Concurrent and overlapping surgery: perspectives from surgeons on spinal posterior instrumented fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine perspectives of surgeons regarding simultaneous surgery in patients undergoing posterior spine instrumentation and fusion (PSIF) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods A survey was administered to orthopaedic trainees and faculty regarding simultaneous surgery for primary PSIF for AIS. A five-point Likert scale (1: ‘Strongly Disagree’ to 5: ‘Strongly Agree’) was used to assess agreement with statements about simultaneous surgery. We divided simultaneous surgery into concurrent, when critical portions of operations occur at the same time, and overlapping, when noncritical portions occur at the same time. Results The 72 respondents (78.3% of 92 surveyed) disagreed with concurrent surgery for ‘one of my patients’ (response mean 1.76 (sd 1.03)) but were more accepting of overlapping surgery (mean 3.94 (sd 0.99); p < 0.0001). The rating difference between concurrent and overlapping surgery was smaller for paediatric and spine surgeons (-1.25) than for residents or those who did not identify a subspecialty (-2.17; p = 0.0246) or other subspecialty surgeons (-2.57; p = 0.0026). Respondents were more likely to agree with explicit informed consent for concurrent surgery compared with overlapping (mean 4.32 (sd 0.91) versus 3.44 (sd 1.14); p < 0.001). Conclusion Orthopaedic surgeons disagreed with concurrent but were more accepting of overlapping surgery and anaesthesia for PSIF for AIS. Respondents were in greater agreement that patients should be explicitly informed of concurrence than of overlap. The surgical community’s evidence and position regarding simultaneous surgery, in particular overlapping, must be more effectively presented to the public in order to bridge the gap in perspectives. Level of Evidence IV

Burst Fracture of C5 with Traumatic Anterior Spondyloptosis of C6 and Posterior Spondylolisthesis of C4 Vertebra: A Case Report

Burst fracture of C5 with traumatic anterior spondyloptosis of C6 and posterior spondylolisthesis of C4 vertebra is an exceedingly rare high energy injury. Treatment includes decompression, reduction, stabilization, and fusion via anterior or posterior or combined anterior-posterior approach with or without prior traction. We report this rare subaxial cervical spine injury associated with quadriplegia managed with combined anterior and posterior instrumented fusion. A multidisciplinary approach with preoperative assessment and planning is crucial in managing cervical spine injury. Immediate postoperative critical care support, rehabilitation, and dedicated nursing care are required for a favorable outcome in traumatic quadriplegia.

Cervical 1-2 Posterior Instrumented Fusion Utilizing Computer-Assisted Navigation With Harvest of Rib Strut Autograft: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

Nonunion of a type II odontoid fracture after the placement of an anterior odontoid screw can occur despite careful patient selection. Countervailing factors to successful fusion include the vascular watershed zone between the odontoid process and body of C2 as well as the relatively low surface area available for fusion. Patient-specific factors include osteoporosis, advanced age, and poor fracture fragment apposition. Cervical 1-2 posterior instrumented fusion is indicated for symptomatic nonunion. The technique leverages the larger posterolateral surface area for fusion and does not rely on bony growth in a watershed zone. Although loss of up to half of cervical rotation is expected after C1-2 arthrodesis, this may be better tolerated in the elderly, who may have lower physical demands than younger patients. In this video, we discuss the case of a 75-yr-old woman presenting with intractable mechanical cervicalgia 7 mo after sustaining a type II odontoid fracture and undergoing anterior odontoid screw placement at an outside institution. Cervical radiography and computed tomography exhibited haloing around the screw and nonunion across the fracture. We demonstrate C1-2 posterior instrumented fusion with Goel-Harms technique (C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screws), utilizing computer-assisted navigation, and modified Sonntag technique with rib strut autograft. Posterior C1-2-instrumented fusion with rib strut autograft is an essential technique in the spine surgeon's armamentarium for the management of C1-2 instability, which can be a sequela of type II dens fracture. Detailed video demonstration has not been published to date. Appropriate patient consent was obtained.

Instrumented Posterolateral fusion versus instrumented Interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases in uremic patients under hemodialysis

Background Advances in hemodialysis have facilitated longer lifespan and better quality of life for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Symptomatic degenerative lumbar diseases (DLD) becomes more common in patients with ESRD. Posterior instrumented fusion remains popular for spinal stenosis combining instability. Only a few sporadic studies mentioned about surgical outcomes in patients with ESRD underwent spine surgeries, but no one discussed about which fusion method was optimal for this kind of patients. In this study, we compared the differences between lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) and lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) in uremic patients underwent instrumented lumbar surgeries. Methods Between January 2005 and December 2017, ESRD patients under maintenance hemodialysis underwent posterior instrumented fusion for DLD were reviewed. A PLF group and an IBF group were identified. The demographic data was collected using their medical records. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS); radiographic results were assessed using final fusion rates. Any surgical or implant-related complication was documented. Results A total of 34 patients (22 women and 12 men, mean age of 65.4 years) in PLF group and 45 patients (26 women and 19 men, mean age of 65.1 years) in IBF group were enrolled. Both groups had similar surgical levels. The operation time was longer (200.9 vs 178.3 min, p = 0.029) and the amount of blood loss was higher (780.0 vs 428.4 ml, p = 0.001) in the IBF group. The radiographic fusion rate was better in the PLF group but without significant difference (65.2% vs 58.8%, p = 0.356). Seven in the PLF group and ten in the IBF group developed surgical complications (20.5% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.788); three patients in the PLF group (8.8%) and five patients in the IBF group (11.1%) received revision surgeries because of implant-related or wound complications. Comparing to preoperative ODI and VAS, postoperative ODI and VAS obtained significant improvement in both groups. Conclusions Successful fusion rates and clinical improvement (VAS, ODI) were similar in IBF and PLF group. Uremic patients underwent IBF for DLD had longer length of operation and higher operative blood loss than underwent PLF.