Paradoxien der Geschichte. Anmerkungen zu den Fotografien von Gerhard Gäbler

PURPOSE: Surgical treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS) requires a balance between maintained curve correction and the capacity for spinal and thoracic growth. Spinal fusion creates irreversible conditions that prevent the implementation of further treatment methods. Our hypothesis was that non-fused anchors in growth guidance show a comparable outcome as the technique described in the literature, which involves spondylodesis of the anchoring segments. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed 148 surgeries in 22 EOS patients (11 female, 11 male) over a 15-year period. Patients underwent surgery with non-fused anchors and growth guidance techniques. Scoliosis, kyphosis, growth and anchoring segments were measured. For the latter, a new measuring technique was developed. Complications were recorded and classified. RESULTS: The mean Cobb angle reduced from 73.5 ± 24.4° to 28.4 ± 16.2° (60.2 ± 22.9%, p < 0.001) at the last follow-up. Spinal growth T1-S1 and T1-T12 were 41.1 ± 23.3 mm and 24.9 ± 16.6 mm (p < 0.001), respectively. Growth at the cranial and caudal anchoring segment was 1.5 mm/segment/year and 1.9 mm/segment/year, respectively. A total of 63 complications were documented in 20 patients, with 40 requiring unplanned revision surgery. Definitive spondylodesis was performed in three patients. CONCLUSION: Patients demonstrated a significant spinal growth including the anchoring segments. A comparable correction in Cobb angle and the type of complications was noted, although the rate of device-related complications was higher. No permanent impairment was reported. The rate of device-related complications is acceptable and outweighed by the significant degree of growth preservation and more flexible and individualised treatment strategy for patients with EOS. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material

Automatic Calculation of Cervical Spine Parameters Using Deep Learning: Development and Validation on an External Dataset

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective data analysis. OBJECTIVES This study aims to develop a deep learning model for the automatic calculation of some important spine parameters from lateral cervical radiographs. METHODS We collected two datasets from two different institutions. The first dataset of 1498 images was used to train and optimize the model to find the best hyperparameters while the second dataset of 79 images was used as an external validation set to evaluate the robustness and generalizability of our model. The performance of the model was assessed by calculating the median absolute errors between the model prediction and the ground truth for the following parameters: T1 slope, C7 slope, C2-C7 angle, C2-C6 angle, Sagittal Vertical Axis (SVA), C0-C2, Redlund-Johnell distance (RJD), the cranial tilting (CT) and the craniocervical angle (CCA). RESULTS Regarding the angles, we found median errors of 1.66° (SD 2.46°), 1.56° (1.95°), 2.46° (SD 2.55), 1.85° (SD 3.93°), 1.25° (SD 1.83°), .29° (SD .31°) and .67° (SD .77°) for T1 slope, C7 slope, C2-C7, C2-C6, C0-C2, CT, and CCA respectively. As concerns the distances, we found median errors of .55 mm (SD .47 mm) and .47 mm (.62 mm) for SVA and RJD respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this work, we developed a model that was able to accurately predict cervical spine parameters from lateral cervical radiographs. In particular, the performances on the external validation set demonstrate the robustness and the high degree of generalizability of our model on images acquired in a different institution

Incidence of Revision Surgery After Decompression With vs Without Fusion Among Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Importance Only limited data derived from large prospective cohort studies exist on the incidence of revision surgery among patients who undergo operations for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Objective To assess the cumulative incidence of revision surgery after 2 types of index operations-decompression alone or decompression with fusion-among patients with DLSS. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study analyzed data from a multicenter, prospective cohort study, the Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study, which included patients aged 50 years or older with DLSS at 8 spine surgery and rheumatology units in Switzerland between December 2010 and December 2015. The follow-up period was 3 years. Data for this study were analyzed between October and November 2021. Exposures All patients underwent either decompression surgery alone or decompression with fusion surgery for DLSS. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of revision operations. Secondary outcomes included changes in the following patient-reported outcome measures: Spinal Stenosis Measure (SSM) symptom severity (higher scores indicate more pain) and physical function (higher scores indicate more disability) subscale scores and the EuroQol Health-Related Quality of Life 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) summary index score (lower scores indicate worse quality of life). Results A total of 328 patients (165 [50.3%] men; median age, 73.0 years [IQR, 66.0-78.0 years]) were included in the analysis. Of these, 256 (78.0%) underwent decompression alone and 72 (22.0%) underwent decompression with fusion. The cumulative incidence of revisions after 3 years of follow-up was 11.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-15.1%) for the decompression alone group and 13.9% (95% CI, 5.5%-21.5%) for the fusion group (log-rank P = .60). There was no significant difference in the need for revision between the 2 groups over time (unadjusted absolute risk difference, 2.6% [95% CI, -6.3% to 11.4%]; adjusted absolute risk difference, 3.9% [95% CI, -5.2% to 17.0%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.63-3.13]). The number of revisions was significantly associated with higher SSM symptom severity scores (β, 0.171; 95% CI, 0.047-0.295; P = .007) and lower EQ-5D-3L summary index scores (β, -0.061; 95% CI, -0.105 to -0.017; P = .007) but not with higher SSM physical function scores (β, 0.068; 95% CI, -0.036 to 0.172; P = .20). The type of index operation was not significantly associated with the corresponding outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study showed no significant association between the type of index operation for DLSS-decompression alone or fusion-and the need for revision surgery or the outcomes of pain, disability, and quality of life among patients after 3 years. Number of revision operations was associated with more pain and worse quality of life

Influence of previous surgery on patient-rated outcome after surgery for degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine.

