Comparison of Cervical Pedicle Screw Placement Accuracy With Robotic Guidance System Versus Image Guidance System Using Propensity Score Matching.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of cervical pedicle screw (CPS) placement using a robotic guidance system (RGS) with that of using an image guidance system (IGS; navigation system) through propensity score matching. BACKGROUND: The RGS may provide accurate CPS placement, which may outperform IGS. However, no study has directly compared the accuracy of CPS placement with the RGS to that with the IGS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who had undergone cervical fusion surgery using CPS with the RGS or IGS. To adjust for potential confounders (patient demographic characteristics, disease etiology, and registration material), propensity score matching was performed, creating robotic guidance (RG) and matched image guidance (IG) groups. The accuracy of CPS placement from C2 to C6, where the vertebral artery runs, was evaluated on postoperative computed tomography images according to the Neo classification (grade 0 to grade 3). Furthermore, the intraoperative CPS revisions and related complications were examined. RESULTS: Using propensity score matching, 22 patients were included in the RG and matched groups each, and a total of 95 and 105 CPSs, respectively, were included in the analysis. In both the axial and sagittal planes, the clinically acceptable rate (grades 0 + 1) of CPS placement did not differ between the RG and matched IG groups (97.9% vs 94.3% and 95.8% vs 96.2%, respectively). The incidence of CPS revision was similar between the groups (2.1% vs 2.9%), and no CPS-related complications were documented. Meanwhile, the incidence of lateral breach (grades 1 + 2 + 3) was significantly lower in the RG group than in the matched IG group (1.1% vs 7.7%, P= 0.037). CONCLUSION: The RGS and IGS can equally aid in accurate and safe CPS placement in clinical settings. Nonetheless, RGS can further reduce the lateral breach, compared with IGS.

Clinical outcome of surgical management of mild cervical compressive myelopathy based on minimum clinically important difference.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical compressive myelopathy (CCM), caused by cervical spondylosis (cervical spondylotic myelopathy [CSM]) or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), is a common neurological disorder in the elderly. For moderate/severe CCM, surgical management has been the first-line therapeutic option. Recently, surgical management is also recommended for mild CCM, and a few studies have reported the surgical outcome for this clinical population. Nonetheless, the present knowledge is insufficient to determine the specific surgical outcome of mild CCM. PURPOSE: To examine the surgical outcomes of mild CCM while considering the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent subaxial cervical surgery for CCM caused by CSM and OPLL between 2013 and 2022 were enrolled. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Japanese Orthopedic Association score (JOA score) was employed as the clinical outcomes. Based on previous reports, the JOA score threshold to determine mild myelopathic symptoms was set at ≥14.5 points, and the MCID of the JOA score for mild CCM was set at 1 point. METHODS: The patients with a JOA score of ≥14.5 points at baseline were stratified into the mild CCM and were examined while considering the MCID. The mild CCM cohort was dichotomized into the improvement group, including the patients with an achieved MCID (JOA score ≥1 point) or with a JOA score of 17 points (full mark) at 1 year postoperatively, and the nonimprovement group, including the others. Demographics, symptomatology, radiographic findings, and surgical procedure were compared between the two groups and studied using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Of 335 patients with CCM, 43 were stratified into the mild CCM cohort (mean age, 58.5 years; 62.8% male). Among them, 25 (58.1 %) patients were assigned to the improvement group and 18 (41.9 %) were assigned to the nonimprovement group. The improvement group was significantly younger than the nonimprovement group; however, other variables did not significantly differ. ROC curve analysis showed that the optimal cutoff point of the patient's age to discriminate between the improvement and nonimprovement groups was 58 years with an area under the curve of 0.702 (p=.015). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, the majority of patients with mild CCM experienced improvement reaching the MCID of JOA score at 1 year postoperatively. The present study suggests that for younger patients with mild CCM, especially those aged below 58 years, subjective neurological recovery is more likely to be obtained. Meanwhile, the surgery takes on a more prophylactic significance to halt disease progression for older patients. The results of this study can help in the decision-making process for this clinical population.

Studies in the Falls Efficacy Scale-International for patients with cervical compressive myelopathy: Reliability, validity, and minimum clinically important difference.

CONTEXT: Patients with cervical compressive myelopathy (CCM) often complain of body balance problems, such as fear of falling and bodily unsteadiness. However, no accepted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for this symptomatology exist. The Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) is one of the most widely used PROMs for evaluating impaired body balance in various clinical fields. OBJECTIVE: To examine reliability, validity, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the FES-I for the evaluation of impaired body balance in patients with CCM. METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for CCM were retrospectively reviewed. The FES-I was administered preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Further, cJOA-LE score (subscore for lower extremities in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for cervical myelopathy) and stabilometric data, obtained at the same time points of the FES-I administration, were analyzed. Reliability was examined through internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha. Convergent validity was studied using correlation analysis. The MCID was estimated using anchor- and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: Overall, 151 patients were included for analysis. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was the acceptable value of 0.97 at both baseline and 1 year postoperatively. As for convergent validity, the FES-I had significant correlations with the cJOA-LE score and stabilometric parameters both at baseline and 1 year postoperatively. The MCID calculated using anchor- and distribution-based methods was 5.5 and 10, respectively. CONCLUSION: FES-I is a reliable and valid PROM to evaluate body balance problems for the CCM population. The established thresholds of MCID can help clinicians recognize the clinical significance of changes in patient status.