Effect of zoledronic acid on lumbar spinal fusion in osteoporotic patients

Anti-osteoporosis medication in patients with posterior spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Osteoporosis and osteopenia are common among patients undergoing posterior spine fusion surgery, presenting challenges such as pseudarthrosis, screw loosening, and poor patient outcomes. While pharmacological interventions are available, no consensus exists regarding the optimal perioperative treatment for these patients. Furthermore, the effectiveness of various treatment options in improving fusion rates and minimizing complications remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of teriparatide, bisphosphonates, denosumab, and romosozumab in patients with posterior spine fusion with low bone mineral density (BMD).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with low BMD receiving osteoporosis medications and undergoing posterior spine fusion surgery OUTCOME MEASURES: Fusion rate, subsequent vertebral fracture (VF), screw loosening, cage subsidence, proximal junctional kyphosis(PJK), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently selected and assessed relevant studies. Four groups were analyzed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of antiosteoporosis medication on the outcome measures: Bisphosphonate versus Control; Teriparatide versus Control; Teriparatide versus Bisphosphonate; and Denosumab versus Control.

RESULTS

Bisphosphonate showed reduced subsequent VFs (odds ratio [OR]=0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.09-0.81) and cage subsidence (OR=0.29, 95% CI=0.11-0.75) and improved ODI scores at 12 months (standardized mean difference [SMD] [95% CI]=-0.75 [-1.42, -0.08]) compared to the control. Teriparatide showed a higher fusion rate (OR=3.52, 95% CI=1.84-6.75), lower screw loosening (OR=0.23, 95% CI=0.09-0.60), and improved ODI scores at 24 months (SMD [95% CI]=-0.57 [-0.99, -0.15]) compared to the control. Moreover, teriparatide showed a higher fusion rate (OR=2.28, 95% CI=1.67-3.11), lower subsequent VF (OR=0.22, 95% CI=0.09-0.51), and improved VAS score for back pain (VASB) (mean difference [MD] [95% CI]=-0.30 [-0.54, -0.07]) and ODI (SMD [95% CI]=-0.38[-0.64, -0.12]) scores at 12 months compared to bisphosphonate. Denosumab showed no significant difference in fusion rate or other complications compared to control.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that teriparatide should be used as the first-line perioperative treatment for patients with poor bone quality scheduled for posterior spine fusion. Teriparatide exhibited better fusion rates and reduced complications than controls and bisphosphonates, resulting in improved PROs. Moreover, bisphosphonates can be utilized in patients with contraindications to teriparatide since the former prevents osteoporosis-related complications compared to controls, resulting in improved PROs. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the potential effects of denosumab and romosozumab.

Postoperative decrease in Hounsfield unit values at adjacent vertebrae after thoraco-pelvic fusion as a risk factor of proximal junctional kyphosis

Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure is a common complication of adult spinal deformity surgery, with osteoporosis as a risk factor. This retrospective study investigated the influence of long thoracolumbar fusion with pelvic fixation on regional bone density of adjacent vertebrae (Hounsfield units on computed tomography) and evaluated the association between bone loss and the incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis and failure. Patients who underwent long thoracolumbar fusion (pelvis to T10 or above) or single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (control group) between 2016 and 2022 were recruited. Routine computed tomography preoperatively and within 1-2 weeks postoperatively was performed. Postoperative changes in Hounsfield unit values in the vertebrae at one and two levels above the uppermost instrumented vertebrae (UIV + 1 and UIV + 2) were evaluated. Overall, 127 patients were recruited: 45 long fusion (age, 73.9 ± 5.6 years) and 82 proximal junctional kyphosis and failure (age, 72.5 ± 9.3 years). Postoperative computed tomography was performed at a median [interquartile range] of 3.0 [1.0-7.0] and 4.0 [1.0-7.0] days, respectively. In both groups, Hounsfield unit values at UIV + 2 were significantly decreased postoperatively. In the long-fusion group, Hounsfield unit values at UIV + 1 and UIV + 2 were significantly lower in patients with proximal junctional kyphosis and failure (within 18 months postoperatively) than in those without proximal junctional kyphosis and failure. Proximal junctional kyphosis and failure and long thoraco-pelvic fusion negatively affect regional Hounsfield unit values at adjacent levels immediately after surgery. Patients with subsequent proximal junctional kyphosis and failure show greater postoperative bone loss at adjacent levels than those without.

Perioperative Nutritional, Functional, and Bone Health Optimization in Spine Surgery: A National Investigation of Spine Surgeons' Perceptions and Practices

INTRODUCTION

While perioperative nutritional, functional, and bone health status optimization in spine surgery is supported with ample evidence, the implementation and surgeon perception regarding such efforts in clinical practice remain largely unexplored. This study sought to assess the current perception of spine surgeons and implementation regarding the nutritional, functional status, and bone health perioperative optimization.

METHODS

An anonymous 30-question survey was distributed to orthopaedic spine fellowship and neurosurgery program directors identified through the North American Spine Society and American Association of Neurological Surgeons contact databases.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 51 surgeon survey respondents. Among those, 62% reported no current formal nutritional optimization protocols with 14% not recommending an optimization plan, despite only 10% doubting benefits of nutritional optimization. While 5% of respondents perceived functional status optimization as nonbeneficial, 68% of respondents reported no protocol in place and 46% noted a functional status assessment relying on patient dependency. Among the respondents, 85% routinely ordered DEXA scan if there was suspicion of osteoporosis and 85% usually rescheduled surgery if bone health optimization goals were not achieved while 6% reported being suspicious of benefit from such interventions.

