Pseudohypoparathyroidism mimicking cervical diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis with dysphagia: A case report and literature review

Dysphagia due to extensive ossification at anterior segments of the cervical spine is a rare occurrence and is usually attributable to diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH). We present the case of a 74-year-old female with dysphagia most likely due to ossification in pseudohypoparathyroidism type 1a (PHP1a). PHP1a is a rare, autosomal dominant disorder caused by mutations in the GNAS1 gene. Our patient had characteristic phenotype features of PHP1a, also known as Albright's hereditary osteodystrophy (AHO), which was diagnosed without genetic confirmation. She was conservatively treated with dietary measures and observation, and reported persisting symptoms of dysphagia at six-month follow-up. This is the first case to describe dysphagia in PHP1a with a similar presentation to DISH

Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis: Etiology and clinical relevance

Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) is a systemic bone-forming condition characterized by the presence of at least three bony bridges at the anterolateral spine. The aim of this review was to address the present state of pathophysiological knowledge, the clinical relevance, and diagnosis of DISH. The pathogenesis of DISH is currently unknown. The presence of DISH has been associated with older age, male sex, obesity, hypertension, atherosclerosis, and diabetes mellitus. Because the new bone forms mainly at entheseal sites, local fibroblasts, chondrocytes, collagen fibers, and calcified matrix are probably influenced by genetic, vascular, metabolic, and mechanical factors. Diagnosing the presence of DISH is of clinical importance, because the risk of a spinal fracture increases and associations with the metabolic syndrome, coronary and aortic disease, and respiratory effects are strong. Unravelling the pathogenesis of DISH can impact the field of regenerative medicine and bone tissue regeneration

Surgical treatment of traumatic fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: A systematic review

Introduction: The treatment of traumatic thoracic and lumbar spine fractures remains controversial. To date no consensus exists on the correct choice of surgical approach and technique. Research question: to provide a comprehensive up-to-date overview of the available different surgical methods and their quantified outcomes. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched between 2001 and 2020 using the term ‘spinal fractures’. Inclusion criteria were: adults, ≥10 cases, ≥12 months follow-up, thoracic or lumbar fractures, and surgery <3 weeks of trauma. Studies were categorized per surgical technique: Posterior open (PO), posterior percutaneous (PP), stand-alone vertebral body augmentation (SA), anterior scopic (AS), anterior open (AO), posterior percutaneous and anterior open (PPAO), posterior percutaneous and anterior scopic (PPAS), posterior open and anterior open (POAO) and posterior open and anterior scopic (POAS). The PO group was used as a reference group. Results: After duplicate removal 6042 articles were identified. A total of 102 articles were Included, in which 137 separate surgical technique cohorts were described: PO (n = 75), PP, (n = 39), SA (n = 12), AO (n = 5), PPAO (n = 1), PPAS (n = 1), POAO (n = 2) and POAS (n = 2). Discussion and conclusion: For type A3/A4 burst fractures, without severe neurological deficit, posterior percutaneous (PP) technique seems the safest and most feasible option in the past two decades. If needed, PP can be combined with anterior augmentation to prevent secondary kyphosis. Furthermore, posterior open (PO) technique is feasible in almost all types of fractures. Also, this technique can provide for an additional posterior decompression or fusion. Overall, no neurologic deterioration was reported following surgical intervention

Clinical, radiological, and patient-reported outcomes 13 years after pedicle screw fixation with balloon-assisted endplate reduction and cement injection

Purpose: In management of traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures, short-segment pedicle screw fixation with balloon-assisted endplate reduction (BAER) and cement injection is a safe, feasible, and effective technique to maintain radiological alignment with minimum spinal segments involved. However, 20% of patients report daily discomfort despite good spinal alignment and fusion after this technique. This study provides clinical, radiological, and patient-reported outcomes after a minimum 13 years of follow-up. Methods: Eighteen patients were invited at the outpatient clinic for clinical/radiological examinations. The cohort (originally 20 patients) was treated 13–14 years earlier with pedicle screw fixation, BAER, and cement injection for traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures. Patient-reported outcome measures were obtained at time of examinations. Current data were compared with data obtained at 6 years of follow-up. Results: Seventeen patients (median age 50; range 32–80) cooperated. No/minimal back pain was reported by 15 patients, and 12 patients returned to their previous heavy labor work. Median visual analog score of health (80%; 50–100%) was similar to results at 6 years (80%; 60–100% p = 0.259). An Oswestry Disability Index score of less than 20% (reflecting minimal disability) was reported by 14 patients, compared with 15 patients at 6 years of follow-up. No significant differences were found in wedge or Cobb angle between the time points. Intravertebral cement resorption was not observed. Conclusion: Results from this study suggest that, 13 years after pedicle screw fixation with BAER and cement injection for traumatic thoracolumbar burst fractures, functional performance, pain and radiological outcomes of the current cohort were stable or had slightly improved. Graphic abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.]

