The August 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Laminectomy adjacent to instrumented fusion increases adjacent segment disease; Influence of the timing of surgery for cervical spinal cord injury without bone injury in the elderly: a retrospective multicentre study; Lumbar vertebral body tethering: single-centre outcomes and reoperations in a consecutive series of 106 patients; Machine-learning algorithms for predicting Cobb angle beyond 25° in female adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients; Pain in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Teriparatide prevents surgery for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture.

Aims. During revision procedures for aseptic reasons, there remains a suspicion that failure may have been the result of an undetected subclinical infection. However, there is little evidence available in the literature about unexpected positive results in presumed aseptic revision spine surgery. The aims of our study were to estimate the prevalence of unexpected positive culture using sonication and to evaluate clinical characteristics of these patients. Patients and Methods. All patients who underwent a revision surgery after instrumented spinal surgery at our institution between July 2014 and August 2016 with spinal implants submitted for sonication were retrospectively analyzed. Only revisions presumed as aseptic are included in the study. During the study period, 204 spinal revisions were performed for diagnoses other than infection. In 38 cases, sonication cultures were not obtained, leaving a study cohort of 166 cases. The mean age of the cohort was 61.5 years (. sd. 20.4) and there were 104 female patients. Results. Sonication cultures were positive in 75 cases (45.2%). Hardware failure was the most common indication for revision surgery and revealed a positive sonication culture in 26/75 cases (35%) followed by adjacent segment disease (ASD) in 23/75 cases (30%). Cutibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis were the most commonly isolated microorganisms, observed in 45% and 31% of cases, respectively. C. acnes was isolated in 65.2% of cases when the indication for revision surgery was ASD. Conclusion. Infection must always be considered as a possibility in the setting of spinal revision surgery, especially in the case of hardware failure, regardless of the lack of clinical signs. Sonication should be routinely used to isolate microorganisms adherent to implants. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:621–624

INTRODUCTION. The elimination of motion and disc stress produced by spinal fusion may have potential consequences beyond the index level overloading the spinal motion segments and leading to the appearance of degenerative changes. So the “topping-off” technique is a new concept instructing dynamic fixation such as interspinous process device (IPD) for the purpose of avoiding adjacent segment disease (ASD) proximal to the fusion construct. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study simulated spinal fusion in L4-L5, fusion combined DIAM in L3-L4. The ROM and maximum von Miss stresses were analyzed in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and torsion in response to hybrid method, compared to intact modeland fusion model. RESULTS. The investigation revealed that decreased ROM, intradiscal stress in implanted level but a considerable increase in stresses at more upper level (L2-L3) during flexion and extension in hybrid model, comparing with the fusion model. CONCLUSIONS. The raise of intradiscal pressure at the adjacent segment to a rigid fusion segment can be reduced when the rigid construct is augmented with an interspinous process device. However, the burden of stress over total spinal segments was still the same, the stress and ROM were just shift to supraadjacent levels

Cervical spinal arthrodesis is the standard of care for the treatment of spinal diseases induced neck pain. However, adjacent segment disease (ASD) is the primary postoperative complication, which draws great concerns. At present, controversy still exists for the etiology of ASD. Knowledge of cervical spinal loading pattern after cervical spinal arthrodesis is proposed to be the key to answer these questions. Musculoskeletal (MSK) multi-body dynamics (MBD) models have an opportunity to obtain spinal loading that is very difficult to directly measure in vivo. In present study, a previously validated cervical spine MSK MBD model was developed for simulating cervical spine after single-level anterior arthrodesis at C5-C6 disc level. In this cervical spine model, postoperative sagittal alignment and spine rhythms of each disc level, different from normal healthy subject, were both taken into account. Moreover, the biomechanical properties of facet joints of adjacent levels after anterior arthrodesis were modified according to the experimental results. Dynamic full range of motion (ROM) flexion/extension simulation was performed, where the motion data after arthrodesis was derived from published in-vivo kinematic observations. Meanwhile, the full ROM flexion/extension of normal subject was also simulated by the generic cervical spine model for comparative purpose. The intervertebral compressive and shear forces and loading-sharing distribution (the proportions of intervertebral compressive and shear force and facet joint force) at adjacent levels (C3-C4, C4-C5 and C6-C7 disc levels) were then predicted. By comparison, arthrodesis led to a significant increase of adjacent intervertebral compressive force during the head extension movement. Postoperative intervertebral compressive forces at adjacent levels increased by approximate 20% at the later stage of the head extension movement. However, there was no obvious alteration in adjacent intervertebral compressive force, during the head flexion movement. For the intervertebral shear forces in the anterior-posterior direction, no significant differences were found between the arthrodesis subject and normal subject, during the head flexion/extension movement. Meanwhile, cervical spinal loading-sharing distribution after anterior arthrodesis was altered compared with the normal subject's distribution, during the head extension movement. In the postoperative loading-sharing distribution, the percentage of intervertebral disc forces was further increased as the motion angle increased, compared with normal subject. In conclusion, cervical spinal loading after anterior arthrodesis was significantly increased at adjacent levels, during the head extension movement. Cervical spine musculoskeletal MBD model provides an attempt to comprehend postoperative ASD after anterior arthrodesis from a biomechanical perspective

