Effect of BMI on the clinical outcome following microsurgical decompression in over-the-top technique: bi-centric study with an analysis of 744 patients.

PURPOSE: Decompression is one of the most common interventions in spinal surgery. Obesity has become an increasing issue in surgical patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the clinical outcome following lumbar microsurgical decompression in correlation with the patient's body mass index (BMI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A toal of 744 patients with spinal claudication that were seen at two specialized spine centers were included in this study. All patients underwent a bilateral microsurgical decompression in over-the-top technique. Patients were allocated in 4 groups based in their BMI category: 18.5-24.9 (n = 204), 25.0-29.9 (n = 318), 30.0-34.9 (n = 164) and ≥ 35 (n = 58). Clinical outcome data were recorded at baseline as well as 3, 12 and 24 months thereafter within a prospective study framework. The minimum follow-up was 12 months. For statistical analysis, data were adjusted for age, length of surgery and ASA and were analyzed by generalized linear gamma-based models. RESULTS: Postoperative changes in all outcome parameters were clearly dependent on BMI. Patients with higher BMI were characterized by inferior baseline values for VAS Back (p < 0.05). Over the follow-up period, the groups with BMI 30-34.9 and BMI ≥ 35 benefitted significantly less from the surgery than the two slimmer groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The data obtained from this large, homogenous cohort demonstrate that the quality of life improved substantially in all patients that were treated microsurgically for spinal stenosis. However, a BMI ≥ 30 may be considered as a negative predictor for a significantly inferior clinical outcome.

Metrics Development for Minimal Invasive Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With and Without Spondylolisthesis by an International Expert Panel.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. OBJECTIVES: To develop, operationally define, and seek consensus from procedure experts on the metrics that best characterize a reference approach to the performance of a minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: A Metrics Group consisting of 3 experienced spine surgeons (2 neurosurgeons, 1 orthopedic surgeon), each with over 25 years of clinical practice, and an educational expert formed the Metrics Group that characterized a lumbar decompression surgery for spinal stenosis as a "reference" procedure. In a modified Delphi panel, 26 spine surgeons from 14 countries critiqued these metrics and their operational definitions before reaching consensus. RESULTS: Performance metrics consisting of 6 phases with 42 steps, 21 errors, and 17 sentinel errors were identified that characterize the procedure. During the peer review, these were evaluated, modified, and agreed. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical procedures can be broken down into elemental tasks necessary for the safe and effective completion of a reference approach to a specified surgical procedure. Spinal experts from 16 countries reached consensus on performance metrics for the procedure. This metric-based characterization can be used in a training curriculum and also for assessment of training and performance in clinical practice.

[The mono- and multisegmental ventral minimally invasive approach to the lumbar spine (OLIF) in lumbar deformities]. / Mono- und mehrsegmentaler ventraler minimalinvasiver Zugang zur Lendenwirbelsäule (OLIF) zur Korrektur von Deformitäten.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive anterolateral approach to the lumbar spine (oblique lateral interbody fusion, OLIF) to correct lumbar deformities. INDICATIONS: Ventral release in degenerative lumbar scoliosis or segmental kyphosis and intervertebral spondylodesis. CONTRAINDICATIONS: No absolute contraindications. Relative contraindications are previous (left-sided) retroperitoneal interventions or status after peritonitis with pronounced retroperitoneal scarring. Vascular anomalies with extremely lateral common iliac vein (especially with segmentation disorders in the penultimate mobile segment). SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Through a small skin incision in the left abdominal wall and alternating incision technique through the abdominal wall muscles retroperitoneal approach to the lateral anterior lumbar spine monosegmental or from L1-L5 multisegmental if needed. Retraction of the psoas muscle and removal of the intervertebral disc space, if necessary with resection of the anterior longitudinal ligament. Intervertebral release and interposition of an implant for ventral spondylodesis. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Early mobilisation after dorsal instrumentation under thrombosis prophylaxis. Light meals until the first bowel movement. Wearing a trunk stabilizing brace for up to 12 weeks, depending on the type and extent of the procedure. No limitations regarding walking distance, standing and sitting immediately postoperatively. RESULTS: In all, 15 patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis were treated with ventrodorsal fusion surgery. The surgical anterior treatment included 1-4 segments. The access-specific complications and pre- and postoperative radiological parameters were recorded. None of the 15 left-sided retroperitoneal ventral accesses showed intraoperative or postoperative access-specific complications. A significant reduction of the anteroposterior Cobb angle from 16°â€¯± 6° preoperatively to 3°â€¯± 2° postoperatively (p < 0.001) was achieved in the entire patient population.

