EUROSPINE 2018

Date:
19-21 September 2018
Location:
Barcelona, Spain
Venue:
CCIB – Barcelona International Convention Centre

Pre-day Courses on Tuesday, 18 September

Pre-day Course I 
13:00-17:45
Anterior Approaches to the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine
Chairs: Pedro Berjano, Milan, Italy and Hossein Mehdian, London, UK
Room 112

The anterior approach to the spine has been around for the last 50 years. Originally, the surgery involved a large abdominal incision in which the surgeon would cut through the abdominal muscles and the peritoneal cavity to gain access to the spine. Today, however, anterior approaches to the spine can be done with a minimally invasive approach. As with all surgical procedures, the anterior approach to spine carries with it a few risks and potential complications that are unique to this surgical approach.

Educational goals:

  • To provide participants with an opportunity to interact with experts in the clinical use of anterior approaches to the spine
  • To provide information with clinical significance that goes more in depth than classical textbooks
  • To gain a comprehension of the variety of anterior approaches to the spine in every anatomical region.
Pre-day Course II
13:00-17:00
Emerging Technologies in Spine Surgery
Chairs: Doniel Drazin and J. Patrick Johnson, USA
Room 111

This course will explore the new advances in the field of emerging technologies in spine surgery and will provide the current state of the art in the use of technology for treating spinal pathology. Topics include and are not limited to intraoperative imaging, navigation, robotics, next generation microscopes and surgical instruments, combinatorial technologies, augmented reality and surgical simulators.

Course Objectives:

  • Develop an understanding of the role of emerging technologies in improving the care of neurosurgical and orthopaedic patients with spinal disorders.
  • Identify the indications to use and the expected outcomes of utilising navigation and emerging technologies in the treatment of spinal disorders.
  • Develop a strategy to implement new technologies providing beneficial spinal care for patients with spinal disorders.

Sections include: Navigation, emerging technologies, and hands-on

Pre-day Course III 
13:00-17:00
Spine Tango Users Meeting (STUM)
Chairs: Anne Mannion and Emin Aghayev, Zurich, Switzerland
Room 118/119

Spine Registry

CME-Accreditation of Pre-day Courses
The EUROSPINE 2018 pre-day courses were granted the following CME credits (ECMEC®s) by the European Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (EACCME®):

Pre-day Course I, Anterior Approaches to the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine: 4 ECMEC
Pre-day Course II, Emerging Technologies in Spine Surgery: 3 ECMEC
Pre-day Course III, Spine Tango User Meeting (STUM): 3 ECMEC

New Trends in Craniovertebral Junction Surgery: Experimental and Clinical Updates for a New State of Art (Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement)

New Trends in Craniovertebral Junction Surgery: Experimental and Clinical Updates for a New State of Art (Acta Neurochirurgica Supplement)

Buy

This issue of Acta Neurochirurgica presents the latest surgical and experimental approaches to the craniovertebral junction (CVJ). It discusses anterior midline (transoral transnasal), posterior (CVJ craniectomy laminectomylaminotomyinstrumentation and fusion), posterolateral (far lateral) and anterolateral (extreme lateral) approaches using state-of-the-art supporting tools. It especially highlights open surgery, microsurgical techniques, neuronavigation, the O-arm system, intraoperative MR, neuromonitoring and endoscopy.

Endoscopy represents a useful complement to the standard microsurgical approach to the anterior CVJ: it can be used transnasally, transorally and transcervically; and it provides information for better decompression without the need for soft palate splitting, hard palate resection, or extended maxillotomy. While neuronavigation allows improved orientation in the surgical field, intraoperative fluoroscopy helps to recognize residual compression. Under normal anatomic conditions, there are virtually no surgical limitations to endoscopically assisted CVJ and this issue provides valuable information for the new generation of surgeons involved in this complex and challenging field of neurosurgery.

