Search

Study designExpert consensus study.ObjectiveThis expert panel was created to establish best practice guidelines to identify and treat patients with poor bone health prior to elective spinal reconstruction.Summary of background dataCurrently, no guidelines exist for the management of osteoporosis and osteopenia in patients undergoing spinal reconstructive surgery. Untreated osteoporosis in spine reconstruction surgery is associated with higher complications and worse outcomes.MethodsA multidisciplinary panel with 18 experts was assembled including orthopedic and neurological surgeons, endocrinologists, and rheumatologists. Surveys and discussions regarding the current literature were held according to Delphi method until a final set of guidelines was created with over 70% consensus.ResultsPanelists agreed that bone health should be considered in every patient prior to elective spinal reconstruction. All patients above 65 and those under 65 with particular risk factors (chronic glucocorticoid use, high fracture risk or previous fracture, limited mobility, and eight other key factors) should have a formal bone health evaluation prior to undergoing surgery. DXA scans of the hip are preferable due to their wide availability. Opportunistic CT Hounsfield Units of the vertebrae can be useful in identifying poor bone health. In the absence of contraindications, anabolic agents are considered first line therapy due to their bone building properties as compared with antiresorptive medications. Medications should be administered preoperatively for at least 2 months and postoperatively for minimum 8 months.ConclusionBased on the consensus of a multidisciplinary panel of experts, we propose best practice guidelines for assessment and treatment of poor bone health prior to elective spinal reconstructive surgery. Patients above age 65 and those with particular risk factors under 65 should undergo formal bone health evaluation. We also established guidelines on perioperative optimization, utility of various diagnostic modalities, and the optimal medical management of bone health in this population.Level of Evidence: 5.

Single position lateral fusion reduces the need for a secondary surgery and robotic guidance allows for potentially higher accuracy of screw placement. We expand the role of robotics with a simultaneous workflow where 2 surgeons can work in single position surgery and discuss the technical feasibility of placement of S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screws in the lateral position. A 70-year-old male presented with chronic back pain and bilateral leg pain with the left side worse than the right. He subsequently underwent an L3-S1 oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with a minimally invasive L3-ilium robotic posterior spinal fixation simultaneously in single lateral position with S2AI screws. The software planning requisite of robotics allowed for a preoperative plan where lumbar cortical screws were used to line up with bilateral S2AI screws. Intraoperatively, the OLIF was performed anterior to the patient which allowed for a second surgeon to perform the posterior stage of screw placement simultaneously in overlapping fashion during OLIF exposure. Once all screws were placed, the OLIF discectomy and cage placement were completed. As the OLIF incision is closed, rodding proceeds posteriorly with subsequent closure simultaneously as well. Operative time from skin incision to skin closure was 3 hours and 47 minutes. We present here a novel technical report on the recommended workflow of simultaneous robotic single position surgery OLIF and demonstrate the feasibility of placement of sacroiliac fixation in the lateral decubitus position. We believe this technique to be minimally invasive, effective, with the benefit of shortening valuable operating room case time.