CONCLUSION

While most responding spine surgeons believe in the benefit of perioperative nutritional and functional optimization, logistical and patient compliance challenges were noted as critical barriers toward optimization. Understanding surgeon perception and current practices may guide future efforts toward advancement of optimization protocols.

Incomplete insertion of pedicle screws triggers a higher biomechanical risk of screw loosening: mechanical tests and corresponding numerical simulations

Screw loosening is a widely reported issue after spinal screw fixation and triggers several complications. Biomechanical deterioration initially causes screw loosening. Studies have shown that incomplete insertion of pedicle screws increases the risk of screw breakage by deteriorating the local mechanical environment. However, whether this change has a biomechanical effect on the risk of screw loosening has not been determined. This study conducted comprehensive biomechanical research using polyurethane foam mechanical tests and corresponding numerical simulations to verify this topic. Pedicle screw-fixed polyurethane foam models with screws with four different insertion depths were constructed, and the screw anchoring ability of different models was verified by toggle tests with alternating and constant loads. Moreover, the stress distribution of screw and bone-screw interfaces in different models was computed in corresponding numerical mechanical models. Mechanical tests presented better screw anchoring ability with deeper screw insertion, but parameters presented no significant difference between groups with complete thread insertion. Correspondingly, higher stress values can be recorded in the model without complete thread insertion; the difference in stress values between models with complete thread insertion was relatively slight. Therefore, incomplete thread insertion triggers local stress concentration and the corresponding risk of screw loosening; completely inserting threads could effectively alleviate local stress concentration and result in the prevention of screw loosening.

Effect of Zoledronic Acid on the Vertebral Body Bone Mineral Density After Instrumented Intervertebral Fusion in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of zoledronic acid, an anti-osteoporosis treatment, during the perioperative period on vertebral body bone mineral density (BMD) after spinal fusion surgery in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

METHODS

The medical records of postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who underwent instrumented intervertebral fusion for lumbar degenerative disease between July 2016 and May 2018 were reviewed. Patients with comorbidities or condition which might affect bone metabolism were excluded. Forty-six patients did not receive anti-osteoporosis treatment before surgery and during the postoperative follow-up (untreated group). Another 46 patients who was treated with zoledronic acid perioperatively were matched for age and body mass index to patients in the untreated group. Preoperative and postoperative dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) records and lumbar BMD values of the involved spinal segments and of the cephalad levels, as well as of the femoral neck were recorded.

RESULTS

A significant decrease of cephalad vertebral BMD values was observed in the untreated group (-11.47%, P < 0.001), with a slight decrease of the femoral neck (-1.28%, P > 0.05). Zoledronic acid prevented rapid bone loss after instrumented intervertebral fusion surgery, with a bone loss in the cephalad levels of -0.76 ± 4.71% compared to -11.47 ± 16.45% in the untreated group (P < 0.001). while the change in BMD of the femoral neck in the treated group was 1.52 ± 5.88% compared to -1.28 ± 6.58% in the untreated group (P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative zoledronic acid treatment may offer protection against a significant decrease in BMD of cephalad vertebrae after spinal fusion surgery among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes between ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF over 2-year follow-up: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Regarding the increasing adoption of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for treating degenerative lumbar disorders, we aimed to evaluate whether OLIF, one of the options for anterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion, demonstrate clinical superiority over anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or posterior approach, represented by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

METHODS

Patients who received ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disorders during the period 2017-2019 were identified. Radiographic, perioperative, and clinical outcomes were recorded and compared during 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 348 patients with 501 correction levels were enrolled in the study. Fundamental sagittal alignment profiles were substantially improved at 2-year follow-up, particularly in the anterolateral approach (A/OLIF) group. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) and EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) in the ALIF group were superior when compared to the OLIF and TLIF group 2-year following surgery. However, comparisons of VAS-Total, VAS-Back, and VAS-Leg revealed no statistically significance across all approaches. TLIF demonstrated highest subsidence rate of 16%, while OLIF had least blood loss and was suitable for high body mass index patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding treatment for degenerative lumbar disorders, ALIF of anterolateral approach demonstrated superb alignment correction and clinical outcome. Comparing to TLIF, OLIF possessed advantage in reducing blood loss, restoring sagittal profiles and the accessibility at all lumbar level while simultaneously achieving comparable clinical improvement. Patient selection in accordance with baseline conditions, and surgeon preference both remain crucial issues circumventing surgical approach strategy.

Medical optimization of osteoporosis for adult spinal deformity surgery: a state-of-the-art evidence-based review of current pharmacotherapy

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis is a common, but challenging phenomenon to overcome in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Several pharmacological agents are at the surgeon's disposal to optimize the osteoporotic patient prior to undergoing extensive reconstruction. Familiarity with these medications will allow the surgeon to make informed decisions on selecting the most appropriate adjuncts for each individual patient.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in PubMed from September 2021 to April 2022. Studies were selected that contained combinations of various terms including osteoporosis, specific medications, spine surgery, fusion, cage subsidence, screw loosening, pull-out, junctional kyphosis/failure.

RESULTS

Bisphosphonates, denosumab, selective estrogen receptor modulators, teriparatide, abaloparatide and romosozumab are all pharmacological agents currently available for adjunctive use. While these medications have been shown to have beneficial effects on improving bone mineral density in the osteoporotic patient, varying evidence is available on their specific effects in the context of extensive spine surgery. There is still a lack of human studies with use of the newer agents.

