Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 99 items for

  • Refine by Access: all x
  • By Author: Chou, Dean x
Clear All
Free access

Alex Y. Lu, Jacob S. Blitstein, Jason F. Talbott, Andrew K. Chan, Sanjay S. Dhall, Ashraf N. El Naga, Lee A. Tan, Aaron J. Clark, Dean Chou, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and Anthony M. DiGiorgio

OBJECTIVE

Ankylosing spondylitis, the most common spondyloarthritis, fuses individual spinal vertebrae into long segments. The unique biomechanics of the ankylosed spine places patients at unusually high risk for unstable fractures secondary to low-impact mechanisms. These injuries are unique within the spine trauma population and necessitate thoughtful management. Therefore, the authors aimed to present a richly annotated data set of operative AS spine fractures with a significant portion of patients with simultaneous dual noncontiguous fractures.

METHODS

Patients with ankylosing spondylitis with acute fractures who received operative management between 2012 and 2020 were reviewed. Demographic, admission, surgical, and outcome parameters were retrospectively collected and reviewed.

RESULTS

In total, 29 patients were identified across 30 different admissions. At admission, the mean age was 71.7 ± 11.8 years. The mechanism of injury in 77% of the admissions was a ground-level fall; 30% also presented with polytrauma. Of admissions, 50% were patient transfers from outside hospitals, whereas the other half presented primarily to our emergency departments. Fifty percent of patients sustained a spinal cord injury, and 35 operative fractures were identified and treated in 32 surgeries. The majority of fractures clustered around the cervicothoracic (C4–T1, 48.6%) and thoracolumbar (T8–L3, 37.11%) junctions. Five patients (17.2%) had simultaneous dual noncontiguous operative fractures; these patients were more likely to have presented with a higher-energy mechanism of injury such as a bicycle or motor vehicle accident compared with patients with a single operative fracture (60% vs 8%, p = 0.024). On preoperative MRI, 56.3% of the fractures had epidural hematomas (EDHs); 25% were compressive of the underlying neural elements, which dictated the number of laminectomy levels performed (no EDH, 2.1 ± 2.36; noncompressive EDH, 2.1 ± 1.85; and compressive EDH, 7.4 ± 4 [p = 0.003]). The mean difference in instrumented levels was 8.7 ± 2.6 with a mean estimated blood loss (EBL) of 1183 ± 1779.5 mL. Patients on a regimen of antiplatelet therapy had a significantly higher EBL (2635.7 mL vs 759.4 mL, p = 0.015). Overall, patients had a mean hospital length of stay of 15.2 ± 18.5 days; 5 patients died during the same admission or after transfer to an outside hospital. Nine of 29 patients (31%) had died by the last follow-up (the mean follow-up was 596.3 ± 878.9 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AS who have been found to have unstable spine fractures warrant a thorough diagnostic evaluation to identify secondary fractures as well as compressive EDHs. These patients experienced prolonged inpatient hospitalizations with significant morbidity and mortality.

Restricted access

Dean Chou, Virginie Lafage, Alvin Y. Chan, Peter Passias, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Robert K. Eastlack, Kai-Ming Fu, Richard G. Fessler, Munish C. Gupta, Khoi D. Than, Neel Anand, Juan S. Uribe, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Shay Bess, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Han Jo Kim, Justin S. Smith, Daniel M. Sciubba, Paul Park, Praveen V. Mummaneni, and the International Spine Study Group (ISSG)

OBJECTIVE

Circumferential minimally invasive spine surgery (cMIS) for adult scoliosis has become more advanced and powerful, but direct comparison with traditional open correction using prospectively collected data is limited. The authors performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected, multicenter adult spinal deformity data. The authors directly compared cMIS for adult scoliosis with open correction in propensity-matched cohorts using health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures and surgical parameters.

