Martini, Michael L.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a powerful procedure for sagittal correction and indirect decompression in the lumbar spine, though aggressive correction can cause stretch neuropraxia and implant subsidence. The aim of this study was to identify radiographic and clinical predictors of segmental correction, as well as to evaluate the degree to which segmental correction on supine intraoperative radiographs translates to postoperative upright alignment changes. METHODS: We identified patients treated with 1- or 2-level ALIF at a tertiary care center and extracted data on demographics, spinopelvic parameters, and surgical details. Patients treated with isolated ALIF and ALIF with supplementary posterior instrumentation were compared on pre- and postoperative intradiscal lordosis (IDL) and change in IDL. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify independent predictors of postoperative IDL. RESULTS: We included 204 patients (median age 57 years, 55.4% male) treated at 258 levels, of whom 114 (55.9%) underwent supplementary posterior fixation and 150 (73.5%) underwent single-level implantation. Across all patients, postoperative IDL was significantly greater than preoperative segmental lordosis (25.4° vs 15.3°; P < .001). Standalone ALIF achieved less ΔIDL than circumferential fusion for L5/S1 procedures (7.4° vs 11.6°; P < .001), though ΔIDL for L3/4 and L4/5 was similar between the standalone and circumferential groups. Multivariable analysis showed postoperative IDL to be predicted by greater preoperative IDL (β = 0.26° per degree; [0.15, 0.36]; P < .001), L5/S1 [vs L4/5] implantation (β = 3.97°; [2.72, 5.21]; P < .001), use of supplementary posterior fixation (β = 1.80°; [0.70, 2.89]; P < .001), and greater implant lordosis (β = 0.62° per degree; [0.44, 0.79]; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Postoperative IDL after 1- or 2-level ALIF is best predicted by placement of larger interbody sizes, L5/S1 implantation, greater baseline IDL, and use of adjunct posterior fixation. Patients with higher preoperative lordosis experienced smaller postoperative increases in IDL, though this was likely influenced by a treatment bias.

OBJECTIVE Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists are established therapeutics for weight loss that are increasingly used for BMI optimization prior to spine surgery. However, emerging evidence has suggested that GLP-1 agonists might reduce bone mineral density (BMD), increasing the risk of postoperative biomechanical complications. CT-based Hounsfield units (HUs) have gained popularity as a method for measuring spinal BMD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of GLP-1 agonist–induced weight loss on spinal BMD as measured by opportunistic CT-based HUs. METHODS Patients who were treated with any GLP-1 agonist (2017–2022) for > 3 months were retrospectively identified. Patient body weight (BW), BMI, and HU measurements in the L1 vertebral body were measured before and after GLP-1 therapy. Patients were grouped according to the percentage of weight loss during GLP-1 therapy. One-way ANOVA was used to compare the mean changes in spinal HUs across the groups. RESULTS Among the 102 included patients, the mean ± standard error of the mean BW reduction was 14.5 ± 2.5 kg over 15.9 ± 1.2 months of GLP-1 agonist therapy. Of these, 7 patients (6.9%) lost > 20% BW (mean decrease of 31.9 ± 7.0 HU, p = 0.011), 14 (13.7%) lost 15%–20% BW (mean decrease of 19.1 ± 8.3 HU, p = 0.038), 14 (13.7%) lost 10%–15% BW (mean decrease of 12.2 ± 5.1 HU, p = 0.036), 24 (23.5%) lost 5%–10% BW (mean decrease of 15.7 ± 3.3 HU, p < 0.0001), 26 (25.5%) lost < 5% BW (mean decrease of 14.7 ± 6.0 HU, p = 0.022), and 17 (16.7%) gained BW during GLP-1 therapy (mean decrease of 6.3 ± 5.0 HU, p = 0.229). One-way ANOVA testing did not show a significant difference in HU reduction across the weight loss groups (F = 1.12, p = 0.355). In addition, there was a significant correlation between the decrease in L1 HUs and the duration of GLP-1 therapy (r = −0.38, p = 0.0001) but not the amount of weight loss (r = −0.18, p = 0.070). In the multivariate analysis, the duration of GLP-1 therapy (p = 0.032) was a significant independent predictor of vertebral HU reduction, but the amount of weight loss (p = 0.664) was not. CONCLUSIONS Despite similar pretreatment BW and HU measurements, all weight loss groups had significant decreases in vertebral HUs following GLP-1 agonist therapy, with a significant correlation observed between HU reduction and treatment duration. This suggests that long-term GLP-1 agonist therapy can significantly diminish spinal BMD regardless of the amount of weight loss achieved.

