Pirris, Stephen M.

Study Design Systematic Review. Objective To assess the current literature regarding the accuracy of different imaging modalities and criteria used to assess lumbar fusion, and their correlation with surgical direct observation as the current Gold Standard. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, studies were included if they focused on patients with a prior history of lumbar interbody fusion and at least 1 year of radiographic follow-up. The review assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of different imaging techniques, and their correlation with surgical findings. Results Thirteen studies (1989-2019) were reviewed, including 715 patients, common imaging modalities included plain radiographs (53.8%), Computed Tomography (CT) (69.2%), and dynamic radiographs (30.7%). CT appeared as the most utilized modality post-2006. There was substantial variability in diagnostic accuracy, with CT showing high variability in sensitivity and specificity. Descriptive criteria for fusion were widely used, but interobserver agreement was generally low. Conclusion The review highlights a lack of standardized criteria for assessing lumbar fusion. Despite advancements in imaging techniques, the variability in diagnostic parameters suggests a need for consensus and multicentric studies to stablish reliable, universal criteria for evaluating fusion success.

OBJECTIVE The global need for neurosurgical care is significant and often unmet. Building partnerships between high-income countries (HICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) can help bridge the gap. Six features of sustainable global surgical partnerships have been identified; however, their application in neurosurgery has not been studied. The authors analyzed how the 6 pillars of sustainability are applied to neurosurgical partnerships established by the Neurosurgery Outreach Foundation (NOF) with hospitals in LMICs in Asia. METHODS NOF is an all-volunteer, nonprofit US foundation with the mission to advance neurosurgical care in underserved communities through education, service, and support. The authors examined the NOF programs and identified the characteristics associated with the 6 pillars of sustainability, which are community engagement, multidisciplinary collaboration, education and training, outcome measurement, multisource funding, and bilateral authorship. The authors discuss how these pillars contribute to the establishment of sustainable partnerships. RESULTS From 2010 to 2024, NOF has established partnerships at 4 sites: Cebu, Manila, and Davao, the Philippines; and Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Partnerships were established with tertiary or quaternary government hospitals to develop neurosurgical programs tailored to the needs of each site and remained sustained and active. Educational surgical missions were in-person outreach activities conducted annually or biennially and were supplemented with online or remote collaboration. The 5 pillars of sustainable partnerships present at all sites include community engagement, multidisciplinary collaboration, education and training, outcome measurement, and multisource funding. The sixth pillar, bilateral authorship, was present at University of the Philippines–Philippine General Hospital in Manila. CONCLUSIONS Using the 6 pillars of sustainable global partnerships, neurosurgical partnerships can be developed and maintained by all-volunteer nonprofit organizations such as NOF. Incorporating these pillars during the planning and executing of global neurosurgical partnerships are essential for long-term success.

Study Design. Literature review and institutional analysis. Objective. This review examines the potential advantages of awake spinal surgery under neuroaxial anesthesia in minimizing positioning-related complications compared with traditional general anesthesia. Summary of Background Data. Spinal surgeries performed in the prone position under general anesthesia are associated with perioperative complications, such as ocular injury and vision loss, nerve damage, and pressure ulcers. Materials and Methods. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for articles published from 1986 to 2023 focusing on awake spinal surgery and positioning-related complications. In addition, insights from the Mayo Clinic team were incorporated to assess the potential benefits of awake spine surgery. Results. The review identified several positioning-related complications associated with prone positioning during spine surgery, including perioperative visual loss, neuropathies, pressure ulcers, and intra-abdominal hypertension leading to systemic cardiovascular effects and potential organ dysfunction. Advances at the Mayo Clinic have enabled the use of awake spinal surgery under neuroaxial anesthesia for complex procedures such as robotic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. The use of awake lumbar spine surgery has demonstrated advantages, including reduced positioning-related complications, immediate patient feedback to avoid harmful maneuvers, shorter operating room times, and improved hemodynamic stability. Conclusions. Awake lumbar spine surgery offers notable advantages in reducing positioning-related complications and presents a promising alternative to general anesthesia.