METHODS

Data from a prospective, multicenter adult spinal deformity database were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age > 18 years, minimum 1-year follow-up, and one of the following characteristics: pelvic tilt (PT) > 25°, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) > 10°, Cobb angle > 20°, or sagittal vertical axis (SVA) > 5 cm. Patients were categorized as undergoing cMIS (percutaneous screws with minimally invasive anterior interbody fusion) or open correction (traditional open deformity correction). Propensity matching was used to create two equal groups and to control for age, BMI, preoperative PI-LL, pelvic incidence (PI), T1 pelvic angle (T1PA), SVA, PT, and number of posterior levels fused.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients (77 underwent open procedures and 77 underwent cMIS) were included after matching for age, BMI, PI-LL (mean 15° vs 17°, respectively), PI (54° vs 54°), T1PA (21° vs 22°), and mean number of levels fused (6.3 vs 6). Patients who underwent three-column osteotomy were excluded. Follow-up was 1 year for all patients. Postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (p = 0.50), Scoliosis Research Society–total (p = 0.45), and EQ-5D (p = 0.33) scores were not different between cMIS and open patients. Maximum Cobb angles were similar for open and cMIS patients at baseline (25.9° vs 26.3°, p = 0.85) and at 1 year postoperation (15.0° vs 17.5°, p = 0.17). In total, 58.3% of open patients and 64.4% of cMIS patients (p = 0.31) reached the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI at 1 year. At 1 year, no differences were observed in terms of PI-LL (p = 0.71), SVA (p = 0.46), PT (p = 0.9), or Cobb angle (p = 0.20). Open patients had greater estimated blood loss compared with cMIS patients (1.36 L vs 0.524 L, p < 0.05) and fewer levels of interbody fusion (1.87 vs 3.46, p < 0.05), but shorter operative times (356 minutes vs 452 minutes, p = 0.003). Revision surgery rates between the two cohorts were similar (p = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

When cMIS was compared with open adult scoliosis correction with propensity matching, HRQOL improvement, spinopelvic parameters, revision surgery rates, and proportions of patients who reached MCID were similar between cohorts. However, well-selected cMIS patients had less blood loss, comparable results, and longer operative times in comparison with open patients.

Restricted access

Andrew K. Chan, Praveen V. Mummaneni, John F. Burke, Rory R. Mayer, Erica F. Bisson, Joshua Rivera, Brenton Pennicooke, Kai-Ming Fu, Paul Park, Mohamad Bydon, Steven D. Glassman, Kevin T. Foley, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Domagoj Coric, John J. Knightly, Michael Y. Wang, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Anthony L. Asher, Michael S. Virk, Panagiotis Kerezoudis, Mohammed A. Alvi, Jian Guan, Regis W. Haid, and Dean Chou

OBJECTIVE

Reduction of Meyerding grade is often performed during fusion for spondylolisthesis. Although radiographic appearance may improve, correlation with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is rarely reported. In this study, the authors’ aim was to assess the impact of spondylolisthesis reduction on 24-month PRO measures after decompression and fusion surgery for Meyerding grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion for spondylolisthesis with a minimum 24-month follow-up, and quantitative correlation between Meyerding slippage reduction and PROs was performed. Baseline and 24-month PROs, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)–back pain (NRS-BP), NRS-leg pain (NRS-LP), and satisfaction (North American Spine Society patient satisfaction questionnaire) scores were noted. Multivariable regression models were fitted for 24-month PROs and complications after adjusting for an array of preoperative and surgical variables. Data were analyzed for magnitude of slippage reduction and correlated with PROs. Patients were divided into two groups: < 3 mm reduction and ≥ 3 mm reduction.

RESULTS

Of 608 patients from 12 participating sites, 206 patients with complete data were identified in the QOD and included in this study. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical characteristics were similarly distributed between the cohorts except for depression, listhesis magnitude, and the proportion with dynamic listhesis (which were accounted for in the multivariable analysis). One hundred four (50.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm (mean 5.19, range 3 to 11), and 102 (49.5%) patients underwent lumbar decompression and fusion with slippage reduction < 3 mm (mean 0.41, range 2 to −2). Patients in both groups (slippage reduction ≥ 3 mm, and slippage reduction < 3 mm) reported significant improvement in all primary patient reported outcomes (all p < 0.001). There was no significant difference with regard to the PROs between patients with or without intraoperative reduction of listhesis on univariate and multivariable analyses (ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or satisfaction). There was no significant difference in complications between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant improvement was found in terms of all PROs in patients undergoing decompression and fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. There was no correlation with clinical outcomes and magnitude of Meyerding slippage reduction.

