Roy Xiao, Jacob A. Miller, Navin C. Sabharwal, Daniel Lubelski, Vincent J. Alentado, Andrew T. Healy, Thomas E. Mroz and Edward C. Benzel
Improvements in imaging technology have steadily advanced surgical approaches. Within the field of spine surgery, assistance from the O-arm Multidimensional Surgical Imaging System has been established to yield superior accuracy of pedicle screw insertion compared with freehand and fluoroscopic approaches. Despite this evidence, no studies have investigated the clinical relevance associated with increased accuracy. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes following thoracolumbar spinal fusion associated with O-arm–assisted navigation. The authors hypothesized that increased accuracy achieved with O-arm–assisted navigation decreases the rate of reoperation secondary to reduced hardware failure and screw misplacement.
A consecutive retrospective review of all patients who underwent open thoracolumbar spinal fusion at a single tertiary-care institution between December 2012 and December 2014 was conducted. Outcomes assessed included operative time, length of hospital stay, and rates of readmission and reoperation. Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards modeling, with surgeon as a random effect, was used to investigate the association between O-arm–assisted navigation and postoperative outcomes.
Among 1208 procedures, 614 were performed with O-arm–assisted navigation, 356 using freehand techniques, and 238 using fluoroscopic guidance. The most common indication for surgery was spondylolisthesis (56.2%), and most patients underwent a posterolateral fusion only (59.4%). Although O-arm procedures involved more vertebral levels compared with the combined freehand/fluoroscopy cohort (4.79 vs 4.26 vertebral levels; p < 0.01), no significant differences in operative time were observed (4.40 vs 4.30 hours; p = 0.38). Patients who underwent an O-arm procedure experienced shorter hospital stays (4.72 vs 5.43 days; p < 0.01). O-arm–assisted navigation trended toward predicting decreased risk of spine-related readmission (0.8% vs 2.2%, risk ratio [RR] 0.37; p = 0.05) and overall readmissions (4.9% vs 7.4%, RR 0.66; p = 0.07). The O-arm was significantly associated with decreased risk of reoperation for hardware failure (2.9% vs 5.9%, RR 0.50; p = 0.01), screw misplacement (1.6% vs 4.2%, RR 0.39; p < 0.01), and all-cause reoperation (5.2% vs 10.9%, RR 0.48; p < 0.01). Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed that O-arm–assisted navigation was a significant predictor of decreased risk of reoperation (HR 0.49; p < 0.01). The protective effect of O-arm–assisted navigation against reoperation was durable in subset analysis of procedures involving < 5 vertebral levels (HR 0.44; p = 0.01) and ≥ 5 levels (HR 0.48; p = 0.03). Further subset analysis demonstrated that O-arm–assisted navigation predicted decreased risk of reoperation among patients undergoing posterolateral fusion only (HR 0.39; p < 0.01) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (HR 0.22; p = 0.03), but not posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
To the authors' knowledge, the present study is the first to investigate clinical outcomes associated with O-arm–assisted navigation following thoracolumbar spinal fusion. O-arm–assisted navigation decreased the risk of reoperation to less than half the risk associated with freehand and fluoroscopic approaches. Future randomized controlled trials to corroborate the findings of the present study are warranted.
Dara Bakar, Joseph E. Tanenbaum, Kevin Phan, Vincent J. Alentado, Michael P. Steinmetz, Edward C. Benzel and Thomas E. Mroz
The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on reported outcomes following decompression surgery for spinal metastases.
The authors conducted MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science database searches for studies reporting clinical outcomes and complications associated with decompression surgery for metastatic spinal tumors. Both retrospective and prospective studies were included. After meeting inclusion criteria, articles were categorized based on the following reported outcomes: survival, ambulation, surgical technique, neurological function, primary tumor histology, and miscellaneous outcomes.
Of the 4148 articles retrieved from databases, 36 met inclusion criteria. Of those included, 8 were prospective studies and 28 were retrospective studies. The year of publication ranged from 1992 to 2015. Study size ranged from 21 to 711 patients. Three studies found that good preoperative Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS ≥ 80%) was a significant predictor of survival. No study reported a significant effect of time-to-surgery following the onset of spinal cord compression symptoms on survival. Three studies reported improvement in neurological function following surgery. The most commonly cited complication was wound infection or dehiscence (22 studies). Eight studies reported that preoperative ambulatory or preoperative motor status was a significant predictor of postoperative ambulatory status. A wide variety of surgical techniques were reported: posterior decompression and stabilization, posterior decompression without stabilization, and posterior decompression with total or subtotal tumor resection. Although a wide range of functional scales were used to assess neurological outcomes, four studies used the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale to assess neurological function. Four studies reported the effects of radiation therapy and local disease control for spinal metastases. Two studies reported that the type of treatment was not significantly associated with the rate of local control. The most commonly reported primary tumor types included lung cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, renal cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer.