[The Facet Wedge: a minimally invasive technique for posterior segmental intra-articular fusion]. / Facet Wedge: eine minimalinvasive Technik zur dorsalen segmentalen intraartikulären Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive posterior segmental instrumentation and intra-articular fusion with the Facet Wedge device. INDICATIONS: All fusion indications in degenerative disc disease without significant translational instability, postnucleotomy syndrome, spondylarthrosis, discitis. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Translatory instabilities, status after decompression with partial facet joint resection, spondylolysis in the affected segment. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Through a 3 cm skin incision, blunt transmuscular approach to the corresponding facet joint L1/2 to L5/S1. Opening of the joint capsule and visualisation of the intra-articular space. Cartilage removal and intra-articular implantation of the Facet Wedge device. Fixation of the implant by means of two angle-stable screws inserted in the corresponding facet joint parts. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Early mobilisation under thomboprophylaxis. Wearing a trunk-stabilizing brace for up to 12 weeks, depending on the type and extent of the procedure. No restrictions regarding walking distance, standing and sitting immediately postoperatively after pain. RESULTS: In all, 27 patients (mean age 51.2 years, range 30-76 years) were enrolled in the prospective nonrandomized study from 02/2015 to 9/2017 with a total of 31 treated segments. In 23 cases a ventrodorsal surgical technique was used, in 4 cases a purely dorsal procedure with interposition of an intervertebral cage. Follow-up was 2 years. The Oswestry Score (ODI) improved from an average of 40.6% preoperatively to 16.6% postoperatively. The visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain improved from an average of 6.7 points preoperatively to 2.1 points 2 years postoperatively. During this observation period, 2 implant-specific complications were observed. One Facet Wedge had to be revised due to misplacement with early loosening. In another case, loss of correction occurred in a preoperatively existing first-degree spondylolisthesis with revision to a dorsal screw-rod system.

Revision after failed discectomy.

PURPOSE: Recurrent lumbar disc herniation is the most common complication after discectomy. Due to the altered anatomy with the presence of scar tissue, the surgical revision of already operated patients could be a surgical challenge. METHODS: We describe the microsurgical revision technique step by step with the evaluation of our own clinical results in comparison with primary lumbar disc surgeries. The clinical data are based on a clinical register with 2576 recorded primary surgeries (PD) and 592 cases of revisions (RD) with 12- and 24-month follow-up (FU). The intraoperative dura lesion rates of the surgeries between 2016 and 2018 were recorded retrospectively. Data from 894 primary disc surgeries and 117 revisions were evaluated. RESULTS: The ODI and the VAS for leg and back pain improved in both groups significantly with slightly inferior outcome of the revision group. The ODI improved from 46.3 (PD) and 45.9 (RD), respectively, to 12.6 (PD) and 22.9 (RD) at the 24-month FU. The VAS dropped down as well in both group [VAS back: 47.8 (PD) and 43.9 (RD) to 19.9 and 32.2 at the 24-month FU; VAS leg: 62.9 (PD) and 65.5 (RD) to 15.6 and 26.8 at the 24-month FU]. During the primary interventions, we observed 1.5% (11/894) and during revisions 7.7% (9/117) of dura lesions. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear guideline for the surgical treatment of recurrent disc herniations. In most cases, a pure re-discectomy is sufficient and can be performed safely and effectively with the help of a microscope. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Clinical and Radiological Outcome of a New Total Cervical Disc Replacement Design.