Restricted access

Bo Li, Andrew K. Chan, Praveen V. Mummaneni, John F. Burke, Michael M. Safaee, and Dean Chou

Traditional iliac screws and S2–alar iliac (S2-AI) screws are common methods used for pelvic fixation, and many surgeons advocate pelvic fixation for long-segment fixation to the sacrum. However, in patients without severe deformities and only degenerative conditions, many surgeons may choose S1 screws only. Moreover, even with S2-AI screws, there is more muscular dissection than with using S1 screws, and the rod connection can be cumbersome in both S2-AI fixation and placing iliac screws. Using a surgical video, artist’s illustration, and intraoperative photographs, the authors describe the S1-AI screw fixation technique that allows for single-screw sacral and iliac fixation, requires less distal dissection of the sacrum, allows for easier rod connection, and may be an option in degenerative conditions needing pelvic fixation. However, this is a preliminary feasibility study, and in long fusion constructs, this type of fixation has only been used in conjunction with L5–S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and there are no long-term data on the use of this screw fixation technique without ALIF. In short-segment revision fusions, this technique may be considered for salvage in cases of large halos in the sacrum from loosened S1 screw fixation.

Restricted access

Justin K. Scheer, Alexander F. Haddad, Andrew K. Chan, Charles M. Eichler, Bobby Tay, Shane Burch, Dean Chou, Christopher P. Ames, and Praveen V. Mummaneni

OBJECTIVE

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is an effective surgical modality for many lumbar degenerative pathologies, but a rare and infrequently reported complication is postoperative lymphocele. The goals of the present study were to review a large consecutive series of patients who underwent ALIF at a high-volume institution, estimate the rate of lymphocele occurrence after ALIF, and investigate the outcomes of patients who developed lymphocele after ALIF.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the electronic medical record was completed, identifying all patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent at a minimum a single-level ALIF from 2012 through 2019. Postoperative spinal and abdominal images, as well as radiologist reports, were reviewed for mention of lymphocele. Clinical data were collected and reported.

RESULTS

A total of 1322 patients underwent a minimum 1-level ALIF. Of these patients, 937 (70.9%) had either postoperative abdominal or lumbar spine images, and the resulting lymphocele incidence was 2.1% (20/937 patients). The mean ± SD age was 67 ± 10.9 years, and the male/female ratio was 1:1. Patients with lymphocele were significantly older than those without lymphocele (66.9 vs 58.9 years, p = 0.006). In addition, patients with lymphocele had a greater number of mean levels fused (2.5 vs 1.8, p < 0.001) and were more likely to have undergone ALIF at L2–4 (95.0% vs 66.4%, p = 0.007) than patients without lymphocele. On subsequent multivariate analysis, age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01–1.12, p = 0.013), BMI (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01–1.18, p = 0.021), and number of levels fused (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05–3.14, p = 0.032) were independent prognosticators of postoperative lymphocele development. Patients with symptomatic lymphocele were successfully treated with either interventional radiology (IR) drainage and/or sclerosis therapy and achieved radiographic resolution. The mean ± SD length of hospital stay was 9.1 ± 5.2 days. Ten patients (50%) were postoperatively discharged to a rehabilitation center: 8 patients (40%) were discharged to home, 1 (5%) to a skilled nursing facility, and 1 (5%) to a long-term acute care facility.

CONCLUSIONS

After ALIF, 2.1% of patients were diagnosed with radiographically identified postoperative lymphocele and had risk factors such as increased age, BMI, and number of levels fused. Most patients presented within 1 month postoperatively, and their clinical presentations included abdominal pain, abdominal distension, and/or wound complications. Of note, 25% of identified lymphoceles were discovered incidentally. Patients with symptomatic lymphocele were successfully treated with either IR drainage and/or sclerosis therapy and achieved radiographic resolution.

Free access

Jinping Liu, Pingguo Duan, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Rong Xie, Bo Li, Yinhui Dong, Sigurd Berven, and Dean Chou

OBJECTIVE

Conflicting reports exist about whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) induces lordosis or kyphosis, ranging from decreasing lordosis by 3.71° to increasing it by 18.8°. In this study, the authors’ aim was to identify factors that result in kyphosis or lordosis after TLIF.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study of open TLIF without osteotomy for spondylolisthesis with a minimum 2-year follow-up was undertaken. Preoperative and postoperative clinical and radiographic parameters and cage specifics were collected. TLIFs were considered to be “lordosing” if postoperative induction of lordosis was > 0° and “kyphosing” if postoperative induction of lordosis was ≤ 0°.

