Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Changing from standing to sitting positions requires rotation of the femur from an almost vertical plane to the horizontal plane. Osteoarthritis of the hip limits hip extension, resulting in less ability to recruit spinopelvic tilt (SPT) while standing and requiring increased SPT while sitting to compensate for the loss of hip range of motion. To date, the effect of total hip arthroplasty (THA) on spinopelvic sitting and standing mechanics has not been reported, particularly in the setting of patients with coexistent sagittal plane spinal deformity. METHODS:A retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years of age undergoing unilateral THA for hip osteoarthritis with sitting and standing radiographs made before and after THA. Alignment was analyzed at baseline and follow-up after THA in both standing and sitting positions in a relaxed posture with the fingers resting on top of the clavicles. Patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of sagittal plane deformity preoperatively into 3 groups: no sagittal plane deformity (normal), thoracolumbar (TL) deformity (pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [PI-LL] mismatch > 10° and/or T1-pelvic angle [TPA] > 20°), or apparent deformity (PI-LL ≤ 10° and TPA ≤ 20°, but sagittal vertical axis [SVA] > 50 mm). RESULTS:In this study, 192 patients were assessed: 64 had TL deformity, 39 had apparent deformity, and 89 had normal alignment. Overall, patients demonstrated a reduction in standing SVA (45 to 34.1 mm; p < 0.001) and an increase in SPT (14.6° to 15.7°; p = 0.03) after THA. There was a greater change in standing SVA (p < 0.001) among patients with apparent deformity (-29.0 mm) compared with patients with normal alignment (0.9 mm) and patients with TL deformity (-16.3 mm). Those with apparent deformity also experienced the greatest difference (p = 0.03) in postural SPT change (moving from standing to sitting) (-10.1°) from before to after THA when compared with those with normal alignment (-3.6°) and TL deformity (-1.2°). The difference in postural SVA change from before to after THA was also greatest (p < 0.001) in those with apparent deformity (32.1 mm) compared with those with normal alignment (6.5 mm) and TL deformity (17.3 mm). CONCLUSIONS:Postural changes in spinopelvic alignment vary after THA depending on the presence of TL deformity or apparent deformity due to hip flexion contracture. Patients with apparent deformity had larger changes in standing and sitting alignment than patients with TL deformity or patients with normal alignment. The assessment of global sagittal alignment findings can be used to predict the likelihood of improvement in sagittal alignment after THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:To develop parameter thresholds obtainable from cervical radiographs that correlate with concomitant thoracolumbar malalignment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:T1 slope (T1S) is typically discussed in the context of cervical deformity and correlated with health-related quality of life outcomes. Prior research suggests that T1S is related to global alignment; however, a definition for "high" T1S has not been established. Most patients undergoing cervical surgery do not undergo full-spine imaging; therefore, obtaining a parameter associated with thoracolumbar malalignment from cervical radiographs would be beneficial. METHODS:A database of preoperative adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients was analyzed. Measures obtained from standing lateral radiographs included T1S, thoracic kyphosis (TK), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), T1-pelvic angle (TPA), pelvic tilt (PT), and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL). Decision tree analysis was then used to determine the T1S corresponding to published thresholds for high TK (40 degrees), SVA (40 mm), TPA (25 degrees), and PT (25 degrees). Alignment between high and normal T1S patients was compared. RESULTS:Two hundred twenty-six preoperative patients were included (mean: 58±16 y 62%F). Larger T1S was correlated with greater SVA (r=0.365), TPA (r=0.302), TK (r=0.606), and PT (r=0.230) (all P<0.001). Decision tree analysis yielded a threshold of 30 degrees for high T1S, which 50% of patients had. Compared with patients with T1S <30 degrees, those with T1S >30 degrees had higher TK (41.5 vs. 25.8 degrees), SVA (78.7 vs. 33.7 mm), TPA (27.6 vs. 18.3 degrees), and PT (26.3 vs. 20.8 degrees), and PI-LL (18.2 vs. 11.7 degrees) (all P<0.05). Seventy-nine percent of patients with high T1S had high TK (T1S <30=13%), 69% had high SVA (T1S <30=38%), 66% had high TPA (T1S <30=37%), 60% had PT >25 degrees (T1S <30=42%), and 47% had PI-LL >20 degrees (T1S <30=34%) (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Higher T1S was associated with worse global alignment. T1S was most strongly associated with TK. A T1S=30 degrees corresponded to high TK, SVA, TPA, and PT thresholds. Therefore, surgeons should consider obtaining full-spine radiographs if a T1S >30 degrees is present on cervical imaging.