Assessing the accuracy of a new 3D2D registration algorithm based on a non-invasive skin marker model for navigated spine surgery

Purpose: We assessed the accuracy of a new 3D2D registration algorithm to be used for navigated spine surgery and explored anatomical and radiologic parameters affecting the registration accuracy. Compared to existing 3D2D registration algorithms, the algorithm does not need bone-mounted or table-mounted instruments for registration. Neither does the intraoperative imaging device have to be tracked or calibrated. Methods: The rigid registration algorithm required imaging data (a pre-existing CT scan (3D) and two angulated fluoroscopic images (2D)) to register positions of vertebrae in 3D and is based on non-invasive skin markers. The algorithm registered five adjacent vertebrae and was tested in the thoracic and lumbar spine from three human cadaveric specimens. The registration accuracy was calculated for each registered vertebra and measured with the target registration error (TRE) in millimeters. We used multivariable analysis to identify parameters independently affecting the algorithm’s accuracy such as the angulation between the two fluoroscopic images (between 40° and 90°), the detector-skin distance, the number of skin markers applied, and waist circumference. Results: The algorithm registered 780 vertebrae with a median TRE of 0.51 mm [interquartile range 0.32–0.73 mm] and a maximum TRE of 2.06 mm. The TRE was most affected by the angulation between the two fluoroscopic images obtained (p < 0.001): larger angulations resulted in higher accuracy. The algorithm was more accurate in thoracic vertebrae (p = 0.004) and in the specimen with the smallest waist circumference (p = 0.003). The algorithm registered all five adjacent vertebrae with similar accuracy. Conclusion: We studied the accuracy of a new 3D2D registration algorithm based on non-invasive skin markers. The algorithm registered five adjacent vertebrae with similar accuracy in the thoracic and lumbar spine and showed a maximum target registration error of approximately 2 mm. To further evaluate its potential for navigated spine surgery, the algorithm may now be integrated into a complete navigation system

Impact of intraoperative imaging on decision-making during spine surgery: a survey among spine surgeons using simulated intraoperative images

Purpose: To assess whether the intention to intraoperatively reposition pedicle screws differs when spine surgeons evaluate the same screws with 2D imaging or 3D imaging. Methods: In this online survey study, 21 spine surgeons evaluated eight pedicle screws from patients who had undergone posterior spinal fixation. In a simulated intraoperative setting, surgeons had to decide if they would reposition a marked pedicle screw based on its position in the provided radiologic imaging. The eight assessed pedicle screws varied in radiologic position, including two screws positioned within the pedicle, two breaching the pedicle cortex < 2 mm, two breaching the pedicle cortex 2–4 mm, and two positioned completely outside the pedicle. Surgeons assessed each pedicle screw twice without knowing and in random order: once with a scrollable three-dimensional (3D) image and once with two oblique fluoroscopic two-dimensional (2D) images. Results: Almost all surgeons (19/21) intended to reposition more pedicle screws based on 3D imaging than on 2D imaging, with a mean number of pedicle screws to be repositioned of, respectively, 4.1 (± 1.3) and 2.0 (± 1.3; p < 0.001). Surgeons intended to reposition two screws placed completely outside the pedicle, one breaching 2-4mm, and one breaching < 2 mm more often based on 3D imaging. Conclusion: When provided with 3D imaging, spine surgeons not only intend to intraoperatively reposition pedicle screws at risk of causing postoperative complications more often but also screws with acceptable positions. This study highlights the potential of intraoperative 3D imaging as well as the need for consensus on how to act on intraoperative 3D information

Imaging of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH)

Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) is a condition characterised by calcification and ossification of ligaments and entheses. The condition usually affects the axial skeleton, in particular, at the thoracic segment, though also other portions of the spine are often involved. DISH often involves also peripheral tendinous and/or entheseal sites either alone, or in association with the involvement of peripheral joints. At times, new bone formation involves the bone itself, but sometimes it involves joints not usually affected by osteoarthritis (OA) which result in bony enlargement of the epiphysis, joints space narrowing and a reduced range of motion. Because of the entheseal involvement, DISH can be mistaken for seronegative spondyloarthropathies or for a "simple" OA. Furthermore, other implications for the recognition of DISH include spinal fractures, difficult intubation and upper endoscopies, decreased response rates in DISH with concomitant spondyloarthritides, and increased likelihood to be affected by metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular diseases. This Atlas is intended to show the imaging finding in DISH in patients diagnosed with the condition by the Resnick classification criteria