STUDY DESIGN: A nonrandomized, prospective, and single-center clinical trial of the ProDisc Vivo prosthesis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological results of a refined total cervical disc replacement (cTDR), the ProDisc Vivo, with two years of follow-up (FU). The incidence of implant-related complications was recorded as a secondary outcome variable. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous generations of the ProDisc artificial cervical disc replacement generate high primary stability due to keel-based designs with opening of the anterior cortex during the implantation and subsequent high rates of heterotopic ossifications. METHODS: Clinical outcome scores included the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), arm and neck pain self-assessment questionnaires. The radiological outcome included the range of motion (ROM) and the occurrence of heterotopic ossifications. The incidence of implant-related complications with new implant design was recorded as a secondary outcome variable. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients received a single-level treatment with the ProDisc Vivo cTDR between C3/4 and C6/7, with a follow-up rate of 78%. The clinical outcome scores improved in all parameters significantly (P = 0.0001) (NDI: 68.3 → 17.4; VAS arm: 6.3 → 1.4; VAS neck: 4.9 → 1.6). The ROM of the index-segment did not show a significant change (P = 0.26) (7.9° → 9.2°). Heterotopic ossifications at the index segment was found as grade 0 in 58%, grade 1 in 22%, grade 2 in 10%, grade 3 (with functional impairment of the prosthesis) in 7%, and grade 4 in 3% of the cases. We observed three implant-related complications (5.5%), with two implant dislocations anteriorly and one low-grade infect. CONCLUSION: cTDR with ProDisc Vivo demonstrated a significant and sustained improvement of all clinical outcome parameters. A less invasive implantation mechanism with lower primary stability of the cTDR might be a reason for a higher dislocation rate than the keel-based previous generation ProDisc C. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Treatment of Atlas Fractures: Recommendations of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU).

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review and expert recommendation. OBJECTIVES: To establish treatment recommendations for atlas fractures based on the knowledge of the experts of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma. METHODS: Neither high-level evidence studies comparing conservative and operative management nor studies matching different operative treatment strategies exist. This recommendation summarizes the knowledge of the experts of the Spine Section of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma with regard to the treatment of atlas fractures. RESULTS: Most atlas fractures are the result of compression forces. A valuable morphological classification system has been described by Gehweiler. For an adequate diagnosis, a computed tomography is mandatory. To distinguish between stable and unstable type 3 injuries, it is necessary to evaluate the integrity of the transverse atlantal ligament (TAL) with magnetic resonance imaging and to classify the TAL lesions. The majority of atlas fractures are stable and will be successfully managed conservatively. Unstable atlas fractures (type 3b and sagittal split type 4 fractures) should be treated by surgical stabilization. Unstable atlas fractures (type 3b) with a midsubstance ligamentous disruption or severely dislocated ligamentous bony avulsions of the TAL can successfully be treated by a C1/2 fusion. Unstable atlas fractures (type 3b) with a moderately dislocated ligamentous bony avulsion of the TAL and sagittal split type 4 fractures may be treated by atlas osteosynthesis only. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the majority of atlas fractures can be managed conservatively, in specific fracture patterns surgical treatment strategies have become the standard of care.

Recommendations for Diagnosis and Treatment of Fractures of the Ring of Axis. / Empfehlungen zur Diagnostik und Therapie oberer Halswirbelsäulenverletzungen: Axisringfrakturen.

In a consensus process with four sessions in 2017, the working group "upper cervical spine" of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery (DGOU) formulated "Therapeutic Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Upper Cervical Fractures", taking their own experience and the current literature into consideration. The following article describes the recommendations for axis ring fractures (traumatic spondylolysis C2). About 19 to 49% of all cervical spine injuries include the axis vertebra. Traumatic spondylolysis of C2 may include potential discoligamentous instability C2/3. The primary aim of the diagnostic process is to detect the injury and to determine potential disco-ligamentous instability C2/3. For classification purposes, the Josten classification or the modified Effendi classification may be used. The Canadian C-spine rule is recommended for clinical screening for C-spine injuries. CT is the preferred imaging modality and an MRI is needed to determine the integrity of the discoligamentous complex C2/3. Conservative treatment is appropriate in case of stable fractures with intact C2/3 motion segment (Josten type 2 and 2). Patients should be closely monitored, in order to detect secondary dislocation as early as possible. Surgical treatment is recommended in cases of primary severe fracture dislocation or discoligamentous instability C2/3 (Josten 3 and 4) and/or secondary fracture dislocation. Anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) C2/3 is the treatment of choice. However, in case of facet joint luxation C2/3 with looked facet (Josten 4), a primary posterior approach may be necessary.

