Clinical adjacent segment pathology after anterior cervical discectomy, with and without fusion, for cervical degenerative disc disease:A single center retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up

Introduction: Clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP) continues to be a cause of concern after anterior surgical treatment for single- or multilevel cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The current literature reports inconsistent incidence rates and contended risk factors in the development of CASP. Research question: The aim is to determine the incidence of additional CASP-related surgeries after anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) or without fusion (ACD) for CDDD. Secondary outcomes include risk factors for the development of CASP and long-term clinical outcomes. Materials & methods: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study with a long-term follow up. Patients undergoing ACD(F) for CDDD between January 2012 and December 2019 were included. Results: A total of 601 patients were included, with an average follow-up period of 5.0 years. Most patients underwent ACDF with stand-alone cages (87.7%). CASP developed in 58 (9.7%) patients, 41 (70.7%) of which required additional adjacent level surgery. ACD significantly accelerated the development of CASP. The C2-C7 Cobb angle appeared less lordotic upon early post-operative imaging in ACDF patients that later-on developed CASP. Baseline degeneration at the index level and adjacent levels was not significantly different between patients with and without CASP. Discussion & conclusion: In this retrospective cohort, we observe a relatively low rate of additional surgery for CASP in ACDF with stand-alone cages. We suggest that surgical technique, fusion, segmental kyphosis and natural degeneration play a multifactorial role in the development of CASP. Complication rates were low and clinical outcomes were similar for all techniques used

Predicting Survival in Patients Presenting With Spinal Epidural Metastases:The Limburg Spinal Metastasis Score

BACKGROUND: Patients with spinal epidural metastases (SEM) often experience a reduction in ambulatory status and, thus, the quality of life. Predicting which patients will benefit from a surgical intervention remains a challenge. Life expectancy is an essential factor to be considered in surgical decision-making, although not the only one. Prediction models can add value in surgical decision-making. The goal of this study was to develop and internally validate a novel model (Limburg spinal metastases score [LSMS]) and compare the predictive value with 2 commonly used models: modified Bauer score and Oswestry Spinal Risk Index (OSRI). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 144 consecutive patients who underwent surgical decompression for SEM in our centers between November 2006 and December 2020. Clinical and surgical parameters were evaluated. The novel prediction model was based on multivariate analysis and was internally validated. External validation of the 2 most commonly used prediction models was performed. RESULTS: The median survival was 17 months, 55.7% of the immobile patients regained ambulation postoperatively. In 50 patients (34.7%), at least 1 complication occurred within 30 days after surgery. The LSMS consists of 4 parameters: primary tumor type, Karnofsky performance score, presence of visceral metastases, and presence of multiple spinal metastases. Bootstrap internal validation of the model developed on this cohort yielded an optimism-corrected -statistic of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71-0.80). The -statistic of the OSRI score and the Bauer score was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64-0.74) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62-0.72), respectively. CONCLUSION: The LSMS consists of 4 parameters to assist surgical decision-making for patients with SEM. The score is easy to use and appears more accurate in our population in comparison with previous existing models. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A novel prediction model was developed to aid in surgical decision-making for patients with spinal epidural metastases

A Systematic Review on Neurological Outcomes for Cervical Degenerative Myelopathy After Anterior Decompression Surgery: Motion Preservation vs Fusion

BACKGROUND: Although it is well established that surgically treated patients with cervical degenerative myelopathy (CDM) improve irrespective of the anterior decompression technique used, no consensus exists on what technique is superior in terms of neurological recovery. A general concern exists that anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) leads to less favorable outcomes in CDM due to microtrauma caused by preserved mobility. It is remarkable that current literature mainly uses pain scores to assess clinical outcomes after anterior decompression surgery, especially considering that pain may not be the most relevant outcome for CDM. This systematic review evaluated the literature concerning neurological outcomes in patients with CDM treated with anterior decompression surgery and assessed by validated myelopathy scores. METHODS: Systematic searches were carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Prospective studies were included when patients with isolated CDM were treated with anterior decompression surgery, and a validated myelopathy outcome score was used. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included from the 16,032 identified studies. All studies used the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) outcome score and showed improvement for all anterior techniques. The mean improvement in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) was 4.80 and 3.64 for the modified JOA and JOA outcome scores, respectively. The JOA for ACDA showed a mean improvement of 5.51. The overall quality of the included articles was low to moderate according to the Cochrane tool. CONCLUSION: Neurological recovery of CDM is similar after all anterior decompression techniques, including ACDA when compared with ACDF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current literature gives no reason to dissuade the use of ACDA in cervical myelopathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Research protocol:Cervical Arthroplasty Cost Effectiveness Study (CACES): economic evaluation of anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) in the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disc disease - a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: To date, there is no consensus on which anterior surgical technique is more cost-effective in treating cervical degenerative disc disease (CDDD). The most commonly used surgical treatment for patients with single- or multi-level symptomatic CDDD is anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF). However, new complaints of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy commonly develop at adjacent levels, also known as clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). The extent to which kinematics, surgery-induced fusion, natural history, and progression of disease play a role in the development of CASP remains unclear. Anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) is another treatment option that is thought to reduce the incidence of CASP by preserving motion in the operated segment. While ACDA is often discouraged, as the implant costs are higher while the clinical outcomes are similar to ACDF, preventing CASP might be a reason for ACDA to be a more cost-effective technique in the long term. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this randomized controlled trial, patients will be randomized to receive ACDF or ACDA in a 1:1 ratio. Adult patients with single- or multi-level CDDD and symptoms of radiculopathy and/or myelopathy will be included. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of both techniques from a healthcare and societal perspective. Secondary objectives are the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the two techniques, as well as the qualitative process surrounding anterior decompression surgery. All outcomes will be measured at baseline and every 6 months until 4 years post-surgery. DISCUSSION: High-quality evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of both ACDA and ACDF is lacking; to date, there are no prospective trials from a societal perspective. Considering the aging of the population and the rising healthcare costs, there is an urgent need for a solid clinical cost-effectiveness trial addressing this question. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04623593. Registered on 29 September 2020

Double-center observational study of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: one-year results

Abstract Background For a substantial part of patients with chronic low back pain, the origin is located in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) is increasingly being implemented as a treatment option in SIJ dysfunction. Despite remaining controversy, evidence continues to increase. This study evaluates the clinical results and safety of MISJF in a double-center consecutive case series in patients with SIJ dysfunction over a one-year observation period. Methods SIJ complaints were diagnosed after history taking, physical examination and least a 50% reduction of SIJ pain 30–60 min following image-guided injection. Primary outcome measures were patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs), consisting of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score and EuroQol 5-dimensions 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L). Patients’ perspectives on the effects of surgery were collected through questionnaires. Secondary outcome measures were implant positioning and (serious) adverse events ((S)AE’s). Results A total of 29 patients were included. In 44.8% of patients, SIJ dysfunction was of postpartum origin. The mean VAS-pain score improved from 7.83 (± 1.71) to 4.97 (± 2.63) postoperatively (p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L score improved from 0.266 (± 0.129) to 0.499 (± 0.260) postoperatively (p < 0.001). Opioid consumption decreased from 44.8 to 24.1% postoperatively (p = 0.026). In 13.7% of patients, an (S)AE occurred. Conclusion MISJF appears to be an effective and safe procedure in this cohort. Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and quality of life were observed one-year postoperatively. Future studies should focus on the long-term outcomes to further evaluate the safety and effectiveness of MISJF

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