A Preliminary Report on the CO2 Laser for Lumbar Fusion: Safety, Efficacy and Technical Considerations.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate potential technical advantages of the CO2 laser technology in mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries and report our preliminary clinical data on the safety and clinical outcomes. There is currently no literature discussing the recently redeveloped CO2 laser technology application for lumbar fusion. Safety and clinical outcomes were compared between two groups: 24 patients that underwent CO2 laser-assisted one-level TLIF surgeries and 30 patients that underwent standard one-level TLIF surgeries without the laser. There were no neural thermal injuries or other intraoperative laser-related complications encountered in this cohort of patients. At a mean follow-up of 17.4 months, significantly reduced lower back pain scores (P=0.013) were reported in the laser-assisted patient group compared to a standard fusion patient group. Lower extremity radicular pain intensity scores were similar in both groups. Laser-assisted TLIF surgeries showed a tendency (P = 0.07) of shorter operative times that was not statistically significant. Based on this preliminary clinical report, the safety of the CO2 laser device for lumbar fusion surgeries was assessed. There were no neural thermal injuries or other intraoperative laser-related complications encountered in this cohort of patients. Further investigation of CO2 laser-assisted lumbar fusion procedures is warranted in order to evaluate its effect on clinical outcomes.

The accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative image guidance systems.

OBJECT: Several retrospective studies have demonstrated higher accuracy rates and increased safety for navigated pedicle screw placement than for free-hand techniques; however, the accuracy differences between navigation systems has not been extensively studied. In some instances, 3D fluoroscopic navigation methods have been reported to not be more accurate than 2D navigation methods for pedicle screw placement. The authors of this study endeavored to identify if 3D fluoroscopic navigation methods resulted in a higher placement accuracy of pedicle screws. METHODS: A systematic analysis was conducted to examine pedicle screw insertion accuracy based on the use of 2D, 3D, and conventional fluoroscopic image guidance systems. A PubMed and MEDLINE database search was conducted to review the published literature that focused on the accuracy of pedicle screw placement using intraoperative, real-time fluoroscopic image guidance in spine fusion surgeries. The pedicle screw accuracy rates were segregated according to spinal level because each spinal region has individual anatomical and morphological variations. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate differences among the navigation methods. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included in the analysis. The data were abstracted and analyzed for the following groups: 12 data sets that used conventional fluoroscopy, 8 data sets that used 2D fluoroscopic navigation, and 20 data sets that used 3D fluoroscopic navigation. These studies included 1973 patients in whom 9310 pedicle screws were inserted. With conventional fluoroscopy, 2532 of 3719 screws were inserted accurately (68.1% accuracy); with 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 1031 of 1223 screws were inserted accurately (84.3% accuracy); and with 3D fluoroscopic navigation, 4170 of 4368 screws were inserted accurately (95.5% accuracy). The accuracy rates when 3D was compared with 2D fluoroscopic navigation were also consistently higher throughout all individual spinal levels. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional fluoroscopic image guidance systems demonstrated a significantly higher pedicle screw placement accuracy than conventional fluoroscopy or 2D fluoroscopic image guidance methods.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study evaluating the correlation of clinical outcomes and cervical sagittal alignment.

BACKGROUND: Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine has received increased attention in the literature as an important determinant of clinical outcomes after anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Surgeons use parallel or lordotically fashioned grafts depending on preference or simple availability. OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively assess and compare cervical sagittal alignment and clinical outcome when lordotic or parallel allografts were used for fusion. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study that enrolled 122 patients was performed. The mean follow-up was 37.5 months (range, 12-54 months). RESULTS: The mean postoperative cervical sagittal alignment was 19° (range, -7°-36°) and 18° (range, -7°-37°) in the lordotic and parallel graft patient groups, respectively. The mean segmental sagittal alignment was 6° (range, -4°-19°) and 7° (range, -3°-19°) in the lordotic and parallel graft patient groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcome scores between the lordotic and parallel graft patient groups. However, patients who had maintained or improved segmental sagittal alignment, regardless of graft type, achieved a higher degree of improvement in Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary and Neck Disability Index scores. This was statistically significant (P < .038). CONCLUSION: The use of lordotically shaped allografts does not increase cervical/segmental sagittal alignment or improve clinical outcomes. Maintaining a consistent segmental sagittal alignment or increasing segmental lordosis was related to a higher degree of improvement in clinical outcomes.