Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) is an emerging technology. However, the factors that influence postoperative range of motion (ROM) and patient satisfaction are not fully understood. PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of pre- and postoperative disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of patients enrolled in prospective randomized Food and Drug Administration (FDA) trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred sixty-six patients with single-level ProDisc-C arthroplasty performed were evaluated. OUTCOME MEASURES: ROM and clinical outcomes based on Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were assessed. METHODS: Preoperative and postoperative disc height and ROM were measured from lateral and flexion-extension radiographs. Student t test and Spearman's rho tests were performed to determine any correlation or 'threshold' effect between the disc height and ROM or clinical outcome. RESULTS: Patients with less than 4mm of preoperative disc height had a mean 1.8 degrees increase in flexion-extension ROM after TDR, whereas patients with greater than 4mm of preoperative disc height had no change (mean, 0 degrees ) in flexion-extension ROM (p=.04). Patients with greater than 5mm of postoperative disc height have significantly higher postoperative flexion-extension ROM (mean, 10.1 degrees ) than those with less than 5mm disc height (mean, 8.3 degrees , p=.014). However, patients with greater than 7mm of postoperative disc height have significantly lower postoperative lateral bending ROM (mean, 4.1 degrees ) than those with less than 7mm disc height (mean, 5.7 degrees , p=.04). It appears that the optimal postoperative disc height is between 5 and 7mm for increased ROM on flexion extension and lateral bending. There was a mean improvement of 30.5 points for NDI, 4.3 points for VAS neck pain score, and 3.9 points for VAS arm pain score (all p<.001). No correlation could be found between clinical outcomes and disc height. Similarly, no threshold effect could be found between any specific disc height and NDI or VAS. CONCLUSION: Patients with greater disc collapse of less than 4mm preoperative disc height benefit more in ROM after TDR. The optimal postoperative disc height range to maximize ROM is between 5 and 7mm. This optimal range did not translate into better clinical outcome at 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Vertebral artery (VA) injury can be a catastrophic iatrogenic complication of cervical spine surgery. Although the incidence is rare, it has serious consequences including fistulas, pseudoaneurysm, cerebral ischemia, and death. It is therefore imperative to be familiar with the anatomy and the instrumentation techniques when performing anterior or posterior cervical spine surgeries. PURPOSE: To provide a review of VA injury during common anterior and posterior cervical spine procedures with an evaluation of the surgical anatomy, management, and prevention of this injury. STUDY DESIGN: Comprehensive literature review. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline for articles related to VA injury in cervical spine surgery was conducted up to and including journal articles published in 2007. The literature was then reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Overall, the risk of VA injury during cervical spine surgery is low. In anterior cervical procedures, lateral dissection puts the VA at the most risk, so sound anatomical knowledge and constant reference to the midline are mandatory during dissection. With the development and rise in popularity of posterior cervical stabilization and instrumentation, recognition of the dangers of posterior drilling and insertion of transarticular screws and pedicle screws is important. Anomalous vertebral anatomy increases the risk of injury and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and/or computed tomography (CT) scans should be carefully reviewed. When the VA is injured, steps should be taken to control local bleeding. Permanent occlusion or ligation should only be attempted if it is known that the contralateral VA is capable of providing adequate collateral circulation. With the advent of endovascular repair, this treatment option can be considered when a VA injury is encountered. CONCLUSIONS: VA injury during cervical spine surgery is a rare but serious complication. It can be prevented by careful review of preoperative imaging studies, having a sound anatomical knowledge and paying attention to surgical landmarks intraoperatively. When a VA injury occurs, prompt recognition and management are important

Introduction: The gold standard for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis is posterior-lateral fusion. Few studies have evaluated the clinical outcomes of circumference fusion in the treatment if isthmic spondylolisthesis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical and clinical outcomes of anterior-posterior surgical treatment for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Methods: Retrospectively, 23 consecutive patients were enrolled that underwent surgical treatment for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Grade 1 or 2. Basic demographic data was collected. Radiographic data that was collected included Meyerding Scale, disc height, and slip angle. Pre and post surgical clinical surveys which included VAS, ODI, and SF-36 surveys were collected. Results: There were 23 patients. All patients underwent anterior interbody fusion with a femoral ring allograft or iliac crest bone graft in addition to posterior lumbar decompression and fusion with instrumentation. The average slip percentage decreased from 23.2% to 19.0% (P = 0.24), slip angle increased from 9.8 to 17.9 (P < 0.001), and disc height decreased from 1.9 cm to 0.80 cm (P < .001). VAS scores decreased from 7.1 to 2.4 (P < 0.001). ODI scores decreased from 52.5 to 28.1 (P < 0.001). SF-36 scores demonstrated a significant increase in the Physical Component Scale (PCS) from 29.5 to 42.6 (P < 0.001). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis that undergo circumferential fusion have a good clinical outcome. Patients demonstrated an improvement in the ODI and the physical component scores of the SF-36. These results demonstrate that patients improved in their physical functioning due to the surgery alone

