Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Lumbar synovial cysts (LSC), best diagnosed on MR studies, may cause symptoms/signs ranging from unilateral radiculopathy to cauda equina compressive syndromes. Attempts at percutaneous treatment of LSC typically fail. Rather, greater safety/efficacy is associated with direct surgical resection with/without fusion. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Treatment of LSC with percutaneous techniques, including cyst aspiration/perforation, injection (i.e., with/without steroids, saline/other), dilatation, and/or disruption/bursting, classically fail. This is because LSCs' tough, thickened, and adherent fibrous capsules cause extensive thecal sac/nerve root compression, and contain minimal central "fluid" (i.e., "crank-case" and non-aspirable). Multiple percutaneous attempts at decompression, therefore, typically cause several needle puncture sites risking dural tears (DT)/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks, direct root injuries, failure to decompress the thecal sac/nerve roots, infections, hematomas, and over the longer-term, adhesive arachnoiditis. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Alternatively, many studies document the success of direct or even partial resection of LSC (i.e., partial removal with marked cyst/dural adhesions with shrinking down the remnant of capsular tissue). Surgical decompressions of LSC, ranging from focal laminotomies to laminectomies, may or may not warrant additional fusions. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Symptomatic LSC are best managed with direct or even partial operative resection/decompression with/without fusion. The use of varying percutaneous techniques classically fails, and increases multiple perioperative risks.

Background: Why are spine surgeons sued, how successfully, and for how much? Typical bases for spinal medicolegal suits have included; the failure to timely diagnose and treat, surgical negligence, (i.e. especially resulting in significant neurological deficits), and the lack of informed consent. We reviewed 17 medicolegal spinal articles looking for additional reasons for suits, along with identifying other factors contributing to defense verdicts, plaintiffs' verdicts, or settlements. Methods: After confirming the same three most likely causes of medicolegal suits, other factors leading to such suits included; the lack of patient access to surgeons postoperatively, poor postoperative management (i.e. contributing to new postoperative neurological deficits), failure to communicate between specialists/surgeons perioperatively, and failure to brace. Results: Critical factors leading to more plaintiffs' verdicts and settlements along with higher payouts for both included new severe and/or catastrophic postoperative neurological deficits. Conversely, defense verdicts were more likely for those with less severe new and/or residual injuries. The total number of plaintiffs' verdicts ranged from 17-35.2%, settlements, from 8.3-37%, and defense verdicts from 27.7-75%. Conclusion: The three most frequent bases for spinal medicolegal suits continue to include; failure to timely diagnose/treat, surgical negligence, and lack of informed consent. Here, we identified the following additional causes of such suits; the lack of patient access to surgeons perioperatively, poor postoperative management, lack of specialist/surgeon communication, and failure to brace. Further, more plaintiffs' verdicts or settlements and greater respective payouts were observed for those with new and/or more severe/catastrophic deficits, while more defense verdicts were typically rendered for patients with lesser new neurological injuries.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Anterior transthoracic, posterolateral (i.e., costotransversectomy/lateral extracavitary), and transpedicular approaches are now utilized to address anterior, anterolateral, or lateral thoracic disk herniations (TDH). Notably, laminectomy has not been a viable option for treating TDH for decades due to the much lower rate of acceptable outcomes (i.e., 57% for decompressive laminectomy vs. over 80% for the posterolateral, lateral, and transthoracic procedures), and a higher risk of neurological morbidity/paralysis. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with TDH averaged 48-56.3 years of age, and presented with pain (76%), myelopathy (61%-99%), radiculopathy (30%-33%), and/or sphincter loss (16.7%-24%). Those with anterior/anterolateral TDH (30-74%) were usually myelopathic while those with more lateral disease (50-70%) exhibited radiculopathy. Magnetic resonance (MR) studies best defined soft-tissue/disk/cord pathology, CAT scan (CT)/Myelo-CT studies identified attendant discal calcification (i.e. fully calcified 38.9% -65% vs. partial calcification 27.8%), while both exams documented giant TDH filling > 30 to 40% of the canal (i.e., in 43% to 77% of cases). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Surgical options for anterior/anterolateral TDH largely included transthoracic or posterolateral approaches (i.e. costotransversectomy, lateral extracavitary procedures) with the occasional use of transfacet/transpedicular procedures mostly applied to lateral disks. Notably, patients undergoing transthoracic, lateral extracavitary/costotransversectomy/ transpedicular approaches may additionally warrant fusions. Good/excellent outcomes were quoted in from 45.5% to 87% of different series, with early postoperative adverse events reported in from 14 to 14.6% of patients. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Anterior/anterolateral TDH are largely addressed with transthoracic or posterolateral procedures (i.e. costotransversectomy/extracavitary), with a subset also utilizing transfacet/transpedicular approaches typically adopted for lateral TDH. Laminectomy is essentially no longer considered a viable option for treating TDH.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Patients with postoperative spinal epidural hematomas (pSEH) typically require emergency treatment to avoid paralysis; these hematomas should not be ignored. pSEH patients need to undergo immediate MR studies to document the location/extent of their hematomas, and emergent surgical decompression with/ without fusion if warranted. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The frequencies of symptomatic pSEH ranged in various series from 0.1%-4.46%. Major predisposing factors included; perioperative/postoperative coagulation abnormalities/disorders, multilevel spine surgeries, previous spine surgery, and intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks. For surgery at all spinal levels, one study observed pSEH developed within an average of 2.7 postoperative hours. Another series found 100% of cervical/thoracic, and 50% of lumbar pSEH were symptomatic within 24 postoperative hrs., while a third series noted a 24-48 postoperative window for pSEH to develop. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Early recognition of postoperative symptoms/signs of pSEH, warrant immediate MR examinations to diagnose the local/extent of hemorrhages. Subsequent emergent spinal decompressions/fusions are critical to limit/avert permanent postoperative neurological deficits. Additionally, patients undergoing open or minimally invasive spinal procedures where pSEH are suspected, warrant immediate postoperative MR studies. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Patients undergoing spinal surgery at any level typically become symptomatic from pSEH within 2.7 to 24 postoperative hours. Early recognition of new neurological deficits, immediate MR studies, and emergent surgery (i.e., if indicated) should limit/minimize postoperative neurological sequelae. Thus, pSEH should be treated, not ignored.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions (XLIF), Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF,) and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) were largely developed to provide indirect lumbar decompressions for spinal stenosis, deformity, and/or instability. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Here, we have reviewed and updated the incidence of intraoperative errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF. Specifically, we focused on how often these procedures caused new neurological deficits, major vessel, visceral, and other injuries, including those warranting secondary surgery. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Performing XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF can lead to significant intraoperative surgical errors that include varying rates of; new neurological injuries (i.e. iliopsoas motor deficits (4.3-19.7-33.6-40%), proximal hip/upper thigh sensory loss/dysesthesias (5.1% to 21.7% to 40%)), life-threatneing vascular injuries (i.e., XLIF (0% - 0.4%-1.8%), OLIF (3.2%), and LLIF (2%) involving the aorta, iliac artery, inferior vena cava, iliac vein, and segmental arteries), and bowel/viscarl injuries (0.03%-0.4%) leading to reoperations (i.e., XLIF (1.8%) vs. LLIF (3.8%) vs. XLIF/LLIF/OLIF 2.2%)). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Varying reports documented that XLIF, OLIF and LLIF caused up to a 40% incidence of new sensory/motor deficits, up to a 3.2% incidence of major vascular insults, a 0.4% frequency of visceral/bowel perforations, and a 3.8% need for reoperations. These high frequencies of intraoperative surgical errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF should prompt reconsideration of whether these procedures are "safe."