CONCLUSION

Bisphosphonates are first-line agents due to their low cost and robust evidence behind their utility. However, in the absence of contraindications, optimizing bone quality with anabolic medications should be strongly considered in preparation for spinal deformity surgeries due to their beneficial and favorable effects on fusion and hardware compared to the anti-resorptive medications.

Effect of Teriparatide Versus Zoledronate on Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the efficacy of teriparatide versus zoledronate on spinal fusion in osteoporotic patients after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

METHODS

Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis undergoing PLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis were randomly assigned to receive either zoledronate or teriparatide. During the 2-year follow-up period, serial radiographs were used to determine fusion status and instrumentation-related sequelae (a composite of adjacent vertebral compressive fracture, instrumentation failure, and fusion failure). The bone mineral density (BMD) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were also serially measured.

RESULTS

Of the 77 patients, 36 were in the teriparatide group and 41 in the zoledronate group and had completed the 2-year follow-up assessments. Bony union had been achieved more frequently in the teriparatide group than in the zoledronate group at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.05), although the overall rate of bone union was comparable between the 2 groups. The incidence of instrumentation-related sequelae was also comparable between the 2 groups (teriparatide vs. zoledronate group, 13.9% vs. 22.0%). Regarding antiosteoporosis, the BMD values had significantly improved in both groups at the last follow-up. The teriparatide group had attained more BMD increments at 12 months postoperatively than had the zoledronate group. Furthermore, the ODI had consistently decreased in both groups with a lower ODI in the teriparatide group than in the zoledronate group at 12 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, teriparatide showed superior bone union at 6 months and greater BMD improvement at 12 months after PLIF compared with zoledronate administration, although both resulted in similar overall effects on spinal fusion.

Incidence and risk factors for early and late reoperation following lumbar fusion surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE

The aim of our study was to determine the rates and indications of reoperations following primary lumbar fusion, as well as the independent risk factors for early and late reoperation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery between January 2017 and March 2020. All patients were followed up for more than 2 years. Characteristics, laboratory tests, primary diagnosis and surgery-related variables were compared among the early reoperation (< 3 months), the late reoperation (> 3 months) and the non-reoperation groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for early and late reoperations.

RESULTS

Of 821 patients included in our studies, 34 patients underwent early reoperation, and 36 patients underwent late reoperation. The cumulative reoperation rate was about 4.1% (95% CI 3.8-4.5%) at 3 months, 6.2% (95% CI 5.9-6.5%) at 1 year and 8.2% (95% CI 8.0-8.5%) at 3 years. Multivariable analysis indicated that osteoporosis (odds ratio [OR] 3.6, 95% CI 1.2-10.5, p = 0.02) and diabetes (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.5, p = 0.04) were independently associated with early reoperation and multilevel fusion (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.4, p = 0.03) was independently associated with late reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common reasons for early reoperation and late operation were surgical site infection and adjacent segment diseases, respectively. Osteoporosis and diabetes were independent risk factors for early reoperation, and multilevel fusion was independent risk factor for late reoperation. Surgeons should pay more attention to these patients, and future studies should consider the effects of follow-up periods on results.

Best Practice Guidelines for Assessment and Management of Osteoporosis in Adult Patients Undergoing Elective Spinal Reconstruction

STUDY DESIGN

Expert consensus study.

OBJECTIVE

This expert panel was created to establish best practice guidelines to identify and treat patients with poor bone health prior to elective spinal reconstruction.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Currently, no guidelines exist for the management of osteoporosis and osteopenia in patients undergoing spinal reconstructive surgery. Untreated osteoporosis in spine reconstruction surgery is associated with higher complications and worse outcomes.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel with 18 experts was assembled including orthopedic and neurological surgeons, endocrinologists, and rheumatologists. Surveys and discussions regarding the current literature were held according to Delphi method until a final set of guidelines was created with over 70% consensus.

RESULTS

Panelists agreed that bone health should be considered in every patient prior to elective spinal reconstruction. All patients above 65 and those under 65 with particular risk factors (chronic glucocorticoid use, high fracture risk or previous fracture, limited mobility, and eight other key factors) should have a formal bone health evaluation prior to undergoing surgery. DXA scans of the hip are preferable due to their wide availability. Opportunistic CT Hounsfield Units of the vertebrae can be useful in identifying poor bone health. In the absence of contraindications, anabolic agents are considered first line therapy due to their bone building properties as compared with antiresorptive medications. Medications should be administered preoperatively for at least 2 months and postoperatively for minimum 8 months.

CONCLUSION

Based on the consensus of a multidisciplinary panel of experts, we propose best practice guidelines for assessment and treatment of poor bone health prior to elective spinal reconstructive surgery. Patients above age 65 and those with particular risk factors under 65 should undergo formal bone health evaluation. We also established guidelines on perioperative optimization, utility of various diagnostic modalities, and the optimal medical management of bone health in this population.Level of Evidence: 5.

Therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion: A mini review

Objective

With the advances in biological technologies over the past 20 years, a number of new therapies to promote bone healing have been introduced. Particularly in the spinal surgery field, more unprecedented biological therapeutics become available to enhance spinal fusion success rate along with advanced instrumentation approaches. Yet surgeons may not have been well informed about their safety and efficacy profiles in order to improve clinical practices. Therefore there is a need to summarize the evidence and bring the latest progress to surgeons for better clinical services for patients.

Methods

We comprehensively reviewed the literatures in regard to the biological therapeutics for enhancement of spinal fusion published in the last two decades.

