Analysis of the literature suggests a correlation between fusion and the development of ASDeg compared to arthroplasty, but this association is dampened by the influence of patient age. There is a stronger correlation between fusion and ASDis compared to arthroplasty. The data supports only a class C recommendation (lowest tier) for the use of arthroplasty to reduce ASDis and disc degeneration compared to arthrodesis.

Current data corroborates and contributes to the existing body of literature describing XLIF outcomes. Procedures are generally performed with short OR times, minimal EBL, and few complications. Patients recover quickly, requiring minimal hospital stay, although transient hip/thigh pain and/or weakness is common. Long-term outcomes are generally favorable, with maintained improvements in patient-reported pain and function scores as well as radiographic parameters, including high rates of fusion.

The body of literature supports fusion surgery as a viable treatment option for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic LBP refractory to nonsurgical care when a diagnosis of disc degeneration can be made.

Purpose To review the current literature for the nonoperative and operative treatment for adult spinal deformity. Recent Findings With more than 11 million baby boomers joining the population of over 60 years of age in the United States, the incidence of lumbar deformity is greatly increasing. Recent literature suggests that a lack of evidence exists to support the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment for adult scoliosis. In regards to operative treatment, current literature reports a varying range of improved clinical outcomes, curve correction, and complication rates. The extension of fusion to S1 compared with L5 and lower thoracic levels compared with L1 remains a highly controversial topic among literature. Summary Most adult deformity patients never seek nonoperative or operative treatment. Of the few that seek treatment, many can benefit from nonoperative treatment. However, in selected patients who have failed nonoperative treatment and who are candidates for surgical intervention, the literature reflects positive outcomes related to surgical intervention as compared with nonoperative treatment despite varying associated ranges in morbidity and mortality rates. If nonoperative therapy fails in addressing a patient's complaints, then an appropriate surgical procedure that relieves neural compression, corrects excessive sagittal or coronal imbalance, and results in a solidly fused, pain-free spine is warranted.

The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of synthetic bone graft substitutes versus autograft or allograft for the treatment of lumbar and cervical spinal degenerative diseases. Multiple major medical reference databases were searched for studies that evaluated spinal fusion using synthetic bone graft substitutes (either alone or with an autograft or allograft) compared with autograft and allograft. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with more than 10 patients were included. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. The search yielded 214 citations with 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. For the patients with lumbar spinal degenerative disease, data from 19 comparative studies were included: 3 RCTs, 12 prospective, and 4 retrospective studies. Hydroxyapatite (HA), HA+collagen, β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP), calcium sulfate, or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) were used. Overall, there were no differences between the treatment groups in terms of fusion, functional outcomes, or complications, except in 1 study that found higher rates of HA graft absorption. For the patients with cervical degenerative conditions, data from 8 comparative studies were included: 4 RCTs and 4 cohort studies (1 prospective and 3 retrospective studies). Synthetic grafts included HA, β-TCP/HA, PMMA, and biocompatible osteoconductive polymer (BOP). The PMMA and BOP grafts led to lower fusion rates, and PMMA, HA, and BOP had greater risks of graft fragmentation, settling, and instrumentation problems compared with iliac crest bone graft. The overall quality of evidence evaluating the potential use and superiority of the synthetic biological materials for lumbar and cervical fusion in this systematic review was low or insufficient, largely due to the high potential for bias and small sample sizes. Thus, definitive conclusions or recommendations regarding the use of these synthetic materials should be made cautiously and within the context of the limitations of the evidence.