With the increase in the elderly population, there is a dramatic increase in the number of spinal fusions. Spinal fusion is usually performed in cases of primary instability. However it is also performed to prevent iatrogenic instability created during surgical treatment of spinal stenosis in most cases. In literature, up to 75% of adjacent segment disease (ASD) can be seen according to the follow-up time. 1. Although ASD manifests itself with pathologies such as instability, foraminal stenosis, disc herniation or central stenosis. 1,2. There are several reports in the literature regarding lumbar percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic interventions for lumbar foraminal stenosis or disc herniations. However, to the best our knowledge, there is no report about the treatment of central stenosis in ASD. In this study, we aimed to investigate the short-term results of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompressive laminotomy (UBEDL) technique in ASD cases with symptomatic central or lateral recess stenosis. The number of patients participating in the prospective study was 8. The mean follow-up was 6.9 (ranged 6 to 11) months. The mean age of the patients was 68 (5m, 3F). The development of ASD time after fusion was 30.6 months(ranged 19 to 42). Mean fused segments were 3 (ranged 2 to 8). Preoperative instability was present in 2 of the patients which was proven by dynamic lumbar x-rays. Preoperative mean VAS-back score was 7.8, VAS Leg score was 5.6. The preoperative mean JOA (Japanese Orthopaedic Association) score was 11.25. At 6th month follow-up, the mean VAS back score of the patients was 1, and the VAS leg score was 0.5. This improvement was statistically significant (p = 0.11 and 0.016, respectively). The mean JOA score at the 6th month was 22.6 and it was also statistically significant comparing preoperative JOA score(p = 0.011). The preoperative mean dural sac area measured in MR was 0.50 cm2, and it was measured as 2.1 cm. 2. at po 6 months.(p = 0.012). There was no progress in any patient's instability during follow-up. In orthopedic surgery, when implant related problems develop in any region of body (pseudoarthrosis, infection, adjacent fracture, etc.), it is generally treated by using more implants in its final operation. This approach is also widely used in spinal surgery. 3. However, it carries more risk in terms of devoloping ASD, infection or another complications. In the literature, endoscopic procedures have almost always been used in the treatment of ventral pathologies which constitute only 10%. In ASD, disease devolops as characterized by wide facet joint arthrosis and hypertrophied ligamentum flavum in the cranial segment and it is mostly presented both lateral recess and santal stenosis symptoms (39%). In this study, we found that UBEDL provides successful results in the treatment of patients without no more muscle and ligament damage in ASD cases with spinal stenosis. One of the most important advantages of UBE is its ability to access both ventral and dorsal pathologies by minimally invasive endoscopic aproach. I think endoscopic decompression also plays an important role in the absence of additional instability at postoperatively in patients. UBE which has already been described in the literature given successful results in most of the spinal degenerative diseases besides it can also be used in the treatment of ASD. Studies with longer follow-up and higher patient numbers will provide more accurate results

Introduction: In this study we report our experience with the clinical outcomes following Dynesys. Our objectives are to revalidate the most suitable indication(s) of Dyne-sys in patients with backpain. Method: A prospective cohort study on 374 consecutive patients who had Dynesys for backpain from September 2000 to-present. Average age of patients was 57 years and male to female ratio were (40%:60%). Preoperative assessment involved ODI, SF36, VAS for leg and backpain and the diagnosis was confirmed with physical examination, x rays, spinal probe and lumbar spine MRI. Regular follow up was arranged at 2 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months then on annual intervals. In our cohort, clinical indications were:. • Degenerative Disc Disease (DDD). 271 patients. • Spondylolisthesis. 55 patients. • Adjacent segment disease (ASD). 30 patients. • Spinal canal stenosis. 18 patients. t-test was used for comparison between preoperative and postoperative scores and p-value was used to show the significance. Results: Overall outcome assessment revealed significant improvement in ODI, SF36 and VAS in comparison with preoperative status (p-value < 0.05). Improvement was greatest in DDD group and average for ASD. Patients with stenosis performed better when the procedure involved adjunct decompression. Similarly, results of decompression and fusion were better than Dynesys alone in patients with spondylolisthesis. Discussion and Conclusion:. Dynesys was successfully controlled symptoms of DDD in the intermediate term. Dynesys can be used as surgical treatment for symptomatic ASD. Dynesys alone in the treatment of spondylolysthesis resulted in a 45% re-operation rate, and we believe it should not be recommended as an indication. Dynesys alone is not recommended as a treatment for symptomatic spinal stenosis