Results

Autograft bone is still the gold standard for bone grafting in spinal fusion surgery due to its good osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic abilities. Accumulating evidence suggests that adding rhBMPs in combination with autograft effectively promotes the fusion rate and improves surgical outcomes. However, the stimulating effect on spinal fusion of other growth factors, including PDGF, VEGF, TGF-beta, and FGF, is not convincing, while Nell-1 and activin A exhibited preliminary efficacy. In terms of systemic therapeutic approaches, the osteoporosis drug Teriparatide has played a positive role in promoting bone healing after spinal surgery, while new medications such as denosumab and sclerostin antibodies still need further validation. Currently, other treatment, such as controlled-release formulations and carriers, are being studied for better releasing profile and the administration convenience of the active ingredients.

Conclusion

As the world's population continues to grow older, the number of spinal fusion cases grows substantially due to increased surgical needs for spinal degenerative disease (SDD). Critical advancements in biological therapeutics that promote spinal fusion have brought better clinical outcomes to patients lately. With the accumulation of higher-level evidence, the safety and efficacy of present and emerging products are becoming more evident. These emerging therapeutics will shift the landscape of perioperative therapy for the enhancement of spinal fusion.

The Effect of Daily Teriparatide versus One-Time Annually Zoledronic Acid Administration After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Osteoporotic Patients

Purpose

The research aimed to compare the therapeutic effect of teriparatide (TPTD) and zoledronic acid (ZOL) therapy on bone formation and spinal fusion in patients with osteoporosis (OP) who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

Methods

On the basis of different anti-OP treatment options, the TPTD group was treated daily with TPTD (20 μg. ih. qd) for at least 6 months, while the ZOL group was treated with a single dose of ZOL (5 mg. ivgtt. st) postoperatively. The visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), bone mineral density (BMD), and concentration of bone turnover markers before, 6, and 12 months after surgery were evaluated. X-ray and three-dimensional computed tomography scans were performed at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to assess interbody fusion.

Results

The number of patients in the TPTD and ZOL groups was 29 and 38 patients, respectively. The VAS and ODI scores in both groups were significantly reduced at 6 and 12 months after TLIF. Compared with that of baseline, the lumbar spine BMD of TPTD patients increased significantly from 0.716±0.137 g/cm² to 0.745±0.124 g/cm² and 0.795±0.123 g/cm² at 6 and 12 months, respectively, and was significantly higher than that of the ZOL group at 12 months (0.720±0.128 g/cm²). The bone formation marker, P1NP, in the TPTD group increased significantly (145.48±66.64 ng/mL and 119.55±88.27 ng/mL) compared with baseline (44.67±25.15 ng/mL) and in the ZOL group (28.82±19.76 ng/mL and 29.94±20.67 ng/mL) at 6 and 12 months, respectively. The fusion rates in the TPTD and ZOL groups were 57% and 45% at 6 months, without statistical significance. However, TPTD had a more statistically significant positive influence on fusion rate than ZOL at 12 months (86% vs 70%).

Conclusion

TPTD was more efficient than ZOL in bone formation and spinal fusion in OP patients who underwent TLIF.

The Morphological Changes in Adjacent Segments Amongst Patients Receiving Anterior and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Study

Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is troublesome condition that has proved to be highly related to spinal malalignment after spinal surgery. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the morphological changes after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and oblique LIF (OLIF) to establish the differences between the two surgical methods in terms of possible ASD avoidance. Fifty patients, half of whom received ALIF while the other half received OLIF, were analyzed with image studies and functional outcomes during the pre-operative and post-operative periods, and 2 years after surgery. Image measurements obtained included spinal-pelvic parameters, index lordosis (IL), segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH) and adjacent segment disc angle (ASDA). The ADH and PDH in the adjacent segment decreased in the two groups while OLIF showed greater decrease without radiological ASD noted at 2-year follow-up. Both groups showed an increase in IL after surgery while ALIF showed greater improvement. No statistical difference was identified in functional outcomes between LIFs. We suggest that both ALIF and OLIF can restore adequate lordosis and prevent ASD after surgery. However, it should be noted that patient selection remains crucial when making any decision involving which of the two methods to use.

Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Combined with Zoledronic Acid in Treatment and Prevention of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to help elucidate the benefits and advantages of vertebroplasty combined with zoledronic acid (ZOL) versus vertebroplasty alone, to provide clinical recommendations for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) considering the current best-available evidence.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials and retrospective comparative studies assessing these important indexes of 2 methods using Review Manager 5.4.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials and 4 retrospective studies including 2335 cases were identified. Vertebroplasty combined with ZOL was associated with benefits from decreased pain (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.59 to -0.27; P < 0.05), increased function (WMD -4.94; 95% CI -6.13 to -3.75; P < 0.05), increased BMD of the vertebral body(WMD 0.85; 95% CI 0.30-1.40; P < 0.05) and of the proximal femoral neck (WMD 0.14; 95% CI 0.08-0.21; P < 0.05), fewer markers of bone metabolism (N-terminal molecular fragment: WMD -4.82; 95% CI -6.08 to -3.55; P < 0.05; procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide: WMD -17.31; 95% CI -18.04 to -16.58; P < 0.05; beta collagen degradation product: WMD -0.27; 95% CI -0.35 to -0.19; P < 0.05), and lower rate of refracture (1.54% and 12.6%; odds ratio 0.17; 95% CI 0.08-0.36; P < 0.05). Patients in the vertebroplasty combined with ZOL group had greater vertebral body height (WMD 2.17; 95% CI 0.72-3.62; P < 0.05) than in the vertebroplasty group, but no differences on Cobb angle were observed (WMD -1.18; 95% CI -2.47 to 0.10; P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Vertebroplasty combined with ZOL was superior to vertebroplasty alone in terms of BMD, bone metabolism makers, refracture rate, pain and function.

