Delayed Incisional Hernia Following Minimally Invasive Trans-Psoas Lumbar Spine Surgery: Report of a Rare Complication and Management.

BACKGROUND: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has proved to be a safe tool in the armamentarium of spine surgeons for a variety of lumbar disorders. However, it has some complications related to specific approaches. Incisional hernia following abdominal surgery and anterior spinal surgery is commonly described; however, it is extremely rare following LLIF, with only 1 case reported in short postoperative period. In this report we present the first case of delayed presentation of true incisional hernia following a LLIF procedure and highlight its presentation, mechanism, possible preventive measures, and management. METHODS: We report a 57-year-old lady who underwent L3-4 LLIF. She presented with vague pain in a healed scar area that had no swelling until two years postsurgery, when she developed a painful swelling. On examination, it appeared to be a herniation of abdominal contents. RESULTS: She underwent a laparoscopic hernia repair surgery. The muscular layers were found to be intact with an attenuated transversalis fascia layer. The repair was reinforced by polypropylene mesh. There was no recurrence at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Incisional hernia can occur following LLIF months to years following surgery and can have varied presentation. Tight external oblique closure should be performed because the transversalis fascia often cannot be repaired and the quality of a layered closure of the deep obliques is often disappointing. The treating surgeon should be aware of this complication and aggressively surveil for the warning signs, and patients should be counseled about this potential complication.

Length of stay associated with posterior cervical fusion with intervertebral cages: experience from a device registry.

BACKGROUND: Using a multi-center medical device registry, we prospectively collected a set of perioperative and clinical outcomes among patients treated with tissue-sparing, posteriorly-placed intervertebral cage fusion used in the management of symptomatic, degenerative neural compressive disorders of the cervical spine. METHODS: Cervical fusion utilizing posteriorly-placed intervertebral cages offers a tissue-sparing alternative to traditional instrumentation for the treatment of symptomatic cervical radiculopathy. A registry was established to prospectively collect perioperative and clinical data in a real-world clinical practice setting for patients treated via this approach. This study evaluated length of stay as well as estimated blood loss and procedural time in 271 registry patients. RESULTS: The median length of stay was 1.1, 1.1 and 1.2 days for patients having a stand-alone arthrodesis, revision of a pseudoarthrosis, and circumferential fusion (360°), respectively, and was not related to number of levels treated. Historical comparison to published literature demonstrated that average lengths of stay associated with open, posterior lateral mass fixation were consistently ≥4 days. Average blood loss (range, 32-75 mL) and procedural time (range, 51-88 min) were also diminished in patients having tissue-sparing, cervical intervertebral cage fusion compared to open posterior lateral mass fixation. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of this tissue-sparing procedure may offer substantial cost-constraining benefits by reducing the length of post-operative hospitalization by, at least, 3 days compared to traditional lateral mass fixation.

Biomechanics of unilateral and bilateral sacroiliac joint stabilization: laboratory investigation.

OBJECTIVE Bilateral symptoms have been reported in 8%-35% of patients with sacroiliac (SI) joint dysfunction. Stabilization of a single SI joint may significantly alter the stresses on the contralateral SI joint. If the contralateral SI joint stresses are significantly increased, degeneration may occur; alternatively, if the stresses are significantly reduced, bilateral stabilization may be unnecessary for patients with bilateral symptoms. The biomechanical effects of 1) unilateral stabilization on the contralateral SI joint and 2) bilateral stabilization on both SI joints are currently unknown. The objectives of this study were to characterize bilateral SI joint range of motion (ROM) and evaluate and compare the biomechanical effects of unilateral and bilateral implant placement for SI joint fusion. METHODS A lumbopelvic model (L5-pelvis) was used to test the ROM of both SI joints in 8 cadavers. A single-leg stance setup was used to load the lumbar spine and measure the ROM of each SI joint in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Both joints were tested 1) while intact, 2) after unilateral stabilization, and 3) after bilateral stabilization. Stabilization consisted of lateral transiliac placement of 3 triangular titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) implants. RESULTS Intact testing showed that during single-leg stance the contralateral SI joint had less ROM in flexion-extension (27%), lateral bending (32%), and axial rotation (69%) than the loaded joint. Unilateral stabilization resulted in significant reduction of flexion-extension ROM (46%) on the treated side; no significant ROM changes were observed for the nontreated side. Bilateral stabilization resulted in significant reduction of flexion-extension ROM of the primary (45%) and secondary (75%) SI joints. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that during single-leg loading the ROMs for the stance (loaded) and swing (unloaded) SI joints are significantly different. Unilateral stabilization for SI joint dysfunction significantly reduces the ROM of the treated side, but does not significantly reduce the ROM of the nontreated contralateral SI joint. Bilateral stabilization is necessary to significantly reduce the ROM for both SI joints.

