Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 112 items for

  • Refine by Access: all x
  • By Author: Wang, Michael Y. x
Clear All
Free access

Doniel Drazin, J. Patrick Johnson, Tiffany Perry, Michael Y. Wang, Jens R. Chapman, and Bernhard Meyer

Free access

Vaidya Govindarajan, Jean-Paul Bryant, Roberto J. Perez-Roman, and Michael Y. Wang

OBJECTIVE

Cervical fractures in patients with ankylosing spondylitis can have devastating neurological consequences. Currently, several surgical approaches are commonly used to treat these fractures: anterior, posterior, and anterior-posterior. The relative rarity of these fractures has limited the ability of surgeons to objectively determine the merits of each. The authors present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the utility of anterior surgical approaches relative to posterior and anterior-posterior approaches.

METHODS

After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases, 7 clinical studies were included in the final qualitative and 6 in the final quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 6 compared anterior approaches with anterior-posterior and posterior approaches, while 1 investigated only an anterior approach. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of postoperative neurological improvement revealed no statistically significant differences in gross rates of neurological improvement between anterior and posterior approaches (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10–1.59; p = 0.19). However, when analyzing the mean change in neurological function, patients who underwent anterior approaches had a significantly lower mean change in postoperative neurological function relative to patients who underwent posterior approaches (mean difference [MD] −0.60, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.45; p < 0.00001). An identical trend was seen between anterior and anterior-posterior approaches; there were no statistically significant differences in gross rates of neurological improvement (OR 3.05, 95% CI 0.84–11.15; p = 0.09). However, patients who underwent anterior approaches experienced a lower mean change in neurological function relative to anterior-posterior approaches (MD −0.46, 95% CI −0.60 to −0.32; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in complication rates between anterior approaches, posterior approaches, or anterior-posterior approaches, although complication rates trended lower in patients who underwent anterior approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review and meta-analysis demonstrated the varying benefits of anterior approaches relative to posterior and anterior-posterior approaches in treatment of cervical fractures associated with ankylosing spondylitis. While reports demonstrated lower degrees of neurological improvement in anterior approaches, they may benefit patients with less-severe injuries if lower complication rates are desired.

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.

Free access

Jean-Paul Bryant, Roberto J. Perez-Roman, S. Shelby Burks, and Michael Y. Wang

OBJECTIVE

Osteoporosis represents the most common metabolic disease of the bone, with an estimated 10% of adults aged 50 years or older affected in the United States. This patient population is at increased risk for spine fracture and instrumentation-related complications after spine surgery. Surgeon knowledge of the available treatments for patients with low bone mineral density (BMD) and how they impact biology of fusion may help mitigate negative effects in the postoperative period. Recombinant parathyroid hormone, which is sold under the name teriparatide, is the most extensively studied bone-protecting agent in humans. Additionally, the success of the monoclonal antibody denosumab has led to further clinical investigations of human patients undergoing spine surgery. Another monoclonal antibody, romosozumab, was recently approved by the US FDA for human use in patients with osteoporosis. Although studies of romosozumab in patients undergoing spine surgery have not been conducted, this is a promising potential therapeutic agent based on its early success in preclinical and clinical trials. Here, the authors aimed to review the mechanisms of action and evidence of use of antiresorptive and anabolic agents in patients with osteoporosis undergoing spine surgery.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to explore the antiresorptive and anabolic agents used in the perioperative period in patients with osteoporosis undergoing spinal surgery. The search was performed by using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Titles and abstracts were screened and subsequently selected for full review.

RESULTS

The initial search returned 330 articles. Of these articles, 23 final articles were included and reviewed. Many of these articles reported that use of adjuvant agents in the perioperative period improved radiographic evidence of bony fusion and bone fusion rates. These agents tended to improve BMD postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although antiosteoporosis agents are effective to varying degrees as treatments of patients with low BMD, teriparatide and bisphosphonates have been the most extensively studied with respect to spinal instrumentation. The advent of newer agents represents an area for further exploration, especially due to the current paucity of controlled investigations. It is imperative for spine surgeons to understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs and their effects on biology of fusion.

