Browsing by Subject "fusion"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access A single-center retrospective analysis of 3- or 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: surgical outcomes in 66 patients.(Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2020-10) McClure, Jesse J; Desai, Bhargav D; Shabo, Leah M; Buell, Thomas J; Yen, Chun-Po; Smith, Justin S; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Shaffrey, Mark E; Buchholz, Avery LObjective
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a safe and effective intervention to treat cervical spine pathology. Although these were originally performed as single-level procedures, multilevel ACDF has been performed for patients with extensive degenerative disc disease. To date, there is a paucity of data regarding outcomes related to ACDFs of 3 or more levels. The purpose of this study was to compare surgical outcomes of 3- and 4-level ACDF procedures.Methods
The authors performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent 3- and 4-level ACDF at the University of Virginia Health System between January 2010 and December 2017. In patients meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria, demographics, fusion rates, time to fusion, and reoperation rates were evaluated. Fusion was determined by < 1 mm of change in interspinous distance between individual fused vertebrae on lateral flexion/extension radiographs and lack of radiolucency between the grafts and vertebral bodies. Any procedure requiring a surgical revision was considered a failure.Results
Sixty-six patients (47 with 3-level and 19 with 4-level ACDFs) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria of having at least one lateral flexion/extension radiograph series ≥ 12 months after surgery. Seventy percent of 3-level patients and 68% of 4-level patients had ≥ 24 months of follow-up. Ninety-four percent of 3-level patients and 100% of 4-level patients achieved radiographic fusion for at least 1 surgical level. Eighty-eight percent and 82% of 3- and 4-level patients achieved fusion at C3-4; 85% and 89% of 3- and 4-level patients achieved fusion at C4-5; 68% and 89% of 3- and 4-level patients achieved fusion at C5-6; 44% and 42% of 3- and 4-level patients achieved fusion at C6-7; and no patients achieved fusion at C7-T1. Time to fusion was not significantly different between levels. Revision was required in 6.4% of patients with 3-level and in 16% of patients with 4-level ACDF. The mean time to revision was 46.2 and 45.4 months for 3- and 4-level ACDF, respectively. The most common reason for revision was worsening of initial symptoms.Conclusions
The authors' experience with long-segment anterior cervical fusions shows their fusion rates exceeding most of the reported fusion rates for similar procedures in the literature, with rates similar to those reported for short-segment ACDFs. Three-level and 4-level ACDF procedures are viable options for cervical spine pathology, and the authors' analysis demonstrates an equivalent rate of fusion and time to fusion between 3- and 4-level surgeries.Item Open Access Advancing Prone-Transpsoas Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review and Evolution of Indications with Representative Cases.(Journal of clinical medicine, 2024-02) Drossopoulos, Peter N; Bardeesi, Anas; Wang, Timothy Y; Huang, Chuan-Ching; Ononogbu-Uche, Favour C; Than, Khoi D; Crutcher, Clifford; Pokorny, Gabriel; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Pollina, John; Taylor, William; Bhowmick, Deb A; Pimenta, Luiz; Abd-El-Barr, Muhammad MThe Prone Transpsoas (PTP) approach to lumbar spine surgery, emerging as an evolution of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), offers significant advantages over traditional methods. PTP has demonstrated increased lumbar lordosis gains compared to LLIF, owing to the natural increase in lordosis afforded by prone positioning. Additionally, the prone position offers anatomical advantages, with shifts in the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus, reducing the likelihood of postoperative femoral plexopathy and moving critical peritoneal contents away from the approach. Furthermore, operative efficiency is a notable benefit of PTP. By eliminating the need for intraoperative position changes, PTP reduces surgical time, which in turn decreases the risk of complications and operative costs. Finally, its versatility extends to various lumbar pathologies, including degeneration, adjacent segment disease, and deformities. The growing body of evidence indicates that PTP is at least as safe as traditional approaches, with a potentially better complication profile. In this narrative review, we review the historical evolution of lateral interbody fusion, culminating in the prone transpsoas approach. We also describe several adjuncts of PTP, including robotics and radiation-reduction methods. Finally, we illustrate the versatility of PTP and its uses, ranging from 'simple' degenerative cases to complex deformity surgeries.Item Open Access Patient-reported outcome improvements at 24-month follow-up after fusion added to decompression for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a multicenter study using the Quality Outcomes Database(JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2021) Bisson, Erica F; Guan, Jian; Bydon, Mohamad; Alvi, Mohammed A; Goyal, Anshit; Glassman, Steven D; Foley, Kevin T; Potts, Eric A; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Shaffrey, Mark E; Coric, Domagoj; Knightly, John J; Park, Paul; Wang, Michael Y; Fu, Kai-Ming; Slotkin, Jonathan R; Asher, Anthony L; Virk, Michael S; Yew, Andrew Y; Haid, Regis W; Chan, Andrew K; Mummaneni, Praveen VItem Open Access Patient-reported outcome improvements at 24-month follow-up after fusion added to decompression for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a multicenter study using the Quality Outcomes Database.(Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2021-04) Bisson, Erica F; Guan, Jian; Bydon, Mohamad; Alvi, Mohammed A; Goyal, Anshit; Glassman, Steven D; Foley, Kevin T; Potts, Eric A; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Shaffrey, Mark E; Coric, Domagoj; Knightly, John J; Park, Paul; Wang, Michael Y; Fu, Kai-Ming; Slotkin, Jonathan R; Asher, Anthony L; Virk, Michael S; Yew, Andrew Y; Haid, Regis W; Chan, Andrew K; Mummaneni, Praveen VObjective
