Neurological events due to pedicle screw malpositioning with lateral fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw insertion

OBJECTIVE The risk of novel postoperative neurological events due to pedicle screw malpositioning in lumbar fusion surgery is minimized by using one of the several image-guided techniques for pedicle screw insertion. These techniques for guided screw insertion range from intraoperative fluoroscopy to intraoperative navigation. A practical technique consists of anatomical identification of the screw entry point followed by lateral fluoroscopy used for guidance during insertion of the screw. This technique is available in most clinics and is less expensive than intraoperative navigation. However, the safety of lateral fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement with regard to novel postoperative neurological events due to screw malposition has been addressed only rarely in the literature. In this study the authors aimed to determine the rate of novel postoperative neurological events due to intraoperative and postoperatively established screw malpositioning during lateral fluoroscopy-assisted screw insertion. METHODS Included patients underwent lateral fluoroscopy-assisted lumbosacral screw insertion between January 2012 and August 2017. The occurrence of novel postoperative neurological events was analyzed from patient files. In case of an event, surgical reports were screened for the occurrence of intraoperative screw malposition. Furthermore, postoperative CT scans were analyzed to identify and describe possible screw malposition. RESULTS In total, 246 patients with 1079 screws were included. Novel postoperative neurological events were present in 36 patients (14.6%). In 8 of these 36 patients (3.25% of the total study population), the neurological events could be directly attributed to screw malposition. Screw malpositioning was caused either by problematic screw insertion with immediate screw correction (4 patients) or by malpositioned screws for which the malposition was established postoperatively using CT scans (4 patients). Three patients with screw malposition underwent revision surgery without subsequent symptom relief. CONCLUSIONS Lateral fluoroscopy-assisted lumbosacral screw placement results in low rates of novel postoperative neurological events caused by screw malposition. In the majority of patients suffering from novel postoperative neurological events, these events could not be attributed to screw malpositioning, but rather were due to postoperative neurapraxia of peripheral nerves, neuropathy, or intraoperative traction of nerve roots

Lumbar Intervertebral Motion in Healthy Male Participants:Protocol for a Motion Analysis During Flexion and Extension Cinematographic Recordings

Background: Physiological motion of the lumbar spine is a subject of interest for musculoskeletal health care professionals, as abnormal motion is believed to be related to lumbar conditions and complaints. Many researchers have described ranges of motion for the lumbar spine, but only a few have mentioned specific motion patterns of each individual segment during flexion and extension. These motion patterns mostly comprise the sequence of segmental initiation in sagittal rotation. However, an adequate definition of physiological motion of the lumbar spine is still lacking. The reason for this is the reporting of different ranges of motion and sequences of segmental initiation in previous studies. Furthermore, due to insufficient fields of view, none of these papers have reported on maximum flexion and extension motion patterns of L1 to S1. In the lower cervical spine, a consistent pattern of segmental contributions was recently described. In order to understand physiological motion of the lumbar spine, it is necessary to systematically study motion patterns, including the sequence of segmental contribution, of vertebrae L1 to S1 in healthy individuals during maximum flexion and extension. Objective: This study aims to define the lumbar spines' physiological motion pattern of vertebrae L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, and S1 by determining the sequence of segmental contribution and the sequence of segmental initiation of motion in sagittal rotation of each vertebra during maximum flexion and extension. The secondary endpoint will be exploring the possibility of analyzing the intervertebral horizontal and vertical translation of each vertebra during maximum flexion and extension. Methods: Cinematographic recordings will be performed on 11 healthy male participants, aged 18-25 years, without a history of spine problems. Cinematographic flexion and extension recordings will be made at two time points with a minimum 2-week interval in between. Results: The study has been approved by the local institutional medical ethical committee (Medical Research Ethics Committee of Zuyderland and Zuyd University of Applied Sciences) on September 24, 2018. Inclusion of participants will be completed in 2020. Conclusions: If successful, these physiological motion patterns can be compared with motion patterns of patients with lumbar conditions before or after surgery. Ultimately, researchers may be able to determine differences in biomechanics that can potentially be linked to physical complaints like low back pain

Neurological events due to pedicle screw malpositioning with lateral fluoroscopy–guided pedicle screw insertion

