Bydon, Mohamad

Abstract Introduction: Extracranial vertebral artery aneurysms are rare complications from trauma and multiple diseases. However, the difference between clinical and surgical profiles is not well understood. Objective To investigate the clinical and interventional outcomes following extracranial vertebral artery aneurysms (VAA) treatment through a systematic review of the literature to date. Methods An electronic database search for full-text English articles was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. The search yielded results on clinical and surgical outcomes for extracranial VAAs. These results included patient-specific risk factors, indications, and techniques. Results Our literature search yielded 561 articles, of which 36 studies were qualified to be included in the analysis. A total of 55 patients with multiple various extracranial VAA incidents were included. The mean age of subjects was 42 years (ranging from 13 to 76 years), and most patients were males (71%, n = 39). Blunt trauma was the most frequent risk factor for extracranial VAA formation (35%, n = 19). The majority of aneurysms (60%) were dissecting in nature. The most common form of treatment for extracranial VAAs was a flow diverter (24%, n = 13). Overall, five (9%) patients had long-term adverse neurological complications following intervention with 5% (n = 3) mortality, 2% (n = 1) resulting in unilateral vocal cord paralysis, and 2% (n = 1) resulting in a positive Romberg sign. The mortality rate is 15.7% in the surgical group, whereas the endovascular treatment did not result in any mortality. Conclusion The endovascular approach is a safe and effective treatment of extracranial VAAs due to its relatively low overall complication rate and lack of resulting mortality. This contrasts with the surgical approach, which results in a higher rate of complications, recurrence, and mortality outcomes. An understanding of the factors and clinical outcomes associated with the incidence of extracranial VAAs is essential for the future improvement of patient outcomes.

Spinal cord tumors constitute a diverse group of rare neoplasms associated with significant mortality and morbidity that pose unique clinical and surgical challenges. Diagnostic accuracy and outcome prediction are critical for informed decision making and can promote personalized medicine and facilitate optimal patient management. Machine learning has the ability to analyze and combine vast amounts of data, allowing the identification of patterns and the establishment of clinical associations, which can ultimately enhance patient care. Although artificial intelligence techniques have been explored in other areas of spine surgery, such as spinal deformity surgery, precise machine learning models for spinal tumors are lagging behind. Current applications of machine learning in spinal cord tumors include algorithms that improve diagnostic precision by predicting genetic, molecular, and histopathological profiles. Furthermore, artificial intelligence-based systems can assist surgeons with preoperative planning and surgical resection, potentially reducing the risk of recurrence and consequently improving clinical outcomes. Machine learning algorithms promote personalized medicine by enabling prognostication and risk stratification based on accurate predictions of treatment response, survival, and postoperative complications. Despite their promising potential, machine learning models require extensive validation processes and quality assessments to ensure safe and effective translation to clinical practice.

Study Design. Delphi method. Objective. To gain consensus on the following questions: (1) When should anticoagulation/antiplatelet (AC/AP) medication be stopped before elective spine surgery?; (2) When should AC/AP medication be restarted after elective spine surgery?; (3) When, how, and in whom should venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis be started after elective spinal surgery? Summary of Background Data. VTE can lead to significant morbidity after adult spine surgery, yet postoperative VTE prophylaxis practices vary considerably. The management of preoperative AC/AP medication is similarly heterogeneous. Materials and Methods. Delphi method of consensus development consisting of three rounds (January 26, 2021, to June 21, 2021). Results. Twenty-one spine surgeons were invited, and 20 surgeons completed all rounds of questioning. Consensus (>70% agreement) was achieved in 26/27 items. Group consensus stated that preoperative Direct Oral Anticoagulants should be stopped two days before surgery, warfarin stopped five days before surgery, and all remaining AC/AP medication and aspirin should be stopped seven days before surgery. For restarting AC/AP medication postoperatively, consensus was achieved for low-risk/medium-risk/high-risk patients in 5/5 risk factors (VTE history/cardiac/ambulation status/anterior approach/operation). The low/medium/high thresholds were POD7/POD5/POD2, respectively. For VTE chemoprophylaxis, consensus was achieved for low-risk/medium-risk/high-risk patients in 12/13 risk factors (age/BMI/VTE history/cardiac/cancer/hormone therapy/operation/anterior approach/staged separate days/staged same days/operative time/transfusion). The one area that did not gain consensus was same-day staged surgery. The low-threshold/medium-threshold/high-threshold ranges were postoperative day 5 (POD5) or none/POD3-4/POD1-2, respectively. Additional VTE chemoprophylaxis considerations that gained consensus were POD1 defined as the morning after surgery regardless of operating finishing time, enoxaparin as the medication of choice, and standardized, rather than weight-based, dose given once per day. Conclusions. In the first known Delphi study to address anticoagulation/antiplatelet recommendations for elective spine surgery (preoperatively and postoperatively); our Delphi consensus recommendations from 20 spine surgeons achieved consensus on 26/27 items. These results will potentially help standardize the management of preoperative AC/AP medication and VTE chemoprophylaxis after adult elective spine surgery.