Degenerative Spinal Deformity: Creating Lordosis in the Lumbar Spine, An Issue of Neurosurgery Clinics of North America (The Clinics: Surgery)

Degenerative Spinal Deformity: Creating Lordosis in the Lumbar Spine, An Issue of Neurosurgery Clinics of North America (The Clinics: Surgery)

This issue of Neurosurgery Clinics, edited by Drs. Sigurd Berven and Praveen V. Mummaneni, will cover Degenerative Spinal Deformity: Creating Lordosis in the Lumbar Spine. Topics will include, but are not limited to, Spinopelvic Parameters; Location of lordosis (priority for L4-S1) and Age Adjustments; Approach Selection; Nuances of Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy; Preventing Pseudarthrosis and PJK; The Challenge of Creating Lordosis in High Grade Dysplastic Spondylolisthesis; Sacropelvic Fixation; Evolution of the MISDEF Algorithm; Transpsoas Approach Nuances; Lateral Prepsoas Approach Nuances; Anterior Column Release; Navigation assisted MIS deformity correction; MIS TLIF; MIS PSO; and The challenge of L4-S1- fractional curves.

 

UpToDate: Cervical transverse process fracture

Cervical transverse process fracture

Cervical transverse process fractures have a strong association with other cervical spine fractures and blunt cerebrovascular injury 1).

With the advent of whole body computed tomography of trauma patients, the radiologic diagnosis of transverse process fractures (TPF) has increased. Spine service (neurosurgical or orthopedic) consultation is frequently requested for patients with these fractures, stressing constraints on these practices.

When TPF are identified, diligence in searching for a spine injury or abdominal injuries should be exercised, as these associated injuries occur frequently 2).

Isolated cervical transverse process fracture (TPF) of the subaxial cervical spine can be considered as clinically insignificant and do not require treatment 3)

Clinicians should maintain high indices of suspicion for associated injuries in patients with isolated transverse process fractures especially after high-velocity mechanisms 4).

1.- Fracture of the right transverse process of C2 involving the transverse foramen.

2.- Similar fracture passing through right transverse foramen of C3.

Vertebral artery angiography should be considered when patients with transverse process fractures extending into the transverse foramen develop signs and symptoms of vertebrobasilar disease 5).

A case report demonstrates the severity of injury after minor trauma in the context of ankylosing spondylitis, the capacity for full recovery in oesophageal perforations in spinal trauma, and that clinical suspicion of such injuries allows early diagnosistreatment and reduced complications6).

Case series

The Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center patient database was queried (years 2005-2016) using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code 805: fracture of the vertebral column without mention of spinal cord injury.

A total of 129 patients with isolated transverse process fractures (ITPFs) were identified. Mean age was 38.1 years (range 15-92 years). Women were more likely to present with abdominal pain and associated kidney injury (P = 0.018 and P = 0.012, respectively). Motor vehicle accident (MVA) was the most common mechanism of injury (n = 81, 62.8%) and was associated with thoracic (P = 0.032) and lower extremity pain/injury (P = 0.005). Back pain was the most common presenting symptom (n = 71, 64.6%) and was associated with intraabdominal and lower extremity injuries (P = 0.032 and P = 0.016, respectively). Chest and neck pain were associated with vascular injuries (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). Spine consult (neurosurgery or orthopedic surgery) was frequent (n = 94, 72.9%) and was more common after MVA versus fall (P = 0.018).

Several factors were identified as significant markers of associated injuries, including female sex, MVA, and presenting symptoms. Neck and chest pain were significantly associated with vascular injuries. Clinicians should maintain high indices of suspicion for associated injuries in patients with ITPFs, especially after high-velocity mechanisms 7).


21 patients (2.4%) had 25 isolated TPFs of the subaxial cervical spine. The seventh vertebra was involved predominantly (76%). The initial treatment regimen was unrestricted movement in all patients. No associated adverse events were observed. A follow-up of 13 to 39 months was available in 14 patients. Follow-up showed a stable and intact subaxial cervical spine in all patients’ radiographs, a patient satisfaction of 9.3 (SD 1.48), a Cybex measured range of motion in the sagittal plane of 109 degrees (SD 12.5, 95-129), the frontal plane of 70 (SD 17.8, 37-100) and the transverse plane of 144 (SD 12.5, 116-164), and a mean neck disability index score of 3.93 (SD 8.24).

The incidence of isolated TPFs of the subaxial cervical spine was 2.4%. Unrestricted movement resulted in satisfying functional, anatomic, and neurologic outcomes without associated adverse events. This study confirms that isolated TPFs of the subaxial cervical spine can be considered as clinically insignificant and do not require treatment 8).


