General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Spinal Surgery: A Comparative National Analysis of Reimbursement Trends Over 10 Years.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) spine surgery is growing in popularity and has facilitated earlier postoperative recovery, reduced cost, and fewer complications compared with spine surgery under general anesthesia (GA). Changes in reimbursement policies have been demonstrated to correlate with clinical practice; however, they have yet to be studied for GA vs non-GA spine procedures. We aimed to investigate trends in physician reimbursement for GA vs non-GA spine surgery in the United States. METHODS: We queried the ACS-NSQIP for GA and non-GA (regional, epidural, spinal, and anesthesia care/intravenous sedation) spine surgeries during 2011-2020. Work relative value units per operative hour (wRVUs/h) were retrieved for decompression or stabilization of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using all baseline variables. RESULTS: We included 474 706 patients who underwent spine decompression or stabilization procedures. GA was used in 472 248 operations, whereas 2458 operations were non-GA. The proportion of non-GA spine operations significantly increased during the study period. Operative times ( P < .001) and length of stays ( P < .001) were shorter in non-GA when compared with GA procedures. Non-GA lumbar procedures had significantly higher wRVUs/h when compared with the same procedures performed under GA (decompression; P < .001 and stabilization; P = .039). However, the same could not be said about cervicothoracic procedures. Lumbar decompression surgeries using non-GA witnessed significant yearly increase in wRVUs/h ( P < .01) contrary to GA ( P = .72). Physician reimbursement remained stable for procedures of the cervical or thoracic spine regardless of the anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Non-GA lumbar decompressions and stabilizations are associated with higher and increasing reimbursement trends (wRVUs/h) compared with those under GA. Reimbursement for cervical and thoracic surgeries was equal regardless of the type of anesthesia and being relatively stable during the study period. The adoption of a non-GA technique relative to the GA increased significantly during the study period.

Prospective, randomized controlled multicenter study of posterior lumbar facet arthroplasty for the treatment of spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a posterior facet replacement device, the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) System, for the treatment of one-level symptomatic lumbar stenosis with grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. Posterior lumbar arthroplasty with facet replacement is a motion-preserving alternative to lumbar decompression and fusion. The authors report the preliminary results from the TOPS FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) trial. METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomized controlled FDA IDE trial comparing the investigational TOPS device with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and pedicle screw fixation. The minimum follow-up duration was 24 months. Validated patient-reported outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. The primary outcome was a composite measure of clinical success: 1) no reoperations, 2) no device breakage, 3) ODI reduction of ≥ 15 points, and 4) no new or worsening neurological deficit. Patients were considered a clinical success only if they met all four measures. Radiographic assessments were made by an independent core laboratory. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were evaluated (n = 170 in the TOPS group and n = 79 in the TLIF group). There were no statistically significant differences between implanted levels (L4-5: TOPS, 95% and TLIF, 95%) or blood loss. The overall composite measure for clinical success was statistically significantly higher in the TOPS group (85%) compared with the TLIF group (64%) (p = 0.0138). The percentage of patients reporting a minimum 15-point improvement in ODI showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.037) favoring TOPS (93%) over TLIF (81%). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients reporting a minimum 20-point improvement on VAS back pain (TOPS, 87%; TLIF, 64%) and leg pain (TOPS, 90%; TLIF, 88%) scores. The rate of surgical reintervention for facet replacement in the TOPS group (5.9%) was lower than the TLIF group (8.8%). The TOPS cohort demonstrated maintenance of flexion/extension range of motion from preoperatively (3.85°) to 24 months (3.86°). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that posterior lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device is safe and efficacious in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Additionally, decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device maintains segmental motion.

Myelopathy after traumatic lumbar vertebral intraosseous arteriovenous fistula with epidural venous drainage treated with transvenous embolization.