Free access

Vaidya Govindarajan, Anthony Diaz, Roberto J. Perez-Roman, S. Shelby Burks, Michael Y. Wang, and Allan D. Levi

OBJECTIVE

Bisphosphonates and teriparatide are the most common therapies used in the treatment of osteoporosis. Their impact on fusion rates in osteoporotic patients following spinal fusion has yet to be concretely defined, with previous systematic reviews focusing heavily on bisphosphonates and lacking clinical insight on the utility of teriparatide. Herein the authors present an updated meta-analysis of the utility of both bisphosphonates and teriparatide in improving spinal fusion outcomes in osteoporotic patients.

METHODS

After a comprehensive search of the English-language literature in the PubMed and Embase databases, 11 clinical studies were included in the final qualitative and quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 9 investigated bisphosphonates, 7 investigated teriparatide, and 1 investigated a combination of teriparatide and denosumab. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of the postoperative use of bisphosphonate demonstrated better odds of successful fusion as compared to that in controls during short-term monitoring (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.72–6.42, p = 0.0003) but not long-term monitoring (p > 0.05). Bisphosphonate use was also shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of postoperative vertebral compression fracture (VCF; OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.59, p = 0.01) and significantly reduce Oswestry Disability Index scores (mean difference [MD] = −2.19, 95% CI −2.94 to −1.44, p < 0.00001) and visual analog scale pain scores (MD = −0.58, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.38, p < 0.00001). Teriparatide was found to significantly increase fusion rates at long-term postoperative periods as compared to rates after bisphosphonate therapy, with patients who received postoperative teriparatide therapy 2.05 times more likely to experience successful fusion (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.17–3.59, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors demonstrate the benefits of bisphosphonate and teriparatide therapy independently in accelerating fusion during the first 6 months after spinal fusion surgery in osteoporotic patients. In addition, they show that teriparatide may have superior benefits in spinal fusion during long-term monitoring as compared to those with bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates may be better suited in preventing VCFs postoperatively in addition to minimizing postoperative disability and pain.

Restricted access

Praveen V. Mummaneni, Mohamad Bydon, John J. Knightly, Mohammed Ali Alvi, Yagiz U. Yolcu, Andrew K. Chan, Kevin T. Foley, Jonathan R. Slotkin, Eric A. Potts, Mark E. Shaffrey, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Kai-Ming Fu, Michael Y. Wang, Paul Park, Cheerag D. Upadhyaya, Anthony L. Asher, Luis Tumialan, and Erica F. Bisson

OBJECTIVE

Optimizing patient discharge after surgery has been shown to impact patient recovery and hospital/physician workflow and to reduce healthcare costs. In the current study, the authors sought to identify risk factors for nonroutine discharge after surgery for cervical myelopathy by using a national spine registry.

METHODS

The Quality Outcomes Database cervical module was queried for patients who had undergone surgery for cervical myelopathy between 2016 and 2018. Nonroutine discharge was defined as discharge to postacute care (rehabilitation), nonacute care, or another acute care hospital. A multivariable logistic regression predictive model was created using an array of demographic, clinical, operative, and patient-reported outcome characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 1114 patients identified, 11.2% (n = 125) had a nonroutine discharge. On univariate analysis, patients with a nonroutine discharge were more likely to be older (age ≥ 65 years, 70.4% vs 35.8%, p < 0.001), African American (24.8% vs 13.9%, p = 0.007), and on Medicare (75.2% vs 35.1%, p < 0.001). Among the patients younger than 65 years of age, those who had a nonroutine discharge were more likely to be unemployed (70.3% vs 36.9%, p < 0.001). Overall, patients with a nonroutine discharge were more likely to present with a motor deficit (73.6% vs 58.7%, p = 0.001) and more likely to have nonindependent ambulation (50.4% vs 14.0%, p < 0.001) at presentation. On multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with higher odds of a nonroutine discharge included African American race (vs White, OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38–5.51, p = 0.004), Medicare coverage (vs private insurance, OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.00–4.65, p = 0.04), nonindependent ambulation at presentation (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.17–4.02, p = 0.01), baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association severe myelopathy score (0–11 vs moderate 12–14, OR 2, 95% CI 1.07–3.73, p = 0.01), and posterior surgical approach (OR 11.6, 95% CI 2.12–48, p = 0.004). Factors associated with lower odds of a nonroutine discharge included fewer operated levels (1 vs 2–3 levels, OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.96, p = 0.009) and a higher quality of life at baseline (EQ-5D score, OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25–0.73, p = 0.001). On predictor importance analysis, baseline quality of life (EQ-5D score) was identified as the most important predictor (Wald χ2 = 9.8, p = 0.001) of a nonroutine discharge; however, after grouping variables into distinct categories, socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (age, race, gender, insurance status, employment status) were identified as the most significant drivers of nonroutine discharge (28.4% of total predictor importance).