Volitional movement requires descending input from the motor cortex and sensory feedback through the spinal cord. We previously developed a paired brain and spinal electrical stimulation approach in rats that relies on convergence of the descending motor and spinal sensory stimuli in the cervical cord. This approach strengthened sensorimotor circuits and improved volitional movement through associative plasticity. In humans, it is not known whether posterior epidural spinal cord stimulation targeted at the sensorimotor interface or anterior epidural spinal cord stimulation targeted within the motor system is effective at facilitating brain evoked responses. In 59 individuals undergoing elective cervical spine decompression surgery, the motor cortex was stimulated with scalp electrodes and the spinal cord was stimulated with epidural electrodes, with muscle responses being recorded in arm and leg muscles. Spinal electrodes were placed either posteriorly or anteriorly, and the interval between cortex and spinal cord stimulation was varied. Pairing stimulation between the motor cortex and spinal sensory (posterior) but not spinal motor (anterior) stimulation produced motor evoked potentials that were over five times larger than brain stimulation alone. This strong augmentation occurred only when descending motor and spinal afferent stimuli were timed to converge in the spinal cord. Paired stimulation also increased the selectivity of muscle responses relative to unpaired brain or spinal cord stimulation. Finally, clinical signs suggest that facilitation was observed in both injured and uninjured segments of the spinal cord. The large effect size of this paired stimulation makes it a promising candidate for therapeutic neuromodulation. Key points: Pairs of stimuli designed to alter nervous system function typically target the motor system, or one targets the sensory system and the other targets the motor system for convergence in cortex.In humans undergoing clinically indicated surgery, we tested paired brain and spinal cord stimulation that we developed in rats aiming to target sensorimotor convergence in the cervical cord.Arm and hand muscle responses to paired sensorimotor stimulation were more than five times larger than brain or spinal cord stimulation alone when applied to the posterior but not anterior spinal cord.Arm and hand muscle responses to paired stimulation were more selective for targeted muscles than the brain‐ or spinal‐only conditions, especially at latencies that produced the strongest effects of paired stimulation.Measures of clinical evidence of compression were only weakly related to the paired stimulation effect, suggesting that it could be applied as therapy in people affected by disorders of the central nervous system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Single center, retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Little is known about the surgical outcomes and quality of life in patients with C2-sacrum posterior spinal fusion (PSF). Though it is thought to be a "final" construct, it remains unknown how patients fare postoperatively. We sought to evaluate the surgical outcomes and quality of life of patients after C2-sacrum PSF. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing C2-Sacrum PSF from 2015-2020 by 4 surgeons at a single institution were included. The study time period for each patient began after their index operation that led to the C2-sacrum fusion. Dates of surgery, complications, reoperations, patient reported outcomes (PROs) including EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) questionnaires, and activities of daily living (ADL) questions were collected and analyzed. Descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, student t-tests, and linear regression were used. Results: Of the 23 patients who underwent C2-sacrum PSF, 6 patients (26%) required a total of 10 reoperations after a mean of 1.5 years (range 0-4 years) after C2-sacrum PSF. Five reoperations were for mechanical failure; 3 for wound complications/infection; and 2 for instrumentation and spinous process prominence. PROs were collected on 18 patients with mean follow-up of 2.4 years (range.5-4.5) after their C2-sacrum PSF. At 6-months, both SRS-22 and ODI scores improved significantly after C2-sacrum PSF (SRS: 57.5 to 76.3, P =.0014; ODI: 47.0 to 31.7, P =.013). Similarly, at a mean 2.4 years postoperatively, mean ODI improved significantly (47.0 to 30.4, P =.0032). Six patients (33%) had minimal symptoms (ODI <20). The median postoperative EQ-5D score was.74 (range.19 to 1.0), which compares favorably to patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis (EQ-5D.63) and diabetes mellitus (DM) (EQ-5D.69) and hypertension (HTN). In terms of activities of daily living (ADL), 10 patients (56%) exercised regularly—a mean 4.5 days/week. 11 (61%) could do light aerobic activity (e.g. stationary bike). 10 (55%) were able to play with children/grandchildren as desired. Eight patients (44%) hiked, and 2 (11%) drove independently. 11 (61%) could tolerate short air-travel comfortably. Of the 17 patients who could toilet and perform basic hygiene preoperatively, 16 (94%) were able to do so postoperatively. Conclusion: Though C2-sacrum PSF is thought to be a "final" construct, approximately 1 in 4 patients require subsequent operations. However, C2-sacrum PSF patients had a significant improvement in SRS and ODI scores by 6 months postop. Over 60% of patients were regularly performing light aerobic activity 2 years after their C2-sacrum PSF. EQ-5D suggests that this population fares better than those with degenerative hip/knee arthritis and similarly to those with common chronic conditions like DM and HTN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: /Hypothesis: Patients undergoing C2-sacrum PSF have unique medical histories and multiple prior operations over an extended period. Design: Single center, retrospective cohort Methods: Consecutive C2-sacrum PSF patients operated on by 4 surgeons at a single-center from 2015-2020 were reviewed. Demographics, comorbidities, indications, surgical history, and radiographic parameters were collected. Results: 23 patients underwent C2-sacrum PSF. 13 (57%) were male, and 21 (91.3%) were adults. Mean age at time of first spine surgery was 44 years (range 5-71) and 53 years (range 14-72) at the time of C2-sacrum PSF. Six patients (26%) had osteoporosis, and 6 patients (26%) had neurologic comorbidities—including Parkinson's disease (4), cerebral palsy (1), and Brown Sequard syndrome (1). Four (17%) had connective tissue disease. Two patients underwent C2-sacrum PSF as an index procedure: (1) 67M with myelomatous fractures and 124° of cervicothoracic kyphosis; (2) 28F with severe Marfan syndrome with 140° thoracic scoliosis and 130° thoracic kyphosis. The remaining 21 (91%) underwent C2-sacrum PSF as a revision following prior spinal surgeries on average, 4 previous surgeries (range 1-13) over 10.5 years (range.3-37.4). Indications for the remaining 21 C2-sacrum PSF revision procedures included 17 (81%) for kyphosis (5 of whom also had significant coronal deformity), 1 (5%) for only coronal malalignment, 2 (10%) for instrumentation failure, and 1 (5%) for myelopathy. Conclusions: 91% (21/23) of patients requiring C2-sacrum PSF were treated as revisions of prior fusions, with a mean of 4 prior surgeries over 10 years. Over 80% of these patients underwent C2-sacrum PSF to address kyphosis. 26% had neurologic conditions, and 26% had osteoporosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Retrospective Cohort Study. Objectives: Few previous studies have examined the relationship between preoperative disability and patient outcomes after complex adult spinal deformity surgery. In this study, we hypothesized that patients with worse preoperative disability would be more likely achieve a clinically significant improvement in their symptoms after surgery. Methods: Demographics, comorbidities, surgical data, and health related survey results were analyzed from a consecutive series of adults (≥18 years old) who underwent spinal deformity correction, instrumentation, and fusion. Patients included had 6 or more levels fused and their surgery performed at single institution between 2015 and 2018 with minimum 2 year follow up. Results: A total of 108 patients met inclusion criteria. Bivariate analysis demonstrated the following as having a greater probability of reaching minimum clinically important difference (MCID) at 2 years postoperatively: >50th percentile Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (ODI >36), cardiac comorbidities, and use of pelvic fixation, pedicle subtraction osteotomy, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Conversely, baseline Scoliosis research society score (SRS) >50th percentile (SRS ≥62) and use of vertebral column resection (VCR) were significant predictors of not reaching MCID at 2 years. On logistic regression analysis, >50th percentile ODI score (ODI >36) was identified as the only independent predictor of achieving MCID. Conclusions: Patients with greater disability, independent of other preoperative or surgical factors, are more likely to have clinically significant improvement in their daily functioning after complex deformity surgery. For patients who undergo surgical intervention for severe or progressive deformity, including VCR, MCID might be an ineffective outcome measure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]