The radiological outcome in lumbar interbody fusion among rheumatoid arthritis patients: a 20-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes amongst Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients have shown satisfactory results being reported after lumbar surgery. The increased adoption of the interbody fusion technique has been due to a high fusion rate and less invasive procedures. However, the radiographic outcome for RA patients after receiving interbody fusion has scarcely been addressed in the available literature.

METHODS

Patients receiving interbody fusion including ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF were examined for implant cage motion and fusion status at two-year follow-up. Parameters for the index correction level including ADH, PDH, WI, SL, FW, and FH were measured and compared at pre-OP, post-OP, and two-year follow-up.

RESULTS

We enrolled 64 RA patients at 104 levels (mean 64.0 years old, 85.9% female) received lumbar interbody fusion. There were substantial improvement in ADH, PDH, WI, SL, FW, and FH after surgery, with both ADH and PDH having significantly dropped at two-year follow up. The OLIF group suffered from a higher subsidence rate with no significant difference in fusion rate when compared to TLIF. The fusion rate and subsidence rate for all RA patients was 90.4 and 28.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We revealed the radiographic outcomes of lumbar interbody fusions towards symptomatic lumbar disease in RA patients with good fusion outcome despite the relative high subsidence rate amongst the OLIF group. Those responsible for intra-operative endplate management should be more cautious to avoid post-OP cage subsidence.

Negative pharmacological effect on spine fusion: A narrative review of the literature of evidence-based treatment

Spine fusion surgery is commonly performed for diverse indications, the most frequent one being degenerative spine diseases. Despite the growing importance of this surgery, there is limited evidence concerning the effects of drugs on the process of spine fusion and healing. While asymptomatic sometimes, nonunion of the spine can have tremendous repercussions on the patients' quality of life and the healthcare system rendering it an "expensive complication". This literature review identifies the role of some perioperative drugs in spine fusion and reveals their potential role in pseudarthrosis of the spine. This review also benefits spine surgeons looking for current evidence-based practices. We reviewed the data related to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, vancomycin, bisphosphonates, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), pregabalin, and opioids. From the available experimental and clinical studies, we conclude that bisphosphonates might positively influence the process of spine fusion, while steroids and vancomycin have shown variable effects, and the remaining medications likely disturb healing and union of the spine. We recommend spine surgeons be cautious about the drugs they resort to in the critical perioperative period until further clinical studies prove which drugs are safe to be used.

Antiresorptive and anabolic medications used in the perioperative period of patients with osteoporosis undergoing spine surgery: their impact on the biology of fusion and systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Osteoporosis represents the most common metabolic disease of the bone, with an estimated 10% of adults aged 50 years or older affected in the United States. This patient population is at increased risk for spine fracture and instrumentation-related complications after spine surgery. Surgeon knowledge of the available treatments for patients with low bone mineral density (BMD) and how they impact biology of fusion may help mitigate negative effects in the postoperative period. Recombinant parathyroid hormone, which is sold under the name teriparatide, is the most extensively studied bone-protecting agent in humans. Additionally, the success of the monoclonal antibody denosumab has led to further clinical investigations of human patients undergoing spine surgery. Another monoclonal antibody, romosozumab, was recently approved by the US FDA for human use in patients with osteoporosis. Although studies of romosozumab in patients undergoing spine surgery have not been conducted, this is a promising potential therapeutic agent based on its early success in preclinical and clinical trials. Here, the authors aimed to review the mechanisms of action and evidence of use of antiresorptive and anabolic agents in patients with osteoporosis undergoing spine surgery.

METHODS

In accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to explore the antiresorptive and anabolic agents used in the perioperative period in patients with osteoporosis undergoing spinal surgery. The search was performed by using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Titles and abstracts were screened and subsequently selected for full review.

RESULTS

The initial search returned 330 articles. Of these articles, 23 final articles were included and reviewed. Many of these articles reported that use of adjuvant agents in the perioperative period improved radiographic evidence of bony fusion and bone fusion rates. These agents tended to improve BMD postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although antiosteoporosis agents are effective to varying degrees as treatments of patients with low BMD, teriparatide and bisphosphonates have been the most extensively studied with respect to spinal instrumentation. The advent of newer agents represents an area for further exploration, especially due to the current paucity of controlled investigations. It is imperative for spine surgeons to understand the mechanisms of action of these drugs and their effects on biology of fusion.

Osteoporosis treatment in patients undergoing spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Bisphosphonates and teriparatide are the most common therapies used in the treatment of osteoporosis. Their impact on fusion rates in osteoporotic patients following spinal fusion has yet to be concretely defined, with previous systematic reviews focusing heavily on bisphosphonates and lacking clinical insight on the utility of teriparatide. Herein the authors present an updated meta-analysis of the utility of both bisphosphonates and teriparatide in improving spinal fusion outcomes in osteoporotic patients.