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients with an average follow-up of 52.5 months (range 24–130 months) were included. The overall postoperative disc angle (DA) and segmental lordosis (SL) increased by 1.96° and 1.88° (p = 0.003 and p = 0.038), respectively, whereas overall lumbar lordosis remained unchanged (p = 0.133). Seventy-nine patients had lordosing TLIFs with a mean SL increase of 5.72° ± 3.97°, and 58 patients had kyphosing TLIFs with a mean decrease of 3.02° ± 2.98°. Multivariate analysis showed that a lower preoperative DA, lower preoperative SL, and anterior cage placement were correlated with the greatest increase in postoperative SL (p = 0.040, p < 0.001, and p = 0.035, respectively). There was no difference in demographics, cage type or height, or spinopelvic parameters between the groups (p > 0.05). Linear regression showed that the preoperative DA and SL correlated with SL after TLIF (R2 = 0.198, p < 0.001; and R2 = 0.2931, p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Whether a TLIF induces kyphosis or lordosis depends on the preoperative DA, preoperative SL, and cage position. Less-lordotic segments became more lordotic postoperatively, and highly lordotic segments may lose lordosis after TLIF. Cages placed more anteriorly were associated with more lordosis.

Open access

Brenton Pennicooke, Jeremy Guinn, and Dean Chou

BACKGROUND

While performing lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery, one of the surgical goals is to release the contralateral side with a Cobb elevator, allowing distraction of the interbody space. Many times, there are large osteophytes on the contralateral side, and the osteophytes can be split open with the Cobb or blunt instrument. It is extremely rare for the actual osteophyte to break off from the vertebral body into the contralateral psoas muscle and lumbar plexus.

OBSERVATIONS

The authors report a case of symptomatic lumbar plexopathy caused by an osteophyte fracture after an oblique lumbar interbody fusion requiring a right-sided anterior approach to excise the bony fragment. They illustrate the case with imaging that the radiologist did not comment on, and they also show a video of the surgical excision of the osteophyte through a right-sided anterior lumbar retroperitoneal approach. The authors also show how the patient had spontaneous right-sided electromyography (EMG) firing before excision of the osteophyte and how the EMG firing resolved after excision.

LESSONS

Although the literature is plentiful with regard to ipsilateral approach–related complications, the authors discuss the literature with regard to contralateral complications after minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Free access

Enrique Vargas, Dennis T. Lockney, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Alexander F. Haddad, Joshua Rivera, Xiao Tan, Alysha Jamieson, Yasmine Mahmoudieh, Sigurd Berven, Steve E. Braunstein, and Dean Chou

OBJECTIVE

Within the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) classification, tumor-related potential spinal instability (SINS 7–12) may not have a clear treatment approach. The authors aimed to examine the proportion of patients in this indeterminate zone who later required surgical stabilization after initial nonoperative management. By studying this patient population, they sought to determine if a clear SINS cutoff existed whereby the spine is potentially unstable due to a lesion and would be more likely to require stabilization.

METHODS

Records from patients treated at the University of California, San Francisco, for metastatic spine disease from 2005 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Seventy-five patients with tumor-related potential spinal instability (SINS 7–12) who were initially treated nonoperatively were included. All patients had at least a 1-year follow-up with complete medical records. A univariate chi-square test and Student t-test were used to compare categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively, between patients who ultimately underwent surgery and those who did not. A backward likelihood multivariate binary logistic regression model was used to investigate the relationship between clinical characteristics and surgical intervention. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) and single-variable logistic regression were performed as a function of SINS.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients with a total of 292 spinal metastatic sites were included in this study; 26 (34.7%) patients underwent surgical intervention, and 49 (65.3%) did not. There was no difference in age, sex, comorbidities, or lesion location between the groups. However, there were more patients with a SINS of 12 in the surgery group (55.2%) than in the no surgery group (44.8%) (p = 0.003). On multivariate analysis, SINS > 11 (OR 8.09, CI 1.96–33.4, p = 0.004) and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score < 60 (OR 0.94, CI 0.89–0.98, p = 0.008) were associated with an increased risk of surgery. KPS score was not correlated with SINS (p = 0.4). RPA by each spinal lesion identified an optimal cutoff value of SINS > 10, which were associated with an increased risk of surgical intervention. Patients with a surgical intervention had a higher incidence of complications on multivariable analysis (OR 2.96, CI 1.01–8.71, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a mean SINS of 11 or greater may be at increased risk of mechanical instability requiring surgery after initial nonoperative management. RPA showed that patients with a KPS score of 60 or lower and a SINS of greater than 10 had increased surgery rates.