Patient Expectations About Palliative Treatment for Symptomatic Spinal Metastases: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES: Patients with spinal metastases often receive palliative surgery or radiation therapy to maintain or improve health-related quality of life. Patients with unrealistic expectations regarding treatment outcomes have been shown to be less satisfied with their post-treatment health status. This study evaluated expectations of patients with spinal metastases scheduled for surgery and/or radiation therapy. METHODS: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with patients with symptomatic spinal metastases before and 6 weeks after surgery and/or radiation therapy. Expectations regarding treatment outcomes were discussed before treatment, and level of fulfillment of these pretreatment expectations was discussed after treatment. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed according to the thematic analysis method to identify themes. RESULTS: Before treatment, patients thought they were not, or minimally, informed about (expected) treatment outcomes, but they felt well informed about treatment procedures and possible complications. Although patients expected pain relief and improvement in daily functioning, they found it difficult to describe any recovery timeline or the impact of these expected improvements on their daily life. Patients generally understood that treatment was not curative, but lacked insight into the impact of treatment on life expectancy given that this was hardly discussed by their surgeon and/or radiation oncologist. Pretreatment expectations regarding pain and daily functioning were only partially met in most patients post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients thought they were not, or only minimally, informed about expected outcomes after surgery and/or radiation therapy for symptomatic spinal metastases. Improvements in patient-physician communication and counseling could help guide patients toward realistic pretreatment expectations

Costs Associated With Timely and Delayed Surgical Treatment of Spinal Metastases

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objectives: Symptoms caused by spinal metastases are often difficult to distinguish from symptoms caused by non-malignant spinal disease, complicating timely diagnosis, referral and treatment. The ensuing delays may promote the risk of neurological deficits or severe mechanical instability and consequent emergency surgery, leading to poorer prognosis. Presumably, treatment delay may subsequently lead to more health-care consumption and therefore increased average costs of treatment. Methods: All patients surgically treated for spinal metastases were included in the current study. Based on the presence of alarming symptoms and urgency of the required intervention, patients were categorized as having received timely or delayed treatment. Pre-surgical, in-hospital, aftercare and total costs were analyzed and compared between the 2 groups. Results: In total, 299 patients were included, of which 205 underwent timely and 94 delayed treatment. There was no significant difference in pre-surigcal costs (€3.229,13 in the timely treated group vs. €2.528,70 in the delayed treatment group, p = 0.849). The in-hospital costs (€16.738,49 vs. €13.108,81, p < 0.001) and the aftercare costs (€13.950,37 vs. 3.981,93, p < 0.001) were significantly higher for delayed treatment vs. timely treatment, respectively. The total costs were €33.741,71 for delayed treatment and €20.318,52 for timely treatment (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The total costs for timely treated patients with spinal metastases are significantly lower compared with patients receiving delayed treatment. Investing in the optimization of referral patterns may therefore reduce the overall pretreatment delay and subsequently increase patient outcome, leading to better clinical outcomes at lower costs

Social determinants of health in prognostic machine learning models for orthopaedic outcomes: A systematic review

Rational: Social determinants of health (SDOH) are being considered more frequently when providing orthopaedic care due to their impact on treatment outcomes. Simultaneously, prognostic machine learning (ML) models that facilitate clinical decision making have become popular tools in the field of orthopaedic surgery. When ML-driven tools are developed, it is important that the perpetuation of potential disparities is minimized. One approach is to consider SDOH during model development. To date, it remains unclear whether and how existing prognostic ML models for orthopaedic outcomes consider SDOH variables. Objective: To investigate whether prognostic ML models for orthopaedic surgery outcomes account for SDOH, and to what extent SDOH variables are included in the final models. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane for studies published up to 17 November 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted SDOH features using the PROGRESS+ framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity, Occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, social capital, socioeconomic status, ‘Plus+’ age, disability, and sexual orientation). Results: The search yielded 7138 studies, of which 59 met the inclusion criteria. Across all studies, 96% (57/59) considered at least one PROGRESS+ factor during development. The most common factors were age (95%; 56/59) and gender/sex (96%; 57/59). Differential effect analyses, such as subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment, and baseline comparison, were rarely reported (10%; 6/59). The majority of models included age (92%; 54/59) and gender/sex (69%; 41/59) as final input variables. However, factors such as insurance status (7%; 4/59), marital status (7%; 4/59) and income (3%; 2/59) were seldom included. Conclusion: The current level of reporting and consideration of SDOH during the development of prognostic ML models for orthopaedic outcomes is limited. Healthcare providers should be critical of the models they consider using and knowledgeable regarding the quality of model development, such as adherence to recognized methodological standards. Future efforts should aim to avoid bias and disparities when developing ML-driven applications for orthopaedics