Pharmacologic considerations in patients with osteoporosis undergoing lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review

The Association of Preoperative Bone Mineral Density and Outcomes after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

This is a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) outcomes and complications as a function of preoperative bone mineral density (BMD).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Preoperative BMD optimization is commonly initiated before lumbar spinal fusion, but the effects of BMD on ACDF are less known. Consequently, it remains unclear whether preoperative BMD optimization is recommended before ACDF.

METHODS

This systematic review included relevant clinical articles using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and MEDLINE from database inception until October 1, 2023. Eligible studies included those evaluating low BMD and outcomes after ACDF. All articles were graded using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) scale and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) assessment tools.

RESULTS

The initial retrieval yielded 4271 articles for which 4 articles with 671 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean patient age was 56.4 ± 3.9 years, and 331 patients (49.3%) were female. A total of 265 (39.5%) patients had low BMD (T score<-1.0) before ACDF. Preoperative low BMD was associated with cage subsidence in single-level ACDF (odds ratio (OR) 2.57; P=0.063; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.95-6.95), but this result did not reach statistical significance. Osteoporosis (T score<-2.5) was associated with the development of adjacent segment disease following ACDF (OR 4.41; P<0.01; 95% CI: 1.98-9.83). Low pre-operative BMD was associated with reoperation within 2 years (P<.05) and strongly associated with pseudarthrosis (OR: 11.01; P=0.002; 95% CI 2.4-49.9).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with low BMD who undergo ACDF have higher rates of subsidence, adjacent segment disease, and pseudarthrosis than those with normal BMD. Given the individual and system-wide burdens associated with these complications, some patients may benefit from preoperative BMD screening and optimization before undergoing ACDF.

The Role of Bone Mineral Density in a Successful Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

The incidence of osteoporosis is a prime concern, especially in parts of the world where the population is aging, such as Europe or the US. Many new therapy strategies have been described to enhance bone healing. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a surgical procedure that aims to stabilize the lumbar spine by fusing two or more vertebrae using an interbody cage. LIF is a standard treatment for various spinal conditions, such as degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. However, successful fusion is challenging for patients with osteoporosis due to their reduced bone mineral density (BMD) and increased risk of cage subsidence, which can lead to implant failure and poor clinical outcomes.

METHODS

 A comprehensive literature search yielded 220 articles, with 16 ultimately included. Keywords included BMD, cage subsidence, osteoporosis, teriparatide, and lumbar interbody fusion.

RESULTS

 This review examines the relationship between BMD and LIF success, emphasizing the importance of adequate bone quality for successful fusion. Preoperative assessment methods for BMD and the impact of low BMD on fusion rates and patient outcomes are discussed. Additionally, techniques to improve fusion success in patients with weakened bone density, such as biological enhancement and BMD-matched interbody cages, are explored. However, consensus on the exact BMD threshold for a successful outcome remains elusive.

CONCLUSION

 While an apparent correlation between BMD and fusion rate in LIF procedures is acknowledged, conclusive evidence regarding the precise BMD threshold indicative of an increased risk of unfavorable outcomes remains elusive. Surgeons are advised to exercise caution in surgical planning and follow-up for patients with lower BMD. Furthermore, future research initiatives, particularly longitudinal studies, are encouraged to prioritize the examination of BMD as a fundamental risk factor, addressing gaps in the literature.

Biomechanical responses of the human lumbar spine to vertical whole-body vibration in normal and osteoporotic conditions

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of osteoporosis is continuing to escalate with an aging population. However, it remains unclear how biomechanical behavior of the lumbar spine is affected by osteoporosis under whole-body vibration, which is considered a significant risk factor for degenerative spinal disease and is typically present when driving a car. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to compare the spine biomechanical responses to vertical whole-body vibration between normal and osteoporotic conditions.

METHODS

A three-dimensional finite-element model of the normal human lumbar spine-pelvis segment was developed using computed tomographic scans and was validated against experimental data. Osteoporotic condition was simulated by modifying material properties of bone tissues in the normal model. Transient dynamic analyses were conducted on the normal and osteoporotic models to compute deformation and stress in all lumbar motion segments.

FINDINGS

When osteoporosis occurred, vibration amplitudes of the vertebral axial displacement, disc bulge, and disc stress were increased by 32.1-45.4%, 25.7-47.1% and 23.0-42.7%, respectively. In addition, it was found that for both the normal and osteoporotic models, the response values (disc bugle and disc stress) were higher in L4-L5 and L5-S1 intervertebral discs than in other discs.

INTERPRETATION

Osteoporosis deteriorates the effect of whole-body vibration on lumbar spine, and the lower lumbar segments might have a higher likelihood of disc degeneration under whole-body vibration.

Sarcopenia and Postoperative Complications, Cost of Care, and All-Cause Hospital Readmission Following Lumbar Spine Arthrodesis: A Propensity Matched Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Sarcopenia, characterized by decreased muscle mass and function, is projected to affect more than 200 million people worldwide by 2060. This study aimed to evaluate the rates of short-term complications following lumbar spine arthrodesis in patients with and without a recent diagnosis of sarcopenia.

METHODS

The PearlDiver database was queried to evaluate all patients who underwent index lumbar spine arthrodesis from 2012 to 2019. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare rates of 90-day surgical and medical complications. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to compare cumulative rates of reoperation and all-cause hospital readmission. Two sample t testing was used to compare costs of care. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 a priori.

