Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Management of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is controversial. Surgery is widely used, but its effectiveness in comparison with that of nonsurgical treatment has not been demonstrated in controlled trials. METHODS: Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 U.S. states who had at least 12 weeks of symptoms and image-confirmed degenerative spondylolisthesis were offered enrollment in a randomized cohort or an observational cohort. Treatment was standard decompressive laminectomy (with or without fusion) or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcome measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scores (100-point scales, with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (100-point scale, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. RESULTS: We enrolled 304 patients in the randomized cohort and 303 in the observational cohort. The baseline characteristics of the two cohorts were similar. The one-year crossover rates were high in the randomized cohort (approximately 40% in each direction) but moderate in the observational cohort (17% crossover to surgery and 3% crossover to nonsurgical care). The intention-to-treat analysis for the randomized cohort showed no statistically significant effects for the primary outcomes. The as-treated analysis for both cohorts combined showed a significant advantage for surgery at 3 months that increased at 1 year and diminished only slightly at 2 years. The treatment effects at 2 years were 18.1 for bodily pain (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5 to 21.7), 18.3 for physical function (95% CI, 14.6 to 21.9), and -16.7 for the Oswestry Disability Index (95% CI, -19.5 to -13.9). There was little evidence of harm from either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In nonrandomized as-treated comparisons with careful control for potentially confounding baseline factors, patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis treated surgically showed substantially greater improvement in pain and function during a period of 2 years than patients treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000409 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)

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

OBJECT: Although transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an increasingly popular surgical technique, there are a limited number of studies in which investigators have stratified outcome data with respect to surgical indications or documented radiographically proven and clinical results with respect to disc space height (DSH). The authors conducted a study to evaluate the long-term outcomes after TLIF with respect to surgical indication and radiographic/neuroimaging results. METHODS: Thirty-three consecutive TLIF-treated patients underwent follow-up investigation for a mean of 37 months. Isthmic spondylolysis was present in eight patients, recurrent disc herniation in 14, and degenerative disc disease (DDD) in 11. The operative technique involved the placement of interbody structural allograft, pedicle screw instrumentation, and morcellized autograft in the anterior interbody space and the contralateral intertransverse gutter. Surgery was performed at L4-5 in 16 patients, L5-S1 in 14, L3-4 in two, and both L4-5 and L5-S1 in one patient. Preoperative symptoms were back pain (in 91% of cases), leg pain (in 94%), sensory loss (in 67%), and motor deficits (in 30%). Postoperatively, back pain was improved in 67% of the patients, unchanged in 27%, and worsened in 7%. Leg pain improved in 80% of patients, was unchanged in 10%, and worsened in 10%. Outcome, as measured using the Prolo Functional and Economic Scales, improved from a score of 4.9 to 7. In patients with spondylolysis and recurrent disc herniation outcomes were better than in those with DDD only. There was no correlation of outcome with symptom duration, patient age, or level of surgery. In an independent review of pre- and late postoperative radiographs no significant differences in lordosis angles, Cobb angles, or DSHs were found. Fusion occurred in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: The TLIF procedure was associated with good clinical outcomes and a high fusion rate but no change in the DSH. Patients who present with spondylolysis and recurrent herniations experience better outcome than those with degenerative disease alone

Degenerative disc disease is the leading cause of pain and disability in adults in North America, and spinal fusion is the standard treatment. Despite this, it has been discussed among surgeons that (1) spinal fusion deserves reexamination in terms of its long-term consequences and benefits and (2) modern clinical research and development in disc arthroplasty strongly supports its emergence as an alternative. The ability to relieve pain by maintaining motion may be a critical factor in obtaining not only greater pain relief but in preventing adjacent segment degeneration. Early research in arthroplasty devices was promising but cut short. New knowledge in the functional anatomy and biomechanics of the spine has made possible the development of modern arthroplasty devices (eg, Charite Artificial Disc, ProDisc, Maverick device, FlexiCore device) of different constructions and materials (metal-on-plastic, metal-on-metal) and various ranges of motion/mobility that provide a basis for a classification of spinal mode and an assistance in implant selection. Current research also is confronting the critical obstacles of wear and tear and axial compression. Several devices currently are in clinical trials. A detailed review of their characteristics shows the exciting progress of a new treatment era of total disc replacement in spine-lumbar disc arthroplasty

Anterior-posterior surgery is indicated for the treatment of lumbar instability in the presence of simultaneous compromise of both the anterior and the posterior spinal elements or to augment the stability and rigidity of a fusion construct. The addition of an anterior interbody fusion to a posterior instrumented fusion serves to more successfully restore sagittal balance, effect indirect neural decompression, and to decrease pedicle screw strain by reconstituting the load-sharing ability of the anterior column. A variety of posterior fixation and minimally invasive techniques has been demonstrated to increase circumferential construct stiffness and rates of fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Screw pullout at the proximal or distal end of multilevel anterior instrumentation can occur clinically. Previous laboratory studies have shown that angulation of vertebral body screws increases screw pullout strength and stability in toggling. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of end screw angulation on instrumentation construct stability after cyclic, lateral bending. STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study in calf spines comparing two anterior spinal instrumentation constructs, one with parallel polyaxial screws and the other with angled polyaxial end screws. METHODS: Sixteen instrumented constructs were made from eight thoracic (T8-T12) and eight lumbar calf spines (L1-L5). Eight (four lumbar specimens and four thoracic specimens) had five bicortical screws inserted mid-body and parallel to the end plates. The other eight specimens had two screws angled toward the superior end plates of the top two vertebrae; the middle vertebra had a mid-body screw parallel to the end plate, and the bottom two vertebrae had screws angled towards their inferior end plates. The constructs were then cycled in lateral bending, and the displacements of the two instrumentations with a 10 N-m bending load were compared. RESULTS: After 10,000 cycles, constructs with parallel end screws exhibited twice the average displacement than those with angled screws: 5.4 mm versus 2.9 mm (p=.031). CONCLUSION: The use of angled screws at the ends of anterior constructs demonstrated increased construct stability after cycling compared with traditional transverse screws. Although angled screw insertion is technically more difficult and is possible only with specific screw designs, its use might increase instrumentation longevity