Background: The comparative effectiveness of decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty versus decompression plus instrumented lumbar spinal fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis is unknown. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial, we assigned patients who had single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis to undergo decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty (arthroplasty group) or decompression plus fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a predetermined composite clinical success score. Secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Short Form (SF)-12, radiographic parameters, surgical variables, and complications. Results: A total of 321 adult patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with 219 patients assigned to undergo facet arthroplasty and 102 patients assigned to undergo fusion. Of these, 113 patients (51.6%) in the arthroplasty group and 47 (46.1%) in the fusion group who had either reached 24 months of postoperative follow-up or were deemed early clinical failures were included in the primary outcome analysis. The arthroplasty group had a higher proportion of patients who achieved composite clinical success than did the fusion group (73.5% versus 25.5%; p < 0.001), equating to a between-group difference of 47.9% (95% confidence interval, 33.0% to 62.8%). The arthroplasty group outperformed the fusion group in most patient-reported outcome measures (including the ODI, VAS back pain, and all ZCQ component scores) at 24 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups in surgical variables or complications, except that the fusion group had a higher rate of developing symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration. Conclusions: Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis, lumbar facet arthroplasty was associated with a higher rate of composite clinical success than fusion was at 24 months postoperatively. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Degenerative spine disease is a leading cause of disability, with increasing prevalence in the older patients. While age has been identified as an independent predictor of outcomes, its predictive value is limited for similar older patients. Here, we aimed to determine the most predictive frailty score of adverse events in patients aged 80 and older undergoing instrumented lumbar fusion. METHODS: We proceeded with a multisite (3 tertiary academic centers) retrospective review including patients undergoing instrumented fusion aged 80 and older from January 2010 to present. A composite end point encompassing 30-day return to operating room, readmission, and mortality was created. We estimated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for frailty scores (Modified Frailty Index-5 [MFI-5], Modified Frailty Index-11 [MFI-11], and Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]) in relation to that composite score. In addition, we estimated the association between each score and the composite end point by means of logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients with an average age of 85 years at the time of surgery were included. We observed a 30-day readmission rate of 11.1%, reoperation of 3.9%, and mortality of 0.6%. The overall rate of the composite end point at 30 days was 25 (15.1%). The AUC for MFI-5 was 0.597 (0.501-0.693), for MFI-11 was 0.620 (0.518-0.723), and for CCI was 0.564 (0.453-0.675). The association between the scores and composite end point did not reach statistical significance for MFI-5 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45 [0.98-2.15], P = .061) and CCI (OR = 1.13 [0.97-1.31], P = .113) but was statistically significant for MFI-11 (OR = 1.46 [1.07-2.00], P = .018). CONCLUSION: This is the largest study comparing frailty index scores in octogenarians undergoing instrumented lumbar fusion. Our findings suggest that while MFI-11 score correlated with adverse events, the predictive ability of existing scores remains limited, highlighting the need for better approaches to identify select patients at age extremes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) spine surgery is growing in popularity and has facilitated earlier postoperative recovery, reduced cost, and fewer complications compared with spine surgery under general anesthesia (GA). Changes in reimbursement policies have been demonstrated to correlate with clinical practice; however, they have yet to be studied for GA vs non-GA spine procedures. We aimed to investigate trends in physician reimbursement for GA vs non-GA spine surgery in the United States. METHODS: We queried the ACS-NSQIP for GA and non-GA (regional, epidural, spinal, and anesthesia care/intravenous sedation) spine surgeries during 2011–2020. Work relative value units per operative hour (wRVUs/h) were retrieved for decompression or stabilization of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using all baseline variables. RESULTS: We included 474 706 patients who underwent spine decompression or stabilization procedures. GA was used in 472 248 operations, whereas 2458 operations were non-GA. The proportion of non-GA spine operations significantly increased during the study period. Operative times ( P < .001) and length of stays ( P < .001) were shorter in non-GA when compared with GA procedures. Non-GA lumbar procedures had significantly higher wRVUs/h when compared with the same procedures performed under GA (decompression; P < .001 and stabilization; P = .039). However, the same could not be said about cervicothoracic procedures. Lumbar decompression surgeries using non-GA witnessed significant yearly increase in wRVUs/h ( P < .01) contrary to GA ( P = .72). Physician reimbursement remained stable for procedures of the cervical or thoracic spine regardless of the anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Non-GA lumbar decompressions and stabilizations are associated with higher and increasing reimbursement trends (wRVUs/h) compared with those under GA. Reimbursement for cervical and thoracic surgeries was equal regardless of the type of anesthesia and being relatively stable during the study period. The adoption of a non-GA technique relative to the GA increased significantly during the study period.

