Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 16 items for

  • Author or Editor: Gregory Schroeder x
  • Refine by Access: all x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Gregory D. Schroeder, Christopher K. Kepler, MD MBA, and Alexander R. Vaccaro

OBJECT

The object of this study was to determine the fusion rate and safety profile of an axial interbody arthrodesis of the L5–S1 motion segment.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted for literature published between January 1, 2000, and August 17, 2014. All peer-reviewed articles related to the fusion rate of L5–S1 and the safety profile of an axial interbody arthrodesis were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy-four articles were identified, but only 15 (13 case series and 2 retrospective cohort studies) met the study inclusion criteria. The overall pseudarthrosis rate at L5–S1 was 6.9%, and the rate of all other complications was 12.9%. A total of 14.4% of patients required additional surgery, and the infection rate was 5.4%. Deformity studies reported a significantly increased rate of complications (46.3%), and prospectively collected data demonstrated significantly higher complication (36.8%) and revision (22.6%) rates. Lastly, studies with a conflict of interest reported lower complication rates (12.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review of the literature indicates that an axial interbody fusion performed at the lumbosacral junction is associated with a high fusion rate (93.15%) and an acceptable complication rate (12.90%). However, these results are based mainly on retrospective case series by authors with a conflict of interest. The limited prospective data available indicate that the actual fusion rate may be lower and the complication rate may be higher than currently reported.

Full access

Gregory D. Schroeder, Nik Hjelm, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Michael S. Weinstein, and Christopher K. Kepler

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper was to compare the severity of the initial neurological injury as well as the early changes in the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor score (AMS) between central cord syndrome (CCS) patients with and without an increased T2 signal intensity in their spinal cord.

METHODS

Patients with CCS were identified and stratified based on the presence of increased T2 signal intensity in their spinal cord. The severity of the initial neurological injury and the progression of the neurological injury over the 1st week were measured according to the patient's AMS. The effect of age, sex, congenital stenosis, surgery within 24 hours, and surgery in the initial hospitalization on the change in AMS was determined using an analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Patients with increased signal intensity had a more severe initial neurological injury (AMS 57.6 vs 75.3, respectively, p = 0.01). However, the change in AMS over the 1st week was less severe in patients with an increase in T2 signal intensity (−0.85 vs −4.3, p = 0.07). Analysis of variance did not find that age, sex, Injury Severity Score, congenital stenosis, surgery within 24 hours, or surgery during the initial hospitalization affected the change in AMS.

CONCLUSIONS

The neurological injury is different between patients with and without an increased T2 signal intensity. Patients with an increased T2 signal intensity are likely to have a more severe initial neurological deficit but will have relatively minimal early neurological deterioration. Comparatively, patients without an increase in the T2 signal intensity will likely have a less severe initial injury but can expect to have a slight decline in neurological function in the 1st week.

Free access

Christopher K. Kepler, Christopher Kong, Gregory D. Schroeder, Nikolaus Hjelm, Amir Sayadipour, Alexander R. Vaccaro, and D. Greg Anderson

OBJECT

The purpose of this study was to characterize changes in American Spinal Injury Association motor score (AMS) in the 1st week after traumatic central cord syndrome (CCS) to identify predictors of improved early outcome in patients treated with early versus delayed surgical intervention.

METHODS

All patients presenting to a regional spinal cord injury center between January 2004 and June 2009 were queried for those with a diagnosis of CCS. Patients treated conservatively were excluded. A prospectively maintained spinal cord injury database was used to track AMS throughout each patient’s hospitalization. Hospital records provided information regarding demographics, presenting neurological examination, imaging findings, comorbidities, timing and nature of surgical procedures, and length of stay (LOS) in the hospital and intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were separated into those who underwent early surgery, within 1 day of presentation (early group), and those who underwent surgery on a delayed basis (delayed group). Differences between groups were analyzed using the Student t-test and chi-square test. Predictors of outcome were identified using correlation analysis and multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

Of 426 patients in the database, 80 (18.8%) were diagnosed as having CCS, and 68 of them ultimately underwent surgical decompression. Nineteen (28%) of 68 patients underwent surgery within 1 day of presentation (early group) while the remaining 49 patients (72%) underwent surgery on a delayed basis (delayed group). The mean age in the early group was significantly younger than that of the delayed group (52 vs 59 years, p = 0.049). Other characteristics were similar between groups including sex, proportion of patients with cord edema on MRI (44% early vs 55% delayed, p = 0.47), and proportion of patients with cervical fracture (26% early vs 28% delayed, p = 0.98). Patients in the early group presented with an AMS of 62.5 versus 70.0 for the delayed group (p = 0.36). No difference in the change in AMS was seen at 7 days between the early group (-2.9 points) and the delayed group (-4.2 points) (p = 0.34). Additionally, the number of patients who had early improvement was similar between the early and delayed groups (50% vs 48%, respectively, p = 0.94). Neither time in the ICU (3.4 vs 3.4 days, p = 0.84) nor the overall LOS (10.5 vs 12.5 days, p = 0.59) was different in the early versus delayed groups, respectively. Correlation analysis and multiple linear regression demonstrated early surgery was not associated with change in AMS or AMS at Day 7. Age was identified as the only significant predictor of change in AMS and had a negative effect (coefficient = -0.34, p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Early treatment of patients with CCS remains controversial. Although some long-term neurological recovery is expected in patients with a CCS, surgeons and patients should not expect early neurological improvement with or without early operative intervention.