Patients for a retrospective, institutional review board-approved study were identified by reviewing the daily neurosurgical census from July 2004 to February 2007. Data were collected by chart review on all patients with TPF-grouped into isolated fractures (iTPF) and fractures with other associated spinal injuries (aTPF). Other parameters evaluated included fracture location, other spinal injuries, nonspinal injuries, mechanical stability, neurologic findings, pain, and treatment (surgical stabilization or decompression or bracing or both).

Eighty-four patients with one or more TPF were identified-47 with iTPF and 37 with aTPF. All iTPF and aTPF patients were found to be neurologically intact. No patients with iTPF required surgery or bracing for spinal stability, but 4 aTPF needed surgery and 18 aTPF required bracing with a total of 22 requiring neurosurgical intervention (p < 0.0001). However, none of these patients received treatment for the TPF. Twenty-five patients had associated abdominal injuries (16 of 46 iTPF, 9 of 37 aTPF, p = 0.3335).

iTPF are not associated with neurologic deficit or structural instability requiring spine service intervention. Therefore, conservative management without neurosurgical or orthopedic consultation is appropriate. When TPF are identified, diligence in searching for other spinal injuries or abdominal injuries should be exercised, as these associated injuries occur frequently 9).


In a retrospective study of 216 patients with cervical fractures evaluated by plain films and computed tomography, Woodring et al., found that transverse process fractures were common. Transverse process fractures were present in 24% of patients with cervical fractures and accounted for 13.2% of all cervical fractures. Cervical radiculopathy and brachial plexus palsy were present in 10% of patients with transverse process fractures. In 78% of transverse process fractures, CT scanning showed that the fracture extended into the transverse foramenVertebral artery angiography, performed in eight patients with fractures involving the transverse foramen, showed dissection or occlusion of the vertebral artery in seven (88%) instances. Two of these seven patients had clinical evidence of vertebral-basilar artery stroke. Vertebral angiography should be considered when patients with transverse process fractures extending into the transverse foramen develop signs and symptoms of vertebrobasilar disease 10).


A 66 year old man fell backwards from the first rung of a ladder sustaining a cervical transverse process fracture of C6 vertebral body and a new diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis. He was taken for surgical fixation, however his oesophagus was discovered entrapped within the fracture at the time of surgery. Despite the severity of the injury, with surgical reduction, fixation and oesophageal exclusion this patient made a full recovery.

This case demonstrates the severity of injury after minor trauma in the context of ankylosing spondylitis, the capacity for full recovery in oesophageal perforations in spinal trauma, and that clinical suspicion of such injuries allows early diagnosistreatment and reduced complications11).


A 40-year-old building and construction male worker who slipped and fell on an iron rod that resulted in penetrating wound on the right side of the anterior neck a week prior to presenting at our facility. He pulled out the iron rod immediately. Computer tomography angiography (CTA) done revealed C2-C4 transverse process fractures on the right side and a fracture at the right lamina of C3 and right common carotid artery dissection with stenosis. He was successfully treated with stenting via endovascular approach.

Richard et al., adopted the view that patient should never pull out objects that result in Penetrating neck injuries (PNI) because of complex neurovascular architecture of the neck. The mortality rate of the patient will have doubled if the iron rode penetrated the common carotid artery. The gold standard treatment option for carotid artery dissection and stenosis is endovascular approaches 12).

References

1)

Green NE, Swiontkowski MF. Skeletal Trauma in Children: Expert Consult – Print and Online, 4e. Saunders. ISBN:1416049002.
2) , 9)

Bradley LH, Paullus WC, Howe J, Litofsky NS. Isolated transverse process fractures: spine service management not needed. J Trauma. 2008 Oct;65(4):832-6; discussion 836. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318184d30e. PubMed PMID: 18849799.
3) , 8)

Schotanus M, van Middendorp JJ, Hosman AJ. Isolated transverse process fractures of the subaxial cervical spine: a clinically insignificant injury or not?: a prospective, longitudinal analysis in a consecutive high-energy blunt trauma population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Sep 1;35(19):E965-70. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c9464e. PubMed PMID: 20479701.
4) , 7)

Bui TT, Nagasawa DT, Lagman C, Jacky Chen CH, Chung LK, Voth BL, Beckett JS, Tucker AM, Niu T, Gaonkar B, Yang I, Macyszyn L. Isolated Transverse Process Fractures and Markers of Associated Injuries: The Experience at University of California, Los Angeles. World Neurosurg. 2017 Aug;104:82-88. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.137. Epub 2017 Apr 28. PubMed PMID: 28461275.
5) , 10)

