Addressing Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Spine Surgery: A Rapid National Consensus Using the Delphi Method via Teleconference.

The magnitude and potential duration of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is something that most doctors currently in practice have yet to experience. While considerable information regarding COVID-19 is being published every day, it is challenging to filter out the most relevant or appropriate information for our individual practice. The Spine Society of Singapore convened via a teleconference on April 24, 2020 to collaborate on a national level and share collective wisdom in order to tackle the ongoing crisis. In the teleconference, 13 spine surgeons from across various hospitals in Singapore constituted the panel of experts. The following topics were discussed: repurposing of surgeons, continuity of spine services, introduction of telemedicine, triaging of spinal surgeries, preoperative testing, new challenges in performing spine surgery, and preparing for the post-pandemic era. While some issues required only the sharing of best practices, the Delphi panel method was adopted to form a consensus on others. Existing spine specific triage guidelines were debated and a locally accepted set of guidelines was established. Although preoperative testing is currently not performed routinely, the panel voted in favor of its implementation because they concluded that it is vital to protect themselves, their colleagues, and their patients. Solutions to operating room specific concerns were also discussed. This article reflects the opinions and insights shared during this meeting and reviews the evidence relevant to the issues that were raised. The rapid consensus reached during the teleconference has enabled us to be concerted, and thus stronger, in our national efforts to provide the best standard of care via our spine services in these challenging times. We believe that this article will provide some guidance for addressing COVID-19 in spine surgery and encourage other national/regional societies to conduct similar discussions that would help their navigation of this pandemic.

Characterization of Sagittal Spine Alignment With Reference to the Gravity Line and Vertebral Slopes: An Analysis of Different Roussouly Curves.

MINI: Spinal sagittal realignment necessitates a reference posture, and thus far this has only been defined for an "averaged" curve via horizontal offsets from the gravity line (GL). This prospective study of 169 healthy subjects demonstrates normative sagittal spatial orientation of each vertebra, for all Roussouly curve types, using vertebral slopes and horizontal offsets from the GL. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. OBJECTIVE: To map the healthy standing alignment of the adult spine, grouped according to Roussouly curve types, using both horizontal offset distance from the gravity line (GL), as well as vertebral slope measurements. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal sagittal realignment requires a reference posture, and this has been defined in the literature via horizontal offsets from the GL. While useful, this does not provide information on the orientation of each vertebral segment, or distinguish between the various physiological curve types. METHODS: A total of 169 consecutive young adult subjects with healthy spines were recruited over a year. (EOS Imaging, Paris, France) whole body radiographs were performed. Radiographic measurements collected included sagittal vertical axis (SVA), T1-slope, global cervical angle (GCA), global thoracic angle (GTA), global lumbar angle (GLA), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), apical and inflection vertebrae. Outcome measures comprised slope measurements, and distance offsets relative to the GL for individual vertebrae from T3 to S1. RESULTS: GLA, PI, PT, SS, apex of lordosis, and inflection vertebra were significantly different across groups, while SVA, T1-slope, GCA, GTA, and apex of kyphosis were not. Mean PI to LL discrepancy for Type I to IV groups were 8.0°, 2.3°, 4.8°, and 3.0°, respectively. Between groups, T3, T7 to T12, and L2 to S1 slopes and T9 to L3 offset distances from GL were significantly different, while the distance of the hip center from the GL was not. GLA was significantly different between curve types except between Type 1 and 2 curves, while the inflection vertebrae were not significantly different between Type 1 and 2 curves, as well as Type 3 and 4 curves. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates normative sagittal spatial orientation of each vertebra in healthy adults, for each Roussouly type. Comparison across groups suggests the possibility of further refining the sagittal curve patterns described by Roussouly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Prospective study. To map the healthy standing alignment of the adult spine, grouped according to Roussouly curve types, using both horizontal offset distance from the gravity line (GL), as well as vertebral slope measurements. Spinal sagittal realignment requires a reference posture, and this has been defined in the literature via horizontal offsets from the GL. While useful, this does not provide information on the orientation of each vertebral segment, or distinguish between the various physiological curve types. A total of 169 consecutive young adult subjects with healthy spines were recruited over a year. (EOS Imaging, Paris, France) whole body radiographs were performed. Radiographic measurements collected included sagittal vertical axis (SVA), T1-slope, global cervical angle (GCA), global thoracic angle (GTA), global lumbar angle (GLA), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), apical and inflection vertebrae. Outcome measures comprised slope measurements, and distance offsets relative to the GL for individual vertebrae from T3 to S1. GLA, PI, PT, SS, apex of lordosis, and inflection vertebra were significantly different across groups, while SVA, T1-slope, GCA, GTA, and apex of kyphosis were not. Mean PI to LL discrepancy for Type I to IV groups were 8.0°, 2.3°, 4.8°, and 3.0°, respectively. Between groups, T3, T7 to T12, and L2 to S1 slopes and T9 to L3 offset distances from GL were significantly different, while the distance of the hip center from the GL was not. GLA was significantly different between curve types except between Type 1 and 2 curves, while the inflection vertebrae were not significantly different between Type 1 and 2 curves, as well as Type 3 and 4 curves. This study demonstrates normative sagittal spatial orientation of each vertebra in healthy adults, for each Roussouly type. Comparison across groups suggests the possibility of further refining the sagittal curve patterns described by Roussouly. Level of Evidence: 3.