METHODS

After a comprehensive search of the English-language literature in the PubMed and Embase databases, 11 clinical studies were included in the final qualitative and quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 9 investigated bisphosphonates, 7 investigated teriparatide, and 1 investigated a combination of teriparatide and denosumab. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of the postoperative use of bisphosphonate demonstrated better odds of successful fusion as compared to that in controls during short-term monitoring (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.72-6.42, p = 0.0003) but not long-term monitoring (p > 0.05). Bisphosphonate use was also shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of postoperative vertebral compression fracture (VCF; OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.59, p = 0.01) and significantly reduce Oswestry Disability Index scores (mean difference [MD] = -2.19, 95% CI -2.94 to -1.44, p < 0.00001) and visual analog scale pain scores (MD = -0.58, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.38, p < 0.00001). Teriparatide was found to significantly increase fusion rates at long-term postoperative periods as compared to rates after bisphosphonate therapy, with patients who received postoperative teriparatide therapy 2.05 times more likely to experience successful fusion (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.17-3.59, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors demonstrate the benefits of bisphosphonate and teriparatide therapy independently in accelerating fusion during the first 6 months after spinal fusion surgery in osteoporotic patients. In addition, they show that teriparatide may have superior benefits in spinal fusion during long-term monitoring as compared to those with bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates may be better suited in preventing VCFs postoperatively in addition to minimizing postoperative disability and pain.

Postoperative bisphosphonate do not significantly alter the fusion rate after lumbar spinal fusion: a meta-analysis

Background

To evaluate the effect of postoperative BP treatment on improving the fusion rate after lumbar spinal fusion surgery by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other comparative cohort studies.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed for RCTs and other comparative cohort studies on the effect of BP treatment on improving the fusion rate after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The primary outcome measures were the number of patients with bone formation grades A, B, and C at 12 months of follow-up; fusion rates at 12 and 24 months of follow-up; vertebral compression fracture (VCF) at 12 and 24 months of follow-up; pedicle screw loosening at 24 months of follow-up; and cage subsidence, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the visual analogue score (VAS) at 12 months of follow-up. The final search was performed in July 2020.

Results

Seven studies with 401 patients were included. Compared with the placebo, BP treatment did not significantly alter the number of patients with bone formation grades A, B, and C, or the VAS at the 12-month follow-up or the fusion rates at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups. In addition, compared with the placebo, BPs significantly reduced the risks of VCF at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups, pedicle screw loosening at the 24-month follow-up, and cage subsidence and the ODI at the 12-month follow-up.

Conclusions

Postoperative BPs do not clearly improve bone formation and the fusion rate, but they reduce VCF, cage subsidence, and loosening of pedicle screws after lumbar fusion surgery compared with the control treatment.

The effect of denosumab on pedicle screw fixation: a prospective 2-year longitudinal study using finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

Pedicle screw loosening is a major complication following spinal fixation associated with osteoporosis in elderly. However, denosumab is a promising treatment in patients with osteoporosis. The effect of denosumab on pedicle screw fixation is unknown. Therefore, we investigated whether denosumab treatment improves pedicle screw fixation in elderly patients with osteoporosis.

METHODS

This was a 2-year prospective open-label study. From February 2015 to January 2016, we included 21 patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis who received initial denosumab treatment. At baseline, 12 months, and 24 months, we measured volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) using quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and performed CT-based finite element analysis (FEA). Finite element models of L4 vertebrae were created to analyze the bone strength and screw fixation.

RESULTS

BMD increased with denosumab treatment. FEA revealed that both pullout strength of pedicle screws and compression force of the vertebra increased significantly at 12 and 24 months following denosumab treatment. Notably, pullout strength showed a stronger correlation with three-dimensional volumetric BMD around pedicle screw placement assessed by QCT (r = 0.83, at 24 months) than with two-dimensional areal BMD assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (r = 0.35, at 24 months).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first study to reveal that denosumab treatment achieved strong pedicle screw fixation with an increase in BMD around the screw assessed by QCT and FEA; therefore, denosumab could be useful for osteoporosis treatment during spinal surgery in elderly patients with osteoporosis.

Unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic lumbar compression fractures: a comparative study between transverse process root-pedicle approach and conventional transpedicular approach

Purpose

Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) is a routine operation for the treatment of osteoporotic lumbar compression fractures (OLCFs). As is well known, unilateral puncture is a common method. However, with the conventional transpedicular approach (CTPA), the cement may be asymmetrically dispersed, so some surgeons use the transverse process root-pedicle approach (TPRPA). The objective of this study was to compare the clinical results and bone cement distribution of PVP for OLCF with unilateral TPRPA and CTPA to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the two surgical options.

Patients and methods

From January 2016 to June 2019, seventy-two elderly patients who underwent unilateral PVP for single-level OLCF were retrospectively reviewed. Operation time, injection amount and type of bone cement distribution, and bone cement leakage and surgical complications were recorded. The visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were used to evaluate the clinical results. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months, and the assessment was based primarily on clinical and radiological outcomes.

Results

There were significant differences in the surgical time and the volume and the type of bone cement distribution and the lost of operative vertebra height between the two groups. However, there was no significant difference in bone cement leakage. Moreover, there were no significant differences in VAS and ODI between the two groups at 2 days and 12 months after the operation.

Conclusions

Unilateral TPRPA and CTPA are practical and feasible methods in PVP for the treatment of OLCF, and they have similar clinical effects. However, TPRPA has the advantages of a better distribution of bone cement and a shorter operation time and a better maintenance effect of injured vertebra height, without increasing the rate of bone cement leakage.