Fortifying the Bone-Implant Interface Part 2: An In Vivo Evaluation of 3D-Printed and TPS-Coated Triangular Implants.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgical fusion of the sacroiliac (SI) joint using machined solid triangular titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated implants has demonstrated positive clinical outcomes in SI joint pain patients. Additive manufactured (AM), i.e. 3D-printed, fenestrated triangular titanium implants with porous surfaces and bioactive agents, such as nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite (HA) or autograft, may further optimize bony fixation and subsequent biomechanical stability. METHODS: A bilateral ovine distal femoral defect model was used to evaluate the cancellous bone-implant interfaces of TPS-coated and AM implants. Four implant groups (n=6/group/time-point) were included: 1)TPS-coated, 2)AM, 3)AM+HA, and 4)AM+Autograft. The bone-implant interfaces of 6- and 12-week specimens were investigated via radiographic, biomechanical, and histomorphometric methods. RESULTS: Imaging showed peri-implant bone formation around all implants. Push-out testing demonstrated forces greater than 2500 N, with no significant differences among groups. While TPS implants failed primarily at the bone-implant interface, AM groups failed within bone ~2-3mm away from implant surfaces. All implants exhibited bone ongrowth, with no significant differences among groups. AM implants had significantly more bone ingrowth into their porous surfaces than TPS-coated implants (p<0.0001). Of the three AM groups, AM+Auto implants had the greatest bone ingrowth into the porous surface and through their core (p<0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Both TPS and AM implants exhibited substantial bone ongrowth and ingrowth, with additional bone through growth into the AM implants' core. Overall, AM implants experienced significantly more bone infiltration compared to TPS implants. While HA-coating did not further enhance results, the addition of autograft fostered greater osteointegration for AM implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Additive manufactured implants with a porous surface provide a highly interconnected porous surface that has comparatively greater surface area for bony integration. Results suggest this may prove advantageous toward promoting enhanced biomechanical stability compared to TPS-coated implants for SI joint fusion procedures.

Perioperative complications in patients treated with posterior cervical fusion and bilateral cages.

CONTEXT: Posterior cervical cages have recently become available as an alternative to lateral mass fixation in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to quantify the perioperative complications associated with cervical decompression and fusion in patients treated with a posterior cervical fusion (PCF) and bilateral cages. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A retrospective, multicenter review of prospectively collected data was performed at 11 US centers. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The charts of 89 consecutive patients with cervical radiculopathy treated surgically at one level with PCF and cages were reviewed. Three cohorts of patients were included standalone primary PCF with cages, circumferential surgery, and patients with postanterior cervical discectomy and fusion pseudarthrosis. Follow-up evaluation included clinical status and pain scale (visual analog scale). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The Wilcoxon test was used to test the differences for the data. The P level of 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The mean follow-up interval was 7 months (range: 62 weeks - 2 years). The overall postsurgery complication rate was 4.3%. There were two patients with neurological complications (C5 palsy, spinal cord irritation). Two patients had postoperative complications after discharge including one with atrial fibrillation and one with a parietal stroke. After accounting for relatedness to the PCF, the overall complication rate was 3.4%. The average (median) hospital stay for all three groups was 29 h. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study show that PCF with cages can be considered a safe alternative for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. The procedure has a favorable overall complication profile, short length of stay, and negligible blood loss.

