Kepler, Christopher K.

Posterior spinal fusion has long been established as an effective treatment for the surgical management of spine deformity. However, interest in nonfusion options continues to grow. Vertebral body tethering is a nonfusion alternative that allows for the preservation of growth and flexibility of the spine. The purpose of this investigation is to provide a practical and relevant review of the literature on the current evidence-based indications for vertebral body tethering. Early results and short-term outcomes show promise for the first generation of this technology. At this time, patients should expect less predictable deformity correction and higher revision rates. Long-term studies are necessary to establish the durability of early results. In addition, further studies should aim to refine preoperative evaluation and patient selection as well as defining the benefits of motion preservation and its long-term effects on spine health to ensure optimal patient outcomes.

AbstractSpinal fusion surgeries are performed to treat a multitude of cervical and lumbar diseases that lead to pain and disability. Spinal interbody fusion involves inserting a cage between the spinal vertebrae, and is often utilized for indirect neurologic decompression, correction of spinal alignment, anterior column stability, and increased fusion rate. The long‐term success of interbody fusion relies on complete osseointegration between the implant surface and vertebral end plates. Titanium (Ti)‐based alloys and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cages represent the most commonly utilized materials and provide sufficient mechanics and biocompatibility to assist in fusion. However, modification to the surface and bulk characteristics of these materials has been shown to maximize osseointegration and long‐term stability. Specifically, the introduction of intrinsic porosity and surface roughness has been shown to affect spinal interbody mechanics, vascularization, osteoblast attachment, and ingrowth potential. This narrative review synthesizes the mechanical, in vitro, in vivo, and clinical effects on fusion efficacy associated with introduction of porosity in Ti (neat and alloy) and PEEK intervertebral implants.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: The purposes of this study were to determine the rate of improvement of significant preoperative weakness, identify risk factors for failure to improve, and characterize the motor recovery of individual motor groups. Summary of Background Data: While neck and arm pain reliably improve following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), the frequency and magnitude of motor recovery following ACDF remain unclear. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing 1–4-level ACDF at a single institution between September 2015 and June 2016. Patients were subdivided into 2 groups based upon the presence or absence of significant preoperative weakness, which was defined as a motor grade <4 in any single upper extremity muscle group. Clinical notes were reviewed to determine affected muscle groups, rates of motor recovery, and risk factors for failure to improve. Results: We identified 618 patients for inclusion. Significant preoperative upper extremity weakness was present in 27 patients (4.4%). Postoperatively, 19 of the affected patients (70.3%) experienced complete strength recovery, and 5 patients (18.5%) experienced an improvement in muscle strength to a motor grade ≥4. The rate of motor recovery postoperatively was 85.7% in the triceps, 83.3% in the finger flexors, 83.3% in the hand intrinsics, 50.0% in the biceps, and 25.0% in the deltoids. Risk factors for failure to experience significant motor improvement were the presence of myelomalacia (odds ratio: 28.9, P<0.01) and the performance of >2 levels of ACDF (odds ratio: 10.1, P<0.01). Conclusions: Patients with substantial preoperative upper extremity weakness can expect high rates of motor recovery following ACDF, though patients with deltoid weakness, myelomalacia, and >2 levels of ACDF are less likely to experience significant motor improvement.

Study Design: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical and radiographic outcomes of patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with constructs extending from C2 to T2 to patients with constructs extending from C3 to T1. Summary of Background Data: Limited evidence exists regarding the appropriate level of proximal and distal extension of PCF constructs. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent PCF between 2012 and 2020 was performed. Surgical and radiographic outcomes were compared between those who had C3–T1 or C2–T2 constructs. Results: A total of 155 patients were included in the study (C2–T2: 106 patients, C3–T1: 49 patients). There were no significant differences in demographics or preoperative symptoms between cohorts. Fusion rates were significantly higher in the C2–T2 (93%) than the C3–T1 (80%, P=0.040) cohort. When comparing the C2–T2 to the C3–T1 cohort, the C3–T1 cohort had a significantly greater rate of proximal junctional failure (2% vs. 10%, P=0.006), distal junctional failure (1% vs. 20%, P<0.001) and distal screw loosening (4% vs. 15%, P=0.02). Although ∆C2–C7 sagittal vertical axis increased significantly in both cohorts (C2–T2: 6.2 mm, P=0.04; C3–T1: 8.4 mm, P<0.001), correction did not significantly differ between groups (P=0.32). The C3–T1 cohort had a significantly greater increase in ∆C2 slope (8.0 vs. 3.1 degrees, P=0.03) and ∆C0–C2 Cobb angle (6.4 vs. 1.2 degrees, P=0.04). Conclusion: In patients undergoing PCF, a C2–T2 construct demonstrated lower rates of pseudarthrosis, distal junctional failure, proximal junctional failure, and compensatory upper cervical hyperextension compared with a C3–T1 construct.