Selective cement augmentation of cranial and caudal pedicle screws provides comparable stability to augmentation on all segments in the osteoporotic spine: a finite element analysis

Background

Cement-augmented pedicle screw instrumentation (CAPSI) has been proven to significantly increase the biomechanical stability in the osteoporotic lumbar spine. However, besides the merits, it is responsible for the inevitable cement leakage growing with more instrumented segments and volumes involved. This study aimed to compare the biomechanical performance of pedicle screws augmented on all segments with those augmented only on the cranial and caudal vertebrae selectively.

Methods

The finite element model of L3-S1 was modeled with the CT data of a healthy volunteer, the solid/fenestrated pedicle screws from micro-CT scans of physical screws, and bone cement from the CT scans of a postoperative patient with CAPSI. Three different augmented strategies for pedicle screws were taken into consideration: augmentation at each pedicle trajectory (Model A), selective augmentation at the cranial and caudal pedicle trajectories (Model B), and pedicle trajectories without augmentation (Model C). A total of six surgical models were constructed: Models A, B, and C were subdivided into double segmental fusion from L4 to S1 (Models A1, B1, and C1) and multi-segment fusion from L3 to S1 (Models A2, B2, and C2). The Range of motion (ROM), stress on the cage, and stress on the fixed segments were compared among the six models.

Results

The ROM at the fusion segments decreased in all instrumentation models. The ROMs of Model B and Model A are similar in each direction, while that of Model C is significantly larger. The differences in the ROMs between Model A and Model B were noted to be less than 0.1°. Compared with Models A1 and A2, the peak Von Mise stress on the cage-endplate interface and pedicle screws were slightly higher in Models B1 and B2. In contrast, the stress of Models C1 and C2 increased significantly. The compressive stress was concentrated in the screw head, the cranial and caudal screws, and rods.

Conclusions

The selective augmentation of pedicle screws is capable of providing reliable stability in short-segment posterior fixation (2- or 3-level). It could be a potential optimal procedure to minimize the associated complications of CAPSI.

Teriparatide and bisphosphonate use in osteoporotic spinal fusion patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Osteoporosis is one of the most common conditions among adults worldwide. It also presents a challenge among patients undergoing spinal surgery. Use of Teriparatide and bisphosphonates in such patients has been shown to improve outcomes after fusion surgery, including successful fusion, decreased risk of instrumentation failure, and patient-reported outcomes. Herein, we performed a systematic review and indirect meta-analysis of available literature on outcomes of fusion surgery after use of bisphosphonates or Teriparatide.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of all databases (Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus) to identify studies assessing outcomes of spinal fusion among osteoporotic patients after use of Teriparatide or bisphosphonate. Four authors independently screened electronic search results, and all four authors independently performed study selection. Two authors performed independent data extraction and assessed the studies' risk of bias assessment using standardized forms of Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included in the final analysis. A total of 13 studies evaluated the difference in fusion rate between bisphosphonates and Teriparatide or control group. Fusion rate was higher for bisphosphonates (effect size (ES) 83%, 95% CI 77-89%) compared with Teriparatide (ES 71%, 95% CI 57-85%), with the p value for heterogeneity between groups without statistical significance (p = 0.123). Five studies assessed the impact of using bisphosphonate or Teriparatide on screw loosening. The rate of screw loosening was higher for bisphosphonates (ES 19%, 95% CI 13-25%) compared with Teriparatide (ES 13%, 95% CI 9-16%) without statistical significance (p = 0.52).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that while both agents may be associated with positive outcomes, bisphosphonates may be associated with a higher fusion rate, while Teriparatide may be associated with lower screw loosening. The decision to treat with either agent should be tailored individually for each patient keeping in consideration the adverse effect and pharmacokinetic profiles.

Bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone analogs for improving bone quality in spinal fusion: State of evidence

Spinal fusion is among the most commonly performed surgical procedures for elderly patients with spinal disorders - including degenerative disc disease with spondylolisthesis, deformities, and trauma. With the large increase in the aging population and the prevalence of osteoporosis, the number of elderly osteoporotic patients needing spinal fusion has risen dramatically. Due to reduced bone quality, postoperative complications such as implant failures, fractures, post-junctional kyphosis, and pseudarthrosis are more commonly seen after spinal fusion in osteoporotic patients. Therefore, pharmacologic treatment strategies to improve bone quality are commonly pursued in osteoporotic cases before conducting spinal fusions. The two most commonly used pharmacotherapeutics are bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (PTH) analogs. Evidence indicates that using bisphosphonates and PTH analogs, alone or in combination, in osteoporotic patients undergoing spinal fusion, decreases complication rates and improves clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to develop guidelines for the administration of bisphosphonates and PTH analogs in osteoporotic spinal fusion patients in terms of treatment duration, potential benefits of sequential use, and the selection of either therapeutic agents based on patient characteristics.

Does the use of preoperative bisphosphonates in patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis affect lumbar fusion rates? Analysis from a national spine registry

OBJECTIVE

Bisphosphonates are used to increase bone strength in treating osteopenia and osteoporosis, but their use for increasing lumbar fusion rates has been controversial. The objective of this study was to determine if preoperative treatment with bisphosphonates affects the reoperation rates for nonunions (operative nonunion rates) following lumbar fusions in patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis.