OBJECTIVE Lordotic devices have garnered increased attention for improving the segmental lordosis (SL) achieved with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). However, it is unclear the degree to which surgeons maximize the "ideal" or listed lordosis of the interbody device. METHODS Patients undergoing one- or two-level TLIF for degenerative pathologies were identified and data were extracted on demographics, baseline lumbopelvic radiographic parameters, and TLIF details. The primary outcome of interest was the degree to which postoperative SL approximated the listed cage lordosis (Δtarget). Change in SL was a secondary outcome. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to identify significant predictors of the percentage of ideal lordosis achieved. RESULTS A total of 239 treated levels were included (median patient age 66.6 years; 56.9% female); 151 levels were part of single-level TLIF constructs. The median segmental corrections were a 2.8° increase in SL and 2.8 mm in disc height. The median difference between listed cage lordosis and postoperative SL (Δtarget) was 0.5°. However, only 56.1% of levels achieved at least the listed cage lordosis. Linear mixed-effects modeling found that independent predictors of Δtarget were lower implant lordosis (estimate −1.01° [95% CI −1.15° to −0.87°] per degree, p < 0.001), greater preoperative SL (estimate 0.38° [95% CI 0.28°–0.48°] per degree, p < 0.001), greater preoperative PI (estimate 0.06° [95% CI 0.02°–0.11°] per degree, p = 0.007), and closer approximation of the anterior apophyseal ring of the caudal vertebrae (estimate −0.27° [95% CI −0.39° to −0.15°] per mm, p < 0.001). Similarly, independent predictors of postoperative SL were larger implant lordosis (estimate 0.16° [95% CI 0.05°–0.27°] per degree, p = 0.004), lower preoperative SL (estimate −0.70° [95% CI −0.79° to −0.62°] per degree, p < 0.001), greater preoperative PI (estimate 0.08° [95% CI 0.04°–0.12°] per degree, p < 0.001), and closer approximation of the anterior apophyseal ring of the cranial vertebrae (estimate −0.15° [95% CI −0.28° to −0.03°] per mm, p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS The present results suggest that while lordosing, only 56% TLIF operations obtain the listed interbody lordosis ("target" lordosis). Anterior placement within the disc space is the only modifiable intraoperative technical factor for maximizing lordosis for a given interbody, highlighting the importance of effective disc space exenteration.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risks and benefits of removing painful pelvic/iliac screws in spine fusion surgery patients. METHODS A retrospective review identified patients who had traditional iliac and S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screws removed for pain. The minimum follow-up was 24 months. RESULTS Fifty-two patients (75% women) were included with a mean age of 63 years, BMI of 28, and follow-up of 65 months. Most of the removed screws were S2AI (83%) compared with traditional iliac screws (17%). Forty-three patients (83%) had improvement in their pelvic screw related–pain following removal. Eight patients (15%) experienced lumbosacral mechanical complications following pelvic screw removal including sacral fracture (n = 3, 6%) and/or L4–5 or L5–S1 rod fracture (n = 7, 13%). On multivariable analysis, risk factors for mechanical complications following pelvic screw removal included a longer fusion construct (OR 1.34, p = 0.035), greater postoperative L4–S1 lordosis (OR 1.14, p = 0.04, ideal cutoff > 40°), and lack of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP; OR 0.03, p = 0.02). Ten patients (19%) underwent subsequent SI joint fusion following pelvic screw removal, and higher standing pelvic incidence (OR 1.10, p = 0.03) was the only independent predictor of SI fusion. CONCLUSIONS Removal of painful pelvic screws resulted in a high rate of postoperative pain relief, albeit with a risk of lumbosacral mechanical complications and subsequent SI joint fusion. Patients at risk for lumbosacral mechanical complications following pelvic screw removal included those with longer fusion constructs, more lordosis from L4 to S1 (> 40°), and lack of BMP. Patients at risk for receiving an instrumented SI joint fusion following pelvic screw removal included those with a higher pelvic incidence.