Clinical and radiological outcome at 10 years of follow-up after total cervical disc replacement.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have demonstrated that total cervical disc replacement (cTDR) represents a viable treatment alternative to the 'gold standard' anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of well-defined cervical pathologies at short- and mid-term follow-up (FU). However, the implementation and acceptance of a non-fusion philosophy is closely associated with its avoidance of adjacent segment degeneration. Proof of the functional sustainability and clinical improvement of symptoms at long-term FU is still pending. The aim of this ongoing prospective study was to investigate the clinical and radiological results of cTDR at long-term FU. METHODS: 50 patients were treated surgically within a non-randomised prospective study framework with cTDR (ProDisc C™, Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA). Patients were examined preoperatively followed by routine clinical and radiological examinations at 1, 5 and 10 years after surgery, respectively. In addition to the clinical scores, conventional X-ray images of the cervical spine were taken in anteroposterior and lateral view as well as flexion/extension images. Clinical outcome scores included parameters such as the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), arm and neck pain self-assessment questionnaires as well as subjective patient satisfaction rates. The radiological outcome variables included the range of motion (ROM) of the implanted prosthesis between maximum flexion and extension images, the occurrence of heterotopic ossifications and radiographic signs of adjacent segment degenerative changes. The reoperation rate following cTDR was recorded as a secondary outcome variable. RESULTS: A significant and maintained clinical improvement of all clinical outcome scores was observed after a mean FU of 10.2 years (VASarm 6.3-2.1; VASneck 6.4-1.9; NDI 21-6; p < 0.05). An increase in the incidence and the extent of heterotopic ossifications was noted during the post-operative course with a significant influence on the function of the prosthesis, which, however, did not reveal any detrimental effect on the patients' clinical symptomatology. Prosthesis mobility declined from 9.0° preoperatively and 9.1° at 1 year FU to 7.7° and 7.6° at the five- and ten-year FU examinations, respectively. Radiological signs of adjacent segment degeneration were detected in 13/38 (35.7%), however, in only 3/38 (7.9%) patients this radiological changes were associated with clinical symptoms requiring conservative treatment. Intraoperative technical failure in two cases required interbody fusion with a cage (2/50). One patient (1/48, 2.1%) treated this motion device had revision surgery at the index level. CONCLUSION: Cervical total disc replacement with ProDisc C demonstrated a significant and maintained improvement of all clinical outcome parameters at a follow-up of ≥10 years. The present long-term data reveal that with an exceptionally low implant-related reoperation rate and low symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration rate, cTDR may be regarded as a safe and viable treatment option.

The Oblique Anterolateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine Provides Access to the Lumbar Spine With Few Early Complications.

