Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To review published series describing C1-2 posterior instrumented fusions and summarize clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with screw-rod constructs (SRC). METHODS: Online databases were searched for English-language articles published between 1991 and April 2011 describing posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation with C1-2 SRC. There were 24 studies including 1073 patients treated with SRC that fulfilled inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis techniques were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: All studies provided class III evidence. The 30-day perioperative mortality rate was 0.6%, and neurologic injury occurred in two patients with vertebral artery injury (VAI) from screw malpositions (0.2%). The incidence of clinically significant screw malpositions was 2.4% (confidence interval [CI], 1.1%-4.1%), the incidence of VAI was 2.0% (CI, 1.1%-3.4%), and the rate of fusion with the SRC technique was 97.5% (CI, 95.9%-98.5%). CONCLUSIONS: SRC is a safe and effective treatment option for C1-2 instability. The low but nonzero incidence of screw malposition and VAI emphasizes the necessity of having a thorough knowledge of atlantoaxial anatomy for successful insertion of screws.

OBJECTIVE: Atlantoaxial osteoarthritis (AAOA) is an underrecognized source of neck pain, limitation of range of motion, and cervicogenic headaches. When conservative treatments such as facet injections fail, fusion may be indicated. We reviewed published series describing posterior fusions for atlantoaxial osteoarthritis of the facet joints. METHODS: Online databases were searched for English-language articles describing the diagnosis and treatment of AAOA. Twenty-three studies reporting on 246 patients treated with posterior fusion for lateral AAOA fulfilled inclusion criteria. Standard statistical and formal meta-analytic techniques were used to assess outcomes. RESULTS: All studies provided class III evidence. The 30-day perioperative mortality was 1.2% and neurologic injury did not occur. Patients were followed for a mean of nearly 5 years. Fusion was successful in 98% of patients with a single operation and with 99.5% of patients after revision surgery. Intractable preoperative neck pain either resolved completely or improved in 97.7% of patients. Using meta-analytic techniques, the point estimate for improvement or resolution of pain was 92.6% (confidence interval = 86.8%-96.0%) and the rate of arthrodesis for AAOA was 92.2% (confidence interval = 85.6%-95.9%) and there were no differences among the various techniques used for fusion. Operative complications were few. CONCLUSION: Posterior C1-2 fusion is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with intractable neck pain secondary to lateral AAOA. Modern fusion options offer a high rate of arthrodesis and low risk of morbidity if conservative therapies fail to provide adequate pain relief.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) started 24 to 36 hours after degenerative spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant postoperative complication best averted with dual mechanical/pharmacological prophylaxis. Pharmacological prophylaxis is widely used in patients with spinal cord injury, but there is no consensus on its role in degenerative spine surgery, particularly after laminectomy with the concurrent risk of epidural hematoma. The literature suggests a small but potentially devastating hemorrhage risk when LMWH is started within 24 hours of spine surgery. An intermediate strategy is delayed LMWH initiation to minimize hemorrhage risk and retain benefits of dual prophylaxis. METHODS: Operative reports of the senior author were retrospectively reviewed for all cases of cervical and lumbar laminectomy from 2007 to 2011. Single-level decompressions without fusion and all nondegenerative cases were excluded. Baseline and operative details were recorded. Mechanical prophylaxis was used throughout admission, and prophylactic LMWH was started postoperative day 1 at 10 PM. All cases of postoperative hemorrhage (epidural hematoma, superficial hematoma, persistent wound drainage), deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were noted. RESULTS: A total of 367 patients underwent multilevel laminectomy or laminectomy and fusion for degenerative disease. VTE risk factors (age >60 yr, smoking, obesity) were common. No patients receiving LMWH 24 to 36 hours after surgery developed postoperative hemorrhage (95% confidence interval: 0-0.8%). Nearly half of the study population underwent lower extremity ultrasonography or chest computed tomography, and acute VTE was diagnosed in 14 patients (3.8%; 95% confidence interval: 2.1-6.3). CONCLUSION: LMWH prophylaxis seems to carry a very low hemorrhage risk when started 24 to 36 hours after spine surgery. Larger, prospective studies are needed to assess the safety of early delayed LMWH administration more definitively. Even with aggressive prophylaxis, patients undergoing fusion or multilevel laminectomy for degenerative disease are at significant risk for VTE.

