Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Circumferential (AP) lumbar fusion surgery is an effective treatment for degenerative and deformity conditions of the spine. The lateral decubitus position allows for simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior aspects of the spine, enabling instrumentation of both columns without the need for patient repositioning. This paper seeks to outline the anatomical and patient-related considerations in anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine from L1-S1 in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS:We detail the anatomic considerations of the lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgical approaches from surgeon experience and comprehensive literature review. RESULTS:Single-position AP surgery allows simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column and may combine ALIF, LLIF, and minimally invasive posterior instrumentation techniques from L1-S1 without patient repositioning. Careful history, physical examination, and imaging review optimize safety and efficacy of lateral ALIF or LLIF surgery. An excellent understanding of patient spinal and abdominal anatomy is necessary. Each approach has relative advantages and disadvantages according to the disc level, skeletal, vascular, and psoas anatomy. CONCLUSIONS:A development of a framework to analyze these factors will result in improved patient outcomes and a reduction in complications for lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgeries.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Single position surgery has demonstrated to reduce hospital length of stay, operative times, blood loss, postoperative pain, ileus, and complications. ALIF and LLIF surgeries offer advantages of placing large interbody devices under direct compression and can be performed by a minimally invasive approach in the lateral position. Furthermore, simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column is possible in the lateral position without the need for patient repositioning. The purpose of this study is to outline the anatomical and technical considerations for performing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS:Surgical technique and technical considerations for reconstruction of the anterior column in the lateral position by ALIF at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels. RESULTS:Topics outlined in this review include: Operating room layout and patient positioning; surgical anatomy and approach; vessel mobilization and retractor placement for L4-5 and L5-S1 lateral ALIF exposure, in addition to comparative technique of disc space preparation, trialing and implant placement compared to the supine ALIF procedure. CONCLUSIONS:Anterior exposure performed in the lateral decubitus position allows safe-, minimally invasive access and implant placement in ALIF. The approach requires less peritoneal and vessel retraction than in a supine position, in addition to allowing simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior columns when performing 360° Anterior-Posterior fusion.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:This study compares perioperative and 1-year outcomes of lateral decubitus single position circumferential fusion (L-SPS) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for degenerative pathologies. METHODS:Multicenter retrospective chart review of patients undergoing AP fusion with L-SPS or MIS TLIF. Demographics and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared using independent samples t tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS:A total of 445 patients were included: 353 L-SPS, 92 MIS TLIF. The L-SPS cohort was significantly older with fewer diabetics and more levels fused. The L-SPS cohort had significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, radiation dosage, and length of stay compared to MIS TLIF. 1-year follow-up showed that the L-SPS cohort had higher rates of fusion (97.87% vs. 81.11%; p = 0.006) and lower rates of subsidence (6.38% vs. 38.46%; p < 0.001) compared with MIS TLIF. There were significantly fewer returns to the OR within 1 year for early mechanical failures with L-SPS (0.0% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001). 1-year radiographic outcomes revealed that the L-SPS cohort had a greater LL (56.6 ± 12.5 vs. 51.1 ± 15.9; p = 0.004), smaller PI-LL mismatch (0.2 ± 13.0 vs. 5.5 ± 10.5; p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in amount of change in VAS scores between cohorts. Similar results were seen after propensity-matched analysis and sub-analysis of cases including L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS:L-SPS improves perioperative outcomes and does not compromise clinical or radiographic results at 1-year follow-up compared with MIS TLIF. There may be decreased rates of early mechanical failure with L-SPS.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field. METHODS:Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed. RESULTS:Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: 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 repositioning. To date, studies evaluating the P-LLIF have been small single surgeon series. This multicentre retrospective cohort examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF againsttraditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning in patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position P-LLIF technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 101 patients undergoing revision circumferential fusion with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch and segmental lumbar lordosis.
METHOD(S): A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed from 4 institutions from the USA and Australia of patients undergoing revision anterior-posterior lumbar fusion via either: 1) single-position prone LLIF (P-LLIF); or 2) lateral decubitus LLIF with repositioning to prone (L-LLIF) between January 2015 and November 2021. Patients with greater than 4 levels fused were excluded. 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.
RESULT(S): A total of 101 patients undergoing revision lateral lumbar interbody fusion 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 interbody levels fused (1.23 P-LLIF vs 1.25 L-LLIF, p=0.838) were similar between groups. Levels decompressed, posterior column osteotomy and anterior column release were similar between groups. Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group compared to the L-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 (2.7 vs 3.3 days, p=0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in perioperative or postoperative complications between P-LLIF and L-LLIF groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment as measured by lumbar lordosis, PI-LL mismatch, or segmental lumbar lordosis between groups.
