Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: lumbar fusion for stenosis with spondylolisthesis

Patients presenting with stenosis associated with a spondylolisthesis will often describe signs and symptoms consistent with neurogenic claudication, radiculopathy, and/or low-back pain. The primary objective of surgery, when deemed appropriate, is to decompress the neural elements. As a result of the decompression, the inherent instability associated with the spondylolisthesis may progress and lead to further misalignment that results in pain or recurrence of neurological complaints. Under these circumstances, lumbar fusion is considered appropriate to stabilize the spine and prevent delayed deterioration. Since publication of the original guidelines there have been a significant number of studies published that continue to support the utility of lumbar fusion for patients presenting with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. Several recently published trials, including the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial, are among the largest prospective randomized investigations of this issue. Despite limitations of study design or execution, these trials have consistently demonstrated superior outcomes when patients undergo surgery, with the majority undergoing some type of lumbar fusion procedure. There is insufficient evidence, however, to recommend a standard approach to achieve a solid arthrodesis. When formulating the most appropriate surgical strategy, it is recommended that an individualized approach be adopted, one that takes into consideration the patient's unique anatomical constraints and desires, as well as surgeon's experience.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 8: lumbar fusion for disc herniation and radiculopathy

Patients suffering from a lumbar herniated disc will typically present with signs and symptoms consistent with radiculopathy. They may also have low-back pain, however, and the source of this pain is less certain, as it may be from the degenerative process that led to the herniation. The surgical alternative of choice remains a lumbar discectomy, but fusions have been performed for both primary and recurrent disc herniations. In the original guidelines, the inclusion of a fusion for routine discectomies was not recommended. This recommendation continues to be supported by more recent evidence. Based on low-level evidence, the incorporation of a lumbar fusion may be considered an option when a herniation is associated with evidence of spinal instability, chronic low-back pain, and/or severe degenerative changes, or if the patient participates in heavy manual labor. For recurrent disc herniations, there is low-level evidence to support the inclusion of lumbar fusion for patients with evidence of instability or chronic low-back pain.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 14: brace therapy as an adjunct to or substitute for lumbar fusion

The utilization of orthotic devices for lumbar degenerative disease has been justified from both a prognostic and therapeutic perspective. As a prognostic tool, bracing is applied prior to surgery to determine if immobilization of the spine leads to symptomatic relief and thus justify the performance of a fusion. Since bracing does not eliminate motion, the validity of this assumption is questionable. Only one low-level study has investigated the predictive value of bracing prior to surgery. No correlation between response to bracing and fusion outcome was observed; therefore a trial of preoperative bracing is not recommended. Based on low-level evidence, the use of bracing is not recommended for the prevention of low-back pain in a general working population, since the incidence of low-back pain and impact on productivity were not reduced. However, in laborers with a history of back pain, a positive impact on lost workdays was observed when bracing was applied. Bracing is recommended as an option for treatment of subacute low-back pain, as several higher-level studies have demonstrated an improvement in pain scores and function. The use of bracing following instrumented posterolateral fusion, however, is not recommended, since equivalent outcomes have been demonstrated with or without the application of a brace.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: Lumbar fusion for intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis

Establishing an appropriate treatment strategy for patients presenting with low-back pain, in the absence of stenosis or spondylolisthesis, remains a controversial subject. Inherent to this situation is often an inability to adequately identify the source of low-back pain to justify various treatment recommendations, such as lumbar fusion. The current evidence does not identify a single best treatment alternative for these patients. Based on a number of prospective, randomized trials, comparable outcomes, for patients presenting with 1- or 2-level degenerative disc disease, have been demonstrated following either lumbar fusion or a comprehensive rehabilitation program with a cognitive element. Limited access to such comprehensive rehabilitative programs may prove problematic when pursuing this alternative. For patients whose pain is refractory to conservative care, lumbar fusion is recommended. Limitations of these studies preclude the ability to present the most robust recommendation in support of lumbar fusion. A number of lesser-quality studies, primarily case series, also support the use of lumbar fusion in this patient population.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: Interbody techniques for lumbar fusion