Woodring JH, Lee C, Duncan V. Transverse process fractures of the cervical vertebrae: are they insignificant? J Trauma. 1993 Jun;34(6):797-802. PubMed PMID: 8315673.
6) , 11)

Vonhoff CR, Scandrett K, Al-Khawaja D. Minor trauma in ankylosing spondylitis causing combined cervical spine fracture and oesophageal injury. World Neurosurg. 2018 Jul 30. pii: S1878-8750(18)31658-9. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.180. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30071342.
12)

Richard SA, Zhang CW, Wu C, Ting W, Xiaodong X. Traumatic Penetrating Neck Injury with Right Common Carotid Artery Dissection and Stenosis Effectively Managed with Stenting: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Case Rep Vasc Med. 2018 Jun 10;2018:4602743. doi: 10.1155/2018/4602743. eCollection 2018. PubMed PMID: 29984035; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6015681.

UpToDate: Osteoporotic vertebral fracture treatment

Osteoporotic vertebral fracture treatment

Initial therapy for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) are bed rest, orthotic devices and pain medication 1) 2).

However, some patients fail to benefit from these treatment modalities and disease-related morbidity and mortality persists. Conservatively treated OVCF’s are cured with partial relief of pain and quality of life within 2 to 12 weeks 3) 4)

Kyphoplasty was developed to restore vertebral height and improve sagittal alignment. Several studies have shown these theoretical improvements cannot be transferred universally to the clinical setting.

see Vertebral augmentation.

The treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures using transpedicular cement augmentation has grown significantly since 1990s.

The treatment of painful vertebral compression fractures has changed substantially since the introduction of vertebroplasty in the mid-1980s and balloon kyphoplasty in the late 1990s. Both procedures were widely accepted with the vertebral fractures treated reaching 150,000 per annum in 2009 prior to the publication of 2 randomized controlled trials comparing vertebroplasty with a sham treatment published in the New England Journal of Medicine in August 2009. Since then, there has been a flood of information on vertebral augmentation and balloon kyphoplasty. It is worth evaluating this information especially because it relates to current recommendations that are often followed blindly by medical and administrative groups unfamiliar with either the procedure or the high level of evidence surrounding vertebral augmentation 5).


In a multicenter study, Kallmes et al., randomly assigned 131 patients who had one to three painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures to undergo either vertebroplasty or a simulated procedure without cement (control group). The primary outcomes were scores on the modified Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) (on a scale of 0 to 23, with higher scores indicating greater disability) and patients’ ratings of average painintensity during the preceding 24 hours at 1 month (on a scale of 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating more severe pain). Patients were allowed to cross over to the other study group after 1 month.

All patients underwent the assigned intervention (68 vertebroplasties and 63 simulated procedures). The baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. At 1 month, there was no significant difference between the vertebroplasty group and the control group in either the RDQ score (difference, 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.3 to 2.8; P=0.49) or the pain rating (difference, 0.7; 95% CI, -0.3 to 1.7; P=0.19). Both groups had immediate improvement in disability and pain scores after the intervention. Although the two groups did not differ significantly on any secondary outcome measure at 1 month, there was a trend toward a higher rate of clinically meaningful improvement in pain (a 30% decrease from baseline) in the vertebroplasty group (64% vs. 48%, P=0.06). At 3 months, there was a higher crossover rate in the control group than in the vertebroplasty group (51% vs. 13%, P<0.001) [corrected]. There was one serious adverse event in each group.

Improvements in pain and pain-related disability associated with osteoporotic compression fractures in patients treated with vertebroplasty were similar to the improvements in a control group 6).

On the other hand a randomized controlled trial (Fracture Reduction Evaluation [FREE] trial) which took place at 21 sites in eight countries and included 149 patients assigned to balloon kyphoplasty showed that in patients with acute, painful, vertebral fractures, balloon kyphoplasty improved quality of life, function, mobility, and pain more rapidly than did nonsurgical management, with significant differences in improvement between the groups at 1 month 7).

References

1)

Riek AE, Towler DA. The pharmacological management of osteoporosis. Mo Med. 2011;108:118–123.