PURPOSE Few studies have used multivariate models to quantify the effect of multiple previous spine surgeries on patient-oriented outcome after spine surgery. This study sought to quantify the effect of prior spine surgery on 12-month postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for different degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine. METHODS The study included 4940 patients with lumbar degenerative disease documented in the Spine Tango Registry of EUROSPINE, the Spine Society of Europe, from 2004 to 2015. Preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI; 0-10 scale). Patients' medical history and surgical details were recorded using the Spine Tango Surgery 2006 and 2011 forms. Multiple linear regression models were used to investigate the relationship between the number of previous surgeries and the 12-month postoperative COMI score, controlling for the baseline COMI score and other potential confounders. RESULTS In the adjusted model including all cases, the 12-month COMI score showed a 0.37-point worse value [95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) 0.29-0.45; p < 0.001] for each additional prior spine surgery. In the subgroup of patients with lumbar disc herniation, the corresponding effect was 0.52 points (95 % CI 0.27-0.77; p < 0.001) and in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, 0.40 points (95 % CI 0.17-0.64; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS We were able to demonstrate a clear "dose-response" effect for previous surgery: the greater the number of prior spine surgeries, the systematically worse the outcome at 12 months' follow-up. The results of this study can be used when considering or consenting a patient for further surgery, to better inform the patient of the likely outcome and to set realistic expectations

Outcome of L5 radiculopathy after reduction and instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion of high-grade L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and the role of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring.

PURPOSE To evaluate the incidence and course of iatrogenic L5 radiculopathy after reduction and instrumented fusion of high-grade L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and the role of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM). METHODS Consecutive patients treated for high-grade spondylolisthesis with IONM from 2005 to 2013 were screened for eligibility. Prospectively collected clinical and surgical data as well as radiographic outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. Patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) before and at 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery. RESULTS Seventeen patients were included, with a mean age of 26.3 (±9.5) years. Mean preoperative L5-S1 slip was 72% (±21%) and was reduced to 19% (±13%) postoperatively. Mean loss of reduction at last follow-up [mean 19 months (±14, range 3-48 months)] was 3% (±4.3%). Rate of new L5 radiculopathy with motor deficit (L5MD) after surgery was 29% (five patients). Four patients fully recovered after 3 months, one patient was lost to neurologic follow-up. IONM sensitivity and specificity for postoperative L5MD was 20 and 100%, respectively. COMI, back pain and leg pain scores showed significant (p < 0.001) improvements at 3 months postoperatively, which were retained up to 24 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS Transient L5 radiculopathy after reduction and instrumented fusion of high-grade spondylolisthesis is frequent. With IONM the risk of irreversible L5 radiculopathy is minimal. If IONM signal changes recover, full clinical recovery is expected within 3 months. Overall, patient-reported outcome of reduction and instrumented fusion of high-grade spondylolisthesis showed clinically important improvement

Risk factors for negative global treatment outcomes in lumbar spinal stenosis surgery: a mixed effects model analysis of data from an international spine registry.

OBJECTIVE To determine risk factors for negative global treatment outcomes (GTO) as self-assessed by patients undergoing surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS Patients from the Spine Tango registry undergoing first-time surgery for LSS were analyzed. The primary outcome was GTO measured at the last available follow-up ≥3 months postoperatively using a single question rating how much the operation had helped the patient's back problem (negative=no change/operation made things worse). A 2-level logistic mixed effects model with the treating department as the random effect was used to assess factors associated with a negative outcome. RESULTS 4,504 patients from 39 departments in ten countries were include. Overall, 14.4% of patients reported a negative GTO after an average follow-up of 1.3 years. In patients with dominant leg pain, negative outcome was associated with higher baseline back pain; in those with dominant back pain, it was associated with higher baseline back pain, ASA≥3, lower age, not having rigid stabilization, not having disc herniation, and the vertebral level of the most severely affected segment (L5/S1 vs L3/4). Four departments had significantly higher odds of a negative outcome, while one department had significantly lower odds. Three out of the four negative effects were related to two departments from one country. CONCLUSIONS LSS surgery fails to help at least one in 10 patients. High baseline back pain is the most important factor associated with a negative treatment outcome. Department-level and potentially country-level factors of unknown origin explained a non-negligible variation in the treatment results

