Study Design: Technical note. Objectives: To provide spine surgeons new to telemedicine with a structured physical examination technique based on manual motor testing principles. Methods: Expert experience describing a series of specific maneuvers for upper and lower extremity strength testing that can be performed using a telemedicine platform. In addition, we offer instruction on “setting up” for these visits and highlight special tests that can be used to diagnose specific cervical and lumbar spine conditions. Results: From our experiences in conducting telemedicine visits, we provide a means of testing and scoring upper and lower extremity strength for interpretation of weakness in the context of traditional manual motor testing. Also, we acknowledge the limitations of a remote examination and discuss maneuvers that cannot be performed remotely. Conclusions: COVID-19 has drastically altered the delivery of care for patients with spine-related complaints. The need for social distancing has led to the widespread adoption of telemedicine. This technical note provides an urgently needed framework for the standardization of the remote physical exam. Validation of the exam as a diagnostic tool will be a crucial next step in studying the impact of telemedicine.

Background The use of telehealth saw a rapid surge during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. There remains little data on how effectively telehealth replicates traditional office visits in the treatment of spinal disorders and how telehealth is perceived by patients with spinal disorders. Questions/Purposes We sought to evaluate patient satisfaction with telehealth visits as a platform for delivering care for the treatment of spinal pathology. Methods Patients undergoing a telehealth visit with providers specializing in the treatment of spinal disorders (one surgeon and two physiatrists) were provided with an anonymous, online survey. Data on patient satisfaction, effectiveness of the telehealth visit (in comparison with in-person visits), and clarity of communication were collected through 5-point Likert scales; visit characteristics and free-text responses were also collected. Results Eighty-four patients responded to the survey. Their attitudes were largely positive, with an overall mean patient satisfaction score of 4.79. Patients gave high scores for clarity of communication during the visit, and for satisfaction with the formulation of treatment plans and their ability to ask questions, they gave the lowest scores to the effectiveness of telemedicine in replacing an in-person visit and ease of interface navigation. Conclusions The high overall patient satisfaction reported by our patients seeking care for a spinal pathology supports the growing body of evidence promoting the use of telehealth for orthopedic care. Further research is needed in a standardized telehealth examination of patients with spinal disorders. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11420-020-09808-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVE The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups. RESULTS Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of “ideal” pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the “optimal screw,” maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.

No abstract

Study Design Cadaveric study. Objective To compare the position of the femoral nerve within the lumbar plexus at the L4-L5 disc space in the lateral decubitus vs prone position. Methods Seven lumbar plexus specimens were dissected and the femoral nerve within the psoas muscle was identified and marked with radiopaque paint. Lateral fluoroscopic images of the cadaveric specimens in the lateral decubitus vs prone position were obtained. The location of the radiopaque femoral nerve at the L4-L5 disc space was normalized as a percentage of the L5 vertebral body (0% indicates posterior location and 100% indicates anterior location at the L4-L5 disc space). The location of the femoral nerve at L4-L5 in the lateral decubitus vs prone position was compared using a paired t test. Results In the lateral decubitus position, the femoral nerve was located 28% anteriorly from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space, and in the prone position, the femoral nerve was relatively more posterior, located 18% from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space ( P = .037). Conclusions The femoral nerve was on average more posteriorly located at the L4-L5 disc space in the prone position compared to lateral decubitus. This more posterior location allows for a larger safe zone at the L4-L5 disc space, which may decrease the incidence of neurologic complications associated with Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the prone vs lateral decubitus position; however, further studies are needed to evaluate this possible clinical correlation.

I.

The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures is controversial with no universally accepted treatment algorithm. Several classification and scoring systems have been developed to assist in surgical decision-making. The most widely accepted are the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) and AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Score (TL AOSIS) with both systems designed to provide a simple objective scoring criteria to guide the surgical or nonsurgical management of complex injury patterns. When used in the evaluation and treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, both of these systems result in safe and consistent patient care. However, there are important differences between the 2 systems, specifically in the evaluation of the complete burst fractures (AOSIS A4) and patients with transient neurological deficits (AOSIS N1). In these circumstances, the AOSpine system may more accurately capture and characterize injury severity, providing the most refined guidance for optimal treatment. With respect to surgical approach, these systems provide a framework for decision-making based on patient neurology and the status of the posterior tension band. Here we propose an operative treatment algorithm based on these fracture characteristics as well as the level of injury.

No abstract