Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.PurposeTo identify factors which may be important in the occurrence of symptomatic adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion.Overview of LiteratureMany reports have been published about the risk factors for ASD after lumbar fusion. Despite on the great numbers of risk factors identified for ASD development, study results have been inconsistent and there is controversy regarding which are the most important.MethodsThis study evaluated 120 patients who underwent 360° fusion lumbar surgery from 2007 to 2012. We separated the population into two groups: the first group included 60 patients with long lumbar fusion (three or more levels) and the second group included 60 patients with short lumbar fusion (less than three levels).ResultsIn the first group, symptomatic ASD was found in 19 cases during the one year follow-up. There were 14 cases with sagittal imbalance and 5 cases at the incipient stage of disc degeneration according to the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. At the three year follow-up, symptomatic ASD was diagnosed in 31 cases, of which 17 patients had postoperative sagittal balance disturbance. In the second group, 10 patients had ASD at the one year follow-up. Among these cases, preoperative disc degenerative changes were identified in 8 patients. Sagittal imbalance was found only in 2 cases with symptomatic ASD at the one year follow-up. At the three year follow-up, the number of patients with symptomatic ASD increased to 14. Among them, 13 patients had initial preoperative adjacent disc degenerative changes.ConclusionsPatients with postoperative sagittal imbalance have a statistically significant increased risk of developing symptomatic ASD due to an overloading the adjacent segments and limited compensatory capacities due to the large number of fixed mobile segments. In the case of a short fixation, preoperative degenerative changes are more important factors in the development of ASD.

The research showed that fusion of lumbar curve extending to the pelvis provided good sagittal balance, global spinal alignments, and likely HRQOL parameters after 3-year follow-up. But, eventually, we obtained higher number of complications.

Our results suggest that not all patients with MRCC require preoperative embolization, because usage of modern hemostatic agents can be an alternative bleeding control method.

Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is an aggressive malignant disease that frequently metastasizes to the spine. The main purpose of our study is to evaluate the influence of surgery as well as targeted therapy on the survival of patients with RCC metastases of the spine.Methods: Retrospective cohort study. We identified 100 patients with spinal RCC metastases who were retrospectively reviewed for preoperative conditions, treatment, and survival. Metastasectomy was performed in 39 cases, and 61 patients underwent decompression procedures with stabilization. Only 26 patients had adjuvant targeted therapy (7 with metastasectomy, 19 with palliative decompression). Pain, neurological status, survival time (from operation to death or last follow up), and local progression-free survival were evaluated.Results: Neurological function recovery and reported significant pain relief were observed. There was no significant difference in overall survival for the patients with metastasectomy and palliative decompression (P ¼ .750). Metastasectomy provided better local control of disease compared with decompression (P ¼ .043). There was a statistically significant difference in overall survival for the patients who received targeted therapy (P ¼ .012).Conclusions: Metastasectomy is effective for local control of tumors. Targeted therapy can potentially prolong overall survival for patients with spinal RCC metastases.Level of Evidence: 3. Clinical Relevance: Our findings suggest that spinal metastasectomy is useful for local control of tumor growth but not for live expectancy. Effective systemic therapy is key role in stopping of disease progression.

