Incidence of fracture in adjacent levels in patients treated with balloon kyphoplasty: a review of the literature

The available evidence suggests that the treatment of painful vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) secondary to osteoporosis or multiple myeloma, by cement augmentation with balloon kyphoplasty (BK), is both safe and effective. However, there is uncertainty in the literature concerning the potential of the procedure to influence the risk for adjacent segment fracture. The aim of this article is to review the available peer-reviewed literature, regarding adjacent vertebral body fractures after kyphoplasty augmentation

Absent cervical spine pedicle and associated congenital spinal abnormalities - a diagnostic trap in a setting of acute trauma: case report

BACKGROUND: Congenital spinal abnormalities can easily be misdiagnosed on plain radiographs. Additional imaging is warranted in doubtful cases, especially in a setting of acute trauma. Case Presentation This patient presented at the emergency unit of our university hospital after a motor vehicle accident and was sent to our radiology department for imaging of the cervical spine. Initial clinical examination and plain radiographs of the cervical spine were performed but not conclusive. Additional CT of the neck helped establish the right diagnosis. CONCLUSION: CT as a three-dimensional imaging modality with the possibility of multiplanar reconstructions allows for the exact diagnosis and exclusion of acute traumatic lesions of the cervical spine, especially in cases of doubtful plain radiographs and when congenital spinal abnormalities like absent cervical spine pedicle with associated spina bifida may insinuate severe trauma

Comparison of standard fusion with a "topping off" system in lumbar spine surgery: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fusion of lumbar spine segments is a well-established therapy for many pathologies. The procedure changes the biomechanics of the spine. Initial clinical benefits may be outweighed by ensuing damage to the adjacent segments. Various surgical devices and techniques have been developed to prevent this deterioration. "Topping off" systems combine rigid fusion with a flexible pedicle screw system to prevent adjacent segment disease (ASD). To date, there is no convincing evidence that these devices provide any patient benefits.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The study is designed as a randomized, therapy-controlled trial in a clinical care setting at a university hospital. Patients presenting to the outpatient clinic with degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis will be assessed against study inclusion and exclusion criteria. After randomization, the control group will undergo conventional fusion. The intervention group will undergo fusion with a supplemental flexible pedicle screw system to protect the adjacent segment ("topping off").</p> <p>Follow-up examination will take place immediately after treatment during hospital stay, after 6 weeks, and then after 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Subsequently, ongoing assessments will be performed annually.</p> <p>Outcome measurements will include quality of life and pain assessments using questionnaires (SF-36™, ODI, COMI). In addition, clinical and radiologic ASD, work-related disability, and duration of work disability will be assessed. Inpatient and 6-month mortality, surgery-related data (e.g., intraoperative complications, blood loss, length of incision, surgical duration), postoperative complications, adverse events, and serious adverse events will be documented and monitored throughout the study. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be provided.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>New hybrid systems might improve the outcome of lumbar spine fusion. To date, there is no convincing published data on effectiveness or safety of these topping off systems. High quality data is required to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of topping off devices. If only because these devices are quite expensive compared to conventional fusion implants, nonessential use should be avoided. In fact, these high costs necessitate efforts by health care providers to evaluate the effects of these implants. Randomized clinical trials are highly recommended to evaluate the benefits or harm to the patient.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01224379">NCT01224379</a></p

Reliability of MRI findings in candidates for lumbar disc prosthesis

Introduction: Limited reliability data exist for localised magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings relevant to planning of treatment with lumbar disc prosthesis and later outcomes. We assessed the reliability of such findings in chronic low back pain patients who were accepted candidates for disc prosthesis. Methods: On pretreatment MRI of 170 patients (mean age 41 years; 88 women), three experienced radiologists independently rated Modic changes, disc findings and facet arthropathy at L3/L4, L4/L5 and L5/S1. Two radiologists rerated 126 examinations. For each MRI finding at each disc level, agreement was analysed using the kappa statistic and differences in prevalence across observers using a fixed effects model. Results: All findings at L3/L4 and facet arthropathy at L5/S1 had a mean prevalence <10% across observers and were not further analysed, ensuring interpretable kappa values. Overall interobserver agreement was generally moderate or good (kappa 0.40–0.77) at L4–S1 for Modic changes, nucleus pulposus signal, disc height (subjective and measured), posterior high-intensity zone (HIZ) and disc contour, and fair (kappa 0.24) at L4/L5 for facet arthropathy. Posterior HIZ at L5/S1 and severely reduced subjective disc height at L4/L5 differed up to threefold in prevalence between observers (p< 0.0001). Intraobserver agreement was mostly good or very good (kappa 0.60–1.00). Conclusion: In candidates for disc prosthesis, mostly moderate interobserver agreement is expected for localised MRI findings