BACKGROUND: During the last 20 years several less-invasive anterior approaches to the lumbar spine have become standard, including the extreme lateral transpsoas approach. Although it is associated with a lower risk of vascular injury compared with anterior midline approaches, neuromonitoring is considered mandatory to avoid neurologic complications. Interestingly, despite neuromonitoring, the reported risk of neurologic deficits with the extreme lateral transpsoas approach is greater than observed with other anterior approaches. An alternative lateral, oblique, psoas-sparing approach, recently named the oblique lumbar interbody fusion, uses the anatomic pathway between the abdominal vessels anteriorly and the lumbar plexus laterally to decrease the risk of neurologic and vascular injury; however, as yet, little on this new approach has been reported. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: what proportion of patients experienced (1) perioperative complications (overall complications), (2) vascular complications, and (3) neurologic complications after less-invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion through the oblique lumbar interbody approach at one high-volume center? METHODS: We performed a chart review of intra- and perioperative complications of all patients who had undergone minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion through a lateral psoas-sparing approach from L1 to L5 during a 12-year period (1998-2010). During the study period, the oblique, psoas-sparing approach was the preferred approach of the participating surgeons in this study, and it was performed in 812 patients, all of whom are studied here, and all of whom have complete data for assessment of the short-term (inpatient-only) complications that we studied. In general, we performed this approach whenever possible, although it generally was avoided when a patient previously had undergone an open retro- or transperitoneal abdominal procedure, or previous implantation of hernia mesh in the abdomen. During the study period, posterior fusion techniques were used in an additional 573 patients instead of the oblique lumbar interbody fusion when we needed to decompress the spinal canal beyond what is possible through the anterior approach. In case of spinal stenosis calling for fusion in combination with a high disc space, severe endplate irregularity, or severe biomechanical instability, we combined posterior decompression with oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 367 patients. Complications were evaluated by an independent observer who was not involved in the decision-making process, the operative procedure, nor the postoperative care by reviewing the inpatient records and operative notes. RESULTS: A total of 3.7% (30/812) of patients who underwent the oblique lumbar interbody fusion experienced a complication intraoperatively or during the hospital stay. During the early postoperative period there were two superficial (0.24%) and three deep (0.37%) wound infections and five superficial (0.62%) and six deep (0.86%) hematomas. There were no abdominal injuries or urologic injuries. The percentage of vascular complications was 0.37% (n = 3). The percentage of neurologic complications was 0.37% (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of vascular complications after oblique lumbar interbody fusion seems to be lower compared with reported risk for anterior midline approaches, and the risk of neurologic complications after oblique lumbar interbody fusion seems to be lower than what has been reported with the extreme lateral transpsoas approach; however, we caution readers that head-to-head studies will need to be performed to confirm our very preliminary comparisons and results with the oblique psoas-sparing approach. Similarly, future studies will need to evaluate this approach in terms of later-presenting complications, such as infection and pseudarthrosis formation, which could not be assessed using this inpatient-only approach. Nevertheless, with the results of this study the oblique psoas-sparing approach can be described as a less-invasive alternative for anterior lumbar fusion surgery from L1 to L5 with a low risk of vascular and neurologic damage and without costly intraoperative neuromonitoring tools. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Worldwide survey on the use of navigation in spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) can improve the accuracy of screw placement and decrease radiation exposure, yet this is not widely accepted among spine surgeons. The current viewpoint of spine surgeons on navigation in their everyday practice is an important issue that has not been studied. A survey-based study assessed opinions on CAS to describe the current global attitudes of surgeons on the use of navigation in spine surgery. METHODS: A 12-item questionnaire focusing on the number and type of surgical cases, the type of equipment available, and general opinions toward CAS was distributed to 3348 AOSpine surgeons (a specialty group within the AO [Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen] Foundation). Latent class analysis was used to investigate the existence of specific groups based on the respondent opinion profiles. RESULTS: A response rate of 20% was recorded. Despite a widespread distribution of navigation systems in North America and Europe, only 11% of surgeons use it routinely. High-volume procedure surgeons, neurological surgeons, and surgeons with a busy minimal invasive surgery practice are more likely to use CAS. "Routine users" consider the accuracy, potential of facilitating complex surgery, and reduction in radiation exposure as the main advantages. The lack of equipment, inadequate training, and high costs are the main reasons that "nonusers" do not use CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Spine surgeons acknowledge the value of CAS, yet current systems do not meet their expectations in terms of ease of use and integration into the surgical work flow. To increase its use, CAS has to become more cost efficient and scientific data are needed to clarify its potential benefits.

Histological analysis of surgical lumbar intervertebral disc tissue provides evidence for an association between disc degeneration and increased body mass index.

BACKGROUND: Although histopathological grading systems for disc degeneration are frequently used in research, they are not yet integrated into daily care routine pathology of surgical samples. Therefore, data on histopathological changes in surgically excised disc material and their correlation to clinical parameters such as age, gender or body mass index (BMI) is limited to date. The current study was designed to correlate major physico-clinical parameters from a population of orthopaedic spine center patients (gender, age and BMI) with a quantitative histologic degeneration score (HDS). METHODS: Excised lumbar disc material from 854 patients (529 men/325 women/mean age 56 (15-96) yrs.) was graded based on a previously validated histologic degeneration score (HDS) in a cohort of surgical disc samples that had been obtained for the treatment of either disc herniation or discogenic back pain. Cases with obvious inflammation, tumor formation or congenital disc pathology were excluded. The degree of histological changes was correlated with sex, age and BMI. RESULTS: The HDS (0-15 points) showed significantly higher values in the nucleus pulposus (NP) than in the annulus fibrosus (AF) (Mean: NP 11.45/AF 7.87), with a significantly higher frequency of histomorphological alterations in men in comparison to women. Furthermore, the HDS revealed a positive significant correlation between the BMI and the extent of histological changes. No statistical age relation of the degenerative lesions was seen. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that histological disc alterations in surgical specimens can be graded in a reliable manner based on a quantitative histologic degeneration score (HDS). Increased BMI was identified as a positive risk factor for the development of symptomatic, clinically significant disc degeneration.