CONCLUSION(S): P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency and may reduce length of stay when compared to L-LLIF and repositioning for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Previous literature has demonstrated the advantages of lateral single position surgery (L-SPS) in the perioperative period; however, 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively. PURPOSE: Evaluate the feasibility and safety of L-SPS technique against the conventional FLIP. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multi-center retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary AP (ALIF or LLIF) fusions with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 with minimum 2-year followup at three institutions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch and segmental lumbar lordosis.
METHOD(S): Patients were grouped as L-SPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2 years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<0.05.
RESULT(S): A total of 442 pts met inclusion, including 352 L-SPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs. 56.9; p= < 0.001) and smoking status (7% vs. 16%; p=0.023) between the L-SPS and FLIP groups. No differences between L-SPS and FLIP were noted in gender (57.4% female vs 57.8% female, p=1.000), BMI (30.0kg/m2 vs 29.3kg/m2; p=0.318). No differences were noted in number of levels fused between L-SPS and FLIP (1.45vs 1.50; p=0.533), proportion including ALIF (38% vs 39%; p=0.809), or the proportion of surgeries including L5-S1 (38%vs 31%; p=0.222). Perioperative outcomes: L-SPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p < 0.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p < 0.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs. 3.61 days; p < 0.001) compared to FLIP. L-SPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9% vs 34.4%; p=0.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in remaining surgical site, neurological, or medical complications between groups. Reoperation: N=no differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%L-SPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=0.125), 90-day (5.1%L-SPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=0.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.441). The most common reason for return to OR was Adjacent Segment Disease, (L-SPS 3.1% vs. FLIP 7.8%; p=0.067). Pseudarthrosis rates were similar between groups (0.0%L-SPS vs. 1.1%FLIP; p=0.204). Radiological Outcomes: no significant differences were noted in rates of radiological fusion (94.3% L-SPS vs 97.8%FLIP; p=0.266) or subsidence (6.9%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.260). There were no differences noted between L-SPS and FLIP in change in LL from Baseline to 1-year (3.5 vs 2.8; p=0.466) and post-op to 1yr (-0.18 vs -0.51; p=0.777), or in PI-LL from Baseline to 1-year (-3.5 vs -3.2; p=0.835) and from post-op to 1-year (0.71 vs 0.71; 0.998).
CONCLUSION(S): L-SPS improves safety, improves operative efficiency and reduces complications in the perioperative period while maintaining similar efficacy of AP fusion at 2-year followup in treating degenerative lumbar spinal conditions. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A retrospective review of operative patients at a single institution. OBJECTIVE:To validate a novel method of detecting pseudarthrosis on dynamic radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:A common complication after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is pseudarthrosis. A previously published method for detecting pseudarthrosis identifies a 1 mm difference in interspinous motion (ISM), which requires calibration of images and relies on anatomic landmarks difficult to visualize. An alternative is to use angles between spinous processes, which does not require calibration and relies on more visible landmarks. METHODS:ISM was measured on dynamic radiographs using the previously published linear method and new angular method. Angles were defined by lines from screw heads to dorsal points of spinous processes. Angular cutoff for fusion was calculated using a regression equation correlating linear and angular measures, based on the 1 mm linear cutoff. Pseudarthrosis was assessed with both cutoffs. Sensitivity, specificity, inter- and intra-reliability of angular and linear measures used post-operative CT as the reference. RESULTS:242 fused levels (81 allograft, 84 PEEK, 40 titanium, 37 standalone cages) were measured in 143 patients (mean age 52.0±11.5, 42%F). 36 patients (66 levels) had 1-year postoperative CTs; 13 patients (13 levels) had confirmed pseudarthrosis. Linear and angular measurements closely correlated (R=0.872), with 2.3° corresponding to 1 mm linear ISM. Potential pseudarthroses was found in 28.0% and 18.5% levels using linear and angular cutoffs, respectively. Linear cutoff had 85% sensitivity, 87% specificity; angular cutoff had 85% sensitivity, 96% specificity for detecting CT-validated pseudarthrosis. Interclass correlation coefficients were 0.974 and 0.986 (both P<0.001); intra-rater reliability averaged 0.953 and 0.974 (P<0.001 for all) for linear and angular methods, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The angular measure for assessing potential pseudarthrosis is as sensitive as and more specific than published linear methods, has high inter-observer reliability, and can be used without image calibration.