2)

Rapado A. General management of vertebral fractures. Bone. 1996;18:191S–196S.

3)

Brown CJ, Friedkin RJ, Inouye SK. Prevalence and outcomes of low mobility in hospitalized older patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:1263–1270.

4)

Babayev M, Lachmann E, Nagler W. The controversy surrounding sacral insufficiency fractures: to ambulate or not to ambulate? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;79:404–409.

5)

Beall DP, McRoberts WP, Berven SH, Ledlie JT, Tutton SM, Parsons BP. Critique of the Analysis of UpToDate.com on the Treatment of Painful Vertebral Compression Fractures: Time to Update UpToDate. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014 Nov 20. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 25414003.

6)

Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Wilson DJ, Diamond TH, Edwards R, Gray LA, Stout L, Owen S, Hollingworth W, Ghdoke B, Annesley-Williams DJ, Ralston SH, Jarvik JG. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 6;361(6):569-79. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900563. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 8;366(10):970. PubMed PMID: 19657122; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2930487.

7)

Wardlaw D, Cummings SR, Van Meirhaeghe J, Bastian L, Tillman JB, Ranstam J, Eastell R, Shabe P, Talmadge K, Boonen S. Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical care for vertebral compression fracture (FREE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009 Mar 21;373(9668):1016-24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60010-6. Epub 2009 Feb 24. PubMed PMID: 19246088.

UpToDate: Cervical total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Cervical total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Findlay et al., from London and Edinburgh, researched for cervical total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus were searched. Inclusion criteria involved prospective randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the surgical treatment of patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical disc disease. Two independent investigators extracted the data. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The primary outcome measures were overall and neurological success, and these were included in the meta-analysis. Standardized patient-reported outcomes, including the incidence of further surgery and adjacent segment disease, were summarized and discussed.

A total of 22 papers published from 14 randomized control trials (RCTs) were included, representing 3160 patients with follow-up of up to ten years. Meta-analysis indicated that TDR is superior to ACDF at two years and between four and seven years. In the short-term, patients who underwent TDR had better patient-reported outcomes than those who underwent ACDF, but at two years this was typically not significant. Results between four and seven years showed significant differences in Neck Disability Index (NDI), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component scores, dysphagia, and satisfaction, all favouring TDR. Most trials found significantly less adjacent segment disease after TDR at both two years (short-term) and between four and seven years (medium- to long-term).

TDR is as effective as ACDF and superior for some outcomes. Disc replacement reduces the risk of adjacent segment disease. Continued uncertainty remains about degeneration of the prosthesis. Long-term surveillance of patients who undergo TDR may allow its routine use 1).


Cervical total disc replacement (TDR) has been shown in a number of prospective clinical studies to be a viable treatment alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease. In addition to preserving motion, evidence suggests that cervical TDR may result in a lower incidence of subsequent surgical intervention than treatment with fusion.

One reason for this trend is the observation that in clinical studies, patients with a history of cervical arthrodesis seem to have a higher incidence of adjacent segment degeneration 2) 3) 4).

Furthermore, in biomechanical investigations, most authors have reported an increase in the segmental range of motion (ROM) and the intradiscal pressure (IDP) in the levels proximal and distal to a simulated mono- or bisegmental arthrodesis 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14).

While anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been the standard of care for 2-level disease, a randomized clinical trial (RCT) suggested similar outcomes.

There are also critical debates regarding the long-term effects of heterotopic ossification (HO) and the prevalence of adjacent-level degeneration.

1)

Findlay C, Ayis S, Demetriades AK. Total disc replacement versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Bone Joint J. 2018 Aug;100-B(8):991-1001. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B8.BJJ-2018-0120.R1. PubMed PMID: 30062947.
2)

Goffin J, Geusens E, Vantomme N, Quintens E, Waerzeggers Y, Depreitere B, et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17:79–85. doi: 10.1097/00024720-200404000-00001.
3)

Gore DR, Sepic SB. Anterior discectomy and fusion for painful cervical disc disease: a report of 50 patients with an average follow-up of 21 years. Spine. 1998;23:2047–2051. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199810010-00002.
4)

Hilibrand AS, Carlson GD, Palumbo MA, Jones PK, Bohlman H. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1999;81-A:519–528.
5)