Interbody fusion techniques have been promoted as an adjunct to lumbar fusion procedures in an effort to enhance fusion rates and potentially improve clinical outcome. The medical evidence continues to suggest that interbody techniques are associated with higher fusion rates compared with posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis who demonstrate preoperative instability. There is no conclusive evidence demonstrating improved clinical or radiographic outcomes based on the different interbody fusion techniques. The addition of a PLF when posterior or anterior interbody lumbar fusion is performed remains an option, although due to increased cost and complications, it is not recommended. No substantial clinical benefit has been demonstrated when a PLF is included with an interbody fusion. For lumbar degenerative disc disease without instability, there is moderate evidence that the standalone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has better clinical outcomes than the ALIF plus instrumented, open PLF. With regard to type of interbody spacer used, frozen allograft is associated with lower pseudarthrosis rates compared with freeze-dried allograft; however, this was not associated with a difference in clinical outcome.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 12: Pedicle screw fixation as an adjunct to posterolateral fusion

The utilization of pedicle screw fixation as an adjunct to posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF) has become routine, but demonstration of a definitive benefit remains problematic. The medical evidence indicates that the addition of pedicle screw fixation to PLF increases fusion rates when assessed with dynamic radiographs. More recent evidence, since publication of the 2005 Lumbar Fusion Guidelines, suggests a stronger association between radiographic fusion and clinical outcome, although, even now, no clear correlation has been demonstrated. Although several reports suggest that clinical outcomes are improved with the addition of pedicle screw fixation, there are conflicting findings from similarly classified evidence. Furthermore, the largest contemporary, randomized, controlled study on this topic failed to demonstrate a significant clinical benefit with the use of pedicle screw fixation in patients undergoing PLF for chronic low-back pain. This absence of proof should not, however, be interpreted as proof of absence. Several limitations continue to compromise these investigations. For example, in the majority of studies the sample size is insufficient to detect small increments in clinical outcome that may be observed with pedicle screw fixation. Therefore, no definitive statement regarding the efficacy of pedicle screw fixation as a means to improve functional outcomes in patients undergoing PLF for chronic low-back pain can be made. There appears to be consistent evidence suggesting that pedicle screw fixation increases the costs and complication rate of PLF. High-risk patients, including (but not limited to) patients who smoke, patients who are undergoing revision surgery, or patients who suffer from medical conditions that may compromise fusion potential, may appreciate a greater benefit with supplemental pedicle screw fixation. It is recommended, therefore, that the use of pedicle screw fixation as a supplement to PLF be reserved for those patients in whom there is an increased risk of nonunion when treated with only PLF.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 17: Bone growth stimulators as an adjunct for lumbar fusion

The relationship between the formation of a solid arthrodesis and electrical and electromagnetic energy is well established; most of the information on the topic, however, pertains to the healing of long bone fractures. The use of both invasive and noninvasive means to supply this energy and supplement spinal fusions has been investigated. Three forms of electrical stimulation are routinely used: direct current stimulation (DCS), pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation (PEMFS), and capacitive coupled electrical stimulation (CCES). Only DCS requires the placement of electrodes within the fusion substrate and is inserted at the time of surgery. Since publication of the original guidelines, few studies have investigated the use of bone growth stimulators. Based on the current review, no conflict with the previous recommendations was generated. The use of DCS is recommended as an option for patients younger than 60 years of age, since a positive effect on fusion has been observed. The same, however, cannot be stated for patients over 60, because DCS did not appear to have an impact on fusion rates in this population. No study was reviewed that investigated the use of CCES or the routine use of PEMFS. A single low-level study demonstrated a positive impact of PEMFS on patients undergoing revision surgery for pseudarthrosis, but this single study is insufficient to recommend for or against the use of PEMFS in this patient population.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: Radiographic assessment of fusion status

The ability to identify a successful arthrodesis is an essential element in the management of patients undergoing lumbar fusion procedures. The hypothetical gold standard of intraoperative exploration to identify, under direct observation, a solid arthrodesis is an impractical alternative. Therefore, radiographic assessment remains the most viable instrument to evaluate for a successful arthrodesis. Static radiographs, particularly in the presence of instrumentation, are not recommended. In the absence of spinal instrumentation, lack of motion on flexion-extension radiographs is highly suggestive of a successful fusion; however, motion observed at the treated levels does not necessarily predict pseudarthrosis. The degree of motion on dynamic views that would distinguish between a successful arthrodesis and pseudarthrosis has not been clearly defined. Computed tomography with fine-cut axial images and multiplanar views is recommended and appears to be the most sensitive for assessing fusion following instrumented posterolateral and anterior lumbar interbody fusions. For suspected symptomatic pseudarthrosis, a combination of techniques including static and dynamic radiographs as well as CT images is recommended as an option. Lack of facet fusion is considered to be more suggestive of a pseudarthrosis compared with absence of bridging posterolateral bone. Studies exploring additional noninvasive modalities of fusion assessment have demonstrated either poor potential, such as with 99mTc bone scans, or provide insufficient information to formulate a definitive recommendation.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: Lumbar fusion for stenosis without spondylolisthesis

