Stand-Alone Cervical Cages in 2-Level Anterior Interbody Fusion in Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Results from a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Study Design A retrospective review of patients who underwent 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with standalone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of stand-alone PEEK cage in 2-level cervical interbody fusion for CSM. Overview of Literature ACDF is a standard surgical procedure to treat degenerative disc disease. However, the use of additional anterior plating for 2-level ACDF remains controversial. Methods We reviewed outcomes of patients who underwent 2-level ACDF with stand-alone PEEK cages for CSM over a 7-year period (2007–2015) in a regional hospital. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, fusion rate, subsidence rate, cage migration, and cervical alignment by the C2–7 angle as well as the local segmental angle (LSA) of the cervical spine were assessed. Results In total, 31 patients (mean age, 59 years; range, 36–87 years) underwent 2-level ACDF with a cage-only construct procedure between 2007 and 2015. The minimum follow-up was 24 months; mean follow-up was 51 months. C3–5 fusion was performed in 45%, C4–6 fusion in 32%, and C5–7 fusion in 23%. Mean JOA score improved from 10.1±2.2 to 13.9±2.1 (p<0.01) at the 24-month follow-up. Fusion was achieved in all patients. Subsidence occurred in 22.5% of the cages but was not associated with differences in JOA scores, age, sex, or levels fused. Lordosis of the C2–7 angle and LSA increased after surgery, which were maintained for up to 1 year but subsequently disappeared after 2 years, yet the difference was not statistically significant. No cage migration was noted; two patients developed adjacent segment disease requiring posterior laminoplasty 3 years after ACDF. Conclusions The use of a stand-alone PEEK cage in a 2-level cervical interbody fusion achieves satisfactory improvements in both clinical outcomes and fusion

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present