Clarke, Michelle J

Background/Objectives: To identify predictors of successful fusion and adjacent segment disease (ASD) following ALIF. Methods: Records of patients undergoing one- or two-level ALIF were queried for baseline and postoperative radiographic data, demographics, operative notes, and implant characteristics. All had ≥1 year of follow-up with CT, and multivariable Cox regression was used to identify predictors of radiographic fusion through the interbody, ASD, and ASD requiring reoperation. Results: In total, 177 patients (median 59 yr; 52.5% male) were treated at 245 unique levels, of which 193 fused (81.3% with posterior fixation and 59.6% with standalone), 43 had ASD (17.6%), and 14 had ASD requiring reoperation (5.7%). Fusion was predicted by anterior cage placement (HR 0.94/mm; 95% CI [0.90, 0.98]; p = 0.003) and BMP use (HR 1.92; [1.15, 3.18]; p = 0.012). Radiographic ASD was predicted by older age (HR 1.08 per year; [1.03, 1.14]; p < 0.001), undergoing a revision [vs. index] fusion operation (HR 3.51; [1.44; 8.59]; p = 0.006), lower preoperative disc height (HR 0.83/mm; [0.74, 0.94]; p = 0.003), and preoperative facet vacuum phenomenon (HR 2.46; [1.18, 5.15]; p = 0.017). None of the extracted variables predicted reoperation for ASD. Conclusions: BMP use along with anterior cage placement and posterior fixation may improve the odds of fusion through the interbody following one- or two-level ALIF. Adjacent segment pathology is more common in patients with greater preoperative degenerative pathology (vacuum sign; more collapsed disc) and advanced age. Pelvic fixation did not improve fusion odds, but the data highlight the benefits of supplementary posterior fixation vs. standalone ALIF.

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.

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.