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The golf swing imparts significant stress on the lumbar spine. Not surprisingly, low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal complaints among golfers. PURPOSE: This article provides a review of lumbar spine forces during the golf swing and other research available on swing biomechanics and muscle activity during trunk rotation. STUDY DESIGN: The role of 'modern' and 'classic' swing styles in golf-associated LBP, as well as LBP causation theories, treatment, and prevention strategies, are reviewed. METHODS: A PubMed literature search was performed using various permutations of the following keywords: lumbar, spine, low, back, therapy, pain, prevention, injuries, golf, swing, trunk, rotation, and biomechanics. Articles were screened and selected for relevance to injuries in golf, swing mechanics, and biomechanics of the trunk and lumbar spine. Articles addressing treatment of LBP with discussions on trunk rotation or golf were also selected. Primary references were included from the initial selection of articles where appropriate. General web searches were performed to identify articles for background information on the sport of golf and postsurgical return to play. RESULTS: Prospective, randomized studies have shown that focus on the transversus abdominus (TA) and multifidi (MF) muscles is a necessary part of physical therapy for LBP. Some studies also suggest that the coaching of a 'classic' golf swing and increasing trunk flexibility may provide additional benefit. CONCLUSIONS: There is a notable lack of studies separating the effects of swing modification from physical rehabilitation, and controlled trials are necessary to identify the true effectiveness of specific swing modifications for reducing LBP in golf. Although the establishment of a commonly used regimen to address all golf-associated LBP would be ideal, it may be more practical to apply basic principles mentioned in this article to the tailoring of a unique regimen for the patient. Guidelines for returning to golf after spine surgery are also discussed

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients enrolled in prospective randomized Food and Drug Administration trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of pre- and postoperative disc height on postoperative motion and clinical outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Our understanding of the factors that influence motion and ultimately patient satisfaction after lumbar disc replacement continues to evolve. METHODS: Forty-two patients with a single level ProDisc-L at either the L4/5 or L5-S1 were selected. Pre- and postoperative disc height and range of motion (ROM) were measured from standing lateral and flexion-extension radiographs. Oswestry Disability Index and visual analog scale were also collected. Student t test and Spearman rho tests were performed to determine if there was any correlation or 'threshold' effect between the disc height and ROM or clinical outcome. RESULTS: The mean anterior and posterior disc height significantly increased from 10.8 mm to 17.6 mm and 4.4 mm to 7.9 mm, respectively (P < 0.01). The mean ROM decreased from 7.0 degrees to 5.7 degrees (P = 0.21). Patients with less than 9 mm of preoperative anterior disc height had an increase in their ROM (2.2 degrees) compared with a loss of ROM (-2.2 degrees) in patients with more than 9 mm of preoperative disc height (P = 0.02). Patients with between 16 mm and 18 mm of postoperative anterior disc height have greater ROM (7.5 degrees) than those above or below this range (3.6 degrees and 3.6 degrees respectively, P < 0.05). There was no correlation or threshold effect between clinical outcomes and disc height. CONCLUSION: Patients with greater disc collapse benefit more in ROM from a total disc replacement. The optimal range to maximize ROM for postoperative anterior disc height is 16 mm to 18 mm. This optimal range did not translate into better clinical outcome at 2 years follow-up

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective outcome data analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if there is a significant difference between the midline rectus (MR) and the paramedian lateral rectus (PLR) approaches with regard to implant position for lumbar disc arthroplasty. To establish that a less than optimal implant position may influence clinical outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Little is known about the impact of varying surgical approaches on lumbar artificial disc implant position and clinical outcome. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients were obtained from one center participating Food and Drug Administration study for the evaluation of the lumbar Prodisc-L. Two different surgical access techniques were compared; the MR and left PLR. Two independent evaluators calculated the postoperative radiographical displacement from the midline in the coronal and sagittal planes for each of the surgical techniques. Pre- and postoperative clinical outcomes were evaluated to determine which surgical access technique was associated with better outcomes and if there was a clinical correlation with technical accuracy. RESULTS: The PLR approach was associated with greater malalignment of the prosthesis in both the coronal and sagittal planes compared with the MR approach. However, the difference was significant only in the sagittal plane (P = 0.021). There was no significant difference in clinical outcome for either approach (P = 0.34). Patients with >or=5 mm prosthetic displacement from the midvertebral point had significantly worse Owestry disability index scores than patients with <3 mm malalignment in both the coronal and sagittal planes regardless of the surgical approach employed. CONCLUSION: The finding of a statistically significant more anteriorly displaced position in the sagittal plane of the total disc arthroplasty using the PLR approach may indicate a need to change to the MR approach. This study also demonstrates that patients with >or=5 mm prosthetic deviation from midline in either the coronal or sagittal planes had diminished clinical outcomes regardless of the approach used

