Buffalo Spine Surgery

Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) has received consideration as an efficient, minimally disruptive technique in supporting lumbar interbody fusion. However, despite advantageous intraoperative utility, limited evidence exists characterizing midterm to long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF. The objective of this multicenter study was to prospectively assess patients receiving single-level anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with adjunctive ISPF. This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter (11 investigators), noninferiority trial. All patients received single-level ALIF or LLIF with supplemental ISPF (n = 66) or pedicle screw fixation (PSF; n = 37) for degenerative disc disease and/or spondylolisthesis (grade ≤2). The randomization patient ratio was 2:1, ISPF/PSF. Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). For ISPF patients, mean posterior intraoperative outcomes were: blood loss, 70.9 mL; operating time, 52.2 minutes; incision length, 5.5 cm; and fluoroscopic imaging time, 10.4 seconds. Statistically significant improvement in patient Oswestry Disability Index scores were achieved by just 6 weeks after operation (P < .01) and improved out to 12 months for the ISPF cohort. Patient-reported 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores were also significantly improved from baseline to 12 months in the ISPF cohort (P < .01). A total of 92.7% of ISPF patients exhibited interspinous fusion at 12 months. One ISPF patient (1.5%) required a secondary surgical intervention of possible relation to the posterior instrumentation/procedure. ISPF can be achieved quickly, with minimal tissue disruption and complication. In supplementing ALIF and LLIF, ISPF supported significant improvement in early postoperative (≤12 months) patient-reported outcomes, while facilitating robust posterior fusion.

Prospective, multicenter, randomized Food and Drug Administration approved investigational device exemption clinical trial. To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the PCM Cervical Disc compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of patients with degenerative spondylosis and neurological symptoms at 1 level between C3-C4 and C7-T1. Cervical disc arthroplasty in the treatment of symptomatic cervical spondylosis has been studied in other series. The PCM Cervical Disc is a nonconstrained motion-sparing alternative to ACDF. Patients 18 to 65 years of age with single-level symptomatic cervical spondylosis with radiculopathy and/or myelopathy unresponsive to nonoperative treatment were enrolled, including patients with prior nonadjacent or adjacent single-level fusions. The per-protocol patient sample at 2 years included 342 patients (189 PCM, 153 ACDF). Longitudinal outcomes were comparatively evaluated. At 2 years postoperatively, clinical measures-neck and arm pain visual analogue scale, Neck Disability Index (NDI), SF-36, and neurological status-were significantly improved from preoperative baselines in both groups. Mean NDI score at 2 years was significantly lower in PCM group (P = 0.029). There were no statistical differences between groups in rates of surgery-related serious adverse events (5.6% PCM, 7.4% ACDF) or secondary surgical procedures (5.2% PCM, 5.4% ACDF). Patients with PCM reported lower dysphagia scores (8.8/100 vs. 12.1/100; P = 0.045) and higher patient satisfaction (82.8/100 vs. 81.4/100). Overall success, a composite endpoint including minimum 20% NDI improvement, no major complications, no neurological worsening, no secondary surgical procedures, and meeting radiographical criteria of motion for PCM and fusion for ACDF, was significantly greater in the PCM group (75.1% vs. 64.9%; P = 0.020). The treatment of symptomatic single-level cervical spondylosis with PCM achieves clinical outcomes that are at least equivalent to ACDF while maintaining motion. At 2 years, patients with PCM had lower NDI scores, statistically lower rate of prolonged dysphagia, greater patient satisfaction, and superior overall success.

One of the goals of lumbar arthroplasty is to restore and maintain range of motion (ROM) and to protect adjacent levels from abnormal motion, which may be a factor in transition syndrome following arthrodesis. In this study, in vitro ROM results were compared with in vivo, 2-year postoperative radiographic ROM evaluations. Radiographs of patients enrolled in the CHARITE investigational device exemption study were analyzed at baseline and at 2 years postoperatively. The ROM in flexion/extension at the implanted and adjacent levels was measured, normalized, and compared with ROM results obtained using cadaver (in vitro) evaluations. Preoperative ROM distributions in patients enrolled for arthroplasty or fusion at the L4-5 level was as follows: 28% motion was observed at L3-4, 35% at L4-5 and 37% at L5-S1. Following a one-level arthroplasty at L4-5, the in vivo ROM distribution from L-3 to S-1 at the 2-year time point was 36% at L3-4, 30% at L4-5 and 35% at L5-S1. Following a one-level fusion with BAK and pedicle screws at L4-5, the in vivo ROM distribution from L-3 to S-1 at the 2-year time point was 45% at L3-4, 9% at L4-5 and 46% at L5-S1. The baseline as well as the 2-year in vivo data confirmed previously published in vitro data. One-level arthroplasty was shown herein to replicate the normal distribution of motion of the intact spine.

Patient selection is perhaps the most important factor in successful lumbar surgery. In this study, the authors analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients enrolled in the CHARITE investigational device exemption (IDE) trial who underwent revision surgery after primary total disc replacement with CHARITE or an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with placement of a BAK cage and iliac crest autograft. This revision surgery was either a supplemental posterior lumbar fixation or a 360 degrees fusion. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare clinical success in patients who underwent revision surgery with those who did not. The patients enrolled in the CHARITE IDE study were divided into 6 groups according to treatment and repeated operation status, and their Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores at the 2-year follow-up and at baseline were compared. The patients had received the following treatments by group: A) ALIF without reoperation; B) ALIF with conversion to 360 degrees fusion; C) arthroplasty (randomized) without repeated operation; D) arthroplasty with supplemental posterior lumbar fixation; E) arthroplasty (nonrandomized) without repeated operation; and F) arthroplasty (nonrandomized) with supplemental posterior lumbar fixation. Outcome scores in the groups of patients who required revision surgeries (Groups B, D, and F; 23 patients) were compared with the groups that did not require revision surgery (Groups A, C, and E; 299 patients). Patients who required revision surgery had a significantly lower level of clinical improvement than those who did not. The mean change in ODI score was -53.0% in Groups A, C, and E, but just -12.7% in Groups B, D, and F (p < 0.0001). The mean change in VAS score was -59.1% in Groups A, C, and E, compared to -23.4% in Groups B, D, and F (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were identified in analyzing absolute change in scores and the percentage change. A comparison of outcomes in patients who had undergone arthroplasty without reoperation (Groups C and E) with all patients who had undergone revision surgery (Groups B, D, and F) demonstrated similar results (p < 0.0001). The 7.1% of patients who underwent a secondary stabilization procedure had poor clinical improvement. This finding may indicate that if the alternative treatment had been the initial treatment, these patients would not have benefited, and further implies a 7.1% rate of imprecision in preoperative evaluation.

Posterior dynamic stabilization (PDS) devices promise to relieve pain by altering the transmission of any abnormal loads across degenerative discs. These devices can function as an adjunct in the presence of anterior and posterior total disc replacement (TDR). Clinical reports on currently available PDS devices are reviewed and their applicability to TDR is discussed. Products being developed that incorporate posterior TDR prostheses with PDS devices are also reviewed. The PDS devices described can be used in conjunction with anterior TDR at the time of the initial surgery or at a later date. Posterior TDR prostheses used in conjunction with PDS devices will have a role in the marketplace in the future.