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:"Targeted" epidural blood patches (EBP)" successfully treat "focal dural tears (DT)" diagnosed on thin-cut MR or Myelo-CT studies. These DT are largely attributed to; epidural steroid injections (ESI), lumbar punctures (LP), spinal anesthesia (SA), or spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SICH). Here we asked whether "targeted EBP" could similarly treat MR/Myelo-CT documented recurrent post-surgical CSF leaks/DT that have classically been effectively managed with direct surgical repair. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Utilizing ultrasound, fluoroscopy, or O-arm guidance, "targeted EBP" effectively manage "focal DT" attributed to ESI, LP, SA, or SICH. Here we reviewed the literature to determine whether similar "targeted EBP" could effectively manage recurrent postoperative CSF leaks/DT. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:We were only able to identify 3 studies involving just 20 patients that attempted to utilize EBP to control postoperative CSF fistulas/DT. EBP controlled CSF fistulas/DT in 6 patients in the first study, and 9 of 10 patients (i.e. 90%: 2/2 cervical; 7/8 lumbar) in the second study. However, in the third study, 3 (60%) of 5 EBP failed to avert recurrent CSF leaks/DT in 4 patients (i.e. 1 cervical patient (2 EBP failed attempts), 3 lumbar patients (1 failed EBP)). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Early direct surgical repair of recurrent postoperative spinal CSF leaks/DT remains the treatment of choice. Our literature review revealed 3 underpowered studies including just 20 patients where 20% of EBP failed to control recurrent postoperative fistulas (range of failure from 0-60% per study). Although there are likely other studies we failed to identify in this review, they too are likely insufficiently powered to document significant efficacy for performing EBP over direct surgical repair for recurrent postoperative CSF leaks/DT.

Background: Multiple anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) techniques now use a variety of Polyehteretherketone (PEEK) cages; stand-alone (SA) and zero-profile (ZP) with/without screws, cages filled with demineralized bone matrix/autograft, and cages coated with hydroxyapatite or titanium. We compared the safety/ efficacy between different PEEK ACDF cage constructs in 17 studies, and in some cases, additionally contrasted results with "routine"ACDF (i.e. series/historical data performed with combinations of iliac autograft/allograft and plates). Methods: We focused on the clinical outcomes, fusion rates, postoperative radiographic changes/lordosis/ subsidence, and/or reoperation rates for various PEEK ACDF constructs vs. "routine"ACDF. Results: One to 3 and 4-level PEEK ACDF cages demonstrated high fusion rates, few cage failures, and low reoperation rates. Subsidence for PEEK ACDF cages did not reduce fusion rates or diminish the quality of postoperative outcomes. Further, titanium-coated (T-C) PEEK cages lowered fusion rates in one study (i.e. 44.1% fusions vs. 88.2% for routine PEEK ACDF) while ACDF PEEK cages coated with hydroxyapatite (HA) showed only a "trend"toward enhanced arthrodesis. Conclusion: One to 3-4 multilevel ACDF PEEK cage constructs demonstrated comparable safety/efficacy when compared with each other, or in select cases, with "routine"ACDF (i.e. using autograft/allograft and plates).

