spine surgery
Recently Published Documents





2022 ◽  
pp. 219256822110726
Mark N. Pernik ◽  
William H. Hicks ◽  
Omar S. Akbik ◽  
Madelina L. Nguyen ◽  
Ivan Luu ◽  

Study Design Single-center retrospective study. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of psoas muscle mass defined sarcopenia with perioperative outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing elective spine surgery. Methods We included geriatric patients undergoing thoracolumbar spinal surgery. Total psoas surface area (TPA) was measured on preoperative axial computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging at the L3 vertebra and normalized to the L3 vertebral body area. Patients were divided into quartiles by normalized TPA, and the fourth quartile (Q4) was compared to quartiles 1–3 (Q1-3). Outcomes included perioperative transfusions, length of stay (LOS), delirium, pseudoarthrosis, readmission, discharge disposition, revision surgery, and mortality. Results Of the patients who met inclusion criteria (n = 196), the average age was 73.4 y, with 48 patients in Q4 and 148 patients in Q1-3. Q4 normalized TPA cut-off was <1.05. Differences in Q4 preoperative characteristics included significantly lower body mass index, baseline creatinine, and a greater proportion of females (Table 1). Q4 patients received significantly more postoperative red blood cell and platelet transfusions and had longer ICU LOS ( P < .05; Table 2). There was no difference in intraoperative transfusion volumes, delirium, initiation of walking, discharge disposition, readmission, pseudoarthrosis, or revision surgery (Tables 2 and 3). Mortality during follow-up was higher in Q4 but was not statistically significant ( P = .075). Conclusion Preoperative TPA in geriatric patients undergoing elective spine surgery is associated with increased need for intensive care and postoperative blood transfusion. Preoperative normalized TPA is a convenient measurement and could be included in geriatric preoperative risk assessment algorithms.

Jitin Bajaj ◽  
Yad Ram Yadav

AbstractEndoscopic spine surgeries provide distinct advantages and is therefore a viable alternative to open or microscopic techniques. Indian surgeons have shown their expertise from craniovertebral junction to lumbosacral spine with these techniques. Many novel approaches like endoscopic transcervical, partial corpectomy, and others have been designed, and many technological innovations for these surgeries have been made. With different training programs attracting both native and international surgeons, the future of endoscopic spine surgery is bright.

2022 ◽  
pp. 219256822110733
Nicholas C. Danford ◽  
Venkat Boddapati ◽  
Matthew E. Simhon ◽  
Nathan J. Lee ◽  
Justin Mathew ◽  

Study Design Narrative Review Objectives The objective of this study was to compare publication status of clinical trials in adult spine surgery registered on ClinicalTrials.gov by funding source as well as to identify other trends in clinical trials in adult spine surgery. Methods All prospective, comparative, therapeutic (intervention-based) trials of adult spinal disease that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with a start date of January 1, 2000 and completion date before December 17, 2018 were included. Primary outcome was publication status of published or unpublished. A bivariate analysis was used to compare publication status to funding source of industry vs non-industry. Results Our search identified 107 clinical trials. The most common source of funding was industry (62 trials, 57.9% of total), followed by University funding (26 trials, 24.3%). The results of 76 trials (71.0%) were published, with industry-funded trials less likely to be published compared to non–industry-funded trials (62.9% compared to 82.2%, P = .03). Of the 31 unpublished studies, 13 did not report any results on ClinicalTrials.gov , and of those with reported results, none was a positive trial. Conclusions Clinician researchers in adult spine surgery should be aware that industry-funded trials are less likely to go on to publication compared to non–industry-funded trials, and that negative trials are frequently not published. Future opportunities include improvement in result reporting and in publishing negative studies.

2022 ◽  
pp. 219256822110491
Andre M. Jakoi ◽  
Gregory J. Kirchner ◽  
Alexander M. Lieber ◽  
Amrit S. Khalsa

Study Design Retrospective cohort study Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate safety in lumbar spinal fusion with tranexamic acid (TXA) utilization in patients using marijuana. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study involving a single surgeon’s cases of 1 to 4 level lumbar fusion procedures. Two hundred and ninety-four patients were followed for ninety days post-operatively. Consecutive patients were self-reported for daily marijuana use (n = 146) and compared to a similar cohort of patients who denied usage of marijuana (n = 146). Outcomes were collected, which included length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), post-operative myocardial infarction, seizures, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, death, readmission, need for further surgery, infection, anaphylaxis, acute renal injury, and need for blood product transfusion. Results Patients in the marijuana usage cohort had similar age (58.9 years ±12.9 vs 58.7 years ±14.8, P = .903) and distribution of levels fused ( P = .431) compared to the non-usage cohort. Thromboembolic events were rare in both groups (marijuana usage: 1 vs non-usage: 2). Compared to the non-usage cohort, the marijuana usage cohort had a similar average EBL (329.9 ± 298.5 mL vs 374.5 ± 363.8 mL; P = .254). Multivariate regression modeling demonstrated that neither EBL (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.64-2.49) nor need for transfusion (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.43-5.72) varied between cohorts. The non-usage cohort had twice the risk of prolonged LOS compared to the marijuana usage cohort (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.15-3.63). Conclusion Marijuana use should not be considered a contraindication for TXA utilization in lumbar spine surgery.

Spine ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Han-Joo Lee ◽  
Dong-Hwa Heo ◽  
Sang Kuy Han ◽  
Hae Won Choi ◽  
Seungtaek Kim ◽  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document