The February 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Surgeon assessment of bone – any good?; Robotics reduces radiation exposure in some spinal surgery; Interbody fusion cage versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation; Is robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement an answer to the learning curve?; Acute non-traumatic spinal subarachnoid haematomas: a report of five cases and a systematic review of the literature; Is L4-L5 lateral interbody fusion safe and effective?

Aims. We compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of using a polyetheretherketone cage with (TiPEEK) and without a titanium coating (PEEK) for instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Materials and Methods. We conducted a randomised clinical pilot trial of 40 patients who were scheduled to undergo a TLIF procedure at one or two levels between L2 and L5. The Oswestry disability index (ODI), EuroQoL-5D, and back and leg pain were determined pre-operatively, and at three, six, and 12 months post-operatively. Fusion rates were assessed by thin slice CT at three months and by functional radiography at 12 months. Results. At final follow-up, one patient in each group had been lost to follow-up. Two patients in each of the PEEK and TiPEEK groups were revised for pseudarthrosis (p = 1.00). The rate of complete or partial fusion at three months was 91.7% in both groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in ODI or in radiological outcomes between the groups. Conclusion. Favourable results with identical clinical outcomes and a high rate of fusion was seen in both groups. The titanium coating appears to have no negative effects on outcome or safety in the short term. A future study to determine the effect of titanium coating is warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1366–72

The December 2024 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Rostral facet joint violations in robotic- and navigation-assisted pedicle screw placement; The inhibitory effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids on spinal fusion: an animal model;L5-S1 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is associated with increased revisions compared to L4-L5 TLIF at two years; Immediate versus gradual brace weaning protocols in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized clinical trial; Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualized, progressive walking, and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomized controlled trial; Usefulness and limitations of intraoperative pathological diagnosis using frozen sections for spinal cord tumours; Effect of preoperative HbA1c and blood glucose level on the surgical site infection after lumbar instrumentation surgery; How good are surgeons at achieving their alignment goals?

Aims

To determine the effectiveness of prone traction radiographs in predicting postoperative slip distance, slip angle, changes in disc height, and lordosis after surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine.

Aims

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) has been well validated in overweight and obese patients who are consequently subject to a higher radiation exposure. This prospective multicentre study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a novel lumbar localisation system for MITLIF in overweight patients.

The August 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: SPECT CT and facet joints; a difficult conversation: scoliosis and complications; time for a paradigm shift? complications under the microscope; minor trauma and cervical injury: a predictable phenomenon?; more costly all round: incentivising more complex operations?; minimally invasive surgery = minimal scarring; and symptomatic lumbar spine stenosis.

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (sd 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (sd 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); ‘good’ global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52).

The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes.

Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years.