One-year outcomes after minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion with a series of triangular implants: a multicenter, patient-level analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint (SI) pain is an often-overlooked cause of lower-back pain, due in part to a lack of specific findings on radiographs and a symptom profile similar to other back-related disorders. A minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approach to SI joint fusion using a series of triangular, titanium plasma spray-coated implants has shown favorable outcomes in patients with SI joint pain refractory to conservative care. The aim of this study was to provide a multicenter experience of MIS SI joint fusion using a patient-level analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report a patient-level analysis from 144 patients with a mean of 16 months postoperative follow-up. Demographic information, perioperative measures, complications, and clinical outcomes using a visual analog scale for pain were collected prospectively. Random-effects regression models were used to account for intersite variability. RESULTS: The mean age was 58 years, 71% of patients were female, and 62% had a history of lumbar spinal fusion. Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) operative time was 73 minutes (25.4-118), blood loss was minimal, and hospital stay was 0.8 days (0.1-1.5). At follow-up, mean (95% CI) visual analog scale pain scores improved by 6.1 points (5.7-6.6). Substantial clinical benefit, defined as a decrease in pain by >2.5 points or a score of 3.5 or less, was achieved in 91.9% of patients (95% CI 83.9%-96.1%), and 96% (95% CI 86.3%-98.8%) of patients indicated they would have the same surgery again. CONCLUSION: When conservative measures fail to relieve symptoms resulting from degeneration or disruption of the SI joint, MIS SI joint fusion using a series of triangular, porous, titanium plasma spray-coated implants is a safe and effective treatment option.

Open versus minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: a multi-center comparison of perioperative measures and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is an under diagnosed source of low back pain due in part to lack of visible pathology on radiographs and symptoms mimicking other back-related disorders. Open SI joint fusion has been performed since the 1920s. This technique has fallen out of favor with the introduction of minimally invasive options. To date there has been no direct comparison between open and MIS SI joint fusion. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, retrospective comparative cohort study of patients who underwent SI joint fusion using either an open surgical (OS) technique using a combination of screws and cages or a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique with a series of titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated triangular implants. Operative measures including surgical operating time, length of hospitalization and estimated blood loss (EBL) were collected along with demographics and medical history, surgical complications, and 12- and 24-month pain scores. Improvements in pain were compared after matching for age and gender and controlling for a history of lumbar spine fusion using repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Data were available for 263 patients treated by 7 surgeons; 149 patients treated with OS and 114 treated with MIS SI joint fusion. Compared to OS patients, MIS patients were on average 10 years older (mean age 57 vs. 46) and 69% of all patients were female. MIS operative measures of EBL, operating time and length of hospitalization were significantly lower than open surgery (p < 0.001). Pain relief, measured as change from baseline to 12 months in VAS pain rating, was 3.5 points lower in the MIS vs. OS group (-6.2 vs. -2.7 points, p < 0.001). When matched for age, gender and a history of prior lumbar spinal fusion, postoperative pain scores were on average 3.0 points (95% CI 2.1 - 4.0) lower in MIS vs. OS (rANOVA p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center comparative study, patients who underwent either OS or MIS SI joint fusion showed postoperative improvements in pain score. Compared to OS patients, patients who underwent MIS SI joint fusion had significantly greater pain relief and more favorable perioperative surgical measures.

Complications with axial presacral lumbar interbody fusion: A 5-year postmarketing surveillance experience.