OBJECTIVE: To review published series describing C1-2 posterior instrumented fusions and summarize clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with transarticular screw (TAS) fixation. METHODS: Online databases were searched for English-language articles published between 1986 and April 2011 describing posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation with C1-2 TAS fixation. There were 45 studies including 2073 patients treated with TAS that fulfilled inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis techniques were used to calculate outcomes. RESULTS: All studies provided class III evidence. The 30-day perioperative mortality rate was 0.8%, and the incidence of neurologic injury was 0.2%. The incidence of clinically significant malpositioned screws was 7.1% (confidence interval [CI], 5.7%-8.8%), the incidence of vertebral artery injury was 3.1% (CI, 2.3%-4.3%), and the rate of fusion with the TAS technique was 94.6% (CI, 92.6%-96.1%). CONCLUSIONS: TAS fixation is a safe and effective treatment option for C1-2 instability with high rates of fusion (approximately 95%). Screw malposition and vertebral artery injury occurred in approximately 5% of patients. The successful insertion of TAS requires a thorough knowledge of atlantoaxial anatomy.

OBJECTIVE: Wound infections are one of the most common and potentially devastating complications of spinal surgery. Intra-wound application of vancomycin powder has been shown to lower the infection risk following posterior instrumented fusion, but little evidence supports use in other spinal operations. The goal of this study is to assess the efficacy of vancomycin powder for lumbar laminectomy and fusion, both instrumented and non-instrumented. METHODS: All cases of lumbar laminectomy and posterior fusion (with or without pedicle screw fixation) by a single surgeon were reviewed from 2007 to 2011. Routine application of 1g vancomycin powder was started in August 2009. Baseline characteristics and operative data were compared between untreated patients and those who received vancomycin powder. Rates of wound infection were compared for all fusions, and then separately for instrumented and non-instrumented cases. RESULTS: 253 patients underwent lumbar laminectomy and fusion between 2007 and 2011. Baseline and operative variables were similar between untreated patients (n=97) and those who received vancomycin powder (n=156). Patients were followed for at least one year. The infection rate fell significantly following introduction of vancomycin powder (from 11% to 0%, p=0.000018). Subgroup analysis revealed significant infection reduction for both instrumented cases (from 12% to 0%, p=0.000806) and non-instrumented cases (from 10% to 0%, p=0.0496). No complications attributable to vancomycin powder were identified. CONCLUSION: Local vancomycin powder appears to lower the risk of wound infection following lumbar laminectomy and fusion, both instrumented and non-instrumented. Further studies are needed to optimize dosing of vancomycin powder, assess long-term safety and efficacy, and evaluate use in other spinal operations.

ABSTRACT: Study Design. A retrospective cohort study.Objective. To assess the ability of local vancomycin powder to prevent wound infection after posterior cervical fusionSummary of Background Data. Wound infections are a significant source of morbidity and cost associated with spine surgery. Intraoperative application of vancomycin powder to the wound edges has been shown to lower the infection risk after posterior instrumented thoracolumbar fusion. There is little data on the efficacy and safety of local vancomycin powder in cervical spine surgery.Methods. All cases of posterior cervical fusion by a single surgeon were reviewed from 2007 to 2011. Routine application of 1 gram vancomycin powder was started in August 2009. Baseline characteristics, operative details, and rates of wound infection and pseudarthrosis were compared between untreated patients and those who received vancomycin powder.Results. 171 patients underwent posterior cervical fusion between 2007 and 2011. Baseline and operative variables were similar between untreated patients (n = 92) and those who received vancomycin powder (n = 79). Patients were followed for a minimum of one year (range 1.1 to 5.7 years). The infection rate fell from 10.9% to 2.5% (p = 0.0384) following the introduction of vancomycin powder. The untreated and treated groups had similar rates of pseudarthrosis (5.4% versus 5.1%). No complications attributable to vancomycin powder were identified.Conclusion. Routine local application of vancomycin powder is a low-cost, effective strategy for preventing wound infection after posterior cervical fusion. Further studies are needed to optimize dosing, assess long-term safety, and evaluate use in other spinal operations.

BACKGROUND: No guidelines exist regarding external cervical orthoses (ECO) after atlantoaxial fusion. We reviewed published series describing C1-2 posterior instrumented fusions with screw-rod constructs (SRC) or transarticular screws (TAS) and compared rates of fusion with and without postoperative ECO. METHODS: Online databases were searched for English-language articles between 1986 and April 2011 describing ECO use after posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation with SRC or TAS. Eighteen studies describing 947 patients who had SRC (+/- ECO: 254 of 693 patients), and 33 studies describing 1424 patients with TAS (+/- ECO: 525 of 899 patients) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis techniques were applied to estimate rates of fusion with and without ECO use. RESULTS: All studies provided class III evidence, and no studies directly compared outcomes with or without ECO use. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who achieved successful fusion between patients treated with ECO and without ECO for SRC or TAS patients. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for rates of fusion +/- ECO were 97.4% (CI: 95.2% to 98.6%) versus 97.9% (CI: 93.6% to 99.3%) for SRC and 93.6% (CI: 90.7% to 95.6%) versus 95.3% (CI: 90.8% to 97.7%) for TAS. There was no correlation between duration of ECO treatment and fusion (dose effect). CONCLUSIONS: After C1-2 fusion with modern instrumentation, ECO may be unnecessary (class III). Some centers recommend ECO use with patients with softer bone quality (class IV). Prospective, randomized studies with validated radiographic and clinical outcome metrics are necessary to determine the utility of ECO after C1-2 fusion and its impact on patient comfort and cost.