OBJECTIVE Pelvic incidence (PI) is a key parameter of sagittal alignment. While conventionally held to be fixed, increasing evidence suggests PI may be variable. This study aimed to identify predictors of change in PI with patient position and to assess the association of preoperative radiographic characteristics and intraoperative maneuvers with postoperative PI. METHODS Patients who underwent thoracolumbosacral fusion were identified, and data were gathered on preoperative spinopelvic parameters, patient demographic characteristics, and operative details. Preoperative spinopelvic parameters were measured on upright, supine, and prone radiographs. Univariable comparisons of PI between the different patient positions were performed. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify variables independently correlated with PI on 6-week postoperative radiographs. Change in PI was defined as ≥ 5° change between positions. RESULTS In total, 138 patients were identified (mean ± SD age 66.0 ± 8.7 years; 38.4% male). Statistically significant differences in PI were noted between preoperative standing and supine (mean −3.2° ± 4.2°, p < 0.001), preoperative supine and prone (3.5° ± 4.7°, p < 0.001), preoperative and 6-week postoperative standing (1.5° ± 6.2°, p = 0.01), and immediate and 6-week upright (1.1° ± 3.9°, p = 0.007) radiographs. Univariable comparisons showed PI decrease from standing to supine was predicted only by weight (87.0 ± 15.0 vs 81.1 ± 19.3 kg, p = 0.04); there were no significant predictors of increase in PI from standing to prone. Increase in PI from preoperative to 6-week standing radiographs was predicted by lower preoperative PI class (p < 0.001), L5/S1 interbody placement (74.4% vs 52.0%, p = 0.02), and change in PI from preoperative standing to supine (12.8% vs 39.8%, p = 0.002) and from standing to prone (51.3% vs 13.3%, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that 6-week postoperative PI was associated with only preoperative supine PI (B = 0.293, 95% CI 0.10–0.48, p = 0.003) and prone PI (B = 0.647, 95% CI 0.44–0.85, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS There are position-dependent changes in PI among patients without prior pelvic fixation. Statistically significant changes in PI are seen even after pelvic fixation with a single S2-alar-iliac screw bilaterally. Postoperative PI was best predicted by preoperative PI on supine and prone radiographs rather than upright radiographs, suggesting that preoperative prone and supine radiographs may provide surgeons with the best information for achieving PI–lumbar lordosis mismatch < 10°.

OBJECTIVE Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) offers both indirect decompression and segmental correction through restoration of disc height. However, stresses exerted on the vertebral endplates by the interbody device can result in implant subsidence and loss of correction. The present time-to-event analysis aimed to identify predictors of interbody subsidence. METHODS Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level TLIF were identified. Data on demographics, surgical details, preoperative bone quality using CT-based Hounsfield units (HU), and pre- and postoperative lumbopelvic parameters were collected. Univariable analyses were conducted to identify predictors of subsidence (≥ 2-mm intrusion of interbody into cranial or caudal vertebrae) and significant subsidence (≥ 4-mm intrusion). Multivariable Cox regression was performed to identify independent predictors of subsidence, expressed as hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS A total of 198 patients treated at 241 levels were included (median age 66.6 years, IQR 59.5, 73.7 years; 56.6% were women). In 92 levels (38.2%) there was some subsidence and in 25 (10.4%) there was significant subsidence. Implanted levels demonstrating subsidence (≥ 2 mm) were associated with lower HU in cranial and caudal vertebrae; had interbodies positioned farther from the anterior apophyseal ring; were implanted with taller, more lordotic interbodies; and underwent greater disc height restoration. Those showing significant subsidence (≥ 4 mm) were similarly associated with lower HU in the cranial and caudal vertebrae; had interbodies positioned farther from the anterior apophyseal ring of the caudal vertebrae; and underwent greater disc height restoration. Multivariable Cox regression showed that time to subsidence was predicted by greater implant height (HR 1.20/mm, 95% CI 1.05–1.38; p = 0.009), greater postoperative disc height (HR 1.21/mm, 95% CI 1.09–1.34; p < 0.001), and greater disc height restoration (HR 1.11/mm, 95% CI 1.04–1.19; p = 0.002). The time-to-subsidence analysis for significant (≥ 4 mm) subsidence showed that it was predicted by lower HU in the cranial vertebrae (HR 0.98/unit, 95% CI 0.97–0.99; p = 0.001); increasing number of levels instrumented (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04–1.52; p = 0.016); and greater disc height restoration (HR 1.33/mm, 95% CI 1.18–1.51; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS This time-to-event analysis suggests that interbody subsidence following TLIF is best predicted by implantation of a taller interbody and aggressive disc height restoration. Significant subsidence is similarly predicted by aggressive disc height restoration along with poor baseline bone quality. The results suggest the need to balance aggressive correction at the time of surgery against the increased risk of subsequent interbody subsidence.