OBJECTIVE The risk of novel postoperative neurological events due to pedicle screw malpositioning in lumbar fusion surgery is minimized by using one of the several image-guided techniques for pedicle screw insertion. These techniques for guided screw insertion range from intraoperative fluoroscopy to intraoperative navigation. A practical technique consists of anatomical identification of the screw entry point followed by lateral fluoroscopy used for guidance during insertion of the screw. This technique is available in most clinics and is less expensive than intraoperative navigation. However, the safety of lateral fluoroscopy-guided pedicle screw placement with regard to novel postoperative neurological events due to screw malposition has been addressed only rarely in the literature. In this study the authors aimed to determine the rate of novel postoperative neurological events due to intraoperative and postoperatively established screw malpositioning during lateral fluoroscopy-assisted screw insertion. METHODS Included patients underwent lateral fluoroscopy-assisted lumbosacral screw insertion between January 2012 and August 2017. The occurrence of novel postoperative neurological events was analyzed from patient files. In case of an event, surgical reports were screened for the occurrence of intraoperative screw malposition. Furthermore, postoperative CT scans were analyzed to identify and describe possible screw malposition. RESULTS In total, 246 patients with 1079 screws were included. Novel postoperative neurological events were present in 36 patients (14.6%). In 8 of these 36 patients (3.25% of the total study population), the neurological events could be directly attributed to screw malposition. Screw malpositioning was caused either by problematic screw insertion with immediate screw correction (4 patients) or by malpositioned screws for which the malposition was established postoperatively using CT scans (4 patients). Three patients with screw malposition underwent revision surgery without subsequent symptom relief. CONCLUSIONS Lateral fluoroscopy-assisted lumbosacral screw placement results in low rates of novel postoperative neurological events caused by screw malposition. In the majority of patients suffering from novel postoperative neurological events, these events could not be attributed to screw malpositioning, but rather were due to postoperative neurapraxia of peripheral nerves, neuropathy, or intraoperative traction of nerve roots

Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review.

IntroductionThe demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed.MethodsSearches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list.ResultsOf a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from$8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and$21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from$5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and$50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low.ConclusionsThis systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results.Trial registrationProspero-database registration number: CRD42020196869

Process Evaluation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries in Five Dutch Hospitals: A Qualitative Analysis

Background and Objectives: Only limited qualitative research concerning instrumented spine surgeries has been published, despite the increasing number of these surgeries and the evident importance of qualitative analysis of the processes surrounding these complex interventions. Current qualitative research is mainly limited to the experiences, emotions and expectations of patients. Insight into the full process, including experiences from the perspective of informal caregivers and healthcare professionals, remains scarce. Materials and Methods: Data were gathered by means of semi-structured face-to-face interviews. In total, there were 27 participants, including 11 patients, 7 informal caregivers and 9 healthcare professionals. The interview process was audiotaped, and each interview was transcribed verbatim. To systematically analyse the gathered data, software for qualitative analysis (NVivo) was used. After immersion in the raw data of transcripts and field notes, a list of broad categories for organising the data into meaningful clusters for analysis was developed. All interviews were coded by the first author, and 25% was independently assessed by the second author. Results: The results of our study describe several promoting and limiting factors concerning the process of lumbar fusion surgery from the perspective of patients, informal caregivers and healthcare providers. The most frequently mentioned promoting factors were: information and opportunities to ask questions during consultations; multidisciplinary consultations; good communication and guidance during hospitalization; and follow-up appointments. The most frequently mentioned limiting factors were: lack of educational material; lack of guidance and communication prior to, during and after hospitalisation. Conclusion: Overall, participants were satisfied with the current healthcare-process in lumbar fusion surgery. However, we found that lack of educational material and guidance during the process led to insecurity about complaints, surgery and recovery. To improve the process of lumbar interbody fusion and to increase patient satisfaction, healthcare providers should focus on guiding and educating patients and informal caregivers about the pre-operative trajectory, the surgery and the recovery. From the healthcare providers’ perspective, the process could be improved by multidisciplinary consultations and a dedicated spine team in the operation room. Although this study focusses on lumbar fusion surgery, results could be translated to other fields of spine surgery and surgery in general

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment

Objectives The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery.Study design Systematic literature review.Data sources PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded.Data extraction and synthesis The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality.Results 130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies.Conclusions The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery