Objectives Oblique lateral interbody fusion is considered a useful surgical option for various lumbar degenerative diseases with favorable clinical results and few complications. However, clinical outcomes following oblique lateral interbody fusion stratified according to the preoperative diagnosis have not been fully evaluated in a large cohort. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes following oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease and to identify differences in outcomes when stratified according to preoperative diagnosis. Methods All patients receiving oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases were included in the current study and were stratified into four diagnostic groups: (i) degenerative spondylolisthesis; (ii) spondylolytic spondylolisthesis; (iii) spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis and instability; and (iv) deformity. Clinical outcomes were assessed using multiple patient‐reported questionnaires. Radiologic outcomes, including cage subsidence and completion of fusion, were also evaluated. Results Overall, 169 patients with 262 operative levels were included in the study. All clinical scoring items showed significant improvement at 1 year postoperatively for all diagnostic groups. Net and percent improvement, and a proportion of patients reaching a threshold for substantial clinical benefit were not significantly different between the diagnostic groups in all scoring items, except for lower extremity radiating pain of the deformity group. Although the deformity group had the highest overall complication rate, neurologic complications were more frequent in the spondylolytic spondylolisthesis group. The rate of complete fusion and cage subsidence for individual levels at 1 year postoperatively was 62.7% and 32.6% respectively, with no significant difference between the diagnostic groups. Conclusions The large single‐institution prospective cohort of the present study showed favorable clinical outcomes following oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease, even in spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis and instability.

Indirect decompression using oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) improves spinal canal dimensions by reducing spondylolisthesis and restoring intervertebral disk height in patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. However, the clinical significance of these radiological improvements has not been fully evaluated in the literature. To examine the relationship between the clinical and radiological outcomes following OLIF, the authors prospectively studied 41 patients who underwent single-level OLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative disease, including degenerative and spondylolytic spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis with disk height loss. Clinical scores were obtained preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively using multiple questionnaires. Radiological outcomes were evaluated using plain radiographs, computed tomography (CT) scans, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 1 year postoperatively. Following a single-level OLIF, all categories of clinical scores showed statistically significant improvement. Rate of cage subsidence was 14.6% and 31.7% at 1 week and 1 year postoperatively, respectively. Patients with subsidence had higher Oswestry Disability Index ( P =.026) scores and lower physical composite summary scores on the Short Form-36 Health Survey ( P =.007). On CT scan, 28 (68.3%) patients showed a complete interbody fusion and 13 (31.7%) had intermediate fusion. All parameters from the MRI, except for foraminal width, showed significant improvement at 1 year postoperatively. The improvement ratio of foraminal height was associated with the percent improvement of lower-extremity radiating pain (Pearson coefficient=0.384; P =.013) and the walking ability score of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (Pearson coefficient=0.319; P =.042) at 1 year postoperatively. Restoration of foraminal height while preserving the endplates is associated with favorable results following OLIF. [ Orthopedics . 2020;43(4):e283–e290.]

Background: Vertebral fragility fracture (VFF) is a common fracture related to osteoporosis. However, VFF might be asymptomatic and often occurs in patients without osteoporosis. Therefore, we investigated the characteristics of age-related VFF and their correlation with bone mineral density (BMD). Furthermore, we analyzed other factors affecting VFF Methods: Medical records from a single center were retrospectively reviewed for 2,216 patients over 50 years old with vertebral fractures conservatively treated from 2005 to 2016. Patients' age, gender, body mass index (BMI), BMD, fracture level, previous vertebral fractures, and anti-osteoporosis medications were obtained. Patients were divided into fragility/non-fragility groups and age subgroups. The odds ratio for VFF in relation to BMD was evaluated. We also identified other predictive factors for VFF by age groups. Results: The fragility group had a higher women ratio, older age, lower BMI, lower BMD, and greater incidence of previous vertebral fractures than the non-fragility group. VFFs were seen in 41.18% of normal BMD patients aged 50-59 and 67.82% of those aged 60-69. The proportion of VFFs increased with age in all WHO osteoporosis classifications. Patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis were 1.57 and 2.62 fold more likely to develop VFFs than normal BMD. In the younger group (under 70), age, women, BMD, and previous vertebral fracture were significant factors affecting VFF, and in the older group (70 and over), age, women, and BMD were factors. In the fragility group, anti-osteoporosis medication rates were 25.08% before and 45.96% after fracture. Conclusion: Considerable VFFs occurred in the younger age groups without osteoporosis and age itself was another important predictor of VFF especially in older age groups. The discrepancy between the incidence of VFF and BMD suggests the necessity of supplemental screening factors and anti-osteoporosis treatment guidelines using only BMD should be reconsidered.