Anatomic techniques for cervical pedicle screw placement.

Instrumentation of the cervical spine with cervical pedicle screws (CPS) is beneficial in patients with various types of spinal pathology. Despite posing greater technical challenges, CPS instrumentation confers better fixation outcomes when compared to lateral mass screws. While developments in technology have augmented the accuracy of CPS insertion, mastery in freehand CPS insertion allows the aforementioned technologies to reach their full potential in improving patient outcomes. The aim of this article is to discuss freehand CPS insertion techniques as established in the current literature while sharing our experience in this context. A comprehensive literature search was performed using the following electronic databases: PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE. Full-text articles focusing on clinical studies with description of freehand techniques were included. Articles which were on cadaveric studies, drill jig, navigation or robotic technology were excluded. Thirteen primary references comprising 1,480 patients were included in this review. Majority of studies reported utilizing the cranial margin of lamina for C2 level as a landmark for entry point, as well as lateral to centre of the articular mass, and just medial to the lateral border of the superior articular process for C3-7 levels. Method of tracking and facilitation of trajectory was reported in multiple studies, with use of instruments ranging from curved pedicle probes to high-speed burrs. Limited studies reported specific trajectories of CPS insertion. Most studies noted testing pedicle wall integrity at various checkpoints, with pedicle screw repositioning or conversion to lateral screw mass following detection of perforation or screw malpositioning. Success in CPS insertion rests on meticulous preoperative planning to identify the ideal screw entry point and trajectory. Patient-specific drill jigs, navigation and robotic technologies, while beneficial to progress in the field of cervical spine surgery and patient outcomes, should serve primarily to augment good expertise in freehand CPS insertion technique.

The evolution of three-dimensional technology in musculoskeletal oncology.

Musculoskeletal tumours pose considerable challenges for the orthopaedic surgeon during pre-operative planning, resection and reconstruction. Improvements in imaging technology have improved the diagnostic process of these tumours. Despite this, studies have highlighted the difficulties in achieving consistent resection free margins especially in tumours of the pelvis and spine when using conventional methods. Three-dimensional technology - three-dimensional printing and navigation technology - while relatively new, may have the potential to prove useful in the musculoskeletal tumour surgeon's arsenal. Three-dimensional printing (3DP) allows the production of objects by adding material layer by layer rather than subtraction from raw materials as performed conventionally. High resolution imaging, computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are used to print highly complex and accurate items. Powder-based printing, vat polymerization-based printing and droplet-based printing are the common 3DP technologies applied. 3DP has been utilized pre-operatively in surgical planning and intra-operatively for patient specific instruments and custom made prosthesis. Pre-operative 3DP models transfer information to the surgeon in a concise yet exhaustive manner. Patient specific instruments are customized 3DP instruments utilized with the intention to easily replicate surgical plans. Complex musculoskeletal tumours pose reconstructive challenges and standard implants are often unable to reconstruct defects satisfactorily. The ability to use custom materials and tailor the pore size, elastic modulus and porosity of the 3DP prosthesis to be comparable to the patient's bone allows for a potential patient-specific prosthesis with unique incorporation and longevity properties. Similarly, navigation technology utilizes CT or MRI images to provides surgeons with real time intraoperative three-dimensional calibration of instruments. It has been shown to potentially allow surgeons to perform more accurate resections. These technological advancements have the potential to greatly impact the management of musculoskeletal tumours. 3D planning models, patient-specific instruments and customized 3DP implants and navigation should not be thought of as separate, but rather, patient-specific adaptation of relevant modes of application should be selected on a case-by-case basis when taking all unique factors of each case into consideration.