BACKGROUND:Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2, or BMP for short) is a popular biological product used in spine surgeries to promote fusion and avoid the morbidity associated with iliac crest autograft. BMP's effect on pseudarthrosis in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE:To assess the rates of pseudarthrosis in single-level TLIF with and without concurrent use of BMP. METHODS:analyses, and perioperative characteristics were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS:= 0.002) increased the risk of reoperation for pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSIONS:BMP use did not reduce the rate of pseudarthrosis or the number of reoperations for pseudarthrosis in single-level TLIFs. Diabetes with end-organ damage was a significant risk factor for pseudarthrosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:BMP is frequently used "off-label" in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; however, little data exists to demonstrate its safety and efficacy in this procedure.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Anterior retroperitoneal lumbar spinal exposure has traditionally been performed in the supine position (SUP) to access the L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc spaces where lateral approaches may be unsafe. However, advancements in lateral single position surgery have resulted in advocacy for anterior L4-5 disc access in the lateral decubitus position (LAT). While L5-S1 access in the lateral position is well-described, no series of L4-5 anterior access in the lateral position has been published. The study aims to evaluate the safety of anterior lumbar exposure at the L4-5 disc level in the LAT compared to the SUP. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A multi-center retrospective study of patients who underwent anterior retroperitoneal lumbar exposure involving the L4-5 disc level were classified according to patient positioning: (I) LAT or (II) SUP. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:10.70%, P=0.09) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Anterior lumbar spinal exposure of the L4-5 disc in the LAT is safe compared to supine exposure, despite higher case complexity in the lateral position.

AIMS/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this study was to reassess the rate of neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications associated with L4-L5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) undertaken using a standardized preoperative assessment and surgical technique. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This was a multicentre retrospective study involving consecutively enrolled patients who underwent L4-L5 LLIF by seven surgeons at seven institutions in three countries over a five-year period. The demographic details of the patients and the details of the surgery, reoperations and complications, including femoral and non-femoral neuropraxia, thigh pain, weakness of hip flexion, and abdominal complications, were analyzed. Neurological and psoas-related complications attributed to LLIF or posterior instrumentation and persistent symptoms were recorded at one year postoperatively. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:(SD 5.5). A mean of 1.2 levels (SD 0.6) were fused with LLIF, and a mean of 1.6 (SD 0.9) posterior levels were fused. Femoral neuropraxia occurred in six patients (1.2%), of which four (0.8%) were LLIF-related and two (0.4%) had persistent symptoms one year postoperatively. Non-femoral neuropraxia occurred in nine patients (1.8%), one (0.2%) was LLIF-related and five (1.0%) were persistent at one year. All LLIF-related neuropraxias resolved by one year. A total of 32 patients (6.2%) had thigh pain, 31 (6.0%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. Weakness of hip flexion occurred in 14 patients (2.7%), of which eight (1.6%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. No patients had bowel injury, three (0.6%) had an intraoperative vascular injury (not LLIF-related), and five (1.0%) had ileus. Reoperations occurred in five patients (1.0%) within 30 days, 37 (7.2%) within 90 days, and 41 (7.9%) within one year postoperatively. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:LLIF involving the L4-L5 disc level has a low rate of persistent neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications in patients with the appropriate indications and using a standardized surgical technique.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Multi-centre retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning. METHOD/METHODS:A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1-4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the USA and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P <0.05. RESULTS:101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P =0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P =0.668) was similar between groups. Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P =0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150 mL P-LLIF vs. 182 mL L-LLIF, P =0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3 d, P =0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:. DESCRIPTION/UNASSIGNED:This procedure is performed with the patient under general anesthesia and in a prone position. The appropriate spinal level is identified with use of fluoroscopy, and bilateral paramidline approaches are made utilizing the Wiltse intermuscular approach. Pedicle screws are placed bilaterally. A pedicle-based retractor or tubular retractor is passed along the Wiltse plane, and bilateral inferior facetectomies are performed. A foraminotomy is performed, including a superior facetectomy on the side with compression of the exiting nerve root. A thorough discectomy with end-plate preparation is performed. The disc space is sized with use of trial components. The cage is then implanted with a pre-expansion height less than the trialed height and is expanded under fluoroscopy. After expansion, the cage is backfilled with allograft and local autograft. Finally, the rods are contoured and reduced bilaterally, followed by closure in a multilayered approach. ALTERNATIVES/UNASSIGNED:. RATIONALE/UNASSIGNED:Expandable cages are designed to be inserted in a collapsed configuration and expanded once placed into the interbody space. This design offers numerous potential advantages over static alternatives. The low-profile, expandable cages require less impaction during