Lumbar stenosis is one of the more common radiographic manifestations of the aging process, leading to narrowing of the spinal canal and foramen. When stenosis is clinically relevant, patients often describe activity-related low-back or lower-extremity pain, known as neurogenic claudication. For those patients who do not improve with conservative care, surgery is considered an appropriate treatment alternative. The primary objective of surgery is to reconstitute the spinal canal. The role of fusion, in the absence of a degenerative deformity, is uncertain. The previous guideline recommended against the inclusion of lumbar fusion in the absence of spinal instability or a likelihood of iatrogenic instability. Since the publication of the original guidelines, numerous studies have demonstrated the role of surgical decompression in this patient population; however, few have investigated the utility of fusion in patients without underlying instability. The majority of studies contain a heterogeneous cohort of subjects, often combining patients with and without spondylolisthesis who received various surgical interventions, limiting fusions to those patients with instability. It is difficult if not impossible, therefore, to formulate valid conclusions regarding the utility of fusion for patients with uncomplicated stenosis. Lower-level evidence exists, however, that does not demonstrate an added benefit of fusion for these patients; therefore, in the absence of deformity or instability, the inclusion of a fusion is not recommended.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 13: Injection therapies, low-back pain, and lumbar fusion

The medical literature continues to fail to support the use of lumbar epidural injections for long-term relief of chronic back pain without radiculopathy. There is limited support for the use of lumbar epidural injections for shortterm relief in selected patients with chronic back pain. Lumbar intraarticular facet injections are not recommended for the treatment of chronic lower-back pain. The literature does suggest the use of lumbar medial nerve blocks for short-term relief of facet-mediated chronic lower-back pain without radiculopathy. Lumbar medial nerve ablation is suggested for 3–6 months of relief for chronic lower-back pain without radiculopathy. Diagnostic medial nerve blocks by the double-injection technique with an 80% improvement threshold are an option to predict a favorable response to medial nerve ablation for facet-mediated chronic lower-back pain without radiculopathy, but there is no evidence to support the use of diagnostic medial nerve blocks to predict the outcomes in these same patients with lumbar fusion. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of trigger point injections for chronic lowerback pain without radiculopathy.

Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 6: Discography for patient selection

Identifying the etiology of pain for patients suffering from chronic low-back pain remains problematic. Noninvasive imaging modalities, used in isolation, have not consistently provided sufficient evidence to support performance of a lumbar fusion. Provocative testing has been used as an adjunct in this assessment, either alone or in combination with other modalities, to enhance the diagnostic capabilities when evaluating patients with low-back pain. There have been a limited number of studies investigating this topic since the publication of the original guidelines. Based primarily on retrospective studies, discography, as a stand-alone test, is not recommended to formulate treatment strategies for patients with low-back pain. A single randomized cohort study demonstrated an improved potential of discoblock over discography as a predictor of success following lumbar fusion. It is therefore recommended that discoblock be considered as a diagnostic option. There is a possibility, based on a matched cohort study, that an association exists between progression of degenerative disc disease and the performance of a provocative discogram. It is therefore recommended that patients be counseled regarding this potential development prior to undergoing discography.

The effect of screw head design on rod derotation in the correction of thoracolumbar spinal deformity: laboratory investigation

OBJECT

The use of fixed-axis pedicle screws for correction of thoracolumbar deformity in adult surgery is demanding because of the challenge of assembling the bent rod to the screw in order to achieve curve correction. Polyaxial screw designs, providing increased degrees of freedom at the screw-rod interface, were reported to be insufficient in achieving correction of thoracic deformity in the axial plane. Using a multisegment bovine calf spine model, this study investigated the ability of a new uniplanar screw design to achieve derotation correction of the vertebrae and maintain a degree of correction comparable to that of fixed-axis and polyaxial screw designs.

METHODS

Eighteen calf thoracolumbar spine segments from T-6 to L-1 (n = 6 per screw design) underwent bilateral facetectomies at the T9-11 levels and were instrumented bilaterally with pedicle screws and rods. To assess the efficacy of each screw design in imparting rotational correction, each instrumented level was tested under applied torsional moments designed to simulate the motion applied during derotation surgery. Once rotation was achieved, the whole spine was tested to assess the overall stiffness of the construct.