Chang U-K, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim S-H, Lim J. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:33–39. doi: 10.3171/SPI-07/07/033.
6)

Chang U-K, Kim DH, Lee MC, Willenberg R, Kim S-H, Lim J. Range of motion change after cervical arthroplasty with ProDisc-C and Prestige artificial discs compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:40–46. doi: 10.3171/SPI-07/07/040.
7)

DiAngelo DJ, Foley KT, Morrow BR, Schwab JS, Song J, German JW, et al. In vitro biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty with the ProDisc-C total disc implant. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(E7):44–54. doi: 10.3171/foc.2004.17.3.7.
8)

DiAngelo DJ, Robertson JT, Metcalf NH, McVay BJ, Davis RC. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior plate. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:314–323. doi: 10.1097/00024720-200308000-00002.
9)

Dmitriev AE, Cunningham BW, Hu N, Sell G, Vigna F, McAfee PC. Adjacent level intradiscal pressure and segmental kinematics following a cervical total disc arthroplasty. An in vitro human cadaveric model. Spine. 2005;30:1165–1172. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000162441.23824.95.
10)

Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim T-H, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine. 2002;27:2431–2434. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200211150-00003.
11)

Fuller DA, Kirkpatrick JS, Emery SE. A kinematic study of the cervical spine before and after segmental arthrodesis. Spine. 1998;23:1649–1656. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199808010-00006.
12)

Park D-H, Ramakrishnan P, Cho T-H, Lorenz E, Eck JC, Humphreys SC, et al. Effect of lower two-level anterior cervical fusion on the superior adjacent level. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:336–340. doi: 10.3171/SPI-07/09/336.
13)

Pospiech J, Stolke D, Wilke HJ, Claes LE. Intradiscal pressure recordings in the cervical spine. Neurosurgery. 1999;44:379–384. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199902000-00078.
14)

Ragab AA, Escarcega AJ, Zdeblick TA. A quantitative analysis of strain at adjacent segments after segmental immobilization of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19:407–410. doi: 10.1097/00024720-200608000-00006.

Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Spine Surgery

Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Spine Surgery

The objective of a systematic literature review was to evaluate if intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) can prevent neurological injury during spinal operative surgical procedures.

IONM seems to have presumable positive effects in identifying neurological deficits. However, the role of IONM in the decrease of new neurological deficits remains unclear.

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews and Meta-analysis, Daniel et al., from São Paulo, Brazil, reviewed clinical comparative study who evaluate the rate of new neurological events in patients who had a spinal surgery with and without IONM. Studies were then classified according to their level of evidence. Methodological quality was assessed according to methodological index for non-randomized studies instrument.

Six studies were evaluated comparing neurological events with and without IONM use by the random effects model. There was a great statistical heterogeneity. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.72 {0.71; 1.79}, P = 0.4584. A specific analysis was done for two studies reporting the results of IONM for spinal surgery of intramedullary lesions. The OR was 0.1993 (0.0384; 1.0350), P = 0.0550.

IONM did not result into fewer neurological events with the obtained evidence of the included studies. For intramedullary lesions, there was a trend to fewer neurological events in patients who underwent surgery with IONM. Further prospective randomized studies are necessary to clarify the indications of IONM in spinal surgery 1).

1)

Daniel JW, Botelho RV, Milano JB, Dantas FR, Onishi FJ, Neto ER, Bertolini EF, Borgheresi MAD, Joaquim AF. Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 Aug;43(16):1154-1160. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002575. PubMed PMID: 30063222.

UpToDate: ACTC1

ACTC1

ACTC1 encodes cardiac muscle alpha actin. This isoform differs from the alpha actin that is expressed in skeletal muscle, ACTA1. Alpha cardiac actin is the major protein of the thin filament in cardiac sarcomeres, which are responsible for muscle contraction and generation of force to support the pump function of the heart.

Actins are highly conserved proteins that are involved in various types of cell motility. Polymerization of globular actin (G-actin) leads to a structural filament (F-actin) in the form of a two-stranded helix. Each actin can bind to four others. The protein encoded by this gene belongs to the actin family which is comprised of three main groups of actin isoforms, alpha, beta, and gamma. The alpha actins are found in muscle tissues and are a major constituent of the contractile apparatus. Defects in this gene have been associated with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC) and familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (FHC).