This study reports a systematic review of the literature on decompression surgery for spinal metastases. The results of this study can help educate surgeons on the previously published predictors of outcomes following decompression surgery for metastatic spinal disease. However, the authors also identify significant gaps in the literature and the need for future studies investigating the optimal practice with regard to decompression surgery for spinal metastases.
Syed K. Mehdi, Vincent J. Alentado, Bryan S. Lee, Thomas E. Mroz, Edward C. Benzel and Michael P. Steinmetz
Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) is a pathological calcification or ossification of the PLL, predominantly occurring in the cervical spine. Although surgery is often necessary for patients with symptomatic neurological deterioration, there remains controversy with regard to the optimal surgical treatment. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the authors identified differences in complications and outcomes after anterior or posterior decompression and fusion versus after decompression alone for the treatment of cervical myelopathy due to OPLL.
A MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science search was performed for studies reporting complications and outcomes after decompression and fusion or after decompression alone for patients with OPLL. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate effect summary mean values, 95% CIs, Q statistics, and I2 values. Forest plots were constructed for each analysis group.
Of the 2630 retrieved articles, 32 met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of excellent and good outcomes and of fair and poor outcomes between the decompression and fusion and the decompression-only cohorts. However, the decompression and fusion cohort had a statistically significantly higher recovery rate (63.2% vs 53.9%; p < 0.0001), a higher final Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (14.0 vs 13.5; p < 0.0001), and a lower incidence of OPLL progression (< 1% vs 6.3%; p < 0.0001) compared with the decompression-only cohort. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications between the 2 cohorts.
This study represents the only comprehensive review of outcomes and complications after decompression and fusion or after decompression alone for OPLL across a heterogeneous group of surgeons and patients. Based on these results, decompression and fusion is a superior surgical technique compared with posterior decompression alone in patients with OPLL. These results indicate that surgical decompression and fusion lead to a faster recovery, improved postoperative neurological functioning, and a lower incidence of OPLL progression compared with posterior decompression only. Furthermore, decompression and fusion did not lead to a greater incidence of complications compared with posterior decompression only.
Michael F. Shriver, Valerie Zeer, Vincent J. Alentado, Thomas E. Mroz, Edward C. Benzel and Michael P. Steinmetz
There are a variety of surgical positions that provide optimal exposure of the dorsal lumbar spine. These include the prone, kneeling, knee-chest, knee-elbow, and lateral decubitus positions. All are positions that facilitate exposure of the spine. Each position, however, is associated with an array of unique complications that result from excessive pressure applied to the torso or extremities. The authors reviewed clinical studies reporting complications that arose from positioning of the patient during dorsal exposures of the lumbar spine.
MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science database searches were performed to find clinical studies reporting complications associated with positioning during lumbar spine surgery. For articles meeting inclusion criteria, the following information was obtained: publication year, study design, sample size, age, operative time, type of surgery, surgical position, frame or table type, complications associated with positioning, time to first observed complication, long-term outcomes, and evidence-based recommendations for complication avoidance.
Of 3898 articles retrieved from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, 34 met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four studies reported complications associated with use of the prone position, and 7 studies investigated complications after knee-chest positioning. Complications associated with the knee-elbow, lateral decubitus, and supine positions were each reported by a single study. Vision loss was the most commonly reported complication for both prone and knee-chest positioning. Several other complications were reported, including conjunctival swelling, Ischemic orbital compartment syndrome, nerve palsies, thromboembolic complications, pressure sores, lower extremity compartment syndrome, and shoulder dislocation, highlighting the assortment of possible complications following different surgical positions. For prone-position studies, there was a relationship between increased operation time and position complications. Only 3 prone-position studies reported complications following procedures of less than 120 minutes, 7 studies reported complications following mean operative times of 121–240 minutes, and 9 additional studies reported complications following mean operative times greater than 240 minutes. This relationship was not observed for knee-chest and other surgical positions.
This work presents a systematic review of positioning-related complications following prone, knee-chest, and other positions used for lumbar spine surgery. Numerous evidence-based recommendations for avoidance of these potentially severe complications associated with intraoperative positioning are discussed. This investigation may serve as a framework to educate the surgical team and decrease rates of intraoperative positioning complications.