The October 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Analysis of risk factors for non-fusion of bone graft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a clinical retrospective study; Does paraspinal muscle mass predict lumbar lordosis before and after decompression for degenerative spinal stenosis?; Return to work after surgery for lumbar disk herniation: a nationwide registry-based study; Can the six-minute walking test assess ambulatory function impairment in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy?; Complications after adult deformity surgery: losing more than sleep; Frailty limits how good we can get in adult spine deformity surgery.

The April 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy versus microendoscopic discectomy; Spine surgical site infections: a single debridement is not enough; Lenke type 5, anterior, or posterior: systematic review and meta-analysis; Epidural steroid injections and postoperative infection in lumbar decompression or fusion; Noninferiority of posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy; Identifying delays to surgical treatment for metastatic disease; Cervical disc replacement and adjacent segment disease: the NECK trial; Predicting complication in adult spine deformity surgery.

The December 2022 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis protocol on a Level 1 trauma centre patient database; Non-specific spondylodiscitis: a new perspective for surgical treatment; Disc degeneration could be recovered after chemonucleolysis; Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy- anterior cervical discectomy and fusion “hybrid” procedures: how does the alignment look?; Rivaroxaban or enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; Surgical site infection: when do we have to remove the implants?; Determination of a neurologic safe zone for bicortical S1 pedicle placement; Do you need to operate on unstable spine fractures in the elderly: outcomes and mortality; Degeneration to deformity: when does the patient need both?

Objectives. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation was evaluated after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures in a randomized, controlled clinical study performed for United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. PEMF significantly increased fusion rates at six months, but 12-month fusion outcomes for subjects at elevated risk for pseudoarthrosis were not thoroughly reported. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of PEMF treatment on subjects at increased risk for pseudoarthrosis after ACDF procedures. Methods. Two evaluations were performed that compared fusion rates between PEMF stimulation and a historical control (160 subjects) from the FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) study: a post hoc (PH) analysis of high-risk subjects from the FDA study (PH PEMF); and a multicentre, open-label (OL) study consisting of 274 subjects treated with PEMF (OL PEMF). Fisher’s exact test and multivariate logistic regression was used to compare fusion rates between PEMF-treated subjects and historical controls. Results. In separate comparisons of PH PEMF and OL PEMF groups to the historical control group, PEMF treatment significantly (p < 0.05, Fisher’s exact test) increased the fusion rate at six and 12 months for certain high-risk subjects who had at least one clinical risk factor of being elderly, a nicotine user, osteoporotic, or diabetic; and for those with at least one clinical risk factor and who received at least a two- or three-level arthrodesis. Conclusion. Adjunctive PEMF treatment can be recommended for patients who are at high risk for pseudoarthrosis. Cite this article: D. Coric, D. E. Bullard, V. V. Patel, J. T. Ryaby, B. L. Atkinson, D. He, R. D. Guyer. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation may improve fusion rates in cervical arthrodesis in high-risk populations. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:124–130. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.72.BJR-2017-0221.R1

The August 2015 Spine Roundup360 looks at: Steroids may be useful in avoiding dysphagia in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); Perhaps X-Stop ought to stop?; Is cervical plexus block in ACDF the gateway to day case spinal surgery?; Epidural past its heyday?; Steroids in lumbar back pain; Lumbar disc replacement improving; Post-discectomy arthritis

Aims. Whether to perform hybrid surgery (HS) in contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when treating patients with multilevel cervical disc degeneration remains a controversial subject. To resolve this we have undertaken a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes from HS with ACDF in this condition. Methods. Seven databases were searched for studies of HS and ACDF from inception of the study to 1 September 2019. Both random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to evaluate the overall effect of the C2-C7 range of motion (ROM), ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), heterotopic ossification (HO), complications, neck disability index (NDI) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Odom’s criteria, blood loss, and operating and hospitalization time. To obtain more credible results contour-enhanced funnel plots, Egger’s and Begg’s tests, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results. In total, 17 studies involving 861 patients were included in the analysis. HS was found to be superior to ACDF in maintaining C2-C7 ROM and ROM of superior/inferior adjacent levels, but HS did not reduce the incidence of associated level ASD. Also, HS did not cause a higher rate of HO than ACDF. The frequency of complications was similar between the two techniques. HS failed to achieve more favourable outcomes than ACDF using the NDI, VAS, JOA, and Odom’s scores. HS did not show any more advantages in operating or hospitalization time but did show reduction in blood loss. Conclusion. Although HS maintained cervical kinetics, it failed to reduce the incidence of ASD. This finding differs from previous reports. Moreover, patients did not show more benefits from HS with respect to symptom improvement, prevention of complications, and clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):981–996

