Spinal anesthesia is increasingly viewed as a reasonable alternative to general anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery. However, the results of spinal anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression and combined decompression and fusion procedures are limited in the literature. The aim of this study was to report a single institution's experience using spinal anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. A retrospective review was conducted using a prospectively collected database of consecutive lumbar spine surgeries performed under spinal anesthesia in patients 70 years or older at a single center between December 2013 and October 2015. A total of 56 patients were included in the study; 27 patients (48%) underwent lumbar decompression and 29 patients (52%) underwent combined decompression and fusion procedures. Mean operative time was 101 minutes (range, 30-210 minutes), and mean operative blood loss was 187 mL (range, 20-700 mL). Mean maximum inpatient postoperative visual analog scale score was 6.2 (range, 1-10). Nausea occurred in 21% (12 of 56) of the patients. Mean length of stay was 2.4 days (range, 1-6 days). No mortality, stroke, permanent loss of function, or pulmonary embolism occurred. None of the cases required conversion to general anesthesia. All of the patients were ambulatory on either the day of the surgery or the next morning. These results demonstrate that spinal anesthesia is a viable method of anesthesia for patients 70 years and older undergoing lumbar spine surgery. They also demonstrate the safety of this method for patients older than 84 years and for surgeries lasting up to 3½ hours. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(2):e317-e322.].

Background Reducing depth of anesthesia and anesthetic exposure may help prevent delirium, but trials have been conflicting. Most studies were conducted under general anesthesia or in cognitively impaired patients. It is unclear whether reducing depth of anesthesia beyond levels consistent with general anesthesia reduces delirium in cognitively intact patients. The authors’ objective was to determine whether a bundled approach to reduce anesthetic agent exposure as determined by Bispectral Index (BIS) values (spinal anesthesia with targeted sedation based on BIS values) compared with general anesthesia (masked BIS) reduces delirium. Methods Important eligibility criteria for this parallel-arm randomized trial were patients 65 yr or greater undergoing lumbar spine fusion. The intervention group received spinal anesthesia with targeted sedation to BIS greater than 60 to 70. The control group received general anesthesia (masked BIS). The primary outcome was delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method daily through postoperative day 3, with blinded assessment. Results The median age of 217 patients in the analysis was 72 (interquartile range, 69 to 77). The median BIS value in the spinal anesthesia with targeted sedation based on BIS values group was 62 (interquartile range, 53 to 70) and in the general anesthesia with masked BIS values group was 45 (interquartile range, 41 to 50; P < 0.001). Incident delirium was not different in the spinal anesthesia with targeted sedation based on BIS values group (25.2% [28 of 111] vs. the general anesthesia with masked BIS values group (18.9% [20 of 106]; P = 0.259; relative risk, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.85 to 1.76]). In prespecified subgroup analyses, the effect of anesthetic strategy differed according to the Mini-Mental State Examination, but not the Charlson Comorbidity Index or age. Two strokes occurred among patients receiving spinal anesthesia and one death among patients receiving general anesthesia. Conclusions Spinal anesthesia with targeted sedation based on BIS values compared with general anesthesia with masked BIS values did not reduce delirium after lumbar fusion. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Patients who undergo multistage posterior complex spine surgery are at a high risk for developing a DVT compared to those who undergo single-stage procedures. The difference in DVT incidence may be understated as the multistage group had a lower pre- and intraoperative risk profile with a younger age, lower medical comorbidities, and less per-stage blood loss.