Relevance. The development of minimally invasive surgery has led to the development of new methods for surgical treatment of the spine. Conventional surgical technique, such as vertebrotomy is accompanied by a several number of disadvantages (high blood loss, prolonged hospital stay, long intraoperative time, postoperative neurological deficit). An alternative to improve sagittal balance in the spine is to use custom-made hyperlordotic cages, which can also be used for indirect decompression of neural structures. The objective is to compare the degree of segmental and total lumbar lordosis using hyperlordotic cages through ALIF and TLIF with posterior instrumentation.Materials and Methods. A single-center retrospective cohort study using 96 patients treated from 2018 to 2019 about degenerative spinal deformities. Comparison of two groups: group 1 (A) consisted of 30 patients who were held anterior spinal fusion with individual lordotic cages from minimally invasive anterior approach (MISS ALIF) without posterior fixation. Group 2 (B) consisted of 33 patients whom were performed spinal fusion from the posterior approach (TLIF) with Smith-Peterson Osteotomy (SPO) and transpedicular fixation. Measuring segmental and lumbar lordosis, teleradiographs were used in a standing position. For an accurate assessment, the non-commercial available Surgimap software, © Nemaris, was used.Results. Segmental lordosis were superior to preoperative ones. In the intergroup comparison, the ALIF group showed an excellent increase in the enlarged lordosis segment (L3-L4 in 8 degrees; p = 0.0005, L4-L5 in 7 degrees; p = 0.0002, L5-S1 in 7 degrees; p = 0.0001). When conducting an intergroup comparison of total lumbar lordosis in the preoperative period, there was a statistically significant difference between them (p = 0.0043). At the same time, a greater degree of correction of lordosis is shown in ALIF compared to TLIF group (29,1 in comparison with 22,5; p = 0.00005).Conclusion. The results of this study confirm that the using of custom-made lordotic cages can significantly increase segmental and total lumbar lordosis for patients with degenerative scoliosis in adults.

Spinal deformity correction is a more aggressive surgical procedure compared to isolated decompression. However, the efficacy of the former operation is higher.

Objective: Instrumentation failure in spine tumor surgery is a common reason for revision operation. Increases in patient survival demand a better understanding of the hardware longevity. The study objective was to investigate risk factors for instrumentation failure requiring revision surgery in patients with spinal tumors.Methods: A retrospective cohort from a single tertiary care specialty hospital from January 2005 to January 2021, for patients with spinal primary or metastatic tumors who underwent surgical intervention with instrumentation. Demographic and treatment data were collected and analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for overall survival, and separate univariate and multivariate regression analysis was performed.Results: Three hundred fifty-one patients underwent surgical intervention for spinal tumor, of which 23 experienced instrumentation failure requiring revision surgery (6.6%). Multivariate regression analysis identified pelvic fixation (odds ratio [OR], 10.9), spinal metastasis invasiveness index (OR, 1.11), and survival of greater than 5 years (OR, 3.6) as significant risk factors for hardware failure. One- and 5-year survival rates were 57% and 8%, respectively.Conclusion: Instrumentation failure after spinal tumor surgery is a common reason for revision surgery. Our study suggests that the use of pelvic fixation, invasiveness of the surgery, and survival greater than 5 years are independent risk factors for instrumentation failure.

Background: Patients’ expectations are an important determinant in their decision to undergo lumbar spinal surgery—particularly their expectations of recovery after surgery. The Hospital for Special Surgery Lumbar Spine Surgery Expectations Survey (HSS-LSSES) is one tool used to assess this; however, the original version was only available in English. Objective: We sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of a translated and adapted Russian-language version of the HSS-LSSES. Methods: This was a prospective study of 91 patients with degenerative disc disease who underwent lumbar spine surgery with instrumented fixation at a single institution in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Patients were recruited between December 2019 and February 2021 and asked about their expectations of surgery with a translated and adapted Russian version of the HSS-LSSES. To analyze construct validity, participants also completed disease-specific and general quality-of-life scales (Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs; 2-way random effects model, absolute agreement) were used to determine test-retest reliability of the total score of the Russian HSS-LSSES. Internal consistency was evaluated through the estimation of Cronbach’s alpha between the test and retest response of the questionnaire. Results: The test-retest stability of the Russian HSS-LSSES evaluated through the estimation of ICC was found to have good stability. The instrument was shown to have high internal consistency. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that a translated and adapted Russian version of HSS-LSSES had good internal consistency, reliability, construct validity, and no floor and ceiling effects. Therefore, we recommend its use as a tool for evaluating Russian-speaking patients’ expectations before lumbar spine surgery.