Outcomes following laminoplasty or laminectomy and fusion in patients with myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: A systematic review

Study Design Systematic review. Objective To compare laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion in patients with cervical myelopathy caused by OPLL. Methods A systematic review was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane database, and Google scholar of articles. Only comparative studies in humans were included. Studies involving cervical trauma/fracture, infection, and tumor were excluded. Results Of 157 citations initially analyzed, 4 studies ultimately met our inclusion criteria: one class of evidence (CoE) II prospective cohort study and three CoE III retrospective cohort studies. The prospective cohort study found no significant difference between laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion in the recovery rate from myelopathy. One CoE III retrospective cohort study reported a significantly higher recovery rate following laminoplasty. Another CoE III retrospective cohort study reported a significantly higher recovery rate in the laminectomy and fusion group. One CoE II prospective cohort study and one CoE III retrospective cohort study found no significant difference in pain improvement between patients treated with laminoplasty versus patients treated with laminectomy and fusion. All four studies reported a higher incidence of C5 palsy following laminectomy and fusion than laminoplasty. One CoE II prospective cohort and one CoE III retrospective cohort reported that there was no significant difference in axial neck pain between the two procedures. One CoE III retrospective cohort study suggested that there was no significant difference between groups in OPLL progression. Conclusion Data from four comparative studies was not sufficient to support the superiority of laminoplasty or laminectomy and fusion in treating cervical myelopathy caused by OPLL

Effect of Different Types of Block Copolymers on Morphology, Mechanical Properties, and Fracture Mechanisms of Bisphenol-F Based Epoxy System

The effect of adding different types of soft block copolymer on the tensile properties, fracture mechanic properties, and thermo-mechanical properties of bisphenol F based epoxy resin were studied. Two different self-assembling block copolymers, (a) constituting of a center block of poly (butyl acrylate) and two side blocks of poly (methyl) methacrylate-co-polar co-monomer (BCP 1) and (b) poly(ethylene oxide)-b-poly(butylene oxide) (PEO-PBO) diblock copolymer (BCP 2), were used with an epoxy-hardener system. The maximum fracture toughness and fracture energy were measured as KIc = 2.75 MPa·m1/2 and GIc = 2.37 kJ/m2 for the 10 wt % of BCP 1 modified system, which were 366% and 2270% higher in comparison to reference epoxy system, and a 63% reduction in tensile strength was also observed. Similarly, for BCP2 modified systems, the maximum value of KIc = 1.65 MPa·m1/2 and GIc = 1.10 kJ/m2 was obtained for epoxy modified with 12 wt % of BCP2 and a reduction of 32% in tensile strength. The fracture toughness and fracture energy were co-related to the plastic zone size for all the modified systems. Finally, the analysis of the fracture surfaces revealed the toughening micro-mechanisms of the nanocomposites

Fluoroscopically guided extraforaminal cervical nerve root blocks: Analysis of epidural flow of the injectate with respect to needle tip position

Study Design Retrospective evaluation of consecutively performed fluoroscopically guided cervical nerve root blocks. Objective To describe the incidence of injectate central epidural flow with respect to needle tip position during fluoroscopically guided extraforaminal cervical nerve root blocks (ECNRBs). Methods Between February 19, 2003 and June 11, 2003, 132 consecutive fluoroscopically guided ECNRBs performed with contrast media in the final injected material (injectate) were reviewed on 95 patients with average of 1.3 injections per patient. Fluoroscopic spot images documenting the procedure were obtained as part of standard quality assurance. An independent observer not directly involved in the procedures retrospectively reviewed the images, and the data were placed into a database. Image review was performed to determine optimal needle tip positioning for injectate epidural flow. Results Central epidural injectate flow was obtained in only 28.9% of injections with the needle tip lateral to midline of the lateral mass (zone 2). 83.8% of injectate went into epidural space when the needle tip was medial to midline of the lateral mass (zone 3). 100% of injectate flowed epidurally when the needle tip was medial to or at the medial cortex of the lateral mass (zone 4). There was no statistically significant difference with regards to central epidural flow and the needle tip position on lateral view. Conclusion To ensure central epidural flow with ECNRBs one must be prepared to pass the needle tip medial to midplane of the lateral mass or to medial cortex of the lateral mass. Approximately 16% of ECNRBs with needle tip medial to midline of the lateral mass did not flow into epidural space. One cannot claim a nerve block is an epidural block unless epidural flow of injectate is observed

Why are spine surgery patients lost to follow-up?

Long-term outcome studies are frequently hindered by a decreasing frequency of patient follow-up with the treating surgeon over time. Whether this attrition represents a “loss of faith” in their index surgeon or the realities of a geographically mobile society has never been assessed in a population of patients undergoing spinal surgery. The purpose of this article is to determine the frequency with which patients who have undergone prior surgery and develop new problems attempt to follow-up with their index spine surgeon. The study design was a population survey. All patients seen at two university-based spine centers over a 3-month period were surveyed regarding prior spine surgery. The questionnaire asked details of the previous operation, whether the patient had sought follow-up with their index surgeon, why the patient did not continue treatment with that surgeon, and whether the patient was satisfied with their prior treatment. Sixty-nine patients completed the survey. Prior operations were lumbar (53 patients) and cervical (16). When asked the reason for not seeing their prior surgeon, 10 patients (15%) stated that they (the patient) had moved and 16 (23%) responded that their surgeon no longer practiced in the area. Thirteen (19%) were unhappy with their previous care, 22 (32%) were seeking a second opinion, and 7 (10%) were told they needed more complex surgery. Thirty-seven (54%) discussed their symptoms with their original surgeon before seeking another surgeon. Although 32 patients (46%) had not discussed their new complaints with their index surgeon, only 3 patients (4%) chose not to return to their prior surgeon despite having the opportunity to do so. Forty-nine patients (71%) were satisfied with their prior surgical care, and 42 patients (61%) would undergo the index operation again. Most of the patients seen at the authors' practices after undergoing prior spine surgery elsewhere failed to follow up with their prior spine surgeon for geographical reasons. It appears that the majority of patients who develop new spinal complaints will seek out their treating surgeon when possible. This suggests that patient attrition over long-term follow-up may reflect a geographically mobile population rather than patient dissatisfaction with prior treatment

Differentiating c8-t1 radiculopathy from ulnar neuropathy: A survey of 24 spine surgeons

Study Design Questionnaire. Objective To evaluate the ability of spine surgeons to distinguish C8–T1 radiculopathies from ulnar neuropathy. Methods Twenty-four self-rated “experienced” cervical spine surgeons completed a questionnaire with the following items. (1) If the ulnar nerve is cut at the elbow, which of the following would be numb: ulnar forearm, small and ring fingers; only the ulnar forearm; only the small and ring fingers; or none of the above? (2) Which of the following muscles are weak with C8–T1 radiculopathies but intact with ulnar neuropathy at the elbow: flexor digiti minimi brevis, flexor pollicis brevis, abductor digiti minimi, abductor pollicis brevis, adductor pollicis, opponens digiti minimi, opponens pollicis, medial lumbricals, lateral lumbricals, dorsal interossei, palmar interossei? Results Fifteen of 24 surgeons (63%) correctly answered the first question—that severing the ulnar nerve results in numbness of the fifth and fourth fingers. None correctly identified all four nonulnar, C8–T1-innervated options in the second question without naming additional muscles. Conclusion The ulnar nerve provides sensation to the fourth and fifth fingers and medial border of the hand. The medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve provides sensation to the medial forearm. The ulnar nerve innervates all intrinsic hand muscles, except the abductor and flexor pollicis brevis, opponens pollicis, and lateral two lumbricals, which are innervated by C8 and T1 via the median nerve. By examining these five muscles, one can clinically differentiate cubital tunnel syndrome from C8–T1 radiculopathies. Although all participants considered themselves to be experienced cervical spine surgeons, this study reveals inadequate knowledge regarding the clinical manifestations of C8–T1 radiculopathies and cubital tunnel syndrome

Occipitocervical fixation: general considerations and surgical technique

To review and present details on the occipitocervical fixation (OCF) technique as well as considerations for planning the procedure. Methods: We present the surgical technique of OCF in a step-by-step didactic and practical manner with surgical tips and tricks, including C1 and C2 screw fixation techniques. Additionally, we discuss complications, the extension of fusion, types of OCF, and how to avoid common side effects associated with OCF. The complex and mobile anatomy of the craniocervical junction, when requiring fixation and fusion, warrants rigid instrumentation that can be achieve using a modern screw-plate-rod construct. Indications for OCF are craniocervical instability, and atlantoaxial instability when selective atlantoaxial fusion is not feasible. OCF generally involves occiput-C2 fusion. C1 fixation is generally unnecessary, since it increases the surgical time and is associated with the risk of vascular complications. Selective occiput-C2 fusion is recommended when there is no need for including the cervical subaxial region (eg, when stenosis or fractures coexist in the subaxial spine), and good fixation is achieved at C2. Most instrumentation systems now have occipital plates that are not pre-integrated to rods, making fixation much simpler. Surgical steps, from position to wound closure, are presented in detail, with pearls for practice and discussion of cervical alignment. OCF is a challenging procedure, with potential risk of severe adverse effects. Understanding the surgical indications, as well as the nuances of the surgical technique, is required to improve patient outcomes and avoid complications