Background: The use of spinal anesthesia (SA) as opposed to general anesthesia (GA) during elective lumbar spine surgery is an emerging technique and represents a potentially modifiable factor to limit perioperative complications. Few studies, however, have compared these anesthetic techniques in an elderly population. The aim of this study is to determine if SA is a safe alternative to GA for lumbar spine surgery in elderly patients. Methods: A retrospective, consecutive case series study was performed. All patients aged 70 years and older who underwent lumbar spine decompression or combined decompression and fusion using either SA or GA during a 2-year period at a single institution were identified. Demographics and perioperative outcomes were compared. Results: Of all patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 56 patients (19%) received SA and 239 (81%) received GA. Patients receiving SA were slightly older (median age, 77 years versus 75 years, P ¼ .002), consisted of more men (57% versus 36%, P ¼ .01), and had a lower mean body mass index (28.3 versus 30.1, P ¼ .03). Indications for surgery and type of surgery were similar between groups. On average, operative times with SA were 101 minutes versus 103 minutes with GA (P ¼ .71). After controlling for age, sex, and body mass index, patients receiving SA had decreased estimated blood loss (b ¼ À75 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], À140.6, À9.4; P ¼ .025) and intraoperative intravenous fluid requirements (b ¼À205 mL; 95% CI, À389.4, À21.0; P ¼ .029), shorter postanesthesia care unit stays (b ¼À41 minutes; 95% CI, À64.6, À16.9; P ¼ .001), lower maximum visual analog scale pain scores (b ¼À0.89 points; 95% CI, À1.6, À0.1; P ¼ .020), and decreased odds of receiving blood transfusion (odds ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.62; P ¼ .45); there were no significant differences in operative time, length of stay, nausea, or oral morphine equivalents consumed per day. Complication rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: Spinal anesthesia is a reasonable, safe alternative to general anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery in elderly patients with degenerative conditions. Lumbar Spine PATIENTS AND METHODS With Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively identified a consecutive series of patients from a prospectively collected database

Background: Cervical spine trauma (CST) leads to devastating neurologic injuries. In a cohort of CST patients from a major East Africa referral center, we sought to (a) describe presentation and operative treatment patterns, (b) report predictors of neurologic improvement, and (c) assess predictors of mortality.Methods: A retrospective, cohort study of CST patients presenting to a tertiary hospital in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, was performed. Demographic, injury, and operative data were collected. Neurologic exam on admission/ discharge and in-hospital mortality were recorded. Univariate/multivariate logistic regression assessed predictors of operative treatment, neurologic improvement, and mortality.Results: Of 101 patients with CST, 25 (24.8%) were treated operatively on a median postadmission day 16.0 (7.0-25.0). Twenty-six patients (25.7%) died, with 3 (12.0%) in the operative cohort and 23 (30.3%) in the nonoperative cohort. The most common fracture pattern was bilateral facet dislocation (26.7%). Posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion and anterior cervical corpectomy were the 2 most common procedures. Undergoing surgery was associated with an injury at the C4-C7 region versus occiput-C3 region (odds ratio [OR] 6.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-32.28, P ¼ .011) and an incomplete injury (OR 3.64; 95% CI 1.19-12.25; P ¼ .029). Twelve patients (15.8%) improved neurologically, out of the 76 total patients with a recorded discharge exam. Having a complete injury was associated with increased odds of mortality (OR 11.75, 95% CI 3.29-54.72, P , .001), and longer time from injury to admission was associated with decreased odds of mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.85, P ¼ .006).Conclusions: Those most likely to undergo surgery had C4-C7 injuries and incomplete spinal cord injuries. The odds of mortality increased with complete spinal cord injuries and shorter time from injury to admission, probably due to more severely injured patients dying early within 24-48 hours of injury. Thus, patients living long enough to present to the hospital may represent a self-selecting population of more stable patients. These results underscore the severity and uniqueness of CST in a less-resourced setting.Level of Evidence: 4.