The ideal surgical management of grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis has not been determined despite extensive prior investigations. In this cohort study, the authors used data from the large, multicenter, prospectively collected Quality Outcomes Database to bridge the gap between the findings in previous randomized trials and those in a more heterogeneous population treated in a typical practice. The objective was to assess the difference in patient-reported outcomes among patients undergoing decompression alone or decompression plus fusion.Methods
The primary outcome measure was change in 24-month Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI score change and 30% change in ODI score at 24 months were also evaluated. After adjusting for patient-specific and clinical factors, multivariable linear and logistic regressions were employed to evaluate the impact of fusion on outcomes. To account for differences in age, sex, body mass index, and baseline listhesis, a sensitivity analysis was performed using propensity score analysis to match patients undergoing decompression only with those undergoing decompression and fusion.Results
In total, 608 patients who had grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis were identified (85.5% with at least 24 months of follow-up); 140 (23.0%) underwent decompression alone and 468 (77.0%) underwent decompression and fusion. The 24-month change in ODI score was significantly greater in the fusion plus decompression group than in the decompression-only group (-25.8 ± 20.0 vs -15.2 ± 19.8, p < 0.001). Fusion remained independently associated with 24-month ODI score change (B = -7.05, 95% CI -10.70 to -3.39, p ≤ 0.001) in multivariable regression analysis, as well as with achieving the MCID for the ODI score (OR 1.767, 95% CI 1.058-2.944, p = 0.029) and 30% change in ODI score (OR 2.371, 95% CI 1.286-4.371, p = 0.005). Propensity score analysis resulted in 94 patients in the decompression-only group matched 1 to 1 with 94 patients in the fusion group. The addition of fusion to decompression remained a significant predictor of 24-month change in the ODI score (B = 2.796, 95% CI 2.228-13.275, p = 0.006) and of achieving the 24-month MCID ODI score (OR 2.898, 95% CI 1.214-6.914, p = 0.016) and 24-month 30% change in ODI score (OR 2.300, 95% CI 1.014-5.216, p = 0.046).Conclusions
These results suggest that decompression plus fusion in patients with grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis may be associated with superior outcomes at 24 months compared with decompression alone, both in reduction of disability and in achieving clinically meaningful improvement. Longer-term follow-up is warranted to assess whether this effect is sustained.Item Open Access What factors influence surgical decision-making in anterior versus posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy? A QOD analysis.(Journal of neurosurgery. Spine, 2023-11) Park, Christine; Shaffrey, Christopher I; Than, Khoi D; Michalopoulos, Giorgos D; El Sammak, Sally; Chan, Andrew K; Bisson, Erica F; Sherrod, Brandon A; Asher, Anthony L; Coric, Domagoj; Potts, Eric A; Foley, Kevin T; Wang, Michael Y; Fu, Kai-Ming; Virk, Michael S; Knightly, John J; Meyer, Scott; Park, Paul; Upadhyaya, Cheerag; Shaffrey, Mark E; Buchholz, Avery L; Tumialán, Luis M; Turner, Jay; Agarwal, Nitin; Chou, Dean; Chaudhry, Nauman S; Haid, Regis W; Mummaneni, Praveen V; Bydon, Mohamad; Gottfried, Oren NObjective
The aim of this study was to explore the preoperative patient characteristics that affect surgical decision-making when selecting an anterior or posterior operative approach in patients diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).Methods
This was a multi-institutional, retrospective study of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy module. Patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with primary CSM who underwent multilevel (≥ 2-level) elective surgery were included. Demographics and baseline clinical characteristics were collected.Results
Of the 841 patients with CSM in the database, 492 (58.5%) underwent multilevel anterior surgery and 349 (41.5%) underwent multilevel posterior surgery. Surgeons more often performed a posterior surgical approach in older patients (mean 64.8 ± 10.6 vs 58.5 ± 11.1 years, p < 0.001) and those with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (class III or IV: 52.4% vs 46.3%, p = 0.003), a higher rate of motor deficit (67.0% vs 58.7%, p = 0.014), worse myelopathy (mean modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score 11.4 ± 3.1 vs 12.4 ± 2.6, p < 0.001), and more levels treated (4.3 ± 1.3 vs 2.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). On the other hand, surgeons more frequently performed an anterior surgical approach when patients were employed (47.2% vs 23.2%, p < 0.001) and had intervertebral disc herniation as an underlying pathology (30.7% vs 9.2%, p < 0.001).Conclusions
The selection of approach for patients with CSM depends on patient demographics and symptomology. Posterior surgery was performed in patients who were older and had worse systemic disease, increased myelopathy, and greater levels of stenosis. Anterior surgery was more often performed in patients who were employed and had intervertebral disc herniation.