Adjacent segment kinematics may be altered after ACDF and TDA. Multivariate analysis showed time to be a significant predictor of changes in adjacent segment ROM. No association between the treatment chosen (ACDF vs. TDA) and ROM was observed. Furthermore clinical follow-up is needed to determine whether possible differences in adjacent segment motion affect the prevalence of adjacent segment disease in the two groups.

No abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable interbody spacers to static interbody spacers. Methods: This is a retrospective, institutional review board–exempt chart review of 62 consecutive patients diagnosed with degenerative disc disease who underwent minimally invasive spine surgery lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF) using static or expandable spacers. There were 27 patients treated with static spacers, and 35 with expandable spacers. Radiographic and clinical functional outcomes were collected. Statistical results were significant if P < .05. Results: Mean improvement in visual analogue scale back and leg pain scores was significantly greater in the expandable group compared to the static group at 6 and 24 months by 42.3% and 63.8%, respectively ( P < .05). Average improvement in Oswestry Disability Index scores was significantly greater in the expandable group than the static group at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months by 28%, 44%, 59%, 53%, and 89%, respectively ( P < .05). For disc height, the mean improvement from baseline to 24 months was greater in the static group compared to the expandable group ( P < .05). Implant subsidence was significantly greater in the static group (16.1%, 5/31 levels) compared with the expandable group (6.7%, 3/45 levels; P < .05). Conclusions: This study showed positive clinical and radiographic outcomes for patients who underwent MIS LLIF with expandable spacers compared to those with static spacers. Sagittal correction and pain relief was achieved and maintained through 24-month follow-up. The expandable group had a lower subsidence rate than the static group.

LLIF using expandable spacers resulted in similar clinical and radiographic outcomes when compared with using static spacers, and led to a lower subsidence rate.

Background: Utilization of static and expandable interbody spacers for minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) offers favorable clinical results. However, complications such as implant migration and/or subsidence may occur with a static implant. Expandable devices allow for in situ expansion to optimize fit and mitigate iatrogenic endplate damage during trialing and impaction. This study sought to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of static and expandable spacers following LLIF and report device-related complications.Methods: This study included 29 patients who underwent LLIF with a static spacer and 27 with an expandable spacer; all procedures were combined with supplemental transpedicular posterior fixation. Patient self-assessment forms and radiographic records were used to assess clinical and radiologic outcomes.Results: Mean patient age was 62.3±10.3 years (64% female). One-level surgery was performed in 87.5% of patients, and 12.5% underwent two-level surgery. Results showed no significant differences in blood loss or length of hospital stay (P>0.05). However, operative times differed statistically between static (63.3±37.8 min) and expandable (120.2±59.6 min) groups (P=0.000). Mean visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores improved significantly from preoperative to 24-month follow-up in both groups (P<0.05).Preoperative intervertebral and neuroforaminal height increased significantly in both groups (P<0.01).Fusion was observed in all operative levels in the static and expandable spacer groups by 24-month followup. Implant subsidence was reported in 16.1% of static levels and none of the expandable levels (P<0.01).Postoperative radiographs showed no evidence of implant migration, and no cases required surgical revision at the index or adjacent levels.Conclusions: LLIF using expandable spacers resulted in similar clinical and radiographic outcomes when compared with using static spacers, and led to a lower subsidence rate.

Vertebral wedge osteotomy is potentially an effective treatment option for paralytic scoliosis. At 2-year follow-up, there was no loss of function as measured by the PODCI and FIM, and there was improvement in the COPM. Cobb angle measurements were either improved or maintained in 12 of 13 patients. Although 2 patients required fusion, they had an average of 2.5 years of subsequent growth before surgery.

This study compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with expandable and static interbody spacers following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-LLIF) with 12-month follow-up. Overview of Literature: A common surgical option for the treatment of degenerative disk disease (DDD) is MIS-LLIF using static or expandable spacers to restore disk height (DH), neuroforaminal height (NH), and segmental lordosis. Static spacers may require excessive trialing and aggressive impaction, potentially leading to endplate disruption and subsidence. Expandable spacers allow for in situ expansion to help address complications associated with static spacers. Methods: This is an Institutional Review Board-exempt review of 69 patients (static, n=32; expandable, n=37) diagnosed with DDD who underwent MIS-LLIF at 1-2 contiguous level(s) using static or expandable spacers. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were collected and compared at pre-and postoperative time points up to 12 months. Results: The expandable group had a significantly higher mean change in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months vs. static (∆VAS at 12 months: expandable, 6.7±1.3; static, 5.1±2.6). Mean improvement of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at 3, 6, and 12 months were significantly better for the expandable group vs. static (∆ODI at 12 months: expandable, 63.2±13.2; static, 29.8±23.4). Mean DH and NH significantly increased at final follow-up for both groups, with no significant difference in DH improvement between groups. The expandable mean NH improvement at 6 weeks and 6 months was significantly greater vs. static. Segmental lordosis significantly improved in the expandable group at all time intervals vs static. Subsidence rate at 12 months was significantly lower in the expandable group (1/46, 2.2%) vs. static (12/37, 32.4%). Conclusions: Expandable spacers resulted in a significantly lower subsidence rate, improve segmental lordosis, and VAS and ODI outcomes at 12 months vs. static.

Skeletal metastases are often complicated by progression to impending or pathologic fracture and fixation with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement is used for stabilization and pain relief. Adjuvant therapy involving the delivery of PMMA composites mixed with antibiotic or chemotherapeutic agents requires an understanding of the rate of drug diffusion from the cement in addition to measurement of its mechanical properties pre- and postelution of drug. We have developed a method for the analysis of drug diffusion rate and mechanical properties of drug-cement composites using PMMA/methotrexate as a model system. The analysis method revealed the addition of methotrexate to PMMA in concentrations of 1.8 g methotrexate per 40 g PMMA did not change the compression modulus of the cement pre- or postelution of drug. The PMMA/methotrexate composites displayed an average diffusion rate of 50 ng/(mm2)(hour) during the first 6 hours, which decreased to 10 ng/(mm2)(hour) by 36 hours. Diffusion modeling predicts the 20 x 13-mm cylindrical PMMA/methotrexate samples used by the method deliver 10% of the total methotrexate content within 80 hours and 25% of the total within 133 days.