[The microsurgical anterior approach for total cervical disc replacement]. / Der mikrochirurgische anteriore Zugang zur Halswirbelsäule beim zervikalen Bandscheibenersatz.

OBJECTIVE: Mono- or bisegmental atraumatic microsurgical approach to the anterior cervical spine between C3 and C7 for total disc replacement. INDICATIONS: 'Soft' disc herniations C3-C7 with radicular symptoms. Ossified 'hard' disc herniations with preserved segmental motion. Erosive osteochondrosis with signs of activation (MRI: Modic I changes) and neck pain. Relative Indication: Adjacent segment degeneration following fusion. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Thyromegalie. Multiple previous cervical operations. Other implant-specific contraindications: Anterior osteophytes. Range of Motion (ROM) less than 5° (flexion/extension). Segmental collapse. Endplate anomalies (e.g. excessive concavity of cranial endplate). Endplate defects (e.g. Schmorl's nodes). Cervical myelopathy (limited postop evaluation of the spinal canal and spinal cord if implant is made out of ferromagentic materials). SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Through a 2.5-3 cm skin incision, exposure and splitting of the platysma muscle. Blunt dissection between carotis sheath and esophageus/trachea with preservation of the thyroid blood vessels and the strap muscles (especially m. omohyoideus) and the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Exposure of the anterior disc space between the longus colli muscles after splitting of the prevertebral fascia. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Mobilisation the same day after 6-8 hrs. Functional postop treatment. Implant-dependent postop soft collar for max. 14 days. RESULTS: Safe and reliable anterior approach with low peri- and postoperative morbidity. In large series (> 900,000 operations) complication rate range between 2-2.9% [20]. Approach related complications are rare: postop Hematoma 0.39%, vascular Injuries (carotid artery, vertebral artery) (0.06%). Vocal cord palsy 0.14%, dysphagia 0.75%. Older age and cervical myelopathy have been identified as significant risk factors. Both situations don't play a significant role in total disc replacement since this type of operation is usually performed in young patients. Moreover, cervical myelopathy is still considered as a relative contraindication for total disc replacement.

[Total cervical disk replacement--implant-specific approaches: keel implant (Prodisc-C intervertebral disk prosthesis)]. / Zervikaler Bandscheibenersatz--implantatspezifische Zugänge: Kielimplantat (Prodisc-C Bandscheibenprothese).

OBJECTIVE: Dynamic intervertebral support of the cervical spine via an anterolateral approach using a modular artificial disk prosthesis with end-plate fixation by central keel fixation. INDICATIONS: Cervical median or mediolateral disk herniations, symptomatic cervical disk disease (SCDD) with anterior osseous, ligamentous and/or discogenic narrowing of the spinal canal. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Cervical fractures, tumors, osteoporosis, arthrogenic neck pain, severe facet degeneration, increased segmental instability, ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), severe osteopenia, acute and chronic systemic, spinal or local infections, systemic and metabolic diseases, known implant allergy, pregnancy, severe adiposity (body mass index > 36 kg/m2), reduced patient compliance, alcohol abuse, drug abuse and dependency. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Exposure of the anterior cervical spine using the minimally invasive anterolateral approach. Intervertebral fixation of retainer screws. Intervertebral diskectomy. Segmental distraction with vertebral body retainer and vertebral distractor. Removal of end-plate cartilage. Microscopically assisted decompression of spinal canal. Insertion of trial implant to determine appropriate implant size, height and position. After biplanar image intensifier control, drilling for keel preparation using drill guide and drill bit, keel-cut cleaner to remove bone material from the keel cut, radiologic control of depth of the keel cut using the corresponding position gauge. Implantation of original implant under lateral image intensifier control. Removal of implant inserter. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Functional postoperative care and mobilization without external support, brace not used routinely, soft brace possible for 14 days due to postoperative pain syndromes. RESULTS: Implantation of 100 cervical Prodisc-C disk prostheses in 78 patients (average age 48 years) at a single center. Clinical and radiologic follow-up 24 months postoperatively. Significant improvement based on visual analog scale and Neck Disability Index. Radiologic improvement of segmental lordosis and mobility in the index segment. Incidence of spontaneous fusion in the index segments 8.75% without significant relation to the clinical outcome.