CONCLUSIONS

The study results indicate that socioeconomic and demographic characteristics including age, race, gender, insurance, and employment may be the most significant drivers of a nonroutine discharge after surgery for cervical myelopathy.

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.

Free access

Stephanie M. Casillo, Anisha Venkatesh, Nallammai Muthiah, Nitin Agarwal, Teresa Scott, Rossana Romani, Laura L. Fernández, Sarita Aristizabal, Elizabeth E. Ginalis, Ahmad Ozair, Vivek Bhat, Arjumand Faruqi, Ankur Bajaj, Abhinav Arun Sonkar, Daniel S. Ikeda, E. Antonio Chiocca, Russell R. Lonser, Tracy E. Sutton, John M. McGregor, Gary L. Rea, Victoria A. Schunemann, Laura B. Ngwenya, Evan S. Marlin, Paul N. Porensky, Ammar Shaikhouni, Kristin Huntoon, David Dornbos III, Andrew B. Shaw, Ciarán J. Powers, Jacob M. Gluski, Lauren G. Culver, Alyssa M. Goodwin, Steven Ham, Neena I. Marupudi, Dhananjaya I. Bhat, Katherine M. Berry, Eva M. Wu, and Michael Y. Wang

We received so many biographies of women neurosurgery leaders for this issue that only a selection could be condensed here. In all of them, the essence of a leader shines through. Many are included as “first” of their country or color or other achievement. All of them are included as outstanding—in clinical, academic, and organized neurosurgery. Two defining features are tenacity and service. When faced with shocking discrimination, or numbing indifference, they ignored it or fought valiantly. When choosing their life’s work, they chose service, often of the most neglected—those with pain, trauma, and disability. These women inspire and point the way to a time when the term “women leaders” as an exception is unnecessary.

—Katharine J. Drummond, MD, on behalf of this month’s topic editors

Open access

Gregory W. Basil, Annelise C. Sprau, Robert M. Starke, Allan D. Levi, and Michael Y. Wang

BACKGROUND

The percutaneous, endoscope-assisted anterior cervical discectomy is a relatively new procedure, and because of its novelty, complications are minimal and pertinent literature is scarce. This approach relies on a sufficient anatomical understanding of the vital neurovascular structures in the operating workspace. Although complications are rare, they can be significant.

OBSERVATIONS

The patient presented with difficulty breathing following an anterior percutaneous cervical discectomy performed at an outpatient surgical center. Imaging revealed a prevertebral hematoma and multiple carotid pseudoaneurysms. Given the large prevertebral hematoma and concern for imminent airway collapse, the authors proceeded with emergent intubation and surgical evacuation of the clot.

LESSONS

The authors propose managing complications in a fashion similar to those for comparable injuries after classic anterior approaches. Definitive management of our patient’s carotid injury would require stenting and, therefore, dual antiplatelet agents. Thus, the authors proceeded with the hematoma evacuation first. Additionally, careful dissection was needed to decrease further carotid damage. Thus, the authors made a more rostral incision to maintain the given stability of the carotid insult before the angiographic intervention to follow. It is the authors’ hope that the technical pearls from this two-staged open hematoma evacuation and endovascular stenting may guide future presurgical and intraoperative planning and management of complications, should they arise.

Restricted access

Gregory W. Basil, Annelise C. Sprau, Zoher Ghogawala, Jang W. Yoon, and Michael Y. Wang