Study Design: This was a narrative review. Objective: This review discusses our current knowledge regarding cellular-based allografts while highlighting the key gaps in the literature that must be addressed before their widespread adoption. Summary of Background Data: Iliac crest bone graft is the gold-standard bone graft material but is associated with donor site morbidity. Commonly utilized bone graft extenders such as demineralized bone matrix and bone morphogenetic protein have conflicting data supporting their efficacy and lack the osteogenic potential of new cellular-based allograft options. Methods: An extensive literature review was performed. The literature was then summarized in accordance with the authors’ clinical experience. Results: There is not widespread evidence thus far that the addition of the osteogenic cellular component to allograft enhances spinal fusion, as a recent study by Bhamb and colleagues demonstrated superior bone formation during spine fusion in an aythmic rat model when demineralized bone matrix was used in comparison to Osteocel Plus. Furthermore, the postimplantation cellular viability and osteogenic and osteoinductive capacity of cellular-based allografts need to be definitively established, especially given that a recent study by Lina and colleagues demonstrated a paucity of bone marrow cell survival in an immunocompetent mouse posterolateral spinal fusion model. Conclusions: This data indicates that the substantially increased cost of these cellular allografts may not be justified. Level of Evidence: Level V.

Study Design This study is a retrospective case control. Objectives This study aims to determine whether cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is associated with increased baseline neck/arm pain and inferior health quality states compared to a similar population without DS. Methods Patient demographics, pre-operative radiographs, and baseline PROMs were reviewed for 315 patients undergoing anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with at least 1 year of follow-up. Patients were categorized based on the presence (S) or absence of a spondylolisthesis (NS). Statistically significant variables were further explored using multiple linear regression analysis. Results 49/242 (20%) patients were diagnosed with DS, most commonly at the C4–5 level (27/49). The S group was significantly older than the NS group (58.0 ± 10.7 vs 51.9 ± 9.81, P = .001), but otherwise, no demographic differences were identified. Although a higher degree of C2 slope was found among the S cohort (22.5 ± 8.63 vs 19.8 ± 7.78, P = .044), no differences were identified in terms of preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) neck pain or NDI. In the univariate analysis, the NS group had significantly increased VAS arm pain relative to the S group (4.93 ± 3.16 vs 3.86 ± 3.30, P = .045), which was no longer significant in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions Although previous reports have suggested an association between cervical DS and neck pain, we could not associate the presence of DS with increased baseline neck or arm pain. Instead, DS appears to be a relatively frequent (20% in this series) age-related condition reflecting radiographic, rather than necessarily clinical, disease.