OBJECTIVE: To review published series describing C1-2 posterolateral instrumentation, comparing outcomes in patients who had and did not have C2 nerve sacrifice. METHODS: Online databases were searched for English-language articles between 1994 and April 2011 pertaining to posterior atlantoaxial instrumentation with C1 lateral mass and C2 screws. Twenty studies describing 732 patients with C2 nerve preservation and 6 studies describing 361 patients with C2 sacrifice met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: All but one small study without a control group were retrospective case series, making all evidence class III. Excluding C2 nerve dysfunction, no neurological deterioration was observed. Three instances of vertebral artery injury were secondary to soft tissue dissection and one was secondary to C1 screw insertion. There were seven instances of C1 screw malposition in the preservation group and none in the section group. Reported in roughly 20% of patients, mean estimated blood loss tended to be lower with C2 nerve sectioning (213 vs. 471 mL) and operative times were somewhat shorter (118 vs. 132 minutes). C2 nerve section resulted in greater symptomatic numbness (11.6% vs. 1.3%; P < 0.0001) but less neuropathic pain (0.3% vs. 4.7%; P = 0.0002) compared with C2 preservation. CONCLUSIONS: Sacrifice of the C2 nerve root to aid in the insertion of C1 lateral mass screws when performing posterior atlantoaxial instrumented fusions is a treatment option (class III). It may decrease blood loss and operative duration, potentially advantageous in elderly or frail patients. Numbness occurred in roughly 12% of patients, an outcome that may be unacceptable to certain patient populations, but neuropathic pain was nearly absent in reported studies with nerve section. C2 nerve preservation and retraction for C1 screw placement may have higher incidence of neuropathic pain (~5%). Rates of fusion are universally high independent of C2 nerve technique.

Object Some centers report a lower incidence of vertebral artery (VA) injury with C-2 pars screws compared with pedicle screws without sacrificing construct stability, despite biomechanical studies suggesting greater load failures with C-2 pedicle screws. The authors reviewed published series describing C-2 pars and pedicle screw implantation and atlantoaxial fusions and compared the incidence of VA injury, screw malposition, and successful atlantoaxial fusion with each screw type. Methods Online databases were searched for English-language articles between 1994 and April of 2011 describing the clinical and radiographic outcomes following posterior atlantoaxial fusion with C-1 lateral mass and either C-2 pars interarticularis or pedicle screws. Thirty-three studies describing 2975 C-2 pedicle screws and 11 studies describing 405 C-2 pars screws met inclusion criteria for the safety analysis. Seven studies describing 113 patients treated with C-2 pars screws and 20 studies describing 918 patients treated with C-2 pedicle screws met inclusion criteria for fusion analysis. Standard and formal meta-analysis techniques were used to compare outcomes. Results All studies provided Class III evidence. Ten instances of VA injury occurred with C-2 pedicle screws (0.3%) and no VA injury occurred with pars screws. The point estimate of VA injury for C-2 pedicle screws was 1.09% (95% CI 0.73%-1.63%) and was similar to that of C-2 pars screws (1.48%, 95% CI 0.62%-3.52%). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of clinically significant screw malpositions (1.14% [95% CI 0.77%-1.69%) vs 1.69% [95% CI 0.73%-3.84%]). Radiographically identified screw malposition occurred in a higher proportion of C-2 pedicle screws compared with C-2 pars screws (6.0% [95% CI 3.7%-9.6%] vs 4.0% [95% CI 2.0%-7.6%], p < 0.0001). Pseudarthrosis occurred in a greater proportion of patients treated with C-2 pars screws (5 [4.4%] of 113) compared with those treated with C-2 pedicle screws (2 [0.22%] of 900). Point estimates with 95% confidence intervals show a slightly higher rate of successful atlantoaxial fusion in the pedicle screw cohort (97.8% [CI 96.0%-98.8%] vs 93.5% [CI 86.6%-97.0%]; p < 0.0001). Q-testing ruled out heterogeneity between the study groups. Conclusions With a thorough knowledge of axis anatomy, surgeons can place both C-2 pars and C-2 pedicle screws accurately with a small risk of VA injury or clinically significant malposition. There may be subtle trade-off of safety for rigidity when using axial pedicle instead of pars screws, and the decision to use either screw type must be made only after careful review of the preoperative CT imaging and must take into account the surgeon's expertise and the particular demands of the clinical scenario in any given case.