No abstract

Background Although palmar locked plating is a stable fixation method frequently used to treat unstable distal radius fractures (DRFs), surgical treatment may be painful, and so interventions to decrease that pain might improve our patients’ experiences with surgery. Some surgeons use local multimodal drug injections to decrease postoperative pain after lower-extremity arthroplasty, but little is known about the effectiveness of a local multimodal drug injection in patients who undergo palmar plating for DRFs. Questions/purposes (1) Do patients who receive a local multimodal drug injection after palmar plating for unstable DRFs have better pain scores at 4, 8, 24, and 48 hours after surgery than patients who have not received such an injection? (2) Do patients who receive a local multimodal drug injection have lower fentanyl consumption and administration of anti-emetic drugs within the first 48 hours after surgery than patients who have not received such an injection? Methods A randomized controlled study was performed between August 2018 and August 2019 at a single tertiary care referral center. Patients who underwent palmar plating for DRFs under general anesthesia were eligible for inclusion. Patients were allocated into two groups: Those who received a local multimodal drug injection, and those who did not receive an injection. During the study period, 101 patients treated with palmar plating for DRFs met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled and randomized. Fifty-two patients were allocated to the multimodal injection group and 49 were allocated to the control group. Three patients (two in the multimodal injection group and one in the control group) were excluded after randomization because their pain level was not registered at any timepoint and so they could not be analyzed; our analysis was by intention to treat, and there was no crossover. After palmar plating, patients in the multimodal injection group received an injection of ropivacaine (10 mL), morphine (5 mL), ceftezole (5 mL) as well as normal saline (5 mL) to the periosteal area, pronator quadratus muscle, subcutaneous area, and skin. There were no differences between the groups in terms of age (62 years ± 13 years in the multimodal injection group versus 62 years ± 11 years in the control group; p = 0.93), gender (84% [42 of 50] women in the multimodal injection group versus 77% [37 of 48] women in the control group; p = 0.39), hand dominance (70% [35 of 50] dominant wrist in the multimodal injection group versus 60% [29 of 48] dominant wrist in the control group; p = 0.32) and AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification (p = 0.57). All patients underwent treatment with the same perioperative protocol, and 25 μg of fentanyl was injected intravenously when a patient complained of pain and asked for additional pain control after surgery. In addition, when a patient complained of nausea or vomiting associated with fentanyl use, an anti-emetic drug was also injected. All nursing staff who administered the analgesics and anti-emetic drugs were blinded to treatment allocation. These two groups were compared regarding their pain level using a 100-mm VAS at 4, 8, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS score was set to 20 mm. VAS scores were also collected by nursing staff who remained blinded to the treatment allocation. The total amount of fentanyl use and the number of patients who received anti-emetic drugs associated with administration of fentanyl within the first 48 hours were also recorded. Results With an MCID of 20 points, we found no clinically important reduction in VAS scores among patients who received a local multimodal injection compared with those who did not receive an injection at 4 hours (34 ± 15 versus 41 ± 20, mean difference -7.079 [95% CI -13.986 to -0.173]; p = 0.045), 8 hours (27 ± 16 versus 40 ± 19, mean difference -12.263 [95% CI -19.174 to -5.353]; p = 0.001), 24 hours (18 ± 12 versus 29 ± 20, mean difference -11.042 [95% CI -17.664 to -4.419]; p = 0.001), and 48 hours (9 ± 8 versus 10 ± 6, mean difference -1.318 [95% CI -4.000 to 1.365]; p = 0.33). Within the first 48 hours after surgery, fentanyl consumption was lower in patients receiving a local multimodal injection than in control patients (25 μg [range 0-100 μg] versus 37.5 μg [range 0-125 μg], difference of medians -12.5; p = 0.01). There was also a difference between the study groups in terms of the proportion of patients who received anti-emetic medications (16% [8 of 50] in the multimodal injection group versus 35% [17 of 48] in the control group, odds ratio = 2.879 [95% CI 1.102 to 7.519]; p = 0.03). Conclusions Our data suggest that patients who received a surgical-site multimodal analgesic injection after palmar plating for a distal radius fracture had no clinically important reduction in pain scores, but they did consume lower doses of opioid analgesics and fewer of these patients received anti-emetic drugs within 2 days of surgery. The high-potency opioids or other analgesia usually used for postoperative pain management have many side effects. Thus, reducing additional analgesia is as important as postoperative pain management and a surgical-site multimodal analgesic injection is one of the methods to achieve this a goal. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.