Free access

Kevin Hines, Zachary T. Wilt, Daniel Franco, Aria Mahtabfar, Nicholas Elmer, Glenn A. Gonzalez, Thiago S. Montenegro, Lohit Velagapudi, Parthik D. Patel, Maxwell Detweiler, Umma Fatema, Gregory D. Schroeder, and James Harrop

OBJECTIVE

Posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) is a commonly performed procedure to address cervical myelopathy. A significant number of these patients require revision surgery for adjacent-segment disease (ASD) or pseudarthrosis. Currently, there is no consensus among spine surgeons on the inclusion of proximal thoracic spine instrumentation. This study investigates the benefits of thoracic extension in long-segment cervical fusions and the potential drawbacks. The authors compare outcomes in long-segment subaxial cervical fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy with caudal vertebral levels of C6, C7, and T1.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis identified 369 patients who underwent PCDF. Patients were grouped by caudal fusion level. Reoperation rates for ASD and pseudarthrosis, infection, and blood loss were examined. Data were analyzed with chi-square, 1-way ANOVA, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

The total reoperation rate for symptomatic pseudarthrosis or ASD was 4.8%. Reoperation rates, although not significant, were lower in the C3–6 group (2.6%, vs 8.3% for C3–7 and 3.8% for C3–T1; p = 0.129). Similarly, rates of infection were lower in the shorter-segment fusion without achieving statistical significance (2.6% for C3–6, vs 5.6% for C3–7 and 5.5% for C3–T1; p = 0.573). The mean blood loss was documented as 104, 125, and 224 mL for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the lack of statistical difference in reoperation rates for long-segment cervical fusions ending at C6, C7, or T1, shorter fusions in high-risk surgical candidates or elderly patients may be performed without higher rates of reoperation.

Restricted access

Mark J. Lambrechts, Nicholas D. D’Antonio, Brian A. Karamian, Arun P. Kanhere, Azra Dees, Bright M. Wiafe, Jose A. Canseco, Barrett I. Woods, I. David Kaye, Jeffrey Rihn, Mark Kurd, Alan S. Hilibrand, Christopher K. Kepler, Alexander R. Vaccaro, and Gregory D. Schroeder

OBJECTIVE

For patients with cervical and thoracolumbar AO Spine type C injuries, the authors sought to 1) identify whether preoperative vertebral column translation is predictive of a complete spinal cord injury (SCI) and 2) identify whether preoperative or postoperative vertebral column translation is predictive of neurological improvement after surgical decompression.

METHODS

All patients who underwent operative treatment for cervical and thoracolumbar AO Spine type C injuries at the authors’ institution between 2006 and 2021 were identified. CT and MRI were utilized to measure vertebral column translation in millimeters prior to and after surgery. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to predict the probability of sustaining a complete SCI on the basis of the amount of preoperative vertebral column translation. ROC curves were then used to predict the probability of neurological recovery on the basis of preoperative and postoperative vertebral column translation.

RESULTS

ROC analysis of 67 patients identified 6.10 mm (area under the curve [AUC] 0.77, 95% CI 0.650–0.892) of preoperative vertebral column translation as predictive of complete SCI. Additionally, ROC curve analysis found that 10.4 mm (AUC 0.654, 95% CI 0.421–0.887) of preoperative vertebral column translation was strongly predictive of no postoperative neurological improvement. Residual postoperative vertebral column translation after fracture reduction and instrumentation had no predictive value on neurological recovery (AUC 0.408, 95% CI 0.195–0.622).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with cervical and thoracolumbar AO Spine type C injuries, the amount of preoperative vertebral column translation is highly predictive of complete SCI and the likelihood of postoperative neurological recovery.

Open access

Barry Ting Sheen Kweh, Jin W. Tee, F. Cumhur Oner, Klaus J. Schnake, Emiliano N. Vialle, Frank Kanziora, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran, Marcel Dvorak, Jens R. Chapman, Lorin M. Benneker, Gregory Schroeder, and Alexander R. Vaccaro

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the genesis of the AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification System in the context of historical sacral and pelvic grading systems.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify all existing sacral and pelvic fracture classification systems.