Spinal epidural arteriovenous fistulas are an uncommon entity. The authors present an interesting case of a 48-year-old man involved in a MVC five months prior to presenting with bilateral lower extremity weakness and hypoesthesia below the knees. MRI demonstrated a flow void in the L1 vertebral body burst fracture along with a dilated basivertebral vein draining in to engorged epidural venous plexus. Angiography confirmed an intraosseous arteriovenous fistula fed by T12 and L1arteries and epidural venous drainage. Complete obliteration by arterial embolization was precluded by origin of the artery of Adamkiewicz from the feeding L1 lumbar artery. Embolization using a transvenous approach allowed for successful obliteration of the fistula. Following the procedure, the patient had significant immediate improvement in the lower extremity symptoms. This is the first report of a posttraumatic spinal epidural arteriovenous fistula secondary to a vertebral burst fracture successfully treated by transvenous embolization.

Augmented reality for the surgeon: Systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Since the introduction of wearable head-up displays, there has been much interest in the surgical community adapting this technology into routine surgical practice. METHODS: We used the keywords augmented reality OR wearable device OR head-up display AND surgery using PubMed, EBSCO, IEEE and SCOPUS databases. After exclusions, 74 published articles that evaluated the utility of wearable head-up displays in surgical settings were included in our review. RESULTS: Across all studies, the most common use of head-up displays was in cases of live streaming from surgical microscopes, navigation, monitoring of vital signs, and display of preoperative images. The most commonly used head-up display was Google Glass. Head-up displays enhanced surgeons' operating experience; common disadvantages include limited battery life, display size and discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: Due to ergonomic issues with dual-screen devices, augmented reality devices with the capacity to overlay images onto the surgical field will be key features of next-generation surgical head-up displays.

Technical feasibility and safety of an intraoperative head-up display device during spine instrumentation.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of capturing and streaming neuronavigation images onto a head-up display during spine instrumentation. METHODS: Using a novel device, neuronavigation images were captured and transferred wirelessly via a password-encrypted network to the head-up display. At the end of the procedure, the surgeons completed a survey to gather their opinions of the system. RESULTS: Forty pedicle screws were placed using the head-up display. The average screw placement time was slightly shorter when the head-up display was used (4.13 min with vs. 4.86 min without). The post-procedure survey demonstrated that 79% of surgeon's responses were positive. CONCLUSION: A wearable head-up display can benefit current neuronavigation systems, but larger, outcomes-based trials are needed. Higher processing speed would allow streaming of higher resolution images. Along with an enlarged display, these may significantly improve utilization of this technology. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Redirecting pedicle screws: a revision spinal fusion strategy using three-dimensional image guidance.

BACKGROUND: Pedicle screws are a preferred method for spinal fixation because of their three-column support and rigid posterior stabilization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients requiring pedicle screw redirection, and to describe a technique using cone-beam computed tomography (cbCT). METHODS: A retrospective review of 30 patients undergoing revision spinal fusion with redirection of pedicle screws was performed. Fifty pedicle screws were redirected in these patients using cbCT-based 3D image guidance. They were graded pre- and post-operatively using an established grading system. RESULTS: No complications occurred in this study as a result of redirection. No pedicle breach was noted in all of the redirected pedicle screws. CONCLUSION: Redirection of misplaced pedicle screws using cbCT-based 3D image guidance seems to be safe and accurate in our experience. Further studies are needed to establish its safety, accuracy, fusion rate, and clinical outcome compared with other methods. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Radiographic comparison of cross-sectional lumbar pedicle fill when placing screws with navigation versus free-hand technique.