Background: We performed a focused review to determine the "non-inferiority", potential superiority, and relative safety/efficacy for performing cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA)/total disc replacement (TDR) in carefully selected patients vs. anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF). Notably, CDA/TDR were devised to preserve adjacent level range of motion (ROM), reduce the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD), and the need for secondary ASD surgery. Methods: We compared the incidence of ASD, reoperations for ASD, safety/efficacy, and outcomes for cervical CDA/TDR vs. ACDF. Indications, based upon the North American Spine Society (NASS) Coverage Policy Recommendations (Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement Revised 11/2015 and other studies) included the presence of radiculopathy or myelopathy/myeloradiculopathy at 1-2 levels between C3-C7 with/without neck pain. Contraindications for CDA/TDR procedures as quoted from the NASS Recommendations (i.e. cited above) included the presence of; "Infection ", "Osteoporosis and Osteopenia", "Instability ", "Sensitivity or Allergy to Implant Materials", "Severe Spondylosis ", "Severe Facet Joint Arthropathy ", "Ankylosing Spondylitis"(AS), "Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Previous Fracture ", "Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament (OPLL)", and "Malignancy ". Other sources also included spinal stenosis and scoliosis. Results: Cervical CDA/TDR studies in the appropriately selected patient population showed no inferiority/ occasionally superiority, reduced the incidence of ASD/need for secondary ASD surgery, and demonstrated comparable safety/efficacy vs. ACDF. Conclusion: Cervical CDA/TDR studies performed in appropriately selected patients showed a "lack of inferiority", occasional superiority, a reduction in the incidence of ASD, and ASD reoperation rates, plus comparable safety/efficacy vs. ACDF.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Our hypothesis was that lumbar adhesive arachnoiditis (AA)/chronic lumbar AA (CAA) are clinical diagnoses that do not require radiographic confirmation. Therefore, patients with these syndromes do not necessarily have to demonstrate significant radiographic abnormalities on myelograms, MyeloCT studies, and/or MR examinations. When present, typical AA/CAA findings may include; central or peripheral nerve root/cauda equina thickening/clumping (i.e. latter empty sac sign), arachnoid cysts, soft tissue masses in the subarachnoid space, and/or failure of nerve roots to migrate ventrally on prone MR/Myelo-CT studies. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We reviewed 3 articles and 7 clinical series that involved a total of 253 patients with AA/CAA to determine whether there was a significant correlation between these clinical syndromes, and myelographic, Myelo-CT, and/or MR imaging pathology. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:We determined that patients with the clinical diagnoses of AA/CAA do not necessarily exhibit associated radiographic abnormalities. However, a subset of patients with AA/CAA may show the classical AA/CAA findings of; central or peripheral nerve root/cauda equina thickening/clumping (empty sac sign), arachnoid cysts, soft tissue masses in the subarachnoid space, and/or failure of nerve roots to migrate ventrally on prone MR/ Myelo-CT studies. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Patients with clinical diagnoses of AA/CAA do not necessary show associated neuroradiagnostic abnormalities on myelograms, Myelo-CT studies, or MR. Rather, the clinical syndromes of AA/CAA may exist alone without the requirement for radiolographic confirmation.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Although the incidence of radiographic Adjacent Segment Disease (ASD) following anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) or cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) typically ranges from 2-4%/year, reportedly fewer patients are symptomatic, and even fewer require secondary surgery. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Multiple studies have documented a 2-4% incidence of radiographic ASD following either ACDF or CDA per year. However, fewer are symptomatic from ASD, and even fewer require additional surgery/reoperations. Results/UNASSIGNED:In a meta-analysis (2016) involving 83 papers, the incidence of radiographic ASD per year was 2.79%, but symptomatic disease was present in just 1.43% of patients with only 0.24% requiring secondary surgery. In another study (2019) involving 38,149 patients undergoing ACDF, 2.9% (1092 patients; 0.62% per year) had radiographic ASD within an average of 4.66 postoperative years; the younger the patient at the index surgery, the higher the reoperation rate (i.e. < 40 years of age 4.56 X reoperations vs. <70 at 2.1 X reoperations). In a meta-analysis of 32 articles focusing on ASD 12-24 months following CDA, adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) occurred in 5.15% of patients, but adjacent segment disease (AS Dis) was noted in just 0.2%/ year. Further, AS degeneration occurred in 7.4% of patients after 1-level vs. 15.6% following 2 level fusions, confirming that CDA's "motion-sparing" design did not produce the "anticipated" beneficial results. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:The incidence of radiographic ASD ranges from 2-4% per year for ACDF and CDA. Additionally, both demonstrate lesser frequencies of symptomatic ASD, and the need for secondary surgery. Further, doubling the frequency of ASD following 2 vs. 1-level CDA, should prompt surgeons to limit surgery to only essential levels.