Study Design: Prospective randomized Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Objective: The purpose of the present study is to report the 1-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and safety profile of patients who underwent lumbar facet arthroplasty through implantation of the Total Posterior Spine System (TOPS) device. Summary of Background Data: Lumbar facet arthroplasty is one proposed method of dynamic stabilization to treat grade-1 spondylolisthesis with stenosis; however, there are currently no Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for facet arthroplasty. Methods: Standard demographic information was collected for each patient. Radiographic parameters and patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively and at regular postoperative intervals. Complication and reoperation data were also collected for each patient. Results: At the time of this study, 153 patients had undergone implantation of the TOPS device. The mean surgical time was 187.8 minutes and the mean estimated blood loss was 205.7cc. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.0 days. Mean Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Score leg and back, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores improved significantly at all postoperative time points (P>0.001). There were no clinically significant changes in radiographic parameters, and all operative segments remained mobile at 1-year follow-up. Postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients out of the 153 patients (7.2%) who underwent implantation of the TOPS device. Nine patients (5.9%) underwent a total of 13 reoperations, 1 (0.6%) of which was for device-related failure owing to bilateral L5 pedicle screw loosening. Conclusions: Lumbar facet arthroplasty with the TOPS device demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in all patient-reported outcome measures and the ability to maintain motion at the index level while limiting sagittal translation with a low complication rate.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a posterior facet replacement device, the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) System, for the treatment of one-level symptomatic lumbar stenosis with grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. Posterior lumbar arthroplasty with facet replacement is a motion-preserving alternative to lumbar decompression and fusion. The authors report the preliminary results from the TOPS FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) trial. METHODS The study was a prospective, randomized controlled FDA IDE trial comparing the investigational TOPS device with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and pedicle screw fixation. The minimum follow-up duration was 24 months. Validated patient-reported outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. The primary outcome was a composite measure of clinical success: 1) no reoperations, 2) no device breakage, 3) ODI reduction of ≥ 15 points, and 4) no new or worsening neurological deficit. Patients were considered a clinical success only if they met all four measures. Radiographic assessments were made by an independent core laboratory. RESULTS A total of 249 patients were evaluated (n = 170 in the TOPS group and n = 79 in the TLIF group). There were no statistically significant differences between implanted levels (L4–5: TOPS, 95% and TLIF, 95%) or blood loss. The overall composite measure for clinical success was statistically significantly higher in the TOPS group (85%) compared with the TLIF group (64%) (p = 0.0138). The percentage of patients reporting a minimum 15-point improvement in ODI showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.037) favoring TOPS (93%) over TLIF (81%). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients reporting a minimum 20-point improvement on VAS back pain (TOPS, 87%; TLIF, 64%) and leg pain (TOPS, 90%; TLIF, 88%) scores. The rate of surgical reintervention for facet replacement in the TOPS group (5.9%) was lower than the TLIF group (8.8%). The TOPS cohort demonstrated maintenance of flexion/extension range of motion from preoperatively (3.85°) to 24 months (3.86°). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that posterior lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device is safe and efficacious in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Additionally, decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device maintains segmental motion.

AbstractIntroductionSince the introduction of wearable head‐up displays, there has been much interest in the surgical community adapting this technology into routine surgical practice.MethodsWe used the keywords augmented reality OR wearable device OR head‐up display AND surgery using PubMed, EBSCO, IEEE and SCOPUS databases. After exclusions, 74 published articles that evaluated the utility of wearable head‐up displays in surgical settings were included in our review.ResultsAcross all studies, the most common use of head‐up displays was in cases of live streaming from surgical microscopes, navigation, monitoring of vital signs, and display of preoperative images. The most commonly used head‐up display was Google Glass. Head‐up displays enhanced surgeons' operating experience; common disadvantages include limited battery life, display size and discomfort.ConclusionsDue to ergonomic issues with dual‐screen devices, augmented reality devices with the capacity to overlay images onto the surgical field will be key features of next‐generation surgical head‐up displays.

AbstractBackgroundThe primary aim of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of capturing and streaming neuronavigation images onto a head‐up display during spine instrumentation.MethodsUsing a novel device, neuronavigation images were captured and transferred wirelessly via a password‐encrypted network to the head‐up display. At the end of the procedure, the surgeons completed a survey to gather their opinions of the system.ResultsForty pedicle screws were placed using the head‐up display. The average screw placement time was slightly shorter when the head‐up display was used (4.13 min with vs. 4.86 min without). The post‐procedure survey demonstrated that 79% of surgeon's responses were positive.ConclusionA wearable head‐up display can benefit current neuronavigation systems, but larger, outcomes‐based trials are needed. Higher processing speed would allow streaming of higher resolution images. Along with an enlarged display, these may significantly improve utilization of this technology. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.