[Percutaneous interspinous distraction for the treatment of dynamic lumbar spinal stenosis and low back pain]. / Die perkutane Implantation eines interspinösen Spacers an der Lendenwirbelsäule.

UNLABELLED: SURGICAL GOAL: Surgical treatment of dynamic lumbar spinal stenosis and discogenic/arthrogenic low back pain with a new percutaneous interspinous spacer as a therapeutic alternative to more invasive standard procedures. INDICATIONS: Central, lateral and foraminal dynamic lumbar spinal stenosis. Discogenic and arthrogenic (facet osteoarthritis) low back pain. Symptomatic, segmental hyperlordosis. Disc degeneration with dynamic (reducible) retrolisthesis. Interspinous pain ('Kissing-Spines'). CONTRAINDICATIONS: Osteoporosis. Conus-/Cauda-syndrome. Structural spinal stenosis. Spondylolisthesis (degenerative and/or isthmic). Deformities. Previous posterior operation in index segment. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Percutaneous, minimally invasive implantation of an interspinous spacer (InSpace ™, Synthes, Oberdorf, Switzerland). POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Early unrestricted mobilization. RESULTS: Good early results (after 2 year follow-up) in 42 patients with 76% subjective patient satisfaction rate. No approach related complications. Avoidance of the more invasive alternative procedure (decompression, fusion, total disc replacement) in 76.2% of the patients.

[Treatment of dynamic spinal canal stenosis with an interspinous spacer]. / Die Behandlung der dynamischen Spinalkanalstenose mit einem interspinösen Spacer.

OBJECTIVE: Indirect decompression of the spinal canal and the neuroforamina by means of interspinous process distraction and limitation of extension movements. Reduction of forces acting on the posterior joint structures of a functional spinal unit (posterior anulus, facet joints, intervertebral discs). INDICATIONS: Primary indication: Spinal claudication with improvement of the clinical symptomatology upon taking an inclined position. Secondary indication: Low back pain in the presence of accompanying retrolisthesis. Hyperlordosis Facet joint complaints Annulus lesions with high intensity zones (HIZ) M. Baastrup ("kissing spine"). Adjacent segment preservation (e.g. prophylaxis of recurrent disc herniation after discectomy or topping-off following previous fusion). CONTRAINDICATIONS: Spinal instabilities which prohibit a solid fixation of the implant (e.g. spondylolysis, isthmus fractures, condition following previous (hemi-) laminectomy) Degenerative spondylolisthesis ffl 1st degree. Severe structural narrowing of the spinal canal. Absent dynamic aspect without improvement upon inclination, segmental ankylosis. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Positioning of the patient in an inclined position. Approximately 4 cm median skin incision, bilateral access with preservation of the supraspinous ligament. Perforation of the interspinous ligament. Following interspinous distraction the adequate size implant is established. Insertion of the interspinous process distraction device (IPD) unit and fixation of the mobile wing unit from the contralateral side. Medial positioning and solid fixation of the implant by connecting the two implant units. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Lumbar orthosis (optional), otherwise no further support required. Daily living activities immediately after the operation. Physiotherapeutic exercises (optional). Low impact sporting activities from 2nd week after operation, intense/ high impact sporting activities from 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Previous studies have reported satisfactory results for interspinous distraction devices for the treatment of dynamic spinal canal stenosis. However, the majority of these previously published studies are based on data with only shortterm follow-up or small patient numbers. In particular, the results of interspinous spacers for the treatment of different indications have not been evaluated separately. Complications and long-term results still need to be established.