BACKGROUND: Pedicle screws are often used for spinal fixation. Increasing the percentage of pedicle that is filled with the screw presumably yields greater fixation. It has not been shown whether spinal navigation helps surgeons more completely fill their instrumented pedicles. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients from each arm (navigated and free-hand) were retrospectively reviewed. The cross-sectional area of each instrumented lumbar pedicle and screw were measured using an automatic area calculation tool. The coronal images and measurements were blinded to the surgeons. RESULTS: The instrumented pedicles in the navigated patients were significantly more filled by screws than the pedicles in the non-navigated patients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Obtaining a higher cross-sectional percentage fill of the pedicle with a screw is expected to provide greater spinal fixation in instrumented fusion surgery. This study shows that utilizing spinal navigation helps to more completely fill the pedicles that are being instrumented. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A case series on the technical use of three-dimensional image guidance in subaxial anterior cervical surgery.

BACKGROUND: Three dimensional (3D) image guidance has been used to improve the safety of complex spine surgeries, but its use has been limited in anterior cervical spine approaches. METHODS: Twenty-two patients underwent complex anterior cervical spine surgeries in which 3D image guidance provided intraoperative assistance with the dissection, decompression and implant placement. One of two paired systems, the BrainLAB (BrainLAB, Westchester, Illinois) system, or Stealth (Medtronic Inc., Littleton, Massachusetts) system was used for 3D image guidance in this study. RESULTS: Image guidance was able to reliably locate pertinent anatomical structures in complex anterior cervical spine surgery involving re-exploration, dissection around vertebral arteries or deformity correction. No complications occurred, and no patients required a revision anterior surgery. CONCLUSION: This technical note describes the setup and technique for the use of cone beam computed tomography (cbCT)-based, 3D image guidance in subaxial anterior cervical surgery. The authors have found this technique to be a useful adjunct in revision anterior cervical procedures, as well as anterior cervical procedures involving corpectomy or tumor removal.

Migration to the ICD-10 coding system: A primer for spine surgeons (Part 1).

BACKGROUND: On 1 October 2015, a new federally mandated system goes into effect requiring the replacement of the International Classification of Disease-version 9-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) with ICD-10-CM. These codes are required to be used for reimbursement and to substantiate medical necessity. ICD-10 is composite with as many as 141,000 codes, an increase of 712% when compared to ICD-9. METHODS: Execution of the ICD-10 system will require significant changes in the clinical administrative and hospital-based practices. Through the transition, diminished productivity and practice revenue can be anticipated, the impacts of which the spine surgeon can minimizeby appropriate education and planning. RESULTS: The advantages of the new system include increased clarity and more accurate definitions reflecting patient condition, information relevant to ambulatory and managed care encounters, expanded injury codes, laterality, specificity, precise data for safety and compliance reporting, data mining for research, and finally, enabling pay-for-performance programs. The disadvantages include the cost per physician, training administrative staff, revenue loss during the learning curve, confusion, the need to upgrade hardware along with software, and overall expense to the healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: With the deadline rapidly approaching, gaps in implementation result in delayed billing, delayed or diminished reimbursements, and absence of quality and outcomes data. It is thereby essential for spine surgeons to understand their role in transitioning to this new environment. Part I of this article discusses the background, coding changes, and costs as well as reviews the salient features of ICD-10 in spine surgery.

Implementation and impact of ICD-10 (Part II).

BACKGROUND: The transition from the International Classification of Disease-9(th) clinical modification to the new ICD-10 was all set to occur on 1 October 2015. The American Medical Association has previously been successful in delaying the transition by over 10 years and has been able to further postpone its introduction to 2015. The new system will overcome many of the limitations present in the older version, thus paving the way to more accurate capture of clinical information. METHODS: The benefits of the new ICD-10 system include improved quality of care, potential cost savings, reduction of unpaid claims, and improved tracking of healthcare data. The areas where challenges will be evident include planning and implementation, the cost to transition, a shortage of qualified coders, training and education of the healthcare workforce, and a loss of productivity when this occurs. The impacts include substantial costs to the healthcare system, but the projected long-term savings and benefits will be significant. Improved fraud detection, accurate data entry, ability to analyze cost benefits with procedures, and enhanced quality outcome measures are the most significant beneficial factors with this change. RESULTS: The present Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code sets will be used for reporting ambulatory procedures in the same manner as they have been. ICD-10-PCS will replace ICD-9 procedure codes for inpatient hospital services. The ICD-10-CM will replace the clinical code sets. Our article will focus on the challenges to execution of an ICD change and strategies to minimize risk while transitioning to the new system. CONCLUSION: With the implementation deadline gradually approaching, spine surgery practices that include multidisciplinary health specialists have to anticipate and prepare for the ICD change in order to mitigate risk. Education and communication is the key to this process in spine practices.