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine how the short- and medium- to long-term outcome measures after total disc replacement (TDR) compare with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patients and Methods. Databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Inclusion criteria involved prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical disc disease. Two independent investigators extracted the data. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary outcome measures were overall and neurological success, and these were included in the meta-analysis. Standardized patient-reported outcomes, including the incidence of further surgery and adjacent segment disease, were summarized and discussed. Results. A total of 22 papers published from 14 RCTs were included, representing 3160 patients with follow-up of up to ten years. Meta-analysis indicated that TDR is superior to ACDF at two years and between four and seven years. In the short-term, patients who underwent TDR had better patient-reported outcomes than those who underwent ACDF, but at two years this was typically not significant. Results between four and seven years showed significant differences in Neck Disability Index (NDI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component scores, dysphagia, and satisfaction, all favouring TDR. Most trials found significantly less adjacent segment disease after TDR at both two years (short-term) and between four and seven years (medium- to long-term). Conclusion. TDR is as effective as ACDF and superior for some outcomes. Disc replacement reduces the risk of adjacent segment disease. Continued uncertainty remains about degeneration of the prosthesis. Long-term surveillance of patients who undergo TDR may allow its routine use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:991–1001

The February 2023 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: S2AI screws: At what cost?; Just how good is spinal deformity surgery?; Is 80 years of age too late in the day for spine surgery?; Factors affecting the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in robot-assisted surgery; Factors causing delay in discharge in patients eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion surgery; Anterior cervical discectomy or fusion and selective laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Surgery for cervical radiculopathy: what is the complication burden?; Hypercholesterolemia and neck pain; Return to work after surgery for cervical radiculopathy: a nationwide registry-based observational study.

Aims

The optimal procedure for the treatment of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of anterior cervical ossified posterior longitudinal ligament en bloc resection (ACOE) with posterior laminectomy and fusion with bone graft and internal fixation (PTLF) for the surgical management of patients with this condition.

Initial treatment of traumatic spinal cord injury remains as controversial in 2023 as it was in the early 19th century, when Sir Astley Cooper and Sir Charles Bell debated the merits or otherwise of surgery to relieve cord compression. There has been a lack of high-class evidence for early surgery, despite which expeditious intervention has become the surgical norm. This evidence deficit has been progressively addressed in the last decade and more modern statistical methods have been used to clarify some of the issues, which is demonstrated by the results of the SCI-POEM trial. However, there has never been a properly conducted trial of surgery versus active conservative care. As a result, it is still not known whether early surgery or active physiological management of the unstable injured spinal cord offers the better chance for recovery. Surgeons who care for patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries in the acute setting should be aware of the arguments on all sides of the debate, a summary of which this annotation presents.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):347–355.

Aims

Cervical radiculopathy is a significant cause of pain and morbidity. For patients with severe and poorly controlled symptoms who may not be candidates for surgical management, treatment with transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) has gained widespread acceptance. However, a paucity of high-quality evidence supporting their use balanced against perceived high risks of the procedure potentially undermines the confidence of clinicians who use the technique. We undertook a systematic review of the available literature regarding CTFESI to assess the clinical efficacy and complication rates of the procedure.

In recent years, machine learning (ML) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), a particular subset of ML, have been adopted by various areas of healthcare. A number of diagnostic and prognostic algorithms have been designed and implemented across a range of orthopaedic sub-specialties to date, with many positive results. However, the methodology of many of these studies is flawed, and few compare the use of ML with the current approach in clinical practice. Spinal surgery has advanced rapidly over the past three decades, particularly in the areas of implant technology, advanced surgical techniques, biologics, and enhanced recovery protocols. It is therefore regarded an innovative field. Inevitably, spinal surgeons will wish to incorporate ML into their practice should models prove effective in diagnostic or prognostic terms. The purpose of this article is to review published studies that describe the application of neural networks to spinal surgery and which actively compare ANN models to contemporary clinical standards allowing evaluation of their efficacy, accuracy, and relatability. It also explores some of the limitations of the technology, which act to constrain the widespread adoption of neural networks for diagnostic and prognostic use in spinal care. Finally, it describes the necessary considerations should institutions wish to incorporate ANNs into their practices. In doing so, the aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for spinal surgeons to understand the relevant aspects of neural networks.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1442–1448.