Study Design: This was an ambispective clinical quality registry study. Objective: To evaluate utility of 11-variable modified Frailty Index (mFI) in predicting postoperative outcomes among patients ≥80 years undergoing spinal surgery. Methods: Consecutive patients ≥80 years who underwent spinal surgery between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2018, were included. Primary outcome measure was rate of major complication. Secondary outcome measures were (1) overall complication rate, (2) surgical site infection, and (3) 6-month mortality. Results: A total of 121 operations were performed. Demographic metrics were (1) age (mean ± SD) = 83.1 ± 2.8 years and (2) mFI (mean ± SD) = 2.1 ± 1.4 variables. As mFI increased from 0 to ≥4 variables, risk of major complication increased from 18.2% to 40.0% ( P = .014); overall complication increased from 45.5% to 70.0% ( P = .032); surgical site infection increased from 0.0% to 25.0% ( P = .007). There were no significant changes in risk of 6-month mortality across mFIs ( P = .115). Multivariate analysis showed that a higher mFI score of ≥3 variables was associated with a significantly higher risk of (1) major complication ( P = .025); (2) overall complication ( P = .015); (3) surgical site infection ( P = .007); and (4) mortality ( P = .044). Conclusions: mFI scores of ≥3/11 variables were associated with a higher risk of postoperative morbidity in patients aged ≥80 years undergoing spinal surgery. The mFI-associated risk stratification provides a valuable adjunct in surgical decision making for this rapidly growing subpopulation of patients.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: Spinal orthoses have been generally used in the management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures in the elderly population with purported positive biomechanical and functional effects. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review of the literature examining the role of spinal orthoses in osteoporotic elderly patients who sustain low energy trauma vertebral fractures. Methods: A systematic literature review adherent to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted. Methodical searches utilizing MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases was performed. Results: Of the 2019 articles initially retrieved, 7 published articles (4 randomized controlled trials and 3 prospective cohort studies) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Five studies reported improvement in quantitative measurements of spinal column stability when either a rigid or semirigid orthosis was used, while 1 study was equivocal. The studies also showed the translation of biomechanical benefit into significant functional improvement as manifested by improved postural stability and reduced body sway. Subjective improvement in pain scores and quality of life was also noted with bracing. Conclusion: The use of spinal orthoses in neurologically intact elderly patients aged 60 years and older with osteoporotic compression vertebral fractures results in improved biomechanical vertebral stability, reduced kyphotic deformity, enhanced postural stability, greater muscular strength and superior functional outcomes.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Objectives: To validate the 11-item modified Frailty Index (mFI) as a perioperative risk stratification tool in elderly patients undergoing spine surgery. Methods: All consecutive cases of spine surgery in patients aged 65 years or older between July 2016 and June 2018 at a state-wide trauma center were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was post-operative major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥ III). Secondary outcome measures included the rate of all complications, 6-month mortality and surgical site infection. Results: A total of 348 cases were identified. The major complication rate was significantly lower in patients with an mFI of 0 compared to ≥ 0.45 (18.3% versus 42.5%, P = .049). As the mFI increased from 0 to ≥ 0.45 there was a stepwise increase in risk of major complications ( P < .001). Additionally, 6-month mortality rate was considerably lower when the mFI was 0 rather than ≥ 0.27 (4.2% versus 20.4%, P = .007). Multivariate analysis demonstrated an mFI ≥ 0.27 was significantly associated with an increased incidence of major complication (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.46-5.35, P = .002), all complication (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.70-15.11, P < .001), 6-month mortality (OR 7.39, 95% CI 2.55-21.43, P < .001) and surgical site infection (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.71-11.51, P = .002). The American Society of Anesthesiologists’ (ASA) index did not share a stepwise relationship with any outcome. Conclusion: The mFI is significantly associated in a gradated fashion with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients with an mFI ≥ 0.27 are at greater risk of major complications, all-complications, 6-monthy mortality, and surgical site infection.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is now considered to represent a form of food allergy and this is demonstrated by a response to elimination diet in many patients. A critical additional factor may be an inherent impairment in epithelial barrier integrity, possibly worsened by reflux of gastric contents and improved with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use. Key clinic challenges are posed by the absence of reliable allergy tests to guide elimination diet, and the subsequent need for invasive endoscopic assessment following empirical food challenge, meaning that corticosteroids will remain the mainstay of therapy for many. From a research standpoint, determining if impairments in barrier integrity are innate, and how PPIs address this deficit (which may be pH independent) are important questions that when answered may allow future therapeutic advancement.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: To compare biomechanical and functional outcomes between implant removal and implant retention following posterior surgical fixation of thoracolumbar burst fractures. Methods: A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Of the 751 articles initially retrieved, 13 published articles pooling 673 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed there was a statistically significant improvement in sagittal Cobb Angle by 16.48 degrees (9.13-23.83, p < 0.01) after surgical stabilization of thoracolumbar burst fractures. This correction decremented to 9.68 degrees (2.02-17.35, p < 0.01) but remained significant at the time of implant removal approximately 12 months later. At final follow-up, the implant removal group demonstrated a 10.13 degree loss (3.00-23.26, p = 0.13) of reduction, while the implant retention group experienced a 10.17 degree loss (1.79-22.12, p = 0.10). There was no statistically significant difference in correction loss between implant retention and removal cohorts (p = 0.97). Pooled VAS scores improved by a mean of 3.32 points (0.18 to 6.45, p = 0.04) in the combined removal group, but by only 2.50 points (-1.81 to 6.81, p = 0.26) in the retention group. Oswestry Disability Index scores also improved after implant removal by 7.80 points (2.95-12.64, p < 0.01) at 1 year and 11.10 points (5.24-16.96, p < 0.01) at final follow-up. Conclusions: In younger patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures who undergo posterior surgical stabilization, planned implant removal results in superior functional outcomes without significant difference in kyphotic angle correction loss compared to implant retention.