BACKGROUND Over 400000 Americans annually undergo spinal fusion surgeries, yet up to 40% of these procedures result in pseudoarthrosis even with iliac crest autograft, the current “gold standard” treatment. Tissue engineering has the potential to solve this problem via the creation of bone grafts involving bone-promoting growth factors ( e.g ., bone morphogenetic protein 2). A broad assessment of experimental growth factors is important to inform future work and clinical potential in this area. To date, however, no study has systematically reviewed the investigational growth factors utilized in preclinical animal models of spinal fusion. AIM To review all published studies assessing investigational growth factors for spinal fusion in animal models and identify promising agents for translation. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases with searches run on May 29 th , 2018. The search query was designed to include all non-human, preclinical animal models of spinal fusion reported in the literature without a timespan limit. Extracted data for each model included surgical approach, level of fusion, animal species and breed, animal age and sex, and any other relevant characteristics. The dosages/sizes of all implant materials, spinal fusion rates, and follow-up time points were recorded. The data were analyzed and the results reported in tables and text. PRISMA guidelines were followed for this systematic review. RESULTS Twenty-six articles were included in this study, comprising 14 experimental growth factors: AB204 ( n = 1); angiopoietin 1 ( n = 1); calcitonin ( n = 3); erythropoietin ( n = 1); basic fibroblast growth factor ( n = 1); growth differentiation factor 5 ( n = 4), combined insulin-like growth factor 1 + transforming growth factor beta ( n = 4); insulin ( n = 1); NELL-1 ( n = 5); noggin ( n = 1); P-15 ( n = 1); peptide B2A ( n = 2); and secreted phosphoprotein 24 ( n = 1). The fusion rates of the current gold standard treatment (autologous iliac crest bone graft, ICBG) and the leading clinically used growth factor (BMP-2) ranged widely in the included studies, from 0-100% for ICBG and from 13%-100% for BMP-2. Among the identified growth factors, calcitonin, GDF-5, NELL-1, and P-15 resulted in fusion rates of 100% in some cases. In addition, six growth factors - AB204, angiopoietin 1, GDF-5, insulin, NELL-1, and peptide B2A - resulted in significantly enhanced fusion rates compared to ICBG, BMP...

Spinal anesthesia for spine surgery is an emerging technique. Because of their lack of physiologic reserve, elderly patients are an appealing population for this technique. Unfortunately, the safe limits of spine surgery using spinal anesthesia for the geriatric population are not well defined. The authors describe an elderly patient with severe spine degeneration who elected for a 5-level lumbar spine fusion with spinal anesthesia. Adequate anesthesia was maintained throughout the procedure, which lasted 3 hours and 24 minutes. The patient experienced no perioperative complications. To the authors' knowledge, this is one of the longest spine surgeries using spinal anesthesia. Also, the fusion procedure spans more vertebral levels than previously reported. Further investigation is needed to determine the safety of this technique. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(5):e915-e917.].

Study Design: Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis. Objectives: While the incidence of traumatic spine injury (TSI) is high in low-middle income countries (LMICs), surgery is rarely possible due to cost-prohibitive implants. The objective of this study was to conduct a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of operative treatment of TSI patients in a LMIC setting. Methods: At a tertiary hospital in Tanzania from September 2016 to May 2019, a retrospective analysis was conducted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of operative versus nonoperative treatment of TSI. Operative treatment included decompression/stabilization. Nonoperative treatment meant 3 months of bed rest. Direct costs included imaging, operating fees, surgical implants, and length of stay. Four patient scenarios were chosen to represent the heterogeneity of spine trauma: Quadriplegic, paraplegic, neurologic improvement, and neurologically intact. Disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYs) and incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to determine the cost per unit benefit of operative versus nonoperative treatment. Cost/DALY averted was the primary outcome (i.e., the amount of money required to avoid losing 1 year of healthy life). Results: A total of 270 TSI patients were included (125 operative; 145 nonoperative). Operative treatment averaged $731/patient. Nonoperative care averaged $212/patient. Comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment, the incremental cost/DALY averted for each patient outcome was: quadriplegic ($112-$158/DALY averted), paraplegic ($47-$67/DALY averted), neurologic improvement ($50-$71/DALY averted), neurologically intact ($41-$58/DALY averted). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings without major differences. Conclusions: This preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that the upfront costs of spine trauma surgery may be offset by a reduction in disability. LMIC governments should consider conducting more spine trauma cost-effectiveness analyses and including spine trauma surgery in universal health care.