Every month, JBJS publishes a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Click here for a collection of OrthoBuzz summaries of these “What’s New” articles. This month, co-author Jacob M. Buchowski, MD, selected the 5 most clinically compelling findings from the >30 studies summarized in the June 17, 2020 “What’s New in Spine Surgery.”
Adult Spinal Deformity
—A recent randomized controlled trial compared operative vs nonoperative treatment among 63 adult patients with symptomatic lumbar scoliosis. An additional 223 patients were included in an observational arm of the study. At 2 years, 64% of the randomized patients in the nonoperative group had crossed over to the operative group. In an as-treated analysis, surgery was associated with superior improvement, but the high crossover rate precludes making firm comparative conclusions.
Spinal Cord Injuries
—A small study of 3 subjects1 who had sustained a spinal cord injury investigated the delivery of spatially selective stimulation to posterior nerve roots innervating the lumbosacral spinal cord through an implantable pulse generator with real-time triggering capability. This method reestablished adaptive control over previously paralyzed muscles, and subjects were eventually able to walk or bike during spatiotemporal stimulation.
—A prospective study of >700 patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy2 examined the impact of surgical management on neck pain outcomes. Using the Neck Disability Index at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively, researchers found significant improvement in functional and pain scores that met or exceeded the minimum clinically important difference at all follow-up time points.
—A retrospective study of >1,800 patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis3 investigated whether pain improvements could be obtained surgically with decompression alone without fusion. At 1 year after surgery, decompression alone was associated with significant improvement in all patient-reported outcomes, suggesting that a concomitant fusion may not be required in such cases.
—A retrospective study of nearly 29,000 patients4 examined the effects of chronic preoperative opioid therapy on medium- and long-term outcomes after lumbar arthrodesis surgery. Postoperatively, chronic opioid use prior to surgery was associated with an increased risk of 90-day emergency department visits and prolonged 1- and 2-year narcotic use.
- Wagner FB, Mignardot JB, Le Goff-Mignardot CG, Demesmaeker R, Komi S, Capogrosso M, Rowald A, Se´añez I, Caban M, Pirondini E, Vat M, McCracken LA, Heimgartner R, Fodor I, Watrin A, Seguin P, Paoles E, Van Den Keybus K, Eberle G, Schurch B, Pralong E, Becce F, Prior J, Buse N, Buschman R, Neufeld E, Kuster N, Carda S, von Zitzewitz J, Delattre V, Denison T, Lambert H, Minassian K, Bloch J. Courtine G. Targeted neurotechnology restores walking in humans with spinal cord injury. Nature. 2018 Nov;563(7729):65-71. Epub 2018 Oct 31.
- Schneider MM, Tetreault L, Badhiwala JH, Zhu MP, Wilson J, Fehlings MG. 42. The impact of surgical decompression on neck pain outcomes in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: results from the multicenter prospective AOSpine studies. Spine J. 2019 Sep;19(9):S21.
- Bech-Azeddine R, Fruensgaard S, Andersen M, Carreon LY. 215. Outcomes of decompression without fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with back pain. Spine J. 2019 Sep;19(9):S106.
- Eisenberg JM, Kalakoti P, Hendrickson NR, Saifi C, Pugely AJ. 142. Impact of preoperative chronic opioid therapy on long-term outcomes, reoperations, complications and resource utilization after lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J. 2019 Sep; 19(9):S68-9.
Spine surgeons have two basic approach options when performing surgery on patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy—anterior or posterior. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and numerous studies have attempted to elucidate which approach might be better for specific clinical situations.
In the June 21, 2017 edition of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Kato et al. add to the evidence base regarding this question. They report on results from an analysis comparing the two approaches in 80 pairs of “propensity-matched” patients who had multilevel compression myelopathy. Propensity matching allowed the authors to adjust for multiple baseline factors and MRI characteristics, thus minimizing the risk of selection bias.
After the propensity-matched analysis, there were no two-year between-group differences in mJOA score, Neck Disability Index, or SF-36 Physical Component score. The overall rates of perioperative complications were similar between the two groups, although dysphagia and dysphonia were reported only in the anterior group, while surgical site infection and C5 radiculopathy were reported only in the posterior group.
The authors claim that propensity matching helps to “reflect the ‘real-world’ clinical setting and likely has greater generalizability than a smaller, narrowly randomized controlled trial,” but they ultimately conclude that the surgical approach in such cases “should be carefully chosen by evaluating risk profiles in a shared decision-making process on a case-by-case basis.”