A retrospective study of iliac crest bone grafting techniques with allograft reconstruction: do patients even know which iliac crest was harvested? Clinical article.

OBJECT: Considerable biological research has been performed to aid bone healing in conjunction with lumbar fusion surgery. Iliac crest autograft is often considered the gold standard because it has the vital properties of being osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic. However, graft site pain has been widely reported as the most common donor site morbidity. Autograft site pain has led many companies to develop an abundance of bone graft extenders, which have limited proof of efficacy. During the surgical consent process, many patients ask surgeons to avoid harvesting autograft because of the reported pain complications. The authors sought to study postoperative graft site pain by simply asking patients whether they knew which iliac crest was grafted when a single skin incision was made for the fusion operation. METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent iliac crest autografting with allograft reconstruction during instrumented lumbar fusion surgery. In all patients the autograft was harvested through the same skin incision but with a separate fascial incision. At various points postoperatively, the patients were asked if they could tell which iliac crest had been harvested, and if so, how much pain did it cause (10-point Numeric Rating Scale). RESULTS: Most patients (64%) could not correctly determine which iliac crest had been harvested. Of the 9 patients who correctly identified the side of the autograft, 7 were only able to guess. The 2 patients who confidently identified the side of grafting had no pain at rest and mild pain with activity. One patient who incorrectly guessed the side of autografting did have significant sacroiliac joint degenerative pain bilaterally. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study indicate the inability of patients to clearly define their graft site after iliac crest autograft harvest with allograft reconstruction of the bony defect unless they have a separate skin incision. This simple, easily reproducible pilot study can be expanded into a larger, multiinstitutional investigation to provide more definitive answers regarding the ideal, safe, and cost-effective bone graft material to be used in spinal fusions.

Compression fracture in the middle of a chronic instrumented fusion that developed into pseudarthrosis after balloon kyphoplasty.

There are only 2 documented cases of vertebral compression fractures occurring within a solid lumbar fusion mass: one within the fusion mass after hardware removal and the other within the levels of the existing instrumentation 1 year postoperatively. The authors report a case of fracture occurring in a chronic (> 30 years) solid instrumented fusion mass in a patient who underwent kyphoplasty. The pain did not improve after the kyphoplasty procedure, and the patient developed a posterior cleft in the fusion mass postoperatively. The patient, a 46-year-old woman, had undergone a T4-L4 instrumented fusion with placement of a Harrington rod when she was 12 years old. Adjacent-segment breakdown developed, and her fusion was extended to the pelvis, with pedicle screws placed up to L-3 to capture the existing fusion mass. Almost 2 years after fusion extension, she fell down the stairs and suffered an L-2 compression fracture, which is when kyphoplasty was performed without pain relief, and she then developed a cleft in the posterior fusion mass that was previously intact. She refused further surgical options. This case report is meant to alert surgeons of this possibility and allow them to consider the rare occurrence of fracture within the fusion mass when planning extension of chronic spinal fusions.

Intraoperative image-guided spinal navigation: technical pitfalls and their avoidance.

