Anderson, Paul A.

OBJECTIVEThe authors sought to assess whether Hounsfield units (HU) increase following teriparatide treatment and to compare HU increases with changes in bone mineral density (BMD) as measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).METHODSA retrospective chart review was performed from 1997 to 2018 across all campuses at our institution. The authors identified patients who had been treated with at least 6 months of teriparatide and compared HU and BMD as measured on DEXA scans before and after treatment.RESULTSFifty-two patients were identified for analysis (46 women and 6 men, average age 67 years) who underwent an average of 20.9 ± 6.5 months of teriparatide therapy. The mean ± standard deviation HU increase throughout the lumbar spine (L1–4) was from 109.8 ± 53 to 133.9 ± 61 HU (+22%, 95% CI 1.2–46, p value = 0.039). Based on DEXA results, lumbar spine BMD increased from 0.85 to 0.93 g/cm2 (+9%, p value = 0.044). Lumbar spine T-scores improved from −2.4 ± 1.5 to −1.7 ± 1.5 (p value = 0.03). Average femoral neck T-scores improved from −2.5 ± 1.1 to −2.3 ± 1.0 (p value = 0.31).CONCLUSIONSTeriparatide treatment increased both HU and BMD on DEXA in the lumbar spine, without a change in femoral BMD. The 22% improvement in HU surpassed the 9% improvement determined with DEXA. These results support some surgeons’ subjective sense that intraoperative bone quality following teriparatide treatment is better than indicated by DEXA results. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating an increase in HU with teriparatide treatment.

Introduction: Osteopenia and osteoporosis are common conditions in the United States. The health consequences of low bone density can be dire, from poor surgical outcomes to increased mortality rates following a fracture. Significance: This article highlights the impact low bone density has on spine health in terms of vertebral fragility fractures and its adverse effects on elective spine surgery. It also reviews the clinical importance of bone health assessment and optimization. Results: Vertebral fractures are the most common fragility fractures with significant consequences related to patient morbidity and mortality. Additionally, a vertebral fracture is the best predictor of a subsequent fracture. These fractures constitute sentinel events in osteoporosis that require further evaluation and treatment of the patient’s underlying bone disease. In addition to fractures, osteopenia and osteoporosis have deleterious effects on elective spine surgery from screw pullout to fusion rates. Adequate evaluation and treatment of a patient’s underlying bone disease in these situations have been shown to improve patient outcomes. Conclusion: With an increased understanding of the prevalence of low bone mass and its consequences as well an understanding of how to identify these patients and appropriately intervene, spine surgeons can effectively decrease the rates of adverse health outcomes related to low bone mass.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: The safety of new technology such as cervical total disc replacement (TDR) is of paramount importance and is best evaluated in randomized clinical trials (RCT). We compared complication risks of TDR to fusion using data from Investigational Device Exemptions. Methods: A systematic review of FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness reports of the 8 approved cervical TDRs was performed. These were all randomized controlled trials comparing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to TDR. Important outcome variables were dysphagia, wound infection, neurologic injuries, heterotopic ossification, death, and secondary surgeries. A random effects model was selected a priori. Data on adverse events was abstracted and analyzed by calculating relative risk of ACDF to TDR by meta-analysis techniques. Results: The study included 3027 patients with 1377 randomized to ACDF and 1652 to TDR. No statistical differences were present between the 2 groups in dysphagia/dysphonia, hardware related, heterotopic ossification, death, and overall neurologic adverse events and incidence of neurologic deterioration. The relative risk of wound-related problems ACDF to TDR was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59, 0.98) favoring ACDF, which was statistically significant, but these were minor and never required a second surgical procedure for deep wound infection. The relative risk of ACDF to TDR in surgical-related neurologic events and secondary surgeries was 1.62 (95% CI = 1.04, 2.53) and 1.79 (95% CI = 1.17, 2.74), both favoring TDR. Conclusions: Cervical TDR appears to be as safe as or safer than ACDF at 2-year follow-up.