RESULTS

A total of 49 articles were included in this review, comprising 23 pelvic classification systems and 17 sacral grading schemes. The AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification System represents both the evolutionary product of these historical systems and a reinvention of classic concepts in 5 ways. First, the classification introduces fracture types in a graduated order of biomechanical stability while also taking into consideration the neurological status of patients. Second, the traditional belief that Denis central zone III fractures have the highest rate of neurological deficit is not supported because this subgroup often includes a broad spectrum of injuries ranging from a benign sagittally oriented undisplaced fracture to an unstable “U-type” fracture. Third, the 1990 Isler lumbosacral system is adopted in its original format to divide injuries based on their likelihood of affecting posterior pelvic or spinopelvic stability. Fourth, new discrete fracture subtypes are introduced and the importance of bilateral injuries is acknowledged. Last, this is the first integrated sacral and pelvic classification to date.

CONCLUSIONS

The AO Spine Sacral and Pelvic Classification is a universally applicable system that redefines and reorders historical fracture morphologies into a rational hierarchy. This is the first classification to simultaneously address the biomechanical stability of the posterior pelvic complex and spinopelvic stability, while also taking into consideration neurological status. Further high-quality controlled trials are required prior to the inclusion of this novel classification within a validated scoring system to guide the management of sacral and pelvic injuries.

Full access

Gregory D. Schroeder, Christopher K. Kepler, John D. Koerner, Jens R. Chapman, Carlo Bellabarba, F. Cumhur Oner, Max Reinhold, Marcel F. Dvorak, Bizhan Aarabi, Luiz Vialle, Michael G. Fehlings, Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran, Frank Kandziora, Klaus J. Schnake, and Alexander R. Vaccaro

OBJECT

The aim of this study was to determine if the ability of a surgeon to correctly classify A3 (burst fractures with a single endplate involved) and A4 (burst fractures with both endplates involved) fractures is affected by either the region or the experience of the surgeon.

METHODS

A survey was sent to 100 AOSpine members from all 6 AO regions of the world (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East) who had no prior knowledge of the new AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Respondents were asked to classify 25 cases, including 6 thoracolumbar burst fractures (A3 or A4). This study focuses on the effect of region and experience on surgeons’ ability to properly classify these 2 controversial fracture variants.

RESULTS

All 100 surveyed surgeons completed the survey, and no significant regional (p > 0.50) or experiential (p > 0.21) variability in the ability to correctly classify burst fractures was identified; however, surgeons from all regions and with all levels of experience were more likely to correctly classify A3 fractures than A4 fractures (p < 0.01). Further analysis demonstrated that no region predisposed surgeons to increasing their assessment of severity of burst fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

A3 and A4 fractures are the most difficult 2 fractures to correctly classify, but this is not affected by the region or experience of the surgeon; therefore, regional variations in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures (A3 and A4) is not due to differing radiographic interpretation of the fractures.

Free access

Christopher K. Kepler, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Eric Chen, Alpesh A. Patel, Henry Ahn, Ahmad Nassr, Christopher I. Shaffrey, James Harrop, Gregory D. Schroeder, Amit Agarwala, Marcel F. Dvorak, Daryl R. Fourney, Kirkham B. Wood, Vincent C. Traynelis, S. Tim Yoon, Michael G. Fehlings, and Bizhan Aarabi

OBJECT

In this clinically based systematic review of cervical facet fractures, the authors’ aim was to determine the optimal clinical care for patients with isolated fractures of the cervical facets through a systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review of nonoperative and operative treatment methods of cervical facet fractures was performed. Reduction and stabilization treatments were compared, and analysis of postoperative outcomes was performed. MEDLINE and Scopus databases were used. This work was supported through support received from the Association for Collaborative Spine Research and AOSpine North America.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with 368 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-six patients had bilateral isolated cervical facet fractures and 322 had unilateral isolated cervical facet fractures. Closed reduction was successful in 56.4% (39 patients) and 63.8% (94 patients) of patients using a halo vest and Gardner-Wells tongs, respectively. Comparatively, open reduction was successful in 94.9% of patients (successful reduction of open to closed reduction OR 12.8 [95% CI 6.1–26.9], p < 0.0001); 183 patients underwent internal fixation, with an 87.2% success rate in maintaining anatomical alignment. When comparing the success of patients who underwent anterior versus posterior procedures, anterior approaches showed a 90.5% rate of maintenance of reduction, compared with a 75.6% rate for the posterior approach (anterior vs posterior OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.0–9.4], p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with nonoperative treatments, operative treatments provided a more successful outcome in terms of failure of treatment to maintain reduction for patients with cervical facet fractures. Operative treatment appears to provide superior results to the nonoperative treatments assessed.