RESULTS

Of 239,953 patients undergoing lumbar spine arthrodesis, 1087 had a recent diagnosis of sarcopenia (0.45%) before surgery. Patients with sarcopenia were significantly more likely to experience a urinary tract infection (odds ratio = 1.41, P = 0.035) and undergo incision and drainage (odds ratio = 2.66, P = 0.010) within 90 days after lumbar arthrodesis. Patients with sarcopeniawere at a 24% greater risk of 1-year all-cause hospital readmission. The 90-day cost of care was significantly greater in patients with sarcopenia ($37,689.86 vs. $26,635.72; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing lumbar spine arthrodesis, sarcopenia is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications, including increased costs of care. Spine surgeons should consider screening patients for sarcopenia preoperatively and counsel them regarding their increased risk of complications. Additionally, surgeons may consider preoperative optimization, like the management of low bone density.

Biomechanical Comparison and Three-Dimensional Analysis of Cement Distribution Patterns for Different Pedicle Screw Designs

The purpose of this study to explore strategies for reducing cement leakage during cement-augmented pedicle screw fixation, we compared the cement distribution patterns and biomechanical strengths of different types of cement-augmented fenestrated screws and traditional cement-augmented techniques. We compared five screw groups in this study: (1) Cannulated screws (Cann); (2) distal one-hole screws (D1); (3) distal two-hole screws (D2); (4) middle two-hole screws (M2); and (5) traditional screws with a traditional cement injection technique (Trad). The screws were inserted into cancellous bone blocks using a controlled, adequate cement injection pressure (1.6–2.0 kg), and an appropriate cement viscosity. Center to screw tip distance, three-dimensional distribution, and pull-out strength for cement were compared between groups. The average distance between the cement center and the screw tip was highest in the M2 group, suggesting a higher risk of cement leakage into the spinal canal. The Trad group had the highest migration distance in the z-axis, also reflecting a higher risk of leakage into the spinal canal. The D1 group had the highest pull-out strength ( $253\pm 48.82\text{N}$ and $797\pm 58.31\text{N}$ ) in bone blocks representing different degrees of osteoporosis, and the D2 group had the second highest pull-out strength in the severe osteoporosis model. Overall, D1 screws appeared to be the best option for optimizing biomechanical function and minimizing the risk of cement leakage into the spinal canal in patients with osteoporotic bone undergoing spinal surgery.

Osteoporosis treatment in patients undergoing spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Bisphosphonates and teriparatide are the most common therapies used in the treatment of osteoporosis. Their impact on fusion rates in osteoporotic patients following spinal fusion has yet to be concretely defined, with previous systematic reviews focusing heavily on bisphosphonates and lacking clinical insight on the utility of teriparatide. Herein the authors present an updated meta-analysis of the utility of both bisphosphonates and teriparatide in improving spinal fusion outcomes in osteoporotic patients.

METHODS

After a comprehensive search of the English-language literature in the PubMed and Embase databases, 11 clinical studies were included in the final qualitative and quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 9 investigated bisphosphonates, 7 investigated teriparatide, and 1 investigated a combination of teriparatide and denosumab. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of the postoperative use of bisphosphonate demonstrated better odds of successful fusion as compared to that in controls during short-term monitoring (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.72-6.42, p = 0.0003) but not long-term monitoring (p > 0.05). Bisphosphonate use was also shown to significantly reduce the likelihood of postoperative vertebral compression fracture (VCF; OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.59, p = 0.01) and significantly reduce Oswestry Disability Index scores (mean difference [MD] = -2.19, 95% CI -2.94 to -1.44, p < 0.00001) and visual analog scale pain scores (MD = -0.58, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.38, p < 0.00001). Teriparatide was found to significantly increase fusion rates at long-term postoperative periods as compared to rates after bisphosphonate therapy, with patients who received postoperative teriparatide therapy 2.05 times more likely to experience successful fusion (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.17-3.59, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors demonstrate the benefits of bisphosphonate and teriparatide therapy independently in accelerating fusion during the first 6 months after spinal fusion surgery in osteoporotic patients. In addition, they show that teriparatide may have superior benefits in spinal fusion during long-term monitoring as compared to those with bisphosphonates. Bisphosphonates may be better suited in preventing VCFs postoperatively in addition to minimizing postoperative disability and pain.

Postoperative bisphosphonate do not significantly alter the fusion rate after lumbar spinal fusion: a meta-analysis

Background

To evaluate the effect of postoperative BP treatment on improving the fusion rate after lumbar spinal fusion surgery by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other comparative cohort studies.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed for RCTs and other comparative cohort studies on the effect of BP treatment on improving the fusion rate after lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The primary outcome measures were the number of patients with bone formation grades A, B, and C at 12 months of follow-up; fusion rates at 12 and 24 months of follow-up; vertebral compression fracture (VCF) at 12 and 24 months of follow-up; pedicle screw loosening at 24 months of follow-up; and cage subsidence, the Oswestry disability index (ODI), and the visual analogue score (VAS) at 12 months of follow-up. The final search was performed in July 2020.

Results

Seven studies with 401 patients were included. Compared with the placebo, BP treatment did not significantly alter the number of patients with bone formation grades A, B, and C, or the VAS at the 12-month follow-up or the fusion rates at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups. In addition, compared with the placebo, BPs significantly reduced the risks of VCF at the 12- and 24-month follow-ups, pedicle screw loosening at the 24-month follow-up, and cage subsidence and the ODI at the 12-month follow-up.

Conclusions

Postoperative BPs do not clearly improve bone formation and the fusion rate, but they reduce VCF, cage subsidence, and loosening of pedicle screws after lumbar fusion surgery compared with the control treatment.