Correction to: Surgical growth guidance with non-fused anchoring segments in early-onset scoliosis

The preoperative X-ray presented in Figure 1 of the original publication erroneously was not the latest radiographic image taken before the index surgery at the age of 3 years

Development of the "Core Yellow Flags Index" (CYFI) as a brief instrument for the assessment of key psychological factors in patients undergoing spine surgery

Background: Depression, anxiety, catastrophising, and fear-avoidance beliefs are key "yellow flags" (YFs) that predict a poor outcome in back patients. Most surgeons acknowledge the importance of YFs but have difficulty assessing them due to the complexity of the instruments used for their measurement and time constraints during consultations. We performed a secondary analysis of existing questionnaire data to develop a brief tool to enable the systematic evaluation of YFs and then tested it in clinical practice. Methods: The following questionnaire datasets were available from a total of 932 secondary/tertiary care patients (61 ± 16 years; 51% female): pain catastrophising (N = 347); ZUNG depression (N = 453); Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (anxiety subscale) (N = 308); fear-avoidance beliefs (N = 761). The single item that best represented the full-scale score was identified, to form the 4-item "Core Yellow Flags Index" (CYFI). 2422 patients (64 ± 16 years; 54% female) completed CYFI and a Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) before lumbar spine surgery, and a COMI 3 and 12 months later (FU). Results: The item-total correlation for each item with its full-length questionnaire was: 0.77 (catastrophising), 0.67 (depression), 0.69 (anxiety), 0.68 (fear-avoidance beliefs). Cronbach's α for the CYFI was 0.79. Structural equation modelling showed CYFI uniquely explained variance (p < 0.001) in COMI at both the 3- and 12-month FUs (β = 0.11 (women), 0.24 (men); and β = 0.13 (women), β = 0.14 (men), respectively). Conclusion: The 4-item CYFI proved to be a simple, practicable tool for routinely assessing key psychological attributes in spine surgery patients and made a relevant contribution in predicting postoperative outcome. CYFI's items were similar to those in the "STarT Back screening tool" used in primary care to triage patients into treatment pathways, further substantiating its validity. Wider use of CYFI may help improve the accuracy of predictive models derived using spine registry data. Keywords: Core Yellow Flags Index (CYFI); Outcome; Registry data; SPINE surgery; Yellow flags

A comparative effectiveness study of patient-rated and radiographic outcome after 2 types of decompression with fusion for spondylotic myelopathy: anterior cervical discectomy versus corpectomy

OBJECT: Both anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) and anterior cervical corpectomy with fusion (ACCF) are used to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy; however, there is currently no evidence for the superiority of one over the other in terms of patient-rated outcomes. This comparative effectiveness study compared the patient-rated and radiographic outcomes of 2-level ACDF versus 1-level ACCF. METHODS: This single-center study was nested within the EuroSpine Spine Tango data acquisition system. Inclusion criteria were the following: consecutive patients presenting with signs of cervical spondylotic myelopathy who underwent 2-level ACDF or 1-level ACCF between 2004 and 2011. Before and 12 months after surgery, patients completed the multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) and also rated global treatment outcome and satisfaction with care on 5-point Likert scales. Cervical lordosis, segmental height, and fusion rate were assessed radiographically before and immediately after surgery and at the last follow-up (20.4 ± 13.7 months, mean ± SD). RESULTS: In total, 118 consecutive patients (80 in the ACDF group and 38 in the ACCF group) were included. Age, sex, comorbidity, baseline symptoms, baseline radiographic data, operation duration, and complication rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Blood loss was significantly (p < 0.04) lower in the ACDF group. Postoperative mean segmental height was significantly (p = 0.0006) greater for ACDF (42.0 ± 4.2 mm, mean ± SD) than for ACCF (39.0 ± 4.0 mm), and global average lordosis improved to a significantly (p = 0.003) greater extent in ACDF (by 1.6° ± 4.1°) than in ACCF (by -1.0° ± 4.0°). Fusion rates for ACDF were 97.5% and for ACCF were 94.7% (p = 0.59). The 12-month patient-rated outcomes did not differ significantly between ACDF and ACCF: 82.4% and 68.6% had a good global outcome (operation helped/helped a lot) (p = 0.10), 86.5% and 82.9% were satisfied/very satisfied with care (p = 0.62), and the reduction in the multidimensional COMI was 2.8 ± 2.7 and 2.2 ± 3 points (p = 0.30), respectively. The postoperative increase in lordosis angle showed low but significant correlations with the improvement in arm pain (r = 0.25, p = 0.014), highest pain (r = 0.25, p = 0.013), and function (r = 0.24, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Both ACDF and ACCF are safe and effective in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, indicated by similarly good patient-rated outcomes 1 year after surgery. This precludes any conclusions regarding the superiority of one technique over the other, although it should be noted that ACDF resulted in less blood loss and greater improvements in cervical lordosis and segmental height than ACCF. Patients with improved lordosis angle had a better clinical outcome