Object There are no published reports of unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in which two Brantigan I/F cages were placed per level through a single portal to achieve bilateral anterior-column support. The authors describe such a surgical technique and evaluate the clinical outcomes of this procedure. Methods Data obtained in 86 (93.5%) of the first 92 consecutive patients who underwent the procedure were retrospectively reviewed; the minimum follow-up duration was 2 years. The clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring system. Disc height, disc angle, cage positioning in the axial plane, and fusion status were radiographically evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 33.8 months. The mean improvement in the JOA score was 77.2%. Fusion was successful in 93% of the cases. According to the Farfan method, the mean anterior and posterior disc heights increased from 20.2 and 16.9% preoperatively to 35.9 and 22.7% at follow up, respectively (p < 0.01). The mean disc angle increased from 4.8° preoperatively to 7.5° at last follow-up examination (p < 0.01). Two cages were correctly placed to achieve bilateral anterior-column support in greater than 85% of the cases. The following complications occurred: hardware migration in two patients and deep infection cured by intravenous antibiotic therapy in one patient. Conclusions Unilateral TLIF involving the placement of two Brantigan cages per level led to good clinical results. Two Brantigan cages were adequately placed via a single portal, and reliable bilateral anterior-column support was achieved. Although the less invasive unilateral approach was used, the outcomes were as good as those in many reported series of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in which the Brantigan cages were placed via the bilateral approach.

On the basis of this equation, in the patients with a PI = 50°, the PI-LL is 9°. Whereas in those with a PI = 30°, the optimum PI-LL is calculated to be as low as 1°. In those with a PI = 80°, PI-LL is estimated at 22°. Consequently, an optimum PI-LL is inconsistent in that it depends on the individual PI.

Dynamic GSA assessment using 3D-MAS can avoid underestimation of GSA loss that is detected by static standing full-length radiography.

IMPORTANCEThe optimal management for acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether early surgical decompression results in better motor recovery than delayed surgical treatment in patients with acute traumatic incomplete cervical SCI associated with preexisting canal stenosis but without bone injury. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 43 tertiary referral centers in Japan from December 2011 through November 2019. Patients aged 20 to 79 years with motor-incomplete cervical SCI with preexisting canal stenosis (American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] Impairment Scale C; without fracture or dislocation) were included. Data were analyzed from September to November 2020. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to undergo surgical treatment within 24 hours after admission or delayed surgical treatment after at least 2 weeks of conservative treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end points were improvement in the mean ASIA motor score, total score of the spinal cord independence measure, and the proportion of patients able to walk independently at 1 year after injury. RESULTS Among 72 randomized patients, 70 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.4] years; age range, 41-79 years; 5 [7%] women and 65 [93%] men) were included in the full analysis population (37 patients assigned to early surgical treatment and 33 patients assigned to delayed surgical treatment).Of these, 56 patients (80%) had data available for at least 1 primary outcome at 1 year. There was no significant difference among primary end points for the early surgical treatment group compared with the delayed surgical treatment group (mean [SD] change in ASIA motor score, 53.7 [14.7] vs 48.5 [19.1]; difference, 5.2; 95% CI, −4.2 to 14.5; P = .27; mean [SD] SCIM total score, 77.9 [22.7] vs 71.3 [27.3]; P = .34; able to walk independently, 21 of 30 patients [70.0%] vs 16 of 26 patients [61.5%]; P = .51). A mixed-design analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in the mean change in ASIA motor scores between the groups (F 1,49 = 4.80; P = .03). The early surgical treatment group, compared with the delayed surgical treatment group, had greater motor scores than the delayed surgical treatment group at 2 weeks (mean [SD] score, 34.2 [18.8] vs 18.9 [20.9]), 3 months (mean [SD] score, 49.1 [15.1] vs 37.2 [20.9]), and 6 months (mean [SD] score, 51.5 [13.9] vs 41.3 [23.4]) after injury. Adverse events were common in both groups (eg, worsening of paralysis, 6 patients vs 6 patients; death, 3 patients vs 3 patients).

Attenuation of the secondary injury of spinal cord injury (SCI) can suppress the spread of spinal cord tissue damage, possibly resulting in spinal cord sparing that can improve functional prognoses. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is a haematological cytokine commonly used to treat neutropenia. Previous reports have shown that G-CSF promotes functional recovery in rodent models of SCI. Based on preclinical results, we conducted early phase clinical trials, showing safety/feasibility and suggestive efficacy. These lines of evidence demonstrate that G-CSF might have therapeutic benefits for acute SCI in humans. To confirm this efficacy and to obtain strong evidence for pharmaceutical approval of G-CSF therapy for SCI, we conducted a phase 3 clinical trial designed as a prospective, randomized, double-blinded and placebo-controlled comparative trial. The current trial included cervical SCI [severity of American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale (AIS) B or C] within 48 h after injury. Patients are randomly assigned to G-CSF and placebo groups. The G-CSF group was administered 400 μg/m2/day × 5 days of G-CSF in normal saline via intravenous infusion for five consecutive days. The placebo group was similarly administered a placebo. Allocation was concealed between blinded evaluators of efficacy/safety and those for laboratory data, as G-CSF markedly increases white blood cell counts that can reveal patient treatment. Efficacy and safety were evaluated by blinded observer. Our primary end point was changes in ASIA motor scores from baseline to 3 months after drug administration. Each group includes 44 patients (88 total patients). Our protocol was approved by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Device Agency in Japan and this trial is funded by the Center for Clinical Trials, Japan Medical Association. There was no significant difference in the primary end point between the G-CSF and the placebo control groups. In contrast, one of the secondary end points showed that the ASIA motor score 6 months (P = 0.062) and 1 year (P = 0.073) after drug administration tend to be higher in the G-CSF group compared with the placebo control group. Moreover, in patients aged over 65 years old, motor recovery 6 months after drug administration showed a strong trend towards a better recovery in the G-CSF treated group (P = 0.056) compared with the control group. The present trial failed to show a significant effect of G-CSF in primary end point although the subanalyses of the present trial suggested potential G-CSF benefits for specific population.