Spinal instrumentation has made significant advances in the last two decades, with transpedicular constructs now widely used in spinal fixation. Pedicle screw constructs are routinely used in thoracolumbar-instrumented fusions, and in recent years, the cervical spine as well. Three-column fixations with pedicle screws provide the most rigid form of posterior stabilization. Surgical landmarks and fluoroscopy have been used routinely for pedicle screw insertion, but a number of studies reveal inaccuracies in placement using these conventional techniques (ranging from 10% to 50%). The ability to combine 3D imaging with intraoperative navigation systems has improved the accuracy and safety of pedicle screw placement, especially in more complex spinal deformities. However, in the authors' experience with image guidance in more than 1500 cases, several potential pitfalls have been identified while using intraoperative spinal navigation that could lead to suboptimal results. This article summarizes the authors' experience with these various pitfalls using spinal navigation, and gives practical tips on their avoidance and management.

Radiographic fusion rate after implantation of facet bone dowels.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Achieving a posterolateral fusion in conjunction with performing decompressive laminectomies can prevent recurrence of stenosis or worsening of spondylolisthesis. Facet bone dowels have been introduced and marketed as a less invasive alternative to pedicle screws. Surgeons have been placing them during lumbar laminectomy surgery and coding for intervertebral biomechanical device and posterolateral fusion. These bone dowels have also been placed percutaneously in outpatient surgery centers and pain clinics for facet-mediated back pain. PURPOSE: To describe fusion outcomes in patients who underwent facet bone dowel placement. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of a single center's experience. PATIENT SAMPLE: Ninety-six patients comprise the entire cohort of patients who underwent facet bone dowel implantation at our institution with adequate postoperative imaging to determine fusion status. OUTCOME MEASURES: Fusion rates as determined on postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans and dynamic lumbar X-rays if CT is not available. METHODS: Threaded facet bone dowels in this study were placed according to the manufacturer's recommended methods. The bone dowels were placed after open exploration of the facet complex or percutaneously through a tubular retractor on the contralateral side from a microdiscectomy or synovial cyst resection. The most recent available postoperative imaging was reviewed to determine fusion status. RESULTS: Of 96 patients in our series, 6 (6.3%) had a fusion seen on CT and 4 did not exhibit any movement on dynamic lumbar X-rays for a total fusion rate of 10.4% (10/96). Eighty-six (89.6%) patients were shown on imaging to not have a solid fusion either by visualizing a patent facet joint on CT or measurable movement between the flexion and the extension lumbar X-rays. CONCLUSIONS: This article is mainly intended to question whether the implantation of facet bone dowels can produce a solid fusion radiographically. In our experience, the placement of facet bone dowels does not equal the time, skill, or attention to detail that is necessary for a posterolateral lumbar arthrodesis, and our follow-up radiographic studies clearly demonstrate an inadequate fusion rate.

Operating room radiation exposure in cone beam computed tomography-based, image-guided spinal surgery: clinical article.

OBJECT: Surgeon and operating room (OR) staff radiation exposure during spinal surgery is a concern, especially with the increasing use of multiplanar fluoroscopy in minimally invasive spinal surgery procedures. Cone beam computed tomography (cbCT)-based, 3D image guidance does not involve the use of active fluoroscopy during instrumentation placement and therefore decreases radiation exposure for the surgeon and OR staff during spinal fusion procedures. However, the radiation scatter of a cbCT device can be similar to that of a standard 64-slice CT scanner and thus could expose the surgeon and OR staff to radiation during image acquisition. The purpose of the present study was to measure radiation exposure at several unshielded locations in the OR when using cbCT in conjunction with 3D image-guided spinal surgery in 25 spinal surgery cases. METHODS: Five unshielded badge dosimeters were placed at set locations in the OR during 25 spinal surgery cases in which cbCT-based, 3D image guidance was used. The cbCT device (O-ARM) was used in conjunction with the Stealth S7 image-guided platform. The radiology department analyzed the badge dosimeters after completion of the last case. RESULTS: Fifty high-definition O-ARM spins were performed in 25 patients for spinal registration and to check instrumentation placement. Image-guided placement of 124 screws from C-2 to the ileum was accomplished without complication. Badge dosimetry analysis revealed minimal radiation exposure for the badges 6 feet from the gantry in the area of the anesthesiology equipment, as well as for the badges located 10-13 feet from the gantry on each side of the room (mean 0.7-3.6 mrem/spin). The greatest radiation exposure occurred on the badge attached to the OR table within the gantry (mean 176.9 mrem/spin), as well as on the control panel adjacent to the gantry (mean 128.0 mrem/spin). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation scatter from the O-ARM was minimal at various distances outside of and not adjacent to the gantry. Although the average radiation exposure at these locations was low, an earlier study, undertaken in a similar fashion, revealed no radiation exposure when the surgeon stood behind a lead shield. This simple precaution can eliminate the small amount of radiation exposure to OR staff in cases in which the O-ARM is used.

