Expandable Cage Technology-Transforaminal, Anterior, and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

This review of the literature will focus on the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes for expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) operations. The expandable TLIF cage has become a workhorse for common degenerative pathology, whereas expandable ALIF cages carry the promise of greater lordotic correction while evading the diseased posterior elements. Expandable LLIF cages call upon minimally invasive techniques for a retroperitoneal, transpsoas approach to the disc space, obviating the need for an access surgeon and decreasing risk of injury to the critical neurovascular structures. Nuances between expandable and static cages for all 3 TLIF, ALIF, and LLIF operations are discussed in this review

Prophylactic Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Versus Unfractionated Heparin in Spine Surgery (PLUSS): A Pilot Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Despite a proven superior efficacy of prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the majority of surgical specialties, chemoprophylactic techniques after spine surgery have not been established because of the fear of epidural hematomas with LMWH. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of LMWH vs UFH in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, balanced against the risk of epidural hematoma. METHODS: This is the first matched cohort design that directly compares prophylactic LMWH to UFH after spine surgery for degenerative/deformity pathologies at a tertiary academic center. Prospectively collected patients receiving prophylactic LMWH and a historical cohort of patients receiving prophylactic UFH (prior to 2017) were matched in 1:1 ratio based on age ±5 yr, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, location in the spinal column, and type of surgery. RESULTS: Of 562 patients, VTE events equaled 1.4% (n = 8): 1.4% (n = 4) with LMWH was exactly equal to 1.4% (n = 4) with UFH. Epidural hematomas reached 0.8% (n = 5): 1.4% (n = 4) with UFH vs 0.3% (n = 1) with the LMWH (P = .178). Utilizing adjusted odds ratio (ORadj), the type of chemoprophylaxis after spine surgery failed to predict VTE events. Similarly, the chemoprophylactic technique failed to predict epidural hematoma in the multivariable regression analysis, although UFH trended toward a higher complication rate (ORadj = 3.15 [0.48-20.35], P = .227). CONCLUSION: Chemoprophylactic patterns failed to predict VTE. Although no differences in epidural hematoma rates were detected, our analysis does highlight a trend toward a safer profile with LMWH vs UFH. LMWH may be a safe alternative to UFH in spine surgery

Abstract P242: Impact of Covid-19 on Acute Ischemic Stroke Care at Henry Ford Hospital’s Detroit and West Bloomfield Campuses

Background: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID19) has impacted acute stroke (AS) care with several reports globally showing drops in AS volumes during the pandemic. We studied the impact of COVID19 on AS and transient ischemic attack (TIA) care in a health system serving Southeast Michigan as we rolled out a policy aimed at limiting admissions and transfers. Methods: In this retrospective study conducted at 2 hospitals, we included consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) for whom a Stroke Alert (SA) was activated during the period 3/20 to 5/20/20 (COVID) and a similar period in 2019 (pre-COVID). We compared demographics, time metrics, and discharge outcomes. Results: 264 patients were seen pre-COVID compared to 121 during COVID (p&lt;0.001). Patients seen during COVID had an equal proportion of males (55% vs 51%, p=0.444), were majority African American (57 vs 58%, p=0.74), but had a higher presenting NIHSS (median: 5 vs 2, p=0.01) and longer times since last-known-well to ED arrival (median: 9.4 vs 4.8 hours, p=0.03) compared to pre-COVID. Fewer patients were transferred from other centers (42 vs 27% p=0.008). SA activation on arrival (median: 9.6 vs 15 min, p=0.004) and imaging initiation from arrival (median: 26.4 vs 34.8 min, p=0.042) were faster as well as a trend toward statistical significance for time to tPA administration (median: 37.8 vs 51 min, p=0.051) compared to pre-COVID. There were higher rates of AS and TIA (69% vs 55%) and lower rates of stroke mimics (17 vs 37%, p&lt;0.001). Patients discharged from the stroke unit had significantly higher discharge NIHSS (median: 3 vs 2, p=0.002) and were more likely to have an unfavorable discharge mRS (3-6) (56 vs 33%, p=0.004). There were no significant differences in medical, social histories, time to first pass for patient undergoing thrombectomy and stroke etiologies between the groups. In 2020, 9 patients (8%) were COVID19 positive, 2 had unfavorable mRS 3-5 while 3 died. Conclusion: There was greater than 50% reduction in stroke admissions during the COVID19 pandemic which is consistent with other reports. Although patients were managed more quickly, they tended to have more severe strokes, fewer stroke mimic diagnoses, and worse outcomes compared to patients treated in the pre-COVID period. </jats:p