METHODS

The authors conducted a cohort study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry. Patients (aged ≥ 50 years) with a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis who underwent primary elective lumbar fusions for degenerative disc disease, deformity, or spondylolisthesis were included in the cohort. Repeated spinal procedures at the index lumbar levels were noted through chart review. Reoperations for symptomatic nonunions (operative nonunions), time to nonunion, and the nonunion spine level(s) were also identified. The crude 2-year cumulative incidence of operative nonunions was calculated as 1 minus the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between preoperative bisphosphonate use and operative nonunion after adjustment for covariates. Analysis was stratified by osteopenia and osteoporosis diagnosis.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 1040 primary elective lumbar fusion patients, 408 with osteopenia and 632 with osteoporosis. Ninety-seven (23.8%) patients with osteopenia and 370 (58.5%) patients with osteoporosis were preoperative bisphosphonate users. For the osteopenia group, no operative nonunions were observed in patients with preoperative bisphosphonate, while the crude 2-year incidence was 2.44% (95% CI 0.63–4.22) in the nonuser group. For the osteoporotic group, after adjustment for covariates, no difference was observed in risk for operative nonunions between the preoperative bisphosphonate users and nonusers (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.20–4.55, p = 0.964).

CONCLUSIONS

To the authors’ knowledge, this study presents one of the largest series of patients with the diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis in whom the effects of preoperative bisphosphonates on lumbar fusions were evaluated using operative nonunion rates as an outcome measure. The results indicate that preoperative bisphosphonate use had no effect on the operative nonunion rates for patients with osteoporosis. Similar indications were not confirmed in osteopenia patients because of the low nonunion frequency. Further studies are warranted to the determine if preoperative and postoperative timing of bisphosphonate use has any effect on lumbar fusion rates.

Clinical effect observation of intravenous application of zoledronic acid in patients with cervical spondylosis and osteoporosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To observe the clinical effect of zoledronic acid (ZA) in patients with cervical spondylosis and osteoporosis after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery.

METHODS

All selected patients were divided into the study group and the control group according to the sequence of surgery time. In the study group, 5 mg (100 ml) of ZA was applied intravenously as intervention on the 5 day after ACDF surgery. Patients were followed up regularly after surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-three cases completed the follow-ups (21/22), the neck disability index (NDI) score significantly decreased at the 3rd month after surgery in both groups, it came to a plateau at the 6th month after surgery, and it had some rise at the 12th month after surgery, but the NDI score was lower in the study group at the 12th month after surgery ( p < 0.05). C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and amino terminal propeptide of type I procollagen of bone turnover markers in the study group showed a downward trend after surgery, among which CTX decreased significantly and no significant changes in the control group. At the 12th month after surgery, the bone mineral density of lumbar spine area in the study group was significantly improved ( p < 0.05). During the 3rd and the 6th month follow-up after surgery, 1/2 osteogenesis rate of the study group was significantly higher ( p < 0.05). However, all patients in the two groups obtained stable fusion at the 12th month follow-up after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with cervical spondylosis and osteoporosis, intravenous application of ZA after ACDF surgery can shorten the time of cervical osteogenesis, promote local bone graft fusion, and improve the postoperative clinical effect to some extent.

The effects of bisphosphonates on osteoporotic patients after lumbar fusion: a meta-analysis

Purpose

We conducted a meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of bisphosphonates in lumbar fusion.

Introduction

Bisphosphonates reduce bone resorption and remodeling by osteoclast activity inhibition, inactivation, and apoptosis. However, it remains controversial whether bisphosphonate therapy affects spinal fusion.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to identify studies reporting the effects of bisphosphonates on osteoporotic patients after lumbar fusion. Secondary sources were identified from the references of the included literature. Pooled data were analyzed using RevMan 5.1.

Results

Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. There were significant differences in solid intervertebral fusion (RD=0.07, 95% CI: −0.00 to 0.15, P=0.05), subsequent VCFs (RD=−0.21, 95% CI: −0.30 to −0.12, P<0.00001), pedicle screw loosening (RD=−0.17, 95% CI: −0.28 to −0.05, P=0.006), and cage subsidence (RD=−0.25, 95% CI: −0.42 to −0.07, P=0.005) between two groups. No significant differences between two groups were found regarding implant fixation failure (RD=−0.06, 95% CI: −0.22 to 0.10, P=0.48).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis showed that bisphosphonates may increase solid intervertebral fusion and decrease subsequent VCFs, pedicle screw loosening, and cage subsidence.

Medical optimization of lumbar fusion in the osteoporotic patient

PURPOSE

In patients undergoing lumbar fusion, osteoporosis has been shown to lead to poorer outcomes and greater incidence of fusion-related complications. Given the undesirable effect of osteoporosis on lumbar fusion surgery, a number of medications have been proposed for use in the peri- and postoperative period to mitigate risks and enhance outcomes. The purpose of this review was to summarize and synthesize the current literature regarding medical management of osteoporosis in the context of lumbar fusion surgery.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted in October 2016, using permutations of various search terms related to osteoporosis, medications, and lumbar fusion.

RESULTS

Teriparatide injections may lead to faster, more successful fusion, and may reduce fusion-related complications. Bisphosphonate therapy likely does not hinder fusion outcomes and may be useful in reducing certain complications of fusion in osteoporotic patients. Calcitonin and selective estrogen receptor modulator therapy show mixed results, but more research is necessary to make a recommendation. Vitamin D deficiency is associated with poor fusion outcomes, but evidence for supplementation in patients with normal serum levels is weak.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the current body of research appears to support the use of teriparatide therapy to enhance lumbar fusion outcomes in the osteoporotic patient, although the extent of research on this topic is limited. Additionally, very little evidence exists to cease any of the mentioned osteoporosis treatments prior to lumbar fusion.