Free access

Charlotte Dandurand, Charles G. Fisher, Laurence D. Rhines, Stefano Boriani, Raphaële Charest-Morin, Alessandro Gasbarrini, Alessandro Luzzati, Jeremy J. Reynolds, Feng Wei, Ziya L. Gokaslan, Chetan Bettegowda, Daniel M. Sciubba, Aron Lazary, Norio Kawahara, Michelle J. Clarke, Y. Raja Rampersaud, Alexander C. Disch, Dean Chou, John H. Shin, Francis J. Hornicek, IIya Laufer, Arjun Sahgal, and Nicolas Dea

OBJECTIVE

Oncological resection of primary spine tumors is associated with lower recurrence rates. However, even in the most experienced hands, the execution of a meticulously drafted plan sometimes fails. The objectives of this study were to determine how successful surgical teams are at achieving planned surgical margins and how successful surgeons are in intraoperatively assessing tumor margins. The secondary objective was to identify factors associated with successful execution of planned resection.

METHODS

The Primary Tumor Research and Outcomes Network (PTRON) is a multicenter international prospective registry for the management of primary tumors of the spine. Using this registry, the authors compared 1) the planned surgical margin and 2) the intraoperative assessment of the margin by the surgeon with the postoperative assessment of the margin by the pathologist. Univariate analysis was used to assess whether factors such as histology, size, location, previous radiotherapy, and revision surgery were associated with successful execution of the planned margins.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were included. The surgical plan was successfully achieved in 224 (74.7%) patients. The surgeon correctly assessed the intraoperative margins, as reported in the final assessment by the pathologist, in 239 (79.7%) patients. On univariate analysis, no factor had a statistically significant influence on successful achievement of planned margins.

CONCLUSIONS

In high-volume cancer centers around the world, planned surgical margins can be achieved in approximately 75% of cases. The morbidity of the proposed intervention must be balanced with the expected success rate in order to optimize patient management and surgical decision-making.

Restricted access

Praveen V. Mummaneni, Ibrahim Hussain, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Robert K. Eastlack, Gregory M. Mundis Jr., Juan S. Uribe, Richard G. Fessler, Paul Park, Leslie Robinson, Joshua Rivera, Dean Chou, Adam S. Kanter, David O. Okonkwo, Pierce D. Nunley, Michael Y. Wang, Frank La Marca, Khoi D. Than, Kai-Ming Fu, and the International Spine Study Group

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for spinal deformity uses interbody techniques for correction, indirect decompression, and arthrodesis. Selection criteria for choosing a particular interbody approach are lacking. The authors created the minimally invasive interbody selection algorithm (MIISA) to provide a framework for rational decision-making in MIS for deformity.

METHODS

A retrospective data set of circumferential MIS (cMIS) for adult spinal deformity (ASD) collected over a 5-year period was analyzed by level in the lumbar spine to identify surgeon preferences and evaluate segmental lordosis outcomes. These data were used to inform a Delphi session of minimally invasive deformity surgeons from which the algorithm was created. The algorithm leads to 1 of 4 interbody approaches: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), anterior column release (ACR), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Preoperative and 2-year postoperative radiographic parameters and clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Eleven surgeons completed 100 cMISs for ASD with 338 interbody devices, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The type of interbody approach used at each level from L1 to S1 was recorded. The MIISA was then created with substantial agreement. The surgeons generally preferred LLIF for L1–2 (91.7%), L2–3 (85.2%), and L3–4 (80.7%). ACR was most commonly performed at L3–4 (8.4%) and L2–3 (6.2%). At L4–5, LLIF (69.5%), TLIF (15.9%), and ALIF (9.8%) were most commonly utilized. TLIF and ALIF were the most selected approaches at L5–S1 (61.4% and 38.6%, respectively). Segmental lordosis at each level varied based on the approach, with greater increases reported using ALIF, especially at L4–5 (9.2°) and L5–S1 (5.3°). A substantial increase in lordosis was achieved with ACR at L2–3 (10.9°) and L3–4 (10.4°). Lateral interbody arthrodesis without the use of an ACR did not generally result in significant lordosis restoration. There were statistically significant improvements in lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence–LL mismatch, coronal Cobb angle, and Oswestry Disability Index at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the MIISA provides consistent guidance for surgeons who plan to perform MIS for deformity. For L1–4, the surgeons preferred lateral approaches to TLIF and reserved ACR for patients who needed the greatest increase in segmental lordosis. For L4–5, the surgeons’ order of preference was LLIF, TLIF, and ALIF, but TLIF failed to demonstrate any significant lordosis restoration. At L5–S1, the surgical team typically preferred an ALIF when segmental lordosis was desired and preferred a TLIF if preoperative segmental lordosis was adequate.