Simultaneous Muir-Torre and Turcot's syndrome: A case report and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) is an autosomal dominant syndrome characterized by neoplasms of the sebaceous gland or keratoacanthomas, in addition to visceral malignancies. Cerebral neoplasms in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) or familial adenomatous polyposis suffer from Turcot's syndrome. Genetic mutations in MutS homolog (MSH)-2, MutL homolog (MLH)-1, and MutS homolog (MSH)-6 DNA mismatch repair genes are the most common in MTS with MSH-2 being the most predominant. In HNPCC MLH-1 and MSH-2 mutations are approximately equal in prevalence. CASE DESCRIPTION: We present the case of a 58-year-old male with a prior history of being treated for colonic adenocarcinoma and skin lesions leading to a diagnosis of MTS. The patient later developed a World Health Organization (WHO) grade 4 glioma requiring surgical resection. Pathology revealed mutations in MSH-2 and MSH-6 mismatch repair genes. CONCLUSIONS: This case represents the first report of Turcot's and MTS with extensive molecular testing on the cerebral neoplasm demonstrating a molecular relationship between Turcot's and MTS and only the second published report of simultaneous Turcot's and MTS.

Placement of thoracic transvertebral pedicle screws using 3D image guidance.

OBJECT: Transvertebral pedicle screws have successfully been used in the treatment of high-grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis. An advantage of transvertebral pedicle screws is the purchase of multiple cortical layers across 2 vertebrae, thereby increasing the stability of the construct. At the lumbosacral junction, transvertebral pedicle screws have been shown to be biomechanically superior to pedicle screws placed in the standard fashion. The use of transvertebral pedicle screws at spinal levels other than L5-S1 has not been reported in the literature. The authors describe their technique of transvertebral pedicle screw placement in the thoracic spine using 3D image guidance. METHODS: Twelve patients undergoing cervicothoracic or thoracolumbar fusion had 41 thoracic transvertebral pedicle screws placed across 26 spinal levels using this technique. Indications for placement of thoracic transvertebral pedicle screws in earlier cases included osteoporosis and pedicle screw salvage. However, in subsequent cases screws were placed in patients undergoing multilevel thoracolumbar fusion without osteoporosis, particularly near the top of the construct. Image guidance in this study was accomplished using the Medtronic StealthStation S7 image guidance system used in conjunction with the O-arm. All patients were slated to undergo postoperative CT scanning at approximately 4-6 months for fusion assessment, which also allowed for grading of the transvertebral pedicle screws. RESULTS: No thoracic transvertebral pedicle screw placed in this study had to be replaced or repositioned after intraoperative review of the cone beam CT scans. Review of the postoperative CT scans revealed all transvertebral screws to be across the superior disc space with the tips in the superior vertebral body. Six pedicle screws were placed using the in-out-in technique in patients with narrow pedicles, leaving 35 screws that underwent breach analysis. No pedicle breach was noted in 34 of 35 screws. A Grade 1 (< 2 mm) medial breach was noted in 1 screw without clinical consequence. Solid fusion was observed across 25 of 26 spinal levels that underwent transvertebral screw placement including 7 spinal levels located at the top of a multilevel construct. CONCLUSIONS: This report describes the authors' initial in vivo experience with the 3D image-guided placement of 41 thoracic transvertebral pedicle screws. Advantages of thoracic transvertebral screws include the purchase of 2 vertebral segments across multiple cortical layers. A high fusion rate was observed across spinal levels in which transvertebral screws were placed. A formal biomechanical study is needed to assess the biomechanical advantages of this technique and is currently being planned.