RESULTS

The fixed-axis construct showed increased efficacy in imparting rotation compared with the uniplanar (115% increase, p > 0.05) and polyaxial (210% increase, p < 0.05) constructs. Uniplanar screws showed a 21% increase in torsional stiffness compared with the polyaxial screws, but this difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The design of screw heads plays a significant role in affecting the rotation of the vertebrae during the derotation procedure. Uniplanar screws may have the advantage of maintaining construct stiffness after derotation.

An anterior approach to spinal pathology of the upper thoracic spine through a partial manubriotomy

Surgical pathology in the region of the upper thoracic spine (T1-4) is uncommon compared with other regions of the spine. Often times posterior and posterolateral approaches can be used, but formal anterior decompression often requires a low anterior cervical approach combined with a sternotomy, which yields significant perioperative morbidity. The authors describe a modified low anterior cervical dissection combined with a partial manubriotomy that they have used to successfully access and decompress anterior pathology of the upper thoracic spine. Their modified approach spares the sternoclavicular joints and leaves the sternum intact, decreasing the morbidity associated with these added procedures.

Spinal instability neoplastic score: an analysis of reliability and validity from the spine oncology study group

PURPOSE

Standardized indications for treatment of tumor-related spinal instability are hampered by the lack of a valid and reliable classification system. The objective of this study was to determine the interobserver reliability, intraobserver reliability, and predictive validity of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS).

METHODS

Clinical and radiographic data from 30 patients with spinal tumors were classified as stable, potentially unstable, and unstable by members of the Spine Oncology Study Group. The median category for each patient case (consensus opinion) was used as the gold standard for predictive validity testing. On two occasions at least 6 weeks apart, each rater also scored each patient using SINS. Each total score was converted into a three-category data field, with 0 to 6 as stable, 7 to 12 as potentially unstable, and 13 to 18 as unstable.

RESULTS

The κ statistics for interobserver reliability were 0.790, 0.841, 0.244, 0.456, 0.462, and 0.492 for the fields of location, pain, bone quality, alignment, vertebral body collapse, and posterolateral involvement, respectively. The κ statistics for intraobserver reliability were 0.806, 0.859, 0.528, 0.614, 0.590, and 0.662 for the same respective fields. Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter- and intraobserver reliability of total SINS score were 0.846 (95% CI, 0.773 to 0.911) and 0.886 (95% CI, 0.868 to 0.902), respectively. The κ statistic for predictive validity was 0.712 (95% CI, 0.676 to 0.766).

CONCLUSION

SINS demonstrated near-perfect inter- and intraobserver reliability in determining three clinically relevant categories of stability. The sensitivity and specificity of SINS for potentially unstable or unstable lesions were 95.7% and 79.5%, respectively.

Lumbar artery pseudoaneurysm after percutaneous vertebroplasty: a unique vascular complication

Complications from percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) and kyphoplasty are rare and are most commonly related to cement leakage. Pseudoaneurysm of the segmental arteries has not been reported as a complication of PV in the literature. In this article, the authors describe 2 patients who presented with a lumbar pseudoaneurysm after undergoing PV at other institutions. The authors also review the optimal technique to avoid such vascular complications.

Cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy

OBJECT

The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to examine the efficacy of cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

METHODS

The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to cervical laminoplasty and CSM. Abstracts were reviewed and studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons.

RESULTS

Cervical laminoplasty has improved functional outcome in the setting of CSM or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score, approximately 55-60% average recovery rate has been observed (Class III). The functional improvement observed after laminoplasty may be limited by duration of symptoms, severity of stenosis, severity of myelopathy, and poorly controlled diabetes as negative risk factors (Class II). There is conflicting evidence regarding age, with 1 study citing it as a negative risk factor, and another not demonstrating this result.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical laminoplasty is recommended for the treatment of CSM or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (Class III).

Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy

OBJECT

The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to assess whether clinical factors predict surgical outcomes in patients undergoing cervical surgery.

METHODS

The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to clinical preoperative factors. Abstracts were reviewed, and studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I-III). Disagreements regarding the level of evidence were resolved through an expert consensus conference. The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons.

RESULTS

Preoperative sensory-evoked potentials may aid in providing prognostic information in selected patients in whom clinical factors do not provide clear guidance (Class II). Age, duration of symptoms, and preoperative neurological function may commonly affect outcome (Class III).

CONCLUSIONS

Age, duration of symptoms, and preoperative neurological function should be discussed with patients when surgical intervention for cervical spondylotic myelopathy is considered. Preoperative sensory-evoked potentials may be considered for patients in whom clinical factors do not provide clear guidance if such information would potentially change therapeutic decisions.