Improving the Management of Patients with Osteoporosis Undergoing Spinal Fusion: The Need for a Bone Mineral Density-Matched Interbody Cage

Outcomes following spinal instrumented fusions in patients with parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Parkinson's Disease (PD) patients represent challenging spinal surgery candidates due to associated frailty and deformity. This study consolidates the literature concerning spinal surgery outcomes in PD versus non-PD patients, to evaluate if PD predisposes patients to worse post-operative outcomes, so that treatment protocols can be optimised.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar databases per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies of interest included comparative (PD versus non-PD) cohorts undergoing spinal instrumented fusions. Post-operative clinical outcomes were collated and compared for significance between cohorts. Further analysis was made on outcomes based on the different surgical procedures performed (Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), Thoracolumbar or Lumbar fusions, Thoracolumbar or Lumbar fusions without Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression fracture (OVCF) patients). All statistical analysis was performed using The R Project for Statistical Computing (version 4.1.2), with a p-value of < 0.05 deemed statistically significant.

RESULTS

In total, 2,323,650 patients were included across 16 studies. Of those, 2,308,949 (99.37%) were patients without PD (non-PD), while 14,701 (0.63%) patients had PD at time of surgery. The collective mean age was 68.23 years (PD: 70.14 years vs non-PD: 64.86 years). Comparatively, there were 844,641 males (PD: 4,574; non-PD: 840,067) and 959,908 females (PD: 3,213; non-PD: 956,695). Overall, there were more post-operative complications in the PD cohort. Specifically, PD patients experienced significantly more surgical site infections (p = 0.01), increased rates of revision surgeries (p = 0.04) and increased venous thromboembolic events (p = 0.02) versus the non-PD cohort. In thoracolumbar/lumbar spinal fusions without OVCF patients, the PD cohort had increased rates of revision surgeries (p < 0.01) in comparison to the non-PD cohort. However, when including OVCF patients in thoracolumbar/lumbar spinal fusions, the PD cohort had significantly higher amounts of postoperative complications (p = 0.01), pneumonia (p = 0.02), and revision surgeries (p < 0.01) when compared to the non-PD cohort.

CONCLUSION

Although more robust prospective studies are needed, the results of this study highlight the need for advanced wound care management in the postoperative period, both in-hospital and in the community, in addition to comprehensive multidisciplinary care from allied health professionals, with potential for the use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols in PD patients undergoing spinal instrumented fusions.

Biomechanical Analysis of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages With Various Elastic Moduli in Osteoporotic and Non-osteoporotic Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Finite element analysis (FEA).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the effects of cage elastic modulus (Cage-E) on the endplate stress in different bone conditions: osteoporosis (OP) and non-osteoporosis (non-OP). We also explored the correlation between endplate thickness and endplate stress.

METHODS

The FEA models of L4-L5 with lumbar interbody fusion were designed to access the effects of Cage-E on the endplate stress in different bone conditions. Two groups of the Young's moduli of bony structure were assigned to simulate the conditions of OP and non-OP, and the bony endplates were analyzed in 2 kinds of thicknesses: .5 mm and 1.0 mm, with the insertion of cages with different Young's moduli including .5, 1.5, 3, 5, 10, and 20 GPa. After model validation, an axial compressive load of 400 N and a flexion/extension moment of 7.5Nm was performed on the superior surface of L4 vertebral body in order to analyze the distribution of stress.

RESULTS

The maximum Von Mises stress in the endplates increased by up to 100% in the OP model compared with non-OP model under the same condition of cage-E and endplate thickness. In both OP and non-OP models, the maximum endplate stress decreased as the cage-E decreased, but the maximum stress in the lumbar posterior fixation increased as the cage-E decreased. Thinner endplate thickness was associated with increased endplate stress.

CONCLUSION

The endplate stress is higher in osteoporotic bone than non-osteoporotic bone, which explains part of the mechanism of OP-related cage subsidence. It is reasonable to reduce the endplate stress by reducing the cage-E, but we should balance the risk of fixation failure. Endplate thickness is also important when evaluating the cage subsidence risk.

The Role of Bone Mineral Density in a Successful Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

The incidence of osteoporosis is a prime concern, especially in parts of the world where the population is aging, such as Europe or the US. Many new therapy strategies have been described to enhance bone healing. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a surgical procedure that aims to stabilize the lumbar spine by fusing two or more vertebrae using an interbody cage. LIF is a standard treatment for various spinal conditions, such as degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. However, successful fusion is challenging for patients with osteoporosis due to their reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk of cage subsidence, which can lead to implant failure and poor clinical outcomes.

METHODS

 A comprehensive literature search yielded 220 articles, with 16 ultimately included. Keywords included BMD, cage subsidence, osteoporosis, teriparatide, and lumbar interbody fusion.

RESULTS

 This review examines the relationship between BMD and LIF success, emphasizing the importance of adequate bone quality for successful fusion. Preoperative assessment methods for BMD and the impact of low BMD on fusion rates and patient outcomes are discussed. Additionally, techniques to improve fusion success in patients with weakened bone density, such as biological enhancement and BMD-matched interbody cages, are explored. However, consensus on the exact BMD threshold for a successful outcome remains elusive.

CONCLUSION

 While an apparent correlation between BMD and fusion rate in LIF procedures is acknowledged, conclusive evidence regarding the precise BMD threshold indicative of an increased risk of unfavorable outcomes remains elusive. Surgeons are advised to exercise caution in surgical planning and follow-up for patients with lower BMD. Furthermore, future research initiatives, particularly longitudinal studies, are encouraged to prioritize the examination of BMD as a fundamental risk factor, addressing gaps in the literature.