Vertebral artery anomaly and injury in spinal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY RATIONALE: The purpose of this review is to further define the published literature with respect to vertebral artery (VA) anomaly and injury in patients with degenerative cervical spinal conditions. OBJECTIVES: In adult patients with cervical spine or degenerative cervical spine disorders receiving cervical spine surgery, what is the incidence of VA injury, and among resulting VA injuries, which treatments result in a successful outcome and what percent are successfully repaired? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of pertinent articles published up to April 2013. Studies involving traumatic onset, fracture, infection, deformity or congenital abnormality, instability, inflammatory spinal diseases, or neoplasms were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria; disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: From a total of 72 possible citations, the following met our inclusion criteria and formed the basis for this report. Incidence of VA injuries ranged from 0.20 to 1.96%. None of the studies reported using preoperative imaging to identify anomalous or tortuous VA. Primary repair and ligation were the most effective in treating VA injuries. CONCLUSION: The incidence of VA injuries in degenerative cervical spinal surgery might be as high as 1.96% and is likely underreported. Direct surgical repair is the most effective treatment option. The most important preventative technique for VA injuries is preoperative magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography angiographic imaging to detect VA anomalies. The overall strength of evidence for the conclusions is low.

Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF): Comparative Effectiveness and Safety versus PLIF/TLIF and Predictive Factors Affecting LLIF Outcome.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY RATIONALE: The surgical treatment of adult degenerative lumbar conditions remains controversial. Conventional techniques include posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A new direct approach known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF(®)) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has been introduced. Objectives The objective of this article is to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF, at one or more levels with or without instrumentation, versus PLIF or TLIF surgery in adults with lumbar degenerative conditions, and to determine which preoperative factors affect patient outcomes following LLIF surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed and bibliographies of key articles. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality rating scheme. RESULTS: The search yielded 258 citations and the following met our inclusion criteria: three retrospective cohort studies (all using historical cohorts) (class of evidence [CoE] III) examining the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF/XLIF(®)/DLIF versus PLIF or TLIF surgery, and one prospective cohort study (CoE II) and two retrospective cohort studies (CoE III) assessing factors affecting patient outcome following LLIF. Patients in the LLIF group experienced less estimated blood loss and a lower mortality risk compared with the PLIF group. The number of levels treated and the preoperative diagnosis were significant predictors of perioperative or early complications in two studies. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LLIF versus PLIF/TLIF surgery. There is low-quality evidence suggesting that LLIF surgery results in fewer complications or reoperations than PLIF/TLIF surgery. And there is insufficient evidence that any preoperative factors exist that predict patient outcome after LLIF surgery.

Surgical correction of scoliosis in children with spastic quadriplegia: benefits, adverse effects, and patient selection.

STUDY RATIONALE: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a group of nonprogressive syndromes of posture and motor impairment associated with lesions of the immature brain. Spastic quadriplegia is the most severe form with a high incidence of scoliosis, back pain, respiratory compromise, pelvic obliquity, and poor sitting balance. Surgical stabilization of the spine is an effective technique for correcting deformity and restoring sitting posture. The decision to operate in this group of patients is challenging. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to determine the benefits of surgical correction of scoliosis in children with spastic quadriplegia, the adverse effects of this treatment, and what preoperative factors affect patient outcome after surgical correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies describing benefits and adverse effects of surgery in spastic quadriplegia. Factors affecting patient outcome following surgical correction of scoliosis were assessed. Studies involving adults and nonspastic quadriplegia were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 10 case series and 1 prospective and 3 retrospective cohort studies met inclusion criteria. There was significant variation in the overall risk of complications (range, 10.9-70.9%), mortality (range, 2.8-19%), respiratory/pulmonary complications (range, 26.9-57.1%), and infection (range, 2.5-56.8%). Factors associated with a worse outcome were a significant degree of thoracic kyphosis, days in the intensive care unit, and poor nutritional status. CONCLUSION: Caregivers report a high degree of satisfaction with scoliosis surgery for children with spastic quadriplegia. There is limited evidence of preoperative factors that can predict patient outcome after scoliosis. There is a need for well-designed prospective studies of scoliosis surgery in spastic quadriplegia.

Neck Pain Following Cervical Laminoplasty: Does Preservation of the C2 Muscle Attachments and/or C7 Matter?