Study Design Retrospective cohort study Objective Substantial variability in both the measurement and classification of subsidence limits the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from previous studies. The purpose of this study was to precisely characterize patterns of cervical cage subsidence utilizing computed tomography (CT) scans, determine risk factors for cervical cage subsidence, and investigate the impact of subsidence on pseudarthrosis rates. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent one- to three-levels of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) utilizing titanium interbodies with anterior plating between the years 2018 and 2020. Subsidence measurements were performed by two independent reviewers on CT scans obtained 6 months postoperatively. Subsidence was then classified as mild if subsidence into the inferior and superior endplate were both ≤2 mm, moderate if the worst subsidence into the inferior or superior endplate was between 2 to 4 mm, or severe if the worst subsidence into the inferior or superior endplate was ≥4 mm. Results A total of 51 patients (100 levels) were included in this study. A total of 48 levels demonstrated mild subsidence (≤2 mm), 38 demonstrated moderate subsidence (2-4 mm), and 14 demonstrated severe subsidence (≥4 mm). Risk factors for severe subsidence included male gender, multilevel constructs, greater mean vertebral height loss, increased cage height, lower Taillard index, and lower screw tip to vertebral body height ratio. Severe subsidence was not associated with an increased rate of pseudarthrosis. Conclusion Following ACDF with titanium cervical cages, subsidence is an anticipated postoperative occurrence and is not associated with an increased risk of pseudarthrosis.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: Studies investigating the impact of interbody subsidence in ACDF suggest a correlation between subsidence and worse radiographic and patient-reported outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess whether allograft subsidence assessed on CT is associated with worse cervical alignment. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing 1 to 3 level ACDF. Cervical alignment was assessed on standing radiographs performed preoperatively, less than 2 months postoperatively, and greater than 6 months postoperatively. Allograft subsidence was assessed on CT scan performed at least 6 months postoperatively. Patients with at least 1 level demonstrating greater than 4mm of cage subsidence were classified as severe subsidence. Student’s t-test was used to compare all means between groups. Results: We identified 66 patients for inclusion, including 56 patients with non-severe subsidence and 10 patients with severe subsidence. For the entire cohort, there was a significant increase in C2-7 Lordosis (p = 0.005) and Segmental Lordosis (p < 0.00 001) from preoperative to early postoperative. On comparison of severely and non-severely subsided levels, severely subsided levels demonstrated a significantly greater loss of segmental lordosis from early to mid-term follow-up than non-severely subsided levels (-4.89 versus -2.59 degrees, p < 0.0001), manifesting as a significantly lower segmental lordosis at >6 months postoperative (0.54 versus 3.82 degrees, p < 0.00 001). There were no significant differences in global cervical alignment parameters between patients with severe and non-severe subsidence. Conclusions: Severe subsidence is associated with a significant increase in loss of segmental lordosis, but has minimal effect on global cervical alignment parameters.

The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures is controversial with no universally accepted treatment algorithm. Several classification and scoring systems have been developed to assist in surgical decision-making. The most widely accepted are the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) and AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Score (TL AOSIS) with both systems designed to provide a simple objective scoring criteria to guide the surgical or nonsurgical management of complex injury patterns. When used in the evaluation and treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, both of these systems result in safe and consistent patient care. However, there are important differences between the 2 systems, specifically in the evaluation of the complete burst fractures (AOSIS A4) and patients with transient neurological deficits (AOSIS N1). In these circumstances, the AOSpine system may more accurately capture and characterize injury severity, providing the most refined guidance for optimal treatment. With respect to surgical approach, these systems provide a framework for decision-making based on patient neurology and the status of the posterior tension band. Here we propose an operative treatment algorithm based on these fracture characteristics as well as the level of injury.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Studies in the lumbar spine suggest a correlation between sarcopenia and worse patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether paraspinal Goutalier grade of fat degeneration is associated with patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing 1- to 3-level ACDF at a single institution between the years 2011-2014. We utilized preoperative magnetic resonance images to classify patients into Goutalier grades. Patient-reported outcomes, including Neck Disability Index (NDI), RAND score, and EQ-5D score were collected and analyzed according to patients’ Goutalier grade. Results: We identified 69 patients for inclusion. A total of 29 patients were classified as Goutalier 0-1 (group 1), 29 were Goutalier 1.5-2 (group 2), and 11 were Goutalier 2.5-4.0 (group 3). All Goutalier groups experienced significant improvement in all 3 outcome scores. Average postoperative NDI scores were 25.3 in group 1, 13.9 in group 2, and 25.1 in group 3 ( P = .02). The percentage of patients in each group reporting worse disability after surgery was 17.2%, 3.3%, and 9.1%, respectively ( P = .05). No statistically significant difference was seen between groups in postoperative EQ-5D ( P = .07) or RAND scores ( P > .05). Conclusions: The present study is the first to assess the association between cervical paraspinal muscle Goutalier grade and patient-reported outcomes following ACDF. Based on our study, patients with worse cervical paraspinal degeneration may benefit from improved symptom relief in comparison to patients with a lesser degree of degeneration undergoing ACDF.