Introduction. The degeneration of the adjacent segment in lumbar spine with spondylodesis is well known, though the exact incidence and the mechanism is not clear. Several implants with semi rigid or dynamic behavior are available to reduce the biomechanical loads and to prevent an adjacent segment disease (ASD). Randomized controlled trials are not published. We investigated the biomechanical influence of dynamic and semi rigid implants on the adjacent segment in cadaver lumbar spine with monosegmental fusion (MF). Materials and Methods. 14 fresh cadaver lumbar spines were prepared; capsules and ligaments were kept intact. Pure rotanional moments of ±7.5 Nm were applied with a Zwick 1456 universal testing machine without preload in lateral bending and flexion/extension. The intradiscal pressure (IDP) and the range of motion (ROM) were measured in the segments L2/3 and L3/4 in following situations: in the native spine, monosegmental fusion L4/5 (MF), MF with dynamic rod to L3/4 (Dynabolt), MF with interspinous implant L3/4 (Coflex), and semi rigid fusion with PEEK rod (CD Horizon Legacy) L3-L5. Results. Under flexion load all implants reduced the IDP of segment L2/L3, whereas the IDP in the segment L3/4 was increased using interspinous implants in comparison to the other groups. The IDP was reduced in extension in both segments for all semi rigid or dynamic implants. Compared under extension to the native spine the MF had no influence on the IDP of the adjacent disc. The rod instrumentation (Dynabolt, PEEK rod) lead to a decreased IDP in lateral bending tests. The ROM in L3 was reduced in all groups compared to the native spine. The dynamic and semi rigid stabilization in the segment L3/4 limited the ROM more than the MF. Discussion. The MF reduced the ROM in all directions, whereas the IDP of the adjacent segment remained unaffected. The support of the adjacent segment by semi rigid and dynamic implants decreased the IDP of both segments in extension mainly. This fact is an agreement with other studies. Compared to our data, no significant effect on the adjacent levels was observed. Interestingly, in our study, the IDP of the adjacent segment is unaffected by MF. The biomechanical influence in the view of an ASD could be comprehended, but is not completely clear. The fact of persistent IDP in the adjacent segment suggests that MF has a lower effect on the adjacent segment degeneration as presumed. Biomechanical studies with human cadaver lumbar spines are limited and depend on age and degenerative situation. The effect on supporting implants on adjacent segment disease in lumbar spine surgery has to be investigated in clinical long term studies

The April 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Lengthening behaviour of magnetically controlled growing rods in early-onset scoliosis: a multicentre study; LDL, cholesterol, and statins usage cause pseudarthrosis following lumbar interbody fusion; Decision-making in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5; Does the interfacing angle between pedicle screws and support rods affect clinical outcomes after posterior thoracolumbar fusion?; Returning to the grind: how workload influences recovery post-lumbar spine surgery; Securing the spine: a leap forward with s2 alar-iliac screws in adult spinal deformity surgery.

Objectives

Loss of motion following spine segment fusion results in increased strain in the adjacent motion segments. However, to date, studies on the biomechanics of the cervical spine have not assessed the role of coupled motions in the lumbar spine. Accordingly, we investigated the biomechanics of the cervical spine following cervical fusion and lumbar fusion during simulated whiplash using a whole-human finite element (FE) model to simulate coupled motions of the spine.

Aims

The aims of this study were to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) performed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

We evaluated the impact of lumbar instrumented circumferential fusion on the development of adjacent level vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has become a popular procedure for degenerative lumbar spine disease. The immediate rigidity produced by PLIF may cause more stress and lead to greater risk of adjacent VCFs. However, few studies have investigated the relationship between PLIF and the development of subsequent adjacent level VCFs.

Between January 2005 and December 2009, a total of 1936 patients were enrolled. Of these 224 patients had a new VCF and the incidence was statistically analysed with other covariants. In total 150 (11.1%) of 1348 patients developed new VCFs with PLIF, with 108 (72%) cases at adjacent segment. Of 588 patients, 74 (12.5%) developed new subsequent VCFs with conventional posterolateral fusion (PLF), with 37 (50%) patients at an adjacent level. Short-segment fusion, female and age older than 65 years also increased the development of new adjacent VCFs in patients undergoing PLIF. In the osteoporotic patient, more rigid fusion and a higher stress gradient after PLIF will cause a higher adjacent VCF rate.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1411–16.

The December 2012 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: the Japanese neck disability index; adjacent segment degeneration; sacroiliac loads determined by limb length discrepancy; whether epidural steroids improve outcome in lumbar disc herniation; spondylodiscitis in infancy; total pedicle screws; and iliac crest autograft complications.