Study Design Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies published in English. Objective This study evaluated differences in outcome variables between percutaneous and open pedicle screws for traumatic thoracolumbar fractures. Methods A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was performed. The variables of interest included postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, kyphosis angle, and vertebral body height, as well as intraoperative blood loss and operative time. The results were pooled by calculating the effect size based on the standardized difference in means. The studies were weighted by the inverse of the variance, which included both within- and between-study error. Confidence intervals were reported at 95%. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I 2. Results After two-reviewer assessment, 38 studies were eliminated. Six studies were found to meet inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The combined effect size was found to be in favor of percutaneous fixation for blood loss and operative time (p < 0.05); however, there were no differences in vertebral body height (VBH), kyphosis angle, or VAS scores between open and percutaneous fixation. All of the studies demonstrated relative homogeneity, with I 2 < 25. Conclusions Patients with thoracolumbar fractures can be effectively managed with percutaneous or open pedicle screw placement. There are no differences in VBH, kyphosis angle, or VAS between the two groups. Blood loss and operative time were decreased in the percutaneous group, which may represent a potential benefit, particularly in the polytraumatized patient. All variables in this study demonstrated near-perfect homogeneity, and the effect is likely close to the true effect.

No abstract

Study Design Retrospective population-based observational study. Objective To assess the growth of cervical spine surgery performed in an outpatient setting. Methods A retrospective study was conducted using the United States Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient and Ambulatory Surgery Databases for California, New York, Florida, and Maryland from 2005 to 2009. Current Procedural Terminology, fourth revision (CPT-4) and International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes were used to identify operations for degenerative cervical spine diseases in adults (age > 20 years). Disposition and complication rates were examined. Results There was an increase in cervical spine surgeries performed in an ambulatory setting during the study period. Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion accounted for 68% of outpatient procedures; posterior decompression made up 21%. Younger patients predominantly underwent anterior fusion procedures, and patients in the eighth and ninth decades of life had more posterior decompressions. Charlson comorbidity index and complication rates were substantially lower for ambulatory cases when compared with inpatients. The majority (>99%) of patients were discharged home following ambulatory surgery. Conclusions Recently, the number of cervical spine surgeries has increased in general, and more of these procedures are being performed in an ambulatory setting. The majority (>99%) of patients are discharged home but the nature of analyzing administrative data limits accurate assessment of postoperative complications and thus patient safety. This increase in outpatient cervical spine surgery necessitates further discussion of its safety.

Object In recent years, there has been increased interest in the use of cervical disc replacement (CDR) as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). While ACDF is a proven intervention for patients with myelopathy or radiculopathy, it does have inherent limitations. Cervical disc replacement was designed to preserve motion, avoid the limitations of fusion, and theoretically allow for a quicker return to activity. A number of recently published systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials have demonstrated positive clinical results for CDR, but no studies have revealed which of the 2 treatment strategies is more cost-effective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CDR and ACDF by using the power of decision analysis. Additionally, the authors aimed to identify the most critical factors affecting procedural cost and effectiveness and to define thresholds for durability and function to focus and guide future research. Methods The authors created a surgical decision model for the treatment of single-level cervical disc disease with associated radiculopathy. The literature was reviewed to identify possible outcomes and their likelihood following CDR and ACDF. Health state utility factors were determined from the literature and assigned to each possible outcome, and procedural effectiveness was expressed in units of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Using ICD-9 procedure codes and data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the authors calculated the median cost of hospitalization by multiplying hospital charges by the hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratio. Gross physician costs were determined from the mean Medicare reimbursement for each current procedural terminology (CPT) code. Uncertainty as regards both cost and effectiveness numbers was assessed using sensitivity analysis. Results In the reference case, the model assumed a 20-year duration for the CDR prosthesis. Cervical disc replacement led to higher average QALYs gained at a lower cost to society if both strategies survived for 20 years ($3042/QALY for CDR vs $8760/QALY for ACDF). Sensitivity analysis revealed that CDR needed to survive at least 9.75 years to be considered a more cost-effective strategy than ACDF. Cervical disc replacement becomes an acceptable societal strategy as the prosthesis survival time approaches 11 years and the $50,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold is crossed. Sensitivity analysis also indicated that CDR must provide a utility state of at least 0.796 to be cost-effective. Conclusions Both CDR and ACDF were shown to be cost-effective procedures in the reference case. Results of the sensitivity analysis indicated that CDR must remain functional for at least 14 years to establish greater cost-effectiveness than ACDF. Since the current literature has yet to demonstrate with certainty the actual durability and long-term functionality of CDR, future long-term studies are required to validate the present analysis.