BACKGROUND: Open and minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures have inherent procedural risks, with posterior and transforaminal approaches resulting in significant soft-tissue injury and the anterior approach endangering organs and major blood vessels. An alternative lumbar fusion technique uses a small paracoccygeal incision and a presacral approach to the L5-S1 intervertebral space, which avoids critical structures and may result in a favorable safety profile versus open and other minimally invasive fusion techniques. The purpose of this study was to evaluate complications associated with axial interbody lumbar fusion procedures using the Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion (AxiaLIF) System (TranS1, Wilmington, North Carolina) in the postmarketing period. METHODS: Between March 2005 and March 2010, 9,152 patients underwent interbody fusion with the AxiaLIF System through an axial presacral approach. A single-level L5-S1 fusion was performed in 8,034 patients (88%), and a 2-level (L4-S1) fusion was used in 1,118 (12%). A predefined database was designed to record device- or procedure-related complaints via spontaneous reporting. The complications that were recorded included bowel injury, superficial wound and systemic infections, transient intraoperative hypotension, migration, subsidence, presacral hematoma, sacral fracture, vascular injury, nerve injury, and ureter injury. RESULTS: Complications were reported in 120 of 9,152 patients (1.3%). The most commonly reported complications were bowel injury (n = 59, 0.6%) and transient intraoperative hypotension (n = 20, 0.2%). The overall complication rate was similar between single-level (n = 102, 1.3%) and 2-level (n = 18, 1.6%) fusion procedures, with no significant differences noted for any single complication. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year postmarketing surveillance experience with the AxiaLIF System suggests that axial interbody lumbar fusion through the presacral approach is associated with a low incidence of complications. The overall complication rates observed in our evaluation compare favorably with those reported in trials of open and minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgery.

Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of lumbar pedicle screw placement for in situ posterior spinal fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) are commonly used to monitor the spinal cord and nerve roots during operative procedures that put those structures at risk. The utility of SSEPs to evaluate cauda equina and nerve root function during posterior spinal arthrodesis with pedicular fixation for degenerative lumbar disease has been reported anecdotally and remains controversial. PURPOSE: An institution-wide review of the ability of SSEP readings to monitor nerve function during posterior lumbar spinal arthrodeses with transpedicular fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal disorders was undertaken. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective review was undertaken. Patient history, preoperative physical examination, intraoperative anesthesia, SSEP records and the postoperative course were reviewed. METHODS: A total of 186 consecutive arthrodeses as described above were reviewed. Patients who had anterior procedures, spondyloreduction or scoliosis correction were excluded from the study. There were 76 male and 110 female patients. Five fellowship-trained spine surgeons placed a total of 888 pedicle screws. Sixty-five percent of the patients had a principal preoperative diagnosis of spinal stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Other common diagnoses were isthmic spondylolisthesis and degenerative scoliosis. Ninety-three percent of the cases involved decompressive laminectomy. Eight percent had posterior interbody fusions. All pedicle screws were placed without the assistance of fluoroscopy or stereotactic computer-assisted guidance. Screw position was evaluated intraoperatively with standard posteroanterior and lateral radiographs. Anesthetic agents compatible with SSEP monitoring were used in all patients. SSEP baseline readings were obtained in all patients in the operating room soon after induction of general anesthesia. An acute and sustained loss of 50% of the SSEP amplitude and/or increase by 10% of latency from baseline was considered to be pathologic. RESULTS: None of the 186 patients had significant SSEP changes. There were, however, 5 patients with postoperative radiculopathies distinct from their preoperative presentations. Early postoperative plain radiographs and computed assisted tomography (CAT) scans revealed malpositioned pedicle screws. Consequently, eight pedicle screws were either revised or removed. All patients had partial or full recovery of their new deficits after revision surgery. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the use of SSEPs in evaluating pedicle screw placement during lumbar arthrodesis is limited. In this setting, if monitoring is required, alternative methods with greater sensitivity and efficacy should be explored.

Does provocative discography screening of discogenic back pain improve surgical outcome?

The value of preoperative provocative discography in the setting of discogenic low back pain was investigated by evaluating surgical outcomes. Seventy-three consecutive patients who underwent posterolateral interbody and posterior spinal arthrodesis for discogenic low back pain refractory to nonoperative management were reviewed. Chronologically, the first 41 patients (group A) were indicated without discography, whereas the remaining 32 (group B) had been indicated only if their pain had been reproduced during disc injection. The two groups were similar in demographic, psychometric, and radiologic parameters. Average follow-up time in group A was 2.8 years and in group B it was 2.4 years, both with a 2-year minimum. Using modified Oswestry scoring, group A and group B patients had satisfactory outcomes of 75.6% and 81.2%, respectively. This difference was neither statistically significant nor suggestive. In this study, provocative discography screening did not improve surgical outcomes after circumferential fusion for lumbar discogenic back pain.