Study Design Systematic review. Objective In patients aged 18 years or older, with cervical spondylotic myelopathy or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), does sparing the C2 muscle attachments and/or C7-preserving cervical laminoplasty lead to reduced postoperative axial pain compared with conventional C3 to C7 laminoplasty? Do these results vary based on early active postoperative cervical motion? Methods A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and August 17, 2012. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating C2/C3- or C7-preserving cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) or OPLL in adults. Studies involving traumatic onset, cervical fracture, infection, deformity, or neoplasms were excluded, as were noncomparative studies. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results We identified 11 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Only the randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no significant difference in late axial pain (at 12 months) when C7 spinous muscle preservation was compared with no preservation. However, seven other retrospective cohort studies showed significant pain relief in the preserved group compared with the nonpreserved group. The preservation group included those with preservation of the C7 spinous process and/or attached muscles, the deep extensor muscles, or C2 muscle attachment and/or C3 laminectomy (as opposed to laminoplasty). One study that included preservation of either the C2 or C7 posterior paraspinal muscles found that only preservation of the muscles attached to C2 resulted in reduced postoperative pain. Another study that included preservation of either the C7 spinous process or the deep extensor muscles found that only preservation of C7 resulted in reduced postoperative pain. Conclusion Although there is conflicting data regarding the importance of preserving C7 and/or the semispinalis cervicis muscle attachments to C2, there is enough evidence to suggest that surgeons should make every attempt to preserve these structures whenever possible since there appears to be little downside to doing so, unless it compromises the neurologic decompression.

Comparative effectiveness of different types of cervical laminoplasty.

Study Design Systematic review. Study Rationale Numerous cervical laminoplasty techniques have been described but there are few studies that have compared these to determine the superiority of one over another. Clinical Questions The clinical questions include key question (KQ)1: In adults with cervical myelopathy from ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) or spondylosis, what is the comparative effectiveness of open door cervical laminoplasty versus French door cervical laminoplasty? KQ2: In adults with cervical myelopathy from OPLL or spondylosis, are postoperative complications, including pain and infection, different for the use of miniplates versus the use of no plates following laminoplasty? KQ3: Do these results vary based on early active postoperative cervical motion? Materials and Methods A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and March 11, 2013. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating (1) open door cervical laminoplasty and French door cervical laminoplasty and (2) the use of miniplates or no plates in cervical laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy or OPLL in adults. Studies involving traumatic onset, cervical fracture, infection, deformity, or neoplasms were excluded, as were noncomparative studies. Two independent reviewers (A.L.R., J.R.D.) assessed the level of evidence quality using the Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results We identified three studies (one of class of evidence [CoE] II and two of CoE III) meeting our inclusion criteria comparing open door cervical laminoplasty with French door laminoplasty and two studies (one CoE II and one CoE III) comparing the use of miniplates with no plates. Data from one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and two retrospective cohort studies suggest no difference between treatment groups regarding improvement in myelopathy. One RCT reported significant improvement in axial pain and significantly higher short-form 36 scores in the French door laminoplasty treatment group. Overall, complications appear to be higher in the open door group than the French door group, although complete reporting of complications was poor in all studies. Overall, data from one RCT and one retrospective cohort study suggest that the incidence of complications (including reoperation, radiculopathy, and infection) is higher in the no plate treatment group compared with the miniplate group. One RCT reported greater pain as measured by the visual analog scale score in the no plate treatment group. There was no evidence available to assess the effect of early cervical motion for open door cervical laminoplasty compared with French door laminoplasty. Both studies comparing the use of miniplates and no plates reported early postoperative motion. Evidence from one RCT suggests that earlier postoperative cervical motion might reduce pain. Conclusion Data from three comparative studies are not sufficient to support the superiority of open door cervical laminoplasty or French door cervical laminoplasty. Data from two comparative studies are not sufficient to support the superiority of the use of miniplates or no plates following cervical laminoplasty. The overall strength of evidence to support any conclusions is low or insufficient. Thus, the debate continues while opportunity exists for the spine surgery community to resolve these issues with appropriately designed clinical studies.

Surgical versus injection treatment for injection-confirmed chronic sacroiliac joint pain.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY RATIONALE: Chronic sacroiliac joint pain (CSJP) is a common clinical entity with highly controversial treatment options. A recent systematic review compared surgery with denervation, but the current systematic review compares outcomes of surgical intervention with therapeutic injection for the treatment of CSJP and serves as the next step for evaluating current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of treatments for non-traumatic sacroiliac joint pain. Objective or clinical question: In adult patients with injection-confirmed CSJP, does surgical treatment lead to better outcomes and fewer complications than injection therapy? METHODS: A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and June 2012. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating surgery or injection treatment for injection-confirmed CSJP. Studies involving traumatic onset or non-injection-confirmed CSJP were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: We identified twelve articles (seven surgical and five injection treatment) meeting our inclusion criteria. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 40% improvement in pain as measured by Visual Analog Scale or Numeric rating Scale score. Regardless of the type of treatment, most studies reported over 20% improvement in functionality. Most complications were reported in the surgical studies. CONCLUSION: Surgical fusion and therapeutic injections can likely provide pain relief, improve quality of life, and improve work status. The comparative effectiveness of these interventions cannot be evaluated with the current literature.