No abstract

5.

BACKGROUND Sagittal alignment is an important consideration in spine surgery. The literature is conflicted regarding the effect of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) on sagittal parameters and the role of expandable cage technology. OBJECTIVE To compare lordosis generated by static and expandable cages and to determine what factors affect postoperative sagittal parameters. METHODS Preoperative regional lordosis (RL), segmental lordosis (SL), and posterior disc height (PDH) were compared to postoperative values in single-level MI-TLIF performed using expandable or static cages. Patients were stratified based on preoperative SL: low lordosis (&lt;15 degrees), moderate lordosis (15-25 degrees), and high lordosis (&gt;25 degrees). Regression analyses were conducted to determine factors associated with postoperative SL and PDH. RESULTS Of the 171 patients included, 111 were in the static and 60 in the expandable cohorts. Patients with low preoperative lordosis experienced an increase in SL and maintained RL regardless of cage type. Those with moderate to high preoperative lordosis experienced a decrease in SL and RL with the static cage, but maintained SL and RL with the expandable cage. Although both cohorts showed an increase in PDH, the increase in the expandable cohort was greater. Preoperative SL was predictive of postoperative SL; preoperative SL, preoperative PDH, and cage type were predictive of postoperative PDH. CONCLUSION Expandable cages showed favorable results in restoring disc height and maintaining lordosis in the immediate postoperative period. Preoperative SL was the most significant predictor of postoperative SL. Thus, preoperative radiographic parameters and goals of surgery should be important considerations in surgical planning.

Study Design. Retrospective cohort. Objective. To describe our technique for and evaluate the time demand, radiation exposure and outcomes of skin-anchored intraoperative three-dimensional navigation (ION) in minimally invasive (MIS) lumbar surgery, and to compare these parameters to 2D fluoroscopy for MI-TLIF. Summary of Background Data. Limited visualization of anatomic landmarks and narrow access corridor in MIS procedures result in greater reliance on image guidance. Although two-dimensional fluoroscopy has historically been used, ION is gaining traction. Methods. Patients who underwent MIS lumbar microdiscectomy, laminectomy, or MI-TLIF using skin-anchored ION and MI-TLIF by the same surgeon using 2D fluoroscopy were selected. Operative variables, radiation exposure, and short-term outcomes of all procedures were summarized. Time-demand and radiation exposure of fluoroscopy and ION for MI-TLIF were compared. Results. Of the 326 patients included, 232 were in the ION cohort (92 microdiscectomies, 65 laminectomies, and 75 MI-TLIFs) and 94 in the MI-TLIF using 2D fluoroscopy cohort. Time for ION setup and image acquisition was a median of 22 to 24 minutes. Total fluoroscopy time was a median of 10 seconds for microdiscectomy, 9 for laminectomy, and 26 for MI-TLIF. Radiation dose was a median of 15.2 mGy for microdiscectomy, 16.6 for laminectomy, and 44.6 for MI-TLIF, of this, 93%, 95%, and 37% for microdiscectomy, laminectomy, and MI-TLIF, respectively were for ION image acquisition, with the rest attributable to the procedure. There were no wrong-level surgeries. Compared with fluoroscopy, ION for MI-TLIF resulted in lower operative times (92 vs. 108 min, P < 0.0001), fluoroscopy time (26 vs. 144 s, P < 0.0001), and radiation dose (44.6 vs. 63.1 mGy, P = 0.002), with equivalent time-demand and length of stay. ION lowered the radiation dose by 29% for patients and 55% for operating room personnel. Conclusion. Skin-anchored ION does not increase time-demand compared with fluoroscopy, is feasible, safe and accurate, and results in low radiation exposure. Level of Evidence: 3.