Pitfalls and complications in the treatment of cervical spine fractures in patients with ankylosing spondylitis

Patients with ankylosing spondylitis are at significant risk for sustaining cervical spine injuries following trauma predisposed by kyphosis, stiffness and osteoporotic bone quality of the spine. The risk of sustaining neurological deficits in this patient population is higher than average. The present review article provides an outline on the specific injury patterns in the cervical spine, diagnostic algorithms and specific treatment modalities dictated by the underlying disease in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. An emphasis is placed on the risks and complication patterns in the treatment of these rare, but challenging injuries

What should an ideal spinal injury classification system consist of? A methodological review and conceptual proposal for future classifications

Since Böhler published the first categorization of spinal injuries based on plain radiographic examinations in 1929, numerous classifications have been proposed. Despite all these efforts, however, only a few have been tested for reliability and validity. This methodological, conceptual review summarizes that a spinal injury classification system should be clinically relevant, reliable and accurate. The clinical relevance of a classification is directly related to its content validity. The ideal content of a spinal injury classification should only include injury characteristics of the vertebral column, is primarily based on the increasingly routinely performed CT imaging, and is clearly distinctive from severity scales and treatment algorithms. Clearly defined observation and conversion criteria are crucial determinants of classification systems’ reliability and accuracy. Ideally, two principle spinal injury characteristics should be easy to discern on diagnostic images: the specific location and morphology of the injured spinal structure. Given the current evidence and diagnostic imaging technology, descriptions of the mechanisms of injury and ligamentous injury should not be included in a spinal injury classification. The presence of concomitant neurologic deficits can be integrated in a spinal injury severity scale, which in turn can be considered in a spinal injury treatment algorithm. Ideally, a validation pathway of a spinal injury classification system should be completed prior to its clinical and scientific implementation. This review provides a methodological concept which might be considered prior to the synthesis of new or modified spinal injury classifications

Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of total disc replacement surgery compared with spinal fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration. Low back pain (LBP), a major health problem in Western countries, can be caused by a variety of pathologies, one of which is degenerative disc disease (DDD). When conservative treatment fails, surgery might be considered. For a long time, lumbar fusion has been the “gold standard” of surgical treatment for DDD. Total disc replacement (TDR) has increased in popularity as an alternative for lumbar fusion. A comprehensive systematic literature search was performed up to October 2008. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts, and relevant full text articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted relevant data and outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and 16 prospective cohort studies were identified. In all three trials, the total disc replacement was compared with lumbar fusion techniques. The Charité trial (designed as a non-inferiority trail) was considered to have a low risk of bias for the 2-year follow up, but a high risk of bias for the 5-year follow up. The Charité artificial disc was non-inferior to the BAK® Interbody Fusion System on a composite outcome of “clinical success” (57.1 vs. 46.5%, for the 2-year follow up; 57.8 vs. 51.2% for the 5-year follow up). There were no statistically significant differences in mean pain and physical function scores. The Prodisc artificial disc (also designed as a non-inferiority trail) was found to be statistically significant more effective when compared with the lumbar circumferential fusion on the composite outcome of “clinical success” (53.4 vs. 40.8%), but the risk of bias of this study was high. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in mean pain and physical function scores. The Flexicore trial, with a high risk of bias, found no clinical relevant differences on pain and physical function when compared with circumferential spinal fusion at 2-year follow up. Because these are preliminary results, in addition to the high risk of bias, no conclusions can be drawn based on this study. In general, these results suggest that no clinical relevant differences between the total disc replacement and fusion techniques. The overall success rates in both treatment groups were small. Complications related to the surgical approach ranged from 2.1 to 18.7%, prosthesis related complications from 2.0 to 39.3%, treatment related complications from 1.9 to 62.0% and general complications from 1.0 to 14.0%. Reoperation at the index level was reported in 1.0 to 28.6% of the patients. In the three trials published, overall complication rates ranged from 7.3 to 29.1% in the TDR group and from 6.3 to 50.2% in the fusion group. The overall reoperation rate at index-level ranged from 3.7 to 11.4% in the TDR group and from 5.4 to 26.1% in the fusion group. In conclusion, there is low quality evidence that the Charité is non-inferior to the BAK cage at the 2-year follow up on the primary outcome measures. For the 5-year follow up, the same conclusion is supported only by very low quality evidence. For the ProDisc, there is very low quality evidence for contradictory results on the primary outcome measures when compared with anterior lumbar circumferential fusion. High quality randomized controlled trials with relevant control group and long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TDR