Study Design: Case Series and Technical Note, Objective: UBS has been extensively used in open surgery. However, the use of UBS during UBESS has not been reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to describe a new spinal surgical technique using an ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) during unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery (UBESS) and to report the preliminary results of this technique. Methods: We enrolled patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent single-level UBESS. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months. A unilateral laminotomy was performed after bilateral decompression under endoscopy. We used the UBS system after direct visualization of the target for a bone cut. We evaluated the demographic characteristics, diagnosis, operative time, and estimated blood loss of the patients. Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the modified MacNab criteria, and postoperative complications. Results: A total of twenty patients (five males and fifteen females) were enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up period was 13.2 months (range 12–17 months). The VAS score, ODI, and modified MacNab criteria classification improved after the surgery. A minimal mean blood loss of 22.1 mL was noted during the operation. Only one patient experienced neuropraxia, which resolved within 2 weeks. There was no durotomy, iatrogenic pars fracture, or infection. Conclusions: In conclusion, our study represents the first report of the use of UBS during UBESS. Our findings demonstrate that this technique is safe and efficient, with improved clinical outcomes and minimal complications. These preliminary results warrant further investigation through larger clinical studies with longer follow-up periods to confirm the effectiveness of this technique in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study. Objective. The purpose of the present study was to assess the impact of sarcopenia on the development of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and proximal junctional failure (PJF) following thoracolumbar spine fusion surgery using opportunistic evaluation of paraspinal fatty degeneration on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Summary of Background Data. While paraspinal sarcopenia has been shown to have detrimental consequences following posterior cervicothoracic fusions, the impact of paraspinal sarcopenia on PJK and PJF following thoracolumbar spine fusion surgery remains unknown. Materials and Methods. We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent posterior spine fusion surgery that extended caudally to the pelvis and terminated cranially between T10 and L2 between 2010 and 2017. The cohort was divided into three groups: (1) patients without PJK or PJF, (2) patients with PJK but no PJF, and (3) patients with PJF. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors for the development of proximal junctional complications. Results. We identified 150 patients for inclusion in this study. Mean Hounsfield Units at the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) was 148.3±34.5 in the cohort of patients without PJK or PJF, which was substantially higher than values recorded in the PJK (117.8±41.9) and PJF (118.8±41.8) subgroups ( P <0.001). Severe multifidus sarcopenia was identified at a much higher rate in the subgroups of patients who developed PJK (76.0%) and PJF (78.9%) than in the subgroup of patients who developed neither PJK nor PJF (34.0%; P <0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated both low HU at the UIV and moderate-severe multifidus sarcopenia to be risk factors for the development of PJK and PJF. Conclusion. The results of this study suggest severe paraspinal sarcopenia and diminished bone density at the UIV impart an increased risk of developing PJK and PJF, while markers of systemic frailty such as modified Frailty Index and Charlson Comorbidity Index are not associated with an increased risk of these complications. Level of Evidence. III.

Mobile health (mHealth) technology has assumed a pervasive role in healthcare and society. By capturing real-time features related to spine health, mHealth assessments have the potential to transform multiple aspects of spine care. Yet mHealth applications may not be familiar to many spine surgeons and other spine clinicians. Consequently, the objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the technology, analytical considerations, and applications of mHealth tools for evaluating spine surgery patients. Reflecting their near-ubiquitous role in society, smartphones are the most commonly available form of mHealth technology and can provide measures related to activity, sleep, and even social interaction. By comparison, wearable devices can provide more detailed mobility and physiological measures, although capabilities vary substantially by device. To date, mHealth evaluations in spine surgery patients have focused on the use of activity measures, particularly step counts, in an attempt to objectively quantify spine health. However, the correlation between step counts and patient-reported disease severity is inconsistent, and further work is needed to define the mobility metrics most relevant to spine surgery patients. mHealth assessments may also support a variety of other applications that have been studied less frequently, including those that prevent postoperative complications, predict surgical outcomes, and serve as motivational aids to patients. These areas represent key opportunities for future investigations. To maximize the potential of mHealth evaluations, several barriers must be overcome, including technical challenges, privacy and regulatory concerns, and questions related to reimbursement. Despite those obstacles, mHealth technology has the potential to transform many aspects of spine surgery research and practice, and its applications will only continue to grow in the years ahead.

BACKGROUND: Changes in reimbursement policies have been demonstrated to correlate with clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends in physician reimbursement for anterior, posterior, and combined anterior/posterior (AP) lumbar arthrodesis and relative utilization of AP. METHODS: We queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project registry for anterior, posterior, and AP lumbar arthrodeses during 2010 and 2020. Work relative value units per operative hour (wRVUs/h) were calculated for each procedure. Trends in reimbursement and utilization of the AP approach were assessed with linear regression. Subgroup analyses of age and underlying pathology of AP arthrodesis were also performed. RESULTS: During 2010 and 2020, AP arthrodesis was associated with significantly higher average wRVUs/h compared with anterior and posterior arthrodesis (AP = 17.4, anterior = 12.4, posterior = 14.5). The AP approach had a significant yearly increase in wRVUs/h (coefficient = 0.48, P = .042), contrary to anterior (coefficient = −0.01, P = .308) and posterior (coefficient = −0.13, P = .006) approaches. Utilization of AP approaches over all arthrodeses increased from 7.5% in 2010 to 15.3% in 2020 (yearly average increase 0.79%, P < .001). AP fusions increased significantly among both degenerative and deformity cases (coefficients 0.88 and 1.43, respectively). The mean age of patients undergoing AP arthrodesis increased by almost 10 years from 2010 to 2020. Rates of major 30-day complications were 2.7%, 3.1%, and 3.5% for AP, anterior, and posterior arthrodesis, respectively. CONCLUSION: AP lumbar arthrodesis was associated with higher and increasing reimbursement (wRVUs/h) during the period 2010 to 2020. Reimbursement for anterior arthrodesis was relatively stable, while reimbursement for posterior arthrodesis decreased. The utilization of the combined AP approach relative to the other approaches increased significantly during the period of interest.