Use of a radiopaque localizer grid to reduce radiation exposure

Abstract Background Minimally invasive spine surgery requires placement of the skin incision at an ideal location in the patient's back by the surgeon. However, numerous fluoroscopic x-ray images are sometimes required to find the site of entry, thereby exposing patients and Operating Room personnel to additional radiation. To minimize this exposure, a radiopaque localizer grid was devised to increase planning efficiency and reduce radiation exposure. Results The radiopaque localizer grid was utilized to plan the point of entry for minimally invasive spine surgery. Use of the grid allowed the surgeon to accurately pinpoint the ideal entry point for the procedure with just one or two fluoroscopic X-ray images. Conclusions The reusable localizer grid is a simple and practical device that may be utilized to more efficiently plan an entry site on the skin, thus reducing radiation exposure. This device or a modified version may be utilized for any procedure involving the spine

Clinical and radiological evaluation of Trabecular Metal and the Smith–Robinson technique in anterior cervical fusion for degenerative disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with 2-year follow-up

A prospective, randomized, controlled study was carried out to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes after anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with Trabecular Metal™ (TM) to the traditional Smith–Robinson (SR) procedure with autograft. The clinical results of cervical fusion with autograft from the iliac crest are typically satisfactory, but implications from the donor site are frequently reported. Alternative materials for cervical body interfusion have shown lower fusion rates. Trabecular Metal is a porous tantalum biomaterial with structure and mechanical properties similar to that of trabecular bone and with proven osteoconductivity. As much as 80 consecutive patients planned for ACDF were randomized for fusion with either TM or tricortical autograft from the iliac crest (SR) after discectomy and decompression. Digitized plain radiographic images of 78 (98%) patients were obtained preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up and were subsequently evaluated by two senior radiologists. Fusion/non-fusion was classified by visual evaluation of the A–P and lateral views in forced flexion/extension of the cervical spine and by measuring the mobility between the fused vertebrae. MRI of 20 TM cases at 2 years was successfully used to assess the decompression of the neural structures, but was not helpful in determining fusion/non-fusion. Pain intensity in the neck, arms and pelvis/hip were rated by patients on a visual analog scale (VAS) and neck function was rated using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) the day before surgery and 4, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Follow-ups at 12 and 24 months were performed by an unbiased observer, when patients also assessed their global outcome. Fusion rate in the SR group was 92%, and in the TM group 69% (P < 0.05). The accuracy of the measurements was calculated to be 2.4°. Operating time was shorter for fusion with TM compared with autograft; mean times were 100 min (SD 18) and 123 min (SD 23), respectively (P = 0.001). The patients’ global assessments of their neck and arm symptoms 2 years postoperatively for the TM group were rated as 79% much better or better after fusion with TM and 75% using autograft. Pain scores and NDI scores were significantly improved in both groups when compared with baseline at all follow-ups, except for neck pain at 1 year for the TM group. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between fusion techniques or between patients who appeared radiologically fused or non-fused. There was no difference in pelvic/hip pain between patients operated on with or without autograft. In our study, Trabecular Metal showed a lower fusion rate than the Smith–Robinson technique with autograft after single-level anterior cervical fusion without plating. There was no difference in clinical outcomes between the groups. The operative time was shorter with Trabecular Metal implants

The Mobi-C cervical disc for one-level and two-level cervical disc replacement: a review of the literature

Matthew D Alvin,1,2 Thomas E Mroz1,3,41Cleveland Clinic Center for Spine Health, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; 2Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA; 3Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA; 4Department of Neurological Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USABackground: Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a novel motion-preserving procedure that is an alternative to fusion. The Mobi-C disc prosthesis, one of many Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved devices for CDA, is the only FDA-approved prosthesis for two-level CDA. Hence, it may allow for improved outcomes compared with multilevel fusion procedures.Purpose: To critically assess the available literature on CDA with the Mobi-C prosthesis, with a focus on two-level CDA.Methods: All clinical articles involving the Mobi-C disc prosthesis for CDA through September 1, 2014 were identified on Medline. Any paper that presented Mobi-C CDA clinical results was included. Study design, sample size, length of follow-up, use of statistical analysis, quality of life outcome scores, conflict of interest, and complications were recorded.Results: Fifteen studies were included that investigated Mobi-C CDA, only one of which was a level Ib randomized control trial. All studies included showed non-inferiority of one-level Mobi-C CDA to one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Only one study analyzed outcomes of one-level versus two-level Mobi-C CDA, and only one study analyzed two-level Mobi-C CDA versus two-level ACDF. In comparison with other cervical disc prostheses, the Mobi-C prosthesis is associated with higher rates of heterotopic ossification (HO). Studies with conflicts of interest reported lower rates of HO. Adjacent segment degeneration or disease, along with other complications, were not assessed in most studies.Conclusion: One-level Mobi-C CDA is non-inferior, but not superior, to one-level ACDF for patients with cervical degenerative disc disease. The Mobi-C CDA procedure is associated with high rates of HO. Two-level Mobi-C CDA may be superior to two-level ACDF. However, insufficient evidence exists, thereby mandating a need for unbiased, well-designed prospective studies with well-defined outcomes in the future.Keywords: Mobi-C, cervical disc arthroplasty, total disc replacement, ACDF, quality of life, outcomes, effectiveness, cervical spin

Spine Surgeon Treatment Variability: The Impact on Costs

Cross-sectional analysis. Given the lack of strong evidence/guidelines on appropriate treatment for lumbar spine disease, substantial variability exists among surgical treatments utilized, which is associated with differences in costs to treat a given pathology. Our goal was to investigate the variability in costs among spine surgeons nationally for the same pathology in similar patients. Four hundred forty-five spine surgeons completed a survey of clinical and radiographic case scenarios on patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation, low back pain, and spondylolisthesis. Those surveyed were asked to provide various details including their geographical location, specialty, and fellowship training. Treatment options included no surgery, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, and transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Costs were estimated via Medicare national payment amounts. For recurrent lumbar disc herniation, no difference in costs existed for patients undergoing their first revision microdiscectomy. However, for patients undergoing another microdiscectomy, surgeons who operated 200 times/year ( 15 years ( < .001). For the treatment of low back pain, academic surgeons kept costs about 55% lower than private practice surgeons ( < .001). In the treatment of spondylolisthesis, there was significant treatment variability without significant differences in costs. Significant variability in surgical treatment paradigms exists for different pathologies. Understanding why variability in treatment selection exists in similar clinical contexts across practices is important to ensure the most cost-effective delivery of care among spine surgeons