BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with decompression is a treatment option for patients with conditions such as spondylosis, spinal stenosis, and degenerative disc disorders that result in myelopathy or radiculopathy. The annual rate, number, and cost of PCF in the United States has increased. Far fewer studies have been published on PCF outcomes than on anterior cervical fusion (ACF) outcomes, most likely because far fewer PCFs than ACFs are performed. PURPOSE: To evaluate the patient-reported and clinical outcomes of adult patients who underwent subaxial posterior cervical fusion with decompression. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: The total number of patients in the 31 articles reviewed and included in the meta-analysis was 1,238 (range 7−166). OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative to postoperative change in patient-reported outcomes (visual analog scales for arm pain and neck pain, Neck Disability Index, Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA] score, modified JOA score, and Nurick pain scale) and rates of fusion, revision, and complications or adverse events. METHODS: This study was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and a preapproved protocol. PubMed and Embase databases were searched for articles published from January 2001 through July 2018. Statistical analyses for patient-reported outcomes were performed on the outcomes' raw mean differences, calculated as postoperative value minus preoperative value from each study. Pooled rates of successful fusion, revision surgery, and complications or adverse events, and their 95% confidence FDA device/drug status: Not applicable.

Introduction: The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) may be a source of chronic low back pain in 15 -22% of patients. Over the past four years MIS is an emerging standard of care for SI joint fusion. The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) and Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) conducted a survey of their members to examine current preferences in surgeon practice of MIS SI fusion.Methods: To qualify for survey participation, the surgeon had to perform at least one open or MIS SIJ fusion procedure between 2009 and 2012. All surgeons were instructed to review their records. This included the number of surgical procedures performed annually from 2009-2012, site of service where each procedure was commonly performed, and average length of stay for each approach.Results: Twenty four percent (121/500) of the eligible members participated in this survey. This survey revealed that the percentage of MIS procedures increased from 39% in 2009 to over 87% in 2012. The survey showed a significant increase in average number of MIS surgeries and a significant difference between open and MIS surgeries in 2012 (p<0.0001). In addition, 80% of the survey respondents indicated a lack of preference toward open approach if that was the only available option.Conclusions: According to performed survey, MIS SIJ fusion is preferred over open technique. Incorporation of the MIS technique into the spine surgeon's specter of skills would allow an increased number of surgical options as well as possible increase in outcome quality.

This International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery guideline is generated to respond to growing requests for background, supporting literature and evidence, and proper coding for intraosseous ablation of the basivertebral nerve for chronic low back pain.

Background: To update vertebral augmentation literature by comparing outcomes between vertebroplasty (VP), balloon kyphoplasty (BKP), vertebral augmentation with implant (VAI), and nonsurgical management (NSM) for treating vertebral compression fractures (VCFs).Methods: A PubMed literature search was conducted with keywords kyphoplasty, vertebroplasty, vertebral body stent, and vertebral augmentation AND implant for English-language articles from February 1, 2011, to November 22, 2016. Among the results, 25 met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria were prospective comparative studies for mid-/lower-thoracic and lumbar VCFs enrolling at least 20 patients. Exclusion criteria included studies that were single arm, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, traumatic nonosteoporotic or cancer-related fractures, lack of clinical outcomes, or non-Level I and non-Level II studies. Standardized mean difference between baseline and end point for each outcome was calculated, and treatment groups were pooled using random effects meta-analysis.Results: Visual analog scale pain reduction for BKP and VP was À4.05 and À3.88, respectively. VP was better than but not significantly different from NSM (À2.66), yet BKP showed significant improvement from both NSM and VAI (À2.77). The Oswestry Disability Index reduction for BKP showed a significant improvement over VAI (P , .001). There was no significant difference in changes between BKP and VP for anterior (P ¼ .226) and posterior (P ¼ .293) vertebral height restoration. There was no significant difference in subsequent fractures following BKP (32.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.8%-56.6%) or VP (28.3%; 95% CI: 7.0%-49.7%) compared with NSM (15.9%; 95% CI: 5.2%-26.6%).Conclusions/Level of Evidence: Based on Level I and II studies, BKP had significantly better and VP tended to have better pain reduction compared with NSM. BKP tended to have better height restoration than VP. Additionally, BKP had significant improvements in pain reduction and disability score as compared with VAI.Clinical Relevance: This meta-analysis serves to further define and support the safety and efficacy of vertebral augmentation.

No abstract

Autologous bone graft remains the gold standard by which bone graft substitutes are compared in spine fusion surgery. The utilization of bone graft substitutes, either as (1) an extender for spinal fusion constructs or (2) an alternative to minimize morbidity while maximizing outcomes, is changing. Moreover, current procedural technology (CPT) code 20939 became effective in 2018 defining bone marrow aspirate for bone grafting, spine surgery only. Changes in the complex landscape of grafting materials have prompted ISASS to provide category guidance for bone graft substitutes by comparing and contrasting US regulatory pathways, mechanisms of action, and supportive clinical evidence for these bone grafting materials. Testing & Regulatory Affairs

The index 2014 International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Policy Statement-Minimally Invasive Surgical Sacroiliac Joint Fusion-was generated out of necessity to provide an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)-based background and emphasize tools to ensure correct diagnosis (Appendix Table A1). A timely ICD-10-based 2016 update provided a granular threshold selection with improved level of evidence and a more robust and relevant database. As procedures and treatment options have evolved, this 2020 update reviews and analyzes the expanding evidence base and provides guidance relating to differences between the lateral and dorsal surgical procedures for minimally invasive surgical sacroiliac joint fusion.

Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a frequent cause of low back pain and radiculopathy, disability, and diminution in quality of life. While nonsurgical care remains the mainstay of initial treatment, symptoms that persist for prolonged periods of time are well treated with discectomy surgery. A large body of evidence shows that, in patients with unremitting symptoms despite a reasonable period of nonsurgical treatment, discectomy surgery is safe and efficacious. In patients with symptoms lasting greater than 6 weeks, various forms of discectomy (open, microtubular, and endoscopic) are superior to continued nonsurgical treatment. The small but significant proportion of patients with recurrent disc herniation experience less improvement overall than patients who do not experience reherniation after primary discectomy. Lumbar discectomy patients with large annular defects (!6 mm wide) are at a higher risk for recurrent herniation and revision surgery. Annular closure via a bone-anchored device has been shown to decrease the rate of recurrent disc herniation and associated reoperation in these high-risk patients. After a detailed review of the literature, current clinical evidence supports discectomy (open, microtubular, or endoscopic discectomy) as a medically necessary procedure for the treatment of LDH with radiculopathy in indicated patients. Furthermore, there is new scientific evidence that supports the use of bone-anchored annular closure in patients with large annular defects, who are at greater risk for recurrent disc herniation.