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Combining anterior release and interbody fusion with posterior instrumented fusion is an accepted treatment for severe rigid spinal deformity. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and mini-open thoracoscopically assisted thoracotomy (MOTA) are two minimally invasive approaches to the thoracic spine. Both reduce surgical trauma, improve cosmesis and provide effective exposure for release and fusion. Published data and the authors' surgical experience have demonstrated that both techniques are equivalent in degree of release to traditional open thoracotomy, but no comparison between these two minimally invasive alternatives has been published to our knowledge. PURPOSE: This study compared MOTA and VATS under the hypothesis that both result in similar corrections and comparable operative parameters when used in conjunction with posterior instrumented fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective chart review of consecutive case series by two surgeons. PATIENT SAMPLE: Twenty-one (13 female, 8 male) patients underwent MOTA and 24 patients (17 female, 7 male) underwent VATS for anterior release, discectomy and fusion prior to posterior instrumented fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were measured at a minimum of 1-year follow-up and included radiographic Cobb measurements and operative parameters. METHODS: The indications for surgery included rigid and severe scoliosis or thoracic kyphosis. Data collection included preoperative demographics, number of levels released, primary curve correction, operative time and blood loss. Data were normalized per number of levels released anteriorly. Statistical analysis of results was done using a two-sample t test assuming equal variances with two-tail p values less than .05. RESULTS: More anterior levels were operated on average in the VATS group (6.33 vs. 4.38 levels). Curve correction per anterior level released was similar in both groups (8.7 and 8.8 degrees/level for MOTA and VATS, respectively). There was a significant difference in operative time with MOTA averaging 131.7 minutes and VATS averaging 162.8 minutes. However, a comparison of the operative time per anterior level operated, approached statistical significance in favor of VATS (33.0 vs. 28.4 minutes, p=.08). There was no significant difference in estimated blood loss during the anterior portion of the surgeries. There was a trend toward decreased blood loss per operated level favoring VATS (68.4 vs. 38.9 cc, p=.09). CONCLUSIONS: Both approaches resulted in corrections that compare favorably with open thoracotomy. We suggest that a factor in choosing between these two minimally invasive techniques is the number of thoracic levels requiring release. For four levels or less, MOTA provides an excellent alternative to standard thoracotomy. For five or more levels, VATS provides for excellent exposure of additional levels with the advantages of less operative time and blood loss per operated level

Ankylosing spondylitis is an inflammatory disease of unknown etiology that affects an estimated 350,000 persons in the United States and 600,000 in Europe, primarily Caucasian males in the second through fourth decades of life. Worldwide, the prevalence is 0.9%. Genetic linkage to HLA-B27 has been established. Ankylosing spondylitis primarily affects the axial skeleton and is characterized by inflammation and fusion of the sacroiliac joints, spine, and hips. The resultant deformity leads to severe functional impairment in approximately 30% of patients. Orthopaedic management primarily involves correction of hip deformity through total hip arthroplasty and, less frequently, correction of spinal deformity with spine osteotomy. Closing wedge osteotomies have the lowest incidence of complications. Whether patients with ankylosing spondylitis are at increased risk for heterotopic ossification remains controversial, but comparison with age- and sex-matched counterparts suggests no dramatically higher risk. Because of the high rate of missed fractures and complications after minor trauma in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, plain radiographs are usually not sufficient for evaluation. Thorough patient assessment should include a comprehensive history, physical examination, and laboratory studies

Low back pain secondary to degenerative disc disease is an overwhelming and growing problem in the United States and Western countries. Most degenerative disc disease can be treated nonoperatively. There are, however, substantial numbers of patients who have not benefited from exhaustive nonoperative treatments and subsequently seek surgical solutions to their incapacitating back pain. Lumbar fusion for back pain and/or leg pain associated with degenerative disc disease is considered the gold standard by which other treatments are judged. A challenge to spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease is now being offered in the form of the artificial disc. The implantation of an artificial lumbar disc allows for maintenance or restoration of physiologic movement at affected segments. A major long-term complication of spinal fusion is degeneration of a disc adjacent to the fused segments. Theoretically, the maintenance of motion could minimize development of adjacent disc degeneration as seen with spinal fusion. It is interesting to note that fusion of the hip or knee is not considered a primary procedure, but fusion is a primary procedure for the lumbar spine. Four artificial lumbar discs are discussed in this article. Early results are promising in terms of clinical results and movement, but long-term follow-up clinical trials must be done in order to gain an accurate comparison with spinal fusion. Trials are currently ongoing. The clinical results up to now and the potential for maintaining lumbar mobility throughout life warrant continuation of this surgical procedure