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, independent study comparing 2 groups of patients treated surgically for discogenic low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease (DDD) in the lumbosacral spine. OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical and hospitalization charges associated with 1- and 2-level lumbar total disc replacement and circumferential lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Reported series of lumbar total disc replacement have been favorable. However, economic aspects of lumbar total disc replacement (TDR) have not been published or studied. This information is important considering the recent widespread utilization of new technologies. Recent studies have demonstrated comparable short-term clinical results between TDR and lumbar fusion recipients. Relative charges may be another important indicator of the most appropriate procedure. We report a hospital charge-analysis comparing ProDisc lumbar disc replacement with circumferential fusion for discogenic low back pain. METHODS: In a cohort of 53 prospectively selected patients with severe, disabling back pain and lumbar disc degeneration, 36 received Synthes ProDisc TDR and 17 underwent circumferential fusion for 1- and 2-level degenerative disc disease between L3 and S1. Randomization was performed using a 2-to-1 ratio of ProDisc recipients to control spinal fusion recipients. Charge comparisons, including operating room charges, inpatient hospital charges, and implant charges, were made from hospital records using inflation-corrected 2006 U.S. dollars. Operating room times, estimated blood loss, and length of stay were obtained from hospital records as well. Surgeon and anesthesiologist fees were, for the purposes of comparison, based on Medicare reimbursement rates. Statistical analysis was performed using a 2-tailed Student t test. RESULTS: For patients with 1-level disease, significant differences were noted between the TDR and fusion control group. The mean total charge for the TDR group was $35,592 versus $46,280 for the fusion group (P = 0.0018). Operating room charges were $12,000 and $18,950, respectively, for the TDR and fusion groups (P < 0.05). Implant charges averaged $13,990 for the fusion group, which is slightly higher than the $13,800 for the ProDisc (P = 0.9). Estimated blood loss averaged 794 mL in the fusion group versus 412 mL in the TDR group (P = 0.0058). Mean OR minutes averaged 344 minutes for the fusion group and 185 minutes for the TDR (P < 0.05) Mean length of stay was 4.78 days for fusion versus 4.32 days for TDR (P = 0.394). For patients with 2-level disease, charges were similar between the TDR and fusion groups. The mean total charge for the 2-level TDR group was $55,524 versus $56,823 for the fusion group (P = 0.55). Operating room charges were $15,340 and $20,560, respectively, for the TDR and fusion groups (P = 0.0003). Surgeon fees and anesthesiologist charges based on Medicare reimbursement rates were $5857 and $525 for the fusion group, respectively, versus $2826 and $331 for the TDR group (P < 0.05 for each). Implant charges were significantly lower for the fusion group (mean, $18,460) than those for 2-level Synthes ProDisc ($27,600) (P < 0.05). Operative time averaged 387 minutes for fusion versus 242 minutes for TDR (P < 0.0001). EBL and length of stay were similar. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing 1- and 2-level ProDisc total disc replacement spent significantly less time in the OR and had less EBL than controls. Charges were significantly lower for TDR compared with circumferential fusions in the 1-level patient group, while charges were similar in the 2-level group

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, multicenter, Food and Drug Administration-regulated Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the ProDisc-L (Synthes Spine, West Chester, PA) lumbar total disc replacement compared to circumferential spinal fusion for the treatment of discogenic pain at 1 vertebral level between L3 and S1. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As part of the Investigational Device Exemption clinical trial, favorable single center results of lumbar total disc replacement with the ProDisc-L have been reported previously. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-six (286) patients were treated on protocol. Patients were evaluated before and after surgery, at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Evaluation at each visit included patient self-assessments, physical and neurologic examinations, and radiographic evaluation. RESULTS: Safety of ProDisc-L implantation was demonstrated with 0% major complications. At 24 months, 91.8% of investigational and 84.5% of control patients reported improvement in the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) from preoperative levels, and 77.2% of investigational and 64.8% of control patients met the > or =15% Oswestry Disability Index improvement criteria. Overall neurologic success in the investigational group was superior to the control group (91.2% investigational and 81.4% control; P = 0.0341). At 6 weeks and 3 months follow-up time points, the ProDisc-L patients recorded SF-36 Health Survey scores significantly higher than the control group (P = 0.018, P = 0.0036, respectively). The visual analog scale pain assessment showed statistically significant improvement from preoperative levels regardless of treatment (P < 0.0001). Visual analog scale patient satisfaction at 24 months showed a statistically significant difference favoring investigational patients over the control group (P = 0.015). Radiographic range of motion was maintained within a normal functional range in 93.7% of investigational patients and averaged 7.7 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: ProDisc-L has been found to be safe and efficacious. In properly chosen patients, ProDisc-L has been shown to be superior to circumferential fusion by multiple clinical criteria