ACTC1, could function as a prognostic and predictive marker in clinical treatment of spinal cord injury (SCI) 1).

ACTC1 may serve as a novel independent prognostic and invasion marker in glioblastoma GBM 2).

A study of Wanibuchi et al., from the Department of Neurosurgery, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Hokkaido Japan aimed to clarify whether the knockdown of highly expressed ACTC1 can inhibit the migratory capacity of cells in the GBM cell line.

ACTC1 expression was examined using immunocytochemistry and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. The motility of GBM cells that were either treated with siRNA to knock down ACTC1 or untreated were investigated using a time-lapse study in vitro.

The relatively high ACTC1 expression was confirmed in a GBM cell line, i.e., U87MG. The ACTC1 expression in U87MG cells was significantly inhibited by ACTC1-siRNA (p < 0.05). A cell movement tracking assay using time-lapse imaging demonstrated the inhibition of U87MG cell migration by ACTC1 knockdown. The quantitative cell migration analysis demonstrated that the distance traversed during 72 h was 3607 ± 458 (median ± SD) μm by untreated U87MG cells and 3570 ± 748 μm by negative control siRNA-treated cells. However, the distance migrated by ACTC1-siRNA-treated cells during 72 h was significantly shorter (1265 ± 457 μm, p < 0.01) than the controls.

ACTC1 knockdown inhibits U87MG cell migration. 3).

1)

Liu Y, Wang Y, Teng Z, Zhang X, Ding M, Zhang Z, Chen J, Xu Y. DNA Microarray Analysis in Screening Features of Genes Involved in Spinal Cord Injury. Med Sci Monit. 2016 May 10;22:1571-81. PubMed PMID: 27160807; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4913819.
2)

Ohtaki S, Wanibuchi M, Kataoka-Sasaki Y, Sasaki M, Oka S, Noshiro S, Akiyama Y, Mikami T, Mikuni N, Kocsis JD, Honmou O. ACTC1 as an invasion and prognosis marker in glioma. J Neurosurg. 2016 Apr 15:1-9. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27081897.
3)

Wanibuchi M, Ohtaki S, Ookawa S, Kataoka-Sasaki Y, Sasaki M, Oka S, Kimura Y, Akiyama Y, Mikami T, Mikuni N, Kocsis JD, Honmou O. Actin, alpha, cardiac muscle 1 (ACTC1) knockdown inhibits the migration of glioblastoma cells in vitro. J Neurol Sci. 2018 Jul 17;392:117-121. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2018.07.013. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30055382.

UpToDate: Facet-Link

Facet-Link

Facet-Link, Inc., Rockaway, New JerseyUnited States.

http://www.linkspine.com/

From a biomechanical point of view, facet screw fixation seems to provide equal stiffness during flexion-extension movements and lesser stiffness in axial rotation and lateral bending compared with pedicle screw fixation. However, the addition of the central cross-link in the Facet-Link System should theoretically increase the resistance to axial torque and ensure similar biomechanical features of the pedicle screw systems.

Video

Facetlink Mini & Hemi – HD from Ghost Productions on Vimeo.


Trungu et al., from Rome and, Tricase, Italy reported a total of 25 patients between May 2015 and June 2016 affected by radiologically demonstrated one-level Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with facet joint degeneration and grade I spondylolisthesis in a prospective study. All the patients underwent laminectomyforaminotomy, and one-level facet fixation (Facet-Link, Inc., Rockaway, New Jersey, United States). Pre- and postoperative clinical (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Short Form 36 [SF-36]) and radiologic (radiographs, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography) data were collected and analyzed.

Mean follow-up was 12 months. The L4-L5 level was involved in 18 patients (72%) and L5-S1 in 7 patients (28%); the average operative time was 80 minutes (range: 65-148 minutes), and the mean blood loss was 160 mL (range: 90-200 mL). ODI and SF-36 showed a statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvement at last follow-up.

Lumbar transfacet screw fixation is a safe and effective treatment option in patients with single-level LSS, facet joint degeneration, and mild instability 1).

1)

Trungu S, Pietrantonio A, Forcato S, Tropeano MP, Martino L, Raco A. Transfacet Screw Fixation for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Mild Instability: A Preliminary Study. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2018 Jul 16. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1655760. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30011420.