OBJECTIVE The tumor characteristics and surgical outcomes of intracranial subependymomas are poorly defined. In this study the authors aimed to provide a comprehensive review of all clinical, pathological, radiological, and surgical aspects of this important neoplasm to inform future management strategies. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases adherent to PRISMA guidelines was conducted. RESULTS Of the 1145 articles initially retrieved, 24 studies encompassing 890 cases were included. The authors identified 3 retrospective cohort studies and 21 case series, but no controlled trials. Mean age at presentation was 46.7 ± 18.1 years with a male predominance (70.2%). Common sites of tumor origin were the lateral ventricle (44.5%) and fourth ventricle (43.1%). Cumulative postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were 3.4% and 24.3% respectively. Meta-analysis revealed that male sex (HR 3.15, 95% CI 1.39–7.14, p = 0.006) was associated with poorer 5-year overall mortality rates. All-cause mortality rates were similar when performing subgroup meta-analyses for age (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03–7.36, p = 0.61), smaller subependymoma size (HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.78–2.92, p = 0.22), gross-total resection (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35–1.23, p = 0.18), and receipt of postoperative radiation therapy (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27–2.88, p = 0.84). Postoperative Karnofsky Performance Index scores improved by a mean difference of 1.62 ± 12.14 points (p = 0.42). The pooled overall 5-year survival rate was 89.2%, while the cumulative recurrence rate was 1.3% over a median follow-up ranging from 15.3 to 120.0 months. The pure subependymoma histopathological subtype was most prevalent (85.6%), followed by the mixed subependymoma-ependymoma tumor variant (13.7%). CONCLUSIONS Surgical extirpation without postoperative radiotherapy results in excellent postoperative survival and functional outcomes in the treatment of intracranial subependymomas. Aggressive tumor behavior should prompt histological reevaluation for a mixed subependymoma-ependymoma subtype. Further high-quality controlled trials are still required to investigate this rare tumor.

OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to describe the genesis of the AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification System in the context of historical sacral and pelvic grading systems. METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify all existing sacral and pelvic fracture classification systems. RESULTS A total of 49 articles were included in this review, comprising 23 pelvic classification systems and 17 sacral grading schemes. The AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification System represents both the evolutionary product of these historical systems and a reinvention of classic concepts in 5 ways. First, the classification introduces fracture types in a graduated order of biomechanical stability while also taking into consideration the neurological status of patients. Second, the traditional belief that Denis central zone III fractures have the highest rate of neurological deficit is not supported because this subgroup often includes a broad spectrum of injuries ranging from a benign sagittally oriented undisplaced fracture to an unstable “U-type” fracture. Third, the 1990 Isler lumbosacral system is adopted in its original format to divide injuries based on their likelihood of affecting posterior pelvic or spinopelvic stability. Fourth, new discrete fracture subtypes are introduced and the importance of bilateral injuries is acknowledged. Last, this is the first integrated sacral and pelvic classification to date. CONCLUSIONS The AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification is a universally applicable system that redefines and reorders historical fracture morphologies into a rational hierarchy. This is the first classification to simultaneously address the biomechanical stability of the posterior pelvic complex and spinopelvic stability, while also taking into consideration neurological status. Further high-quality controlled trials are required prior to the inclusion of this novel classification within a validated scoring system to guide the management of sacral and pelvic injuries.