ADLs, activities of daily livingCBF, cerebral blood flowSoT, syndrome of the trephinedVP, ventriculoperitoneal.

No abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide suspensions of elective surgeries due to reallocation of resources to the care of COVID-19 patients. Following resumption of elective cases, a significant proportion of patients continued to delay surgery, with many yet to reschedule, potentially prolonging their pain and impairment of function and causing detrimental long-term effects. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients who have and have not rescheduled their spine surgery procedures originally cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to evaluate the reasons for continued deferment of spine surgeries even after the lifting of the mandated suspension of elective surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective case series at a single institution PATIENT SAMPLE: Included were 133 patients seen at a single institution where spine surgery was canceled due to a state-mandated suspension of elective surgeries from March to June, 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: The measures assessed included preoperative diagnoses and neurological dysfunction, surgical characteristics, reasons for surgery deferment, and PROMIS scores of pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function. METHODS: Patient electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients who had not rescheduled their canceled surgery as of January 31, 2021, and did not have a reason noted in their charts were called to determine the reason for continued surgery deferment. Patients were divided into three groups: early rescheduled (ER), late rescheduled (LR), and not rescheduled (NR). ER patients had a date of surgery (DOS) prior to the city's Phase 4 reopening on July 20, 2020; LR patients had a DOS on or after that date. Statistical analysis of the group findings included analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test, independent samples T-test, and chi-square analysis with significance set at p≤.05. RESULTS: Out of 133 patients, 47.4% (63) were in the ER, 15.8% (21) in the LR, and 36.8% (49) in the NR groups. Demographics and baseline PROMIS scores were similar between groups. LR had more levels fused (3.6) than ER (1.6), p= .018 on Tukey HSD. NR (2.1) did not have different mean levels fused than LR or ER, both p= >.05 on Tukey HSD. LR had more three column osteotomies (14.3%) than ER and (1.6%) and NR (2.0%) p=.022, and fewer lumbar microdiscectomies (0%) compared to ER (20.6%) and NR (10.2%), p=.039. Other surgical characteristics were similar

No abstract

No abstract

tEMG testing is effective for medial breaches in CBT screws. In addition, there is evidence that bicortical placement of these screws causes lower stimulation values due to distal breach. Importantly, it seems that this is due in part to stimulation of the exiting nerve root at the level above.

Study Design. Multi-centre retrospective cohort study. Objective. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the singleposition prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. Background Context. Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning. Method. A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1 to 4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the US and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P < 0.05. Results. 101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P = 0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P = 0.668) was similar between groups. Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P = 0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150mL P-LLIF vs. 182mL L-LLIF, P = 0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3d, P = 0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements. Conclusion. P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration.

No abstract