Introduction: Bone health optimization is a key component of the preoperative management of spine surgery patients, as poor bone quality increases the odds of mechanical complications. The present study aimed to achieve the following: (1) compare the relative efficacy of current osteoporosis medications in improving bone quality; (2) identify factors influencing treatment response in preoperative spine surgery patients. Methods: Patients treated at a single, multisite institution who received osteoporosis treatment were identified. Data were gathered on pre- and post-treatment lumbar spine Hounsfield Unit (HU) measurements, patient demographics, frailty scores (modified Frailty Index/mFI, risk analysis index/RAI), and pharmacologic treatment details. The primary outcome was a ≥7 point improvement in lumbar HU, and baseline and logistic regression models were utilized to identify factors associated with this improvement. Medications were grouped as anabolic (teriparatide, romosozumab) and antiresorptive (denosumab, alendronate) therapies. Results: A total of 267 patients were included (median age: 74 years; IQR [66–81]; 67.3% female), with 127 (47.6%) improving by ≥7 HU. The treatment agents used were alendronate (95), denosumab (113), romosozumab (31), and teriparatide (28). Univariable comparisons revealed significant differences across medication groups in age (p < 0.001), sex (p < 0.001), mFI (p < 0.001), RAI (p = 0.004), BMI (p < 0.001), pre-treatment HU (p = 0.022), and treatment duration (p < 0.001). The highest HU improvement rates (ΔHU ≥ 7) were observed in patients receiving the anabolic medications romosozumab (67.7%) and teriparatide (60.7%). Univariable logistic regression identified male sex (OR 0.54, p = 0.019), higher pre-treatment HU (OR 0.99, p = 0.006), and longer treatment duration (OR 0.97, p = 0.003) as factors associated with lower odds of HU improvement. Only romosozumab was associated with significantly higher odds of HU improvement relative to alendronate (OR 3.02, p = 0.012). In our multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 0.53, p = 0.028) and higher pre-treatment HU (OR 0.99, p = 0.002) remained significant predictors of HU improvement. However, medication type was not significant in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Our study highlights that male sex and higher pre-treatment HU were independently associated with lower odds of HU improvement, while medication type was not a significant predictor. Additionally, anabolic agents offered superior improvement relative to antiresorptive therapies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) allows for direct and indirect decompression and segmental lordosis in sagittal plane correction. This study compares the effectiveness of “Bullet” type and “Banana” type devices for sagittal plane correction. METHODS: Patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level TLIF for degenerative pathology at a single tertiary care center were identified. Details were extracted on demographics, interbody dimensions, and preoperative and postoperative lumbopelvic parameters from upright radiographs. Cages were categorized as “Bullet” or “Banana” type based on morphology and manufacturer description of optimal position. Univariable comparisons between levels treated with “Bullet” and “Banana” type interbodies were performed. Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify independent predictors of postoperative segmental lordosis and change in segmental lordosis. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety eight unique patients (median 66.6 years; [IQR 59.5, 73.7]; 56.6% female) were included with 241 levels treated, of which 114 (52.7%) were treated with “Banana” type interbodies and 127 (47.3%) with “Bullet” type. “Banana” type interbodies afforded both greater postoperative segmental lordosis (8.1 [6.2, 10.7] vs 7.5 [5.2, 9.6]; P = .048) and greater increase in segmental lordosis (3.3 [0.7, 7.0] vs 2.3 [0.1, 4.2]; P = .015). On multivariable linear regression, only preoperative segmental lordosis (β = 0.322 per degree; [0.244, 0.399]; P < .001), implant listed lordosis (β = 0.146 per degree; 95% CI [0.048, 0.244]; P = .004), preoperative pelvic incidence (0.072 per degree; [0.034, 0.111]; P < .001), and use of bilateral TLIF windows (β = 3.133; [1.213, 5.053]; P = .001) were predictive of postoperative segmental lordosis. CONCLUSION: The present analysis suggests that baseline lumbopelvic anatomy, interbody lordosis, and the use of bilateral TLIF windows are the most important predictors of postoperative segmental lordosis. Use of “Banana” vs “Bullet” type interbodies was not predictive of segmental lordosis achieved on immediate postoperative upright radiographs. Further work is merited to determine whether the 2 interbody types demonstrate differences regarding subsidence risk or maintenance of correction.