The Impact of Surgical Approach on Sagittal Plane Alignment in Patients Undergoing One- or Two- Level Fusions for Degenerative Pathology: A Multicenter Radiographic Evaluation 6 Months Following Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Interbody fusion procedures, including transforaminal (TLIF), posterior (PLIF), anterior (ALIF), and lateral (LLIF), effectively treat lumbar degenerative pathology and provide spinopelvic balance. The objective of this study is to compare changes in spinopelvic parameters 6 months following 1-2 level TLIF, PLIF, ALIF, and LLIF. METHODS: This retrospective study included 18 centers across the United States. Patients were included in the study if they underwent a 1- or 2-level primary lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology. Preoperative and 6-month postoperative lumbar anteroposterior and lateral lumbar plain radiograph measurements included: pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis from L1-S1, and segmental lordosis of each segment between L1 and S1. RESULTS: A total of 474 patients met inclusion criteria, with 632 levels that underwent fusion. Of these, 181 patients underwent an ALIF/LLIF on 381 levels, and 188 underwent a TLIF/PLIF on 252 levels. ALIF/LLIF procedures resulted in significantly more segmental lordosis (P < 0.001) and global lumbar lordotic alignment change (P < 0.01) compared with TLIF/PLIF procedures. Whether patients' alignment was preserved versus worsened was not significantly predicted by type of procedure. Similarly, whether patients' alignment was restored versus not corrected was not significantly predicted by procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale multicenter study of lumbar fusion patients presenting with degenerative lumbar pathology, anteriorly placed grafts (ALIF/LLIF) led to a greater likelihood of patients being preserved rather than worsened in their spinopelvic mismatch. Posteriorly placed TLIF or PLIF grafts tended to worsen lordosis both segmentally and globally, yet even the anterior grafts only modestly improved those 2 same measurements.

Assessing the Quality and Credibility of Publicly Available Videos on Cervical Fusion: Is YouTube a Reliable Educational Tool?

BACKGROUND: YouTube has become a popular source for patient education, though there are concerns regarding the quality and reliability of videos related to orthopaedic and neurosurgical procedures. This study aims to evaluate the credibility and educational content of videos on YouTube related to cervical fusion. Secondarily, the study aims to identify factors predictive of higher or lower quality videos. METHODS: A YouTube query using the search terms "cervical fusion" was performed, and the first 50 videos were included for analysis. Reliability was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria. Educational quality was assessed using the Global Quality Score (GQS) and the Cervical Fusion Content Score (CFCS). Videos were stratified by content and source, and differences in JAMA, GQS, and CFCS scores were assessed. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify predictors of higher or lower JAMA, GQS, and CFCS scores. Statistical significance was established at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Total number of views was 6 221 816 with a mean of 124 436.32 ± 412 883.32 views per video. Physicians, academic, and medical sources had significantly higher mean JAMA scores (P = 0.042). Exercise training and nonsurgical management videos had significantly higher mean CFCS scores (P = 0.018). Videos by physicians (ß = 0.616; P = 0.025) were independently associated with higher JAMA scores. Advertisements were significant predictors of worse CFCS (ß = -3.978; P = 0.030), and videos by commercial sources predicted significantly lower JAMA scores (ß = -1.326; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: While videos related to cervical fusion amassed a large viewership, they were poor in both quality and reliability. Videos by physicians were associated with higher reliability scores relative to other sources, whereas commercial sources and advertisements had significantly lower reliability and educational content scores. Currently, YouTube seems to be an unreliable source of information on cervical fusion for patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study aid surgeons in counseling patients interested in cervical fusion, and suggest that publicly available videos regarding cervical fusion may not be an adequate tool for patient education at this time.