placement, minimizing iatrogenic end-plate damage. Additionally, expandable cages require less thecal and nerve-root retraction and provide a larger surface footprint once expanded. EXPECTED OUTCOMES/UNASSIGNED:. The results for expandable cages compared with traditional static cages in TLIF surgery require further study. IMPORTANT TIPS/UNASSIGNED:The technique utilized during insertion and placement of interbody cages plays an important role in cage subsidence. To reduce the risk of cage subsidence, cages should be placed level with the end plate and in contact with the apophyseal ring anteriorly. Additionally, caution should be taken when expanding the cage to ensure that the cage is not overexpanded, which may also increase the risk of mechanical failure and intraoperative subsidence.It is critical to understand the flexibility of the disc space and the osseous quality of the patient in order to know how much expansion may be applied through the cage without subsidence.If bullet-type cages are utilized, the tip of the cage should cross midline of the vertebral body to avoid generating iatrogenic scoliosis.Spine bone density should be investigated preoperatively in at-risk patients in order to identify osteoporotic patients, who are at greater risk for subsidence and instrumentation failure.Although advances in device technology are welcomed, surgeons should maintain a strong focus on technique to reduce complications and improve clinical outcomes when utilizing expandable cages. ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS/UNASSIGNED:TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionMRI = magnetic resonance imagingCT = computed tomographyPEEK = polyetheretherketoneAP = anterioposteriorEMG = electromyographyDVT = deep vein thrombosisPE = pulmonary embolusODI = Oswestry Disability IndexEXP = expandable.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The term "spinopelvic mobility" is most often applied to motion within the spinopelvic segment. It has also been used to describe changes in pelvic tilt between various functional positions, which is influenced by motion at the hip, knee, ankle and spinopelvic segment. In the interest of establishing a consistent language for spinopelvic mobility, we sought to clarify and simplify its definition to create consensus, improve communication, and increase consistency with research into the hip-spine relationship. METHODS:A literature search was performed using the Medline (PubMed) library to identify all existing articles pertaining to spinopelvic mobility. We reported on the varying definitions of spinopelvic mobility including how different radiographic imaging techniques are used to define mobility. RESULTS:The search term "spinopelvic mobility" returned a total of 72 articles. The frequency and context for the varying definitions of mobility were reported. 41 papers used standing and upright relaxed-seated radiographs without the use of extreme positioning, and 17 papers discussed the use of extreme positioning to define spinopelvic mobility. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our review suggests that the definitions of spinopelvic mobility is not consistent in the majority of published literature. We suggest descriptions of spinopelvic mobility independently consider spinal motion, hip motion, and pelvic position, while recognizing and describing their interdependence.

Background: Identify the external applicability of the American College of Surgeons"™ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) risk calculator in the setting of adult spinal deformity (ASD) and subsets of patients based on deformity and frailty status. Methods: ASD patients were isolated in our single-center database and analyzed for the shared predictive variables displayed in the NSQIP calculator. Patients were stratified by frailty (not frail <0.03, frail 0.3"“0.5, severely frail >0.5), deformity [T1 pelvic angle (TPA) > 30, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) > 20], and reoperation status. Brier scores were calculated for each variable to validate the calculator"™s predictability in a single center"™s database (Quality). External validity of the calculator in our ASD patients was assessed via Hosmer-Lemeshow test, which identified whether the differences between observed and expected proportions are significant. Results: A total of 1606 ASD patients were isolated from the Quality database (48.7 years, 63.8% women, 25.8 kg/m²); 33.4% received decompressions, and 100% received a fusion. For each subset of ASD patients, the calculator predicted lower outcome rates than what was identified in the Quality database. The calculator showed poor predictability for frail, deformed, and reoperation patients for the category "any complication" because they had Brier scores closer to 1. External validity of the calculator in each stratified patient group identified that the calculator was not valid, displaying P values >0.05. Conclusion: The NSQIP calculator was not a valid calculator in our single institutional database. It is unable to comment on surgical complications such as return to operating room, surgical site infection, urinary tract infection, and cardiac complications that are typically associated with poor patient outcomes. Physicians should not base their surgical plan solely on the NSQIP calculator but should consider multiple preoperative risk assessment tools.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The authors report an Australian experience of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with respect to clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complications, with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and other graft materials. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study of LLIF patients 2011-2021. LLIFs performed lateral decubitus by four experienced surgeons past their learning curve. Graft materials classified rhBMP-2 or non-rhBMP-2. Patient-reported outcomes assessed by VAS, ODI, and SF-12 preoperatively and postoperatively. Fusion rates assessed by CT postoperatively at 6 and 12 months. Complications classified minor or major. Clinical outcomes and complications analysed and compared between rhBMP-2 and non-rhBMP-2 groups. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: < 0.02]). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:LLIF is a safe and efficacious procedure. rhBMP-2 in LLIF produced earlier and higher fusion rates compared to available non-rhBMP-2 graft substitutes.