observed difference between the groups.

**Background:** Given the increased attention to functional improvement in spine surgery as it relates to motion preservation, activities of daily living, and cost, it is critical to fully understand the healthcare economic impact of new devices being tested in large FDA randomized controlled trials (RCT). The purpose of this analysis was to comprehensively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the novel Total Posterior Spine (TOPS™) System investigational device compared with the trial control group, standard transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). **Objective:** To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TOPS™ compared with TLIF. **Methods:** The study patient population was extracted from a multicenter RCT with current enrollment at n=121 with complete 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness, expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcomes were health-related utility, presented as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and cost, calculated in US dollars. Analysis was conducted following Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness Health and Medicine recommendations. The base case analysis utilized SF-36 survey data from the RCT. Both cost and QALY outcomes were discounted at a yearly rate of 3% to reflect their present value. A cohort Markov model was constructed to analyze perioperative and postoperative costs and QALYs for both TOPS™ and control groups. Scenario, probabilistic, and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine model discrimination and calibration. **Results:** The primary time horizon used to estimate cost and health utility was 2 years after index surgery. From a health system perspective, assuming a 50/50 split between Medicare and private payers, the TOPS™ cohort is cost-effective 2 years postoperatively ($6158/QALY) compared with control. At 6 years and beyond, TOPS™ becomes dominant, irrespective of payer mix and surgical setting. At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000/QALY, 63% of all 5000 input parameter simulations favor TOPS, even with a $4000 upcharge vs TLIF. **Discussion:** The novel TOPS™ device is cost-effective compared with TLIF and becomes the dominant economic strategy over time. **Conclusions:** In the emerging, rapidly expanding field of value-based medicine, there will be an increased demand for these analyses, ensuring surgeons are empowered to make the best, most sustainable solutions for their patients and society.

Bullet injuries to the spine may cause injury to the anatomical structures with or without neurologic deterioration. Most bullet injuries are acute, resulting from direct injury. However, in rare cases, delayed injury may occur, resulting in claudication. We report a case of intradural bullet at the L3-4 level with radiculopathy in a 30-year-old male. After surgical removal, radicular and claudicating pain were improved significantly, and motor power of the right leg also improved. We report the case of intradural bullet, which resulted in delayed radiculopathy.

Study Design Retrospective case series. Objective Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) or Forestier disease involves hyperostosis of the spinal column. Hyperostosis involving the anterior margin of the cervical vertebrae can cause dysphonia, dyspnea, and/or dysphagia. However, the natural history pertaining to the risk factors remain unknown. We present the surgical management of two cases of dysphagia secondary to cervical hyperostosis and discuss the etiology and management of DISH based on the literature review. Methods This is a retrospective review of two patients with DISH and anterior cervical osteophytes. We reviewed the preoperative and postoperative images and clinical history. Results Two patients underwent anterior cervical osteophytectomies due to severe dysphagia. At more than a year follow-up, both patients noted improvement in swallowing as well as their associated pain. Conclusion The surgical removal of cervical osteophytes can be highly successful in treating dysphagia if refractory to prolonged conservative therapy.

ObjectiveC-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) are often utilized to evaluate for postoperative infection. Abnormal values may be detected after surgery even in case of non-infection because of muscle injury, transfusion, which disturbed prompt perioperative management. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the perioperative CRP, ESR, and white blood cell (WBC) counts after spine surgery, which was proved to be non-infection.MethodsTwenty patients of lumbar open discectomy (LOD) and 20 patients of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were enrolled in this study. Preoperative and postoperative prophylactic antibiotics were administered routinely for 7 days. Blood samples were obtained one day before surgery and postoperative day (POD) 1, POD3, and POD7. Using repeated measures ANOVA, changes in effect measures over time and between groups over time were assessed. All data analysis was conducted using SAS v.9.1.ResultsChanges in CRP, within treatment groups over time and between treatment groups over time were both statistically significant F(3,120)=5.05, p=0.003 and F(1,39)=7.46, p=0.01, respectively. Most dramatic changes were decreases in the LOD group on POD3 and POD7. Changes in ESR, within treatment groups over time and between treatment groups over time were also found to be statistically significant, F(3,120)=6.67, p=0.0003 and F(1,39)=3.99, p=0.01, respectively. Changes in WBC values also were be statistically significant within groups over time, F(3,120)=40.52, p

ObjectThe authors analyzed headache relief after anterior cervical discectomy. Headache may be relieved after anterior cervical discectomy, but the mechanism is unknown. If headaches were directly referred from upper cervical pathology, more headache relief would be expected from surgery performed at higher cervical levels. If spinal kinesthetics were the mechanism, then headache relief may differ between arthroplasty and fusion. Headache relief after anterior cervical discectomy was quantified by the operated disc level and by the method of operation (arthroplasty vs arthrodesis).MethodsThe authors performed a post hoc analysis of an artificial disc trial. Data on headache pain were extracted from the Neck Disability Index (NDI) questionnaire.ResultsA total of 260 patients underwent single-level arthroplasty or arthodesis. Preoperatively, 52% reported NDI headache scores of 3 or greater, compared with only 13%-17% postoperatively. The model-based mean NDI headache score at baseline was 2.5 (95% CI 2.3-2.7) and was reduced by 1.3 points after surgery (95% CI 1.2-1.4, p < 0.001). Higher cervical levels were associated with a greater degree of preoperative headache, but there was no association with headache relief. There was no significant difference in headache relief between arthroplasty and arthrodesis.ConclusionsMost patients with symptomatic cervical spondylosis have headache as a preoperative symptom (88%). Anterior cervical discectomy with both arthroplasty and arthrodesis is associated with a durable decrease in headache. Headache relief is not related to the level of operation. The mechanism for headache reduction remains unclear.