BACKGROUND:Frequently, patients indicated for total hip arthroplasty (THA) present with low back pain (LBP) and hip pain. The purpose of this study was to compare patients whose back pain resolved after THA with those where back pain did not resolve and identify how to predict this using spinopelvic parameters. METHODS:We reviewed a series of 500 patients who underwent THA for unilateral hip osteoarthritis by 2 surgeons. Patients underwent biplanar standing and sitting EOS radiographs pre-operatively. Patients with previous spine surgery or femoral neck fracture were excluded. Demographic data was analyzed at baseline. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were calculated pre-operatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Spinopelvic parameters included, pelvic incidence and sacral slope (SS) change from standing to sitting. RESULTS:Two hundred and four patients (41%) had documented LBP before THA. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for patients improved from 38.9 ± 17.8 pre-operatively to 17.0 ± 10.6 at 1 year post-operatively (P < .001). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, resolution of back pain occurred in 168 (82.4%) and 187 (91.2%) patients, respectively. Pelvic incidence was not predictive of back pain resolution. All patients whose back pain resolved had a sacral slope change from standing to sitting of >10°, while those patients whose back pain did not resolve had a change of <10°. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates that symptomatic low back pain (LBP) resolves in 82% of patients after THA. The results of this study may be used to counsel patients on back pain and its resolution following total hip replacement.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A single-center, retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs) between October 2014 and October 2019. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the effect of perioperative narcotic consumption and amount of narcotic prescribed at discharge on patient satisfaction with pain control after single-level ACDF. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Prior research has demonstrated that opioid prescription habits may be related to physician desire to produce superior patient satisfaction with pain control. METHODS:Patients with complete Press-Ganey Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey information were analyzed. Inpatient opioid prescriptions were recorded and converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MME) and tablets of 5 mg oxycodone. HCAHPS scores were converted to a Likert-type 5-point scale. RESULTS:A total of 47 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Average age was 48.1±10.9 y. Average inpatient opioids prescribed was 102±106 MME. Average opioids prescribed at discharge was 437±342 MME. No statistically significant correlation was found between satisfaction with pain control and opioid consumption while in the hospital [r=-0.106, P=0.483]. Similarly, there was no statistically significant correlation between satisfaction with pain control and opioids prescribed upon discharge [r=-0.185, P=0.219]. No statistically significant correlation was found between date of surgery and inpatient MME consumption [r=-0.113, P=0.450]. Interestingly, more opioids were prescribed at discharge the earlier the date of surgery [r=-0.426, P=0.003]. For every additional month further along in the study period, the odds of a patient reporting a top box score for satisfaction with pain control increased by 5.5% [P=0.025]. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study found no correlation between patient satisfaction with pain control and inpatient opioid dosage or outpatient prescription dosage after single-level ACDF. Moreover, satisfaction with pain control increased over time despite a decrease in MME prescribed at discharge. This suggests that factors other than narcotic consumption play a more important role in patient satisfaction with pain control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

BACKGROUND:Persistent pelvic compensation following adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery may impair quality of life and result in persistent pathologic lower extremity compensation. Ideal age-specific alignment targets have been proposed to improve surgical outcomes, though it is unclear whether reaching these ideal targets reduces rates of pelvic nonresponse following surgery. Our aim was to assess the relationship between pelvic nonresponse, age-specific alignment, and lower-limb compensation following surgery for ASD. METHODS:Single-center retrospective cohort study. ASD patients were grouped: those who did not improve in Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab pelvic tilt (PT) modifier (pelvic nonresponders [PNR]), and those who improved (pelvic responders [PR]). Groups were propensity score matched for preoperative PT and assessed for differences in spinal and lower extremity alignment. Rates of pelvic nonresponse were compared across patient groups who were undercorrected, overcorrected, or matched age-specific postoperative alignment targets. RESULTS:< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:For patients with moderate to severe baseline truncal inclination, more aggressive surgical correction relative to ideal age-specific PI-LL was associated with lower rates of pelvic nonresponse. Postoperative alignment targets may need to be adjusted to optimize alignment outcomes for patients with substantial preoperative sagittal deformity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:These findings increase our understanding of the poor outcomes that occur despite ideal realignment. Surgical correction of severe global sagittal deformity should be prioritized to mitigate these occurrences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3/METHODS/: