Neurogenic Fever after Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence, pathogenesis, and clinical outcomes related to neurogenic fevers following traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed on thermodysregulation secondary to acute traumatic SCI in adult patients. A literature search was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven relevant articles were obtained. RESULTS: The incidence of fever of all origins (both known and unknown) after SCI ranged from 22.5 to 71.7% with a mean incidence of 50.6% and a median incidence of 50.0%. The incidence of fever of unknown origin (neurogenic fever) ranged from 2.6 to 27.8% with a mean incidence of 8.0% and a median incidence of 4.7%. Cervical and thoracic spinal injuries were more commonly associated with fever than lumbar injuries. In addition, complete injuries had a higher incidence of fever than incomplete injuries. The pathogenesis of neurogenic fever after acute SCI is not thoroughly understood. CONCLUSION: Neurogenic fevers are relatively common following an acute SCI; however, there is little in the scientific literature to help physicians prevent or treat this condition. The paucity of research underscored by this review demonstrates the need for further studies with larger sample sizes, focusing on incidence rate, clinical outcomes, and pathogenesis of neurogenic fever following acute traumatic SCI

Quantitative Assessment of the Anatomical Footprint of the C1 Pedicle Relative to the Lateral Mass: A Guide for C1 Lateral Mass Fixation

Study Design: Anatomic study. Objectives: To determine the relationship of the anatomical footprint of the C1 pedicle relative to the lateral mass (LM). Methods: Anatomic measurements were made on fresh frozen human cadaveric C1 specimens: pedicle width/height, LM width/height (minimum/maximum), LM depth, distance between LM’s medial aspect and pedicle’s medial border, distance between LM’s lateral aspect to pedicle’s lateral border, distance between pedicle’s inferior aspect and LM’s inferior border, distance between arch’s midline and pedicle’s medial border. The percentage of LM medial to the pedicle and the distance from the center of the LM to the pedicle’s medial wall were calculated. Results: A total of 42 LM were analyzed. The C1 pedicle’s lateral aspect was nearly confluent with the LM’s lateral border. Average pedicle width was 9.0 ± 1.1 mm, and average pedicle height was 5.0 ± 1.1 mm. Average LM width and depth were 17.0 ± 1.6 and 17.2 ± 1.6 mm, respectively. There was 6.9 ± 1.5 mm of bone medial to the medial C1 pedicle, which constituted 41% ± 9% of the LM’s width. The distance from C1 arch’s midline to the medial pedicle was 13.5 ± 2.0 mm. The LM’s center was 1.6 ± 1 mm lateral to the medial pedicle wall. There was on average 3.5 ± 0.6 mm of the LM inferior to the pedicle inferior border. Conclusions: The center of the lateral mass is 1.6 ± 1 mm lateral to the medial wall of the C1 pedicle and approximately 15 mm from the midline. There is 6.9 ± 1.5 mm of bone medial to the medial C1 pedicle. Thus, the medial aspect of C1 pedicle may be used as an anatomic reference for locating the center of the C1 LM for screw fixation

Clinical Outcomes After Four-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) demonstrates reliable improvement in neurologic symptoms associated with anterior compression of the cervical spine. There is a paucity of data on outcomes following 4-level ACDFs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes for patients undergoing 4-level ACDF. Methods: All 4-level ACDFs with at least 1-year clinical follow-up were identified. Clinical outcomes, including fusion rates, neurologic outcomes, and reoperation rates were determined. Results: Retrospective review of our institutional database revealed 25 patients who underwent 4-level ACDF with at least 1-year clinical follow-up. Average age was 57.5 years (range 38.2-75.0 years); 14 (56%) were male, and average body mass index was 30.2 kg/m Conclusions: Review of our institution\u27s experience demonstrated a low rate of revision cervical surgery for any reason of 8% at mean 19 months follow-up, and neurological examinations consistently improved, despite a high rate of radiographic nonunion (31%)

A New N-terminal Recognition Domain in Caveolin-1 Interacts with Sterol Carrier Protein-2 (SCP-2)

Although plasma membrane domains, such as caveolae, provide an organizing principle for signaling pathways and cholesterol homeostasis in the cell, relatively little is known regarding specific mechanisms, whereby intracellular lipid-binding proteins are targeted to caveolae. Therefore, the interaction between caveolin-1 and sterol carrier protein-2 (SCP-2), a protein that binds and transfers both cholesterol and signaling lipids (e.g., phosphatidylinositides and sphingolipids), was examined by yeast two-hybrid, in vitro binding and fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) analyses. Results of the in vivo and in vitro assays identified for the first time the N-terminal amino acids (aa) 1−32 amphipathic α helix of SCP-2 functionally interacted with caveolin-1. This interaction was independent of the classic caveolin-1 scaffolding domain, in which many signaling proteins interact. Instead, SCP-2 bound caveolin-1 through a new domain identified in the N-terminal domain of caveolin-1 between aa 34−40. Modeling studies suggested that electrostatic interactions between the SCP-2 N-terminal aa 1−32 amphipathic α-helical domain (cationic, positively charged face) and the caveolin-1 N-terminal aa 33−59 α helix (anionic, negatively charged face) may significantly contribute to this interaction. These findings provide new insights on how SCP-2 enhances cholesterol retention within the cell as well as regulates the distribution of signaling lipids, such as phosphoinositides and sphingolipids, at plasma membrane caveolae

Does the Spine Surgeon’s Experience Affect Fracture Classification, Assessment of Stability, and Treatment Plan in Thoracolumbar Injuries?

Study Design: Prospective survey-based study. Objectives: The AO Spine thoracolumbar injury classification has been shown to have good reproducibility among clinicians. However, the influence of spine surgeons’ clinical experience on fracture classification, stability assessment, and decision on management based on this classification has not been studied. Furthermore, the usefulness of varying imaging modalities including radiographs, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the decision process was also studied. Methods: Forty-one spine surgeons from different regions, acquainted with the AOSpine classification system, were provided with 30 thoracolumbar fractures in a 3-step assessment: first radiographs, followed by CT and MRI. Surgeons classified the fracture, evaluated stability, chose management, and identified reasons for any changes. The surgeons were divided into 2 groups based on years of clinical experience as \u3c10 years (n = 12) and \u3e10 years (n = 29). Results: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in correctly classifying A1, B2, and C type fractures. Surgeons with less experience hadmore correct diagnosis in classifyingA3 (47.2% vs 38.5%in step 1, 73.6% vs 60.3% in step 2 and 77.8% vs 65.5% in step 3), A4 (16.7% vs 24.1% in step 1, 72.9% vs 57.8% in step 2 and 70.8% vs 56.0%in step3) and B1 injuries (31.9% vs 20.7% in step 1, 41.7% vs 36.8% in step 2 and 38.9% vs 33.9% in step 3). In the assessment of fracture stability and decision on treatment, the less and more experienced surgeons performed equally. The selection of a particular treatment plan varied in all subtypes except in A1 and C type injuries. Conclusion: Surgeons’ experience did not significantly affect overall fracture classification, evaluating stability and planning the treatment. Surgeons with less experience had a higher percentage of correct classification in A3 and A4 injuries. Despite variations between them in classification, the assessment of overall stability and management decisions were similar between the 2 groups. © The Author(s) 2017

Open Posterior Reduction and Stabilization of AO Spine C3 Sacral Fractures.

AO Spine C3 sacral fractures are defined by separation of the spine including S1 from the pelvic ring and are usually result of a high-energy injury. Besides their high biomechanical instability and high rate of associated neurological impairment, these fractures are often extremely difficult to reduce due to severe bony impaction and dislocation. Additional difficulties in management of these fractures arise from only a thin-layer of soft-tissue coverage overlying the injured area

AOSpine—Spine Trauma Classification System: The Value of Modifiers: A Narrative Review With Commentary on Evolving Descriptive Principles

Study Design: Narrative review. Objectives: To describe the current AOSpine Trauma Classification system for spinal trauma and highlight the value of patient-specific modifiers for facilitating communication and nuances in treatment. Methods: The classification for spine trauma previously developed by The AOSpine Knowledge Forum is reviewed and the importance of case modifiers in this system is discussed. Results: A successful classification system facilitates communication and agreement between physicians while also determining injury severity and provides guidance on prognosis and treatment. As each injury may be unique among different patients, the importance of considering patient-specific characteristics is highlighted in this review. In the current AOSpine Trauma Classification, the spinal column is divided into 4 regions: the upper cervical spine (C0-C2), subaxial cervical spine (C3-C7), thoracolumbar spine (T1-L5), and the sacral spine (S1-S5, including coccyx). Each region is classified according to a hierarchical system with increasing levels of injury or instability and represents the morphology of the injury, neurologic status, and clinical modifiers. Specifically, these clinical modifiers are denoted starting with M followed by a number. They describe unique conditions that may change treatment approach such as the presence of significant soft tissue damage, uncertainty about posterior tension band injury, or the presence of a critical disc herniation in a cervical bilateral facet dislocation. These characteristics are described in detail for each spinal region. Conclusions: Patient-specific modifiers in the AOSpine Trauma Classification highlight unique clinical characteristics for each injury and facilitate communication and treatment between surgeons

The Development of a Universally Accepted Sacral Fracture Classification: A Survey of AOSpine and AOTrauma Members.

Study Design Survey study. Objective To determine the global perspective on controversial aspects of sacral fracture classifications. Methods While developing the AOSpine Sacral Injury Classification System, a survey was sent to all members of AOSpine and AOTrauma. The survey asked four yes-or-no questions to help determine the best way to handle controversial aspects of sacral fractures in future classifications. Chi-square tests were initially used to compare surgeons\u27 answers to the four key questions of the survey, and then the data was modeled through multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 474 surgeons answered all questions in the survey. Overall 86.9% of respondents felt that the proposed hierarchical nature of injuries was appropriate, and 77.8% of respondents agreed that that the risk of neurologic injury is highest in a vertical fracture through the foramen. Almost 80% of respondents felt that the separation of injuries based on the integrity of L5-S1 facet was appropriate, and 83.8% of surgeons agreed that a nondisplaced sacral U fracture is a clinically relevant entity. Conclusion This study determines the global perspective on controversial areas in the injury patterns of sacral fractures and demonstrates that the development of a comprehensive and universally accepted sacral classification is possible

Sacral Fractures and Associated Injuries.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to describe the injuries associated with sacral fractures and to analyze their impact on patient outcome. METHODS: A comprehensive narrative review of the literature was performed to identify the injuries associated with sacral fractures. RESULTS: Sacral fractures are uncommon injuries that result from high-energy trauma, and that, due to their rarity, are frequently underdiagnosed and mistreated. Only 5% of sacral fractures occur in isolation. Injuries most often associated with sacral fractures include neurologic injuries (present in up to 50% of sacral fractures), pelvic ring disruptions, hip and lumbar spine fractures, active pelvic/ abdominal bleeding and the presence of an open fracture or significant soft tissue injury. Diagnosis of pelvic ring fractures and fractures extending to the lumbar spine are key factors for the appropriate management of sacral fractures. Importantly, associated systemic (cranial, thoracic, and abdominopelvic) or musculoskeletal injuries should be promptly assessed and addressed. These associated injuries often dictate the management and eventual outcome of sacral fractures and, therefore, any treatment algorithm should take them into consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral fractures are complex in nature and often associated with other often-missed injuries. This review summarizes the most relevant associated injuries in sacral fractures and discusses on their appropriate management

A Comparison of Radiographic Alignment between Bilateral and Unilateral Interbody Cages in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Purpose: To compare radiographic outcomes between unilateral and bilateral cage placement in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF) and to determine if the rate of fusion at the 1-year postoperative point was different in patients who received bilateral versus unilateral cages. Overview of Literature There is no clear evidence to dictate whether bilateral or unilateral cages promote superior radiographic or surgical outcomes in TLIF. Methods: Patients \u3e18 years old who underwent primary one- or two-level TLIFs at our institution were identified and propensity-matched in a 3:1 fashion (unilateral:bilateral). Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and radiographic outcomes, including vertebral endplate obliquity, segmental lordosis, subsidence, and fusion status, were compared between groups. Results: Of the 184 patients included, 46 received bilateral cages. Bilateral cage placement was associated with greater subsidence (1.06±1.25 mm vs. 0.59±1.16 mm, p=0.028) and enhanced restoration of segmental lordosis (5.74°±14.1° vs. −1.57°±10.9°, p=0.002) at the 1-year postoperative point, while unilateral cage placement was associated with an increased correction of endplate obliquity (−2.02°±4.42° vs. 0.24°±2.81°, p\u3c0.001). Bilateral cage placement was significantly associated with radiographic fusion on bivariate analysis (89.1% vs. 70.3%, p=0.018) and significantly predicted radiographic fusion on multivariable regression analysis (estimate, 1.35; odds ratio, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.51–12.05; p=0.010). Conclusions: Bilateral interbody cage placement in TLIF procedures was associated with restoration of lumbar lordosis and increased fusion rates. However, endplate obliquity correction was significantly greater for patients who received a unilateral cage