Symptomatic pneumocephalus associated with lumbar dural tear and reverse trendelenburg positioning: a case report and review of the literature.

Symptomatic pneumocephalus is a rare complication of degenerative lumbar spine surgery. This is a case report of a patient who developed transient diplopia associated with pneumocephalus following lumbar spine surgery complicated by a dural tear. The diplopia improved as the pneumocephalus resolved. Factors involved in the development of pneumocephalus include an unintended durotomy and intraoperative reverse Trendelenburg positioning that was utilized to decrease the risk of postoperative vision loss. When encountering cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage intraoperatively, spine surgeons should level the operating table until closure of the dural defect to prevent potential complications associated with pneumocephalus. If postoperative patients complain of severe headaches or display a focal cranial neurologic deficit, then a computed tomography (CT) scan of the brain should be ordered and evaluated. Consulting neurologists should be aware of the circumstances surrounding this rare complication.

Three-dimensional image-guided placement of S2 alar screws to adjunct or salvage lumbosacral fixation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Achieving fusion across the lumbosacral junction is challenging because of the unfavorable biomechanics associated with ending a fusion at this level. Bicortical placement of S1 pedicle screws can increase the construct stability at the lumbosacral junction; however, construct failure and pseudoarthrosis can still result. Iliac screws have been shown to increase the stiffness of lumbosacral constructs, but disadvantages include difficulty in connecting the iliac screw to adjacent sacral screws, painful screw loosening or prominence requiring removal, and the inability to place the screws in some patients with previous iliac crest autograft harvest. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to describe a technique of S2 alar screw placement using three-dimensional image guidance. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: The study design is a retrospective analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: Twenty patients undergoing lumbosacral fusion had 32 screws placed using this technique. OUTCOME MEASURES: An independent radiologist graded screw placement and lumbosacral fusion on thin-cut postoperative computed tomographic (CT) scans. METHODS: Image guidance in this study was accomplished with the Medtronic Stealth Station Treon (Medtronic Inc., Littleton, MA, USA) used in conjunction with the O-ARM (Medtronic Inc.). Indications for placement of S2 alar screws included the following: to adjunct S1 pedicle screws in multilevel fusion cases; as an adjunct or alternative to S1 pedicle screws in pseudoarthrosis revision cases in which the S1 screws had loosened; as an alternative to S1 pedicle screws in cases where medial trajectory of an S1 pedicle screw was difficult to obtain because of a low-set lumbosacral junction; and a combination of the above. The entry point of the screw was typically chosen lateral and superior to the S2 dorsal foramen with the trajectory directed anterior, inferior, and lateral. Attempt was made to place the screw with the tip purchasing, but not penetrating through, the triangular area of cortical bone that can be found at the anterior, inferior, and lateral boundary of the sacral ala. An independent radiologist graded the placement of the screws on the intraoperative CT scan obtained with the O-ARM or on postoperative CT scans. Lumbosacral fusion was assessed on postoperative CT scans obtained at follow-up. RESULTS: No complications occurred in this study as a result of S2 alar screw placement or image guidance. Five screws did penetrate the anterior cortex of the sacrum, with no clinical consequence. At the time of abstract submission, 16 patients were able to have follow-up CT scans, 15 of which were graded as solid fusion at the lumbosacral junction by the grading radiologist. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional image guidance allows for safe placement of large S2 sacral alar screws that can provide additional biomechanical stability to lumbosacral constructs or serve as an alternate point of sacral fixation when S1 pedicle screws cannot be salvaged or placed in a medial trajectory.