Expert Consensus on Clinical Application of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Results From a Modified Delphi Study

Management of Anticoagulation/Antiplatelet Medication and Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Elective Spine Surgery: Concise Clinical Recommendations Based on a Modified Delphi Process

STUDY DESIGN

Delphi method.

OBJECTIVE

To gain consensus on the following questions: (1) When should anticoagulation/antiplatelet (AC/AP) medication be stopped before elective spine surgery?; (2) When should AC/AP medication be restarted after elective spine surgery?; (3) When, how, and in whom should venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis be started after elective spinal surgery?

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

VTE can lead to significant morbidity after adult spine surgery, yet postoperative VTE prophylaxis practices vary considerably. The management of preoperative AC/AP medication is similarly heterogeneous.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Delphi method of consensus development consisting of three rounds (January 26, 2021, to June 21, 2021).

RESULTS

Twenty-one spine surgeons were invited, and 20 surgeons completed all rounds of questioning. Consensus (>70% agreement) was achieved in 26/27 items. Group consensus stated that preoperative Direct Oral Anticoagulants should be stopped two days before surgery, warfarin stopped five days before surgery, and all remaining AC/AP medication and aspirin should be stopped seven days before surgery. For restarting AC/AP medication postoperatively, consensus was achieved for low-risk/medium-risk/high-risk patients in 5/5 risk factors (VTE history/cardiac/ambulation status/anterior approach/operation). The low/medium/high thresholds were POD7/POD5/POD2, respectively. For VTE chemoprophylaxis, consensus was achieved for low-risk/medium-risk/high-risk patients in 12/13 risk factors (age/BMI/VTE history/cardiac/cancer/hormone therapy/operation/anterior approach/staged separate days/staged same days/operative time/transfusion). The one area that did not gain consensus was same-day staged surgery. The low-threshold/medium-threshold/high-threshold ranges were postoperative day 5 (POD5) or none/POD3-4/POD1-2, respectively. Additional VTE chemoprophylaxis considerations that gained consensus were POD1 defined as the morning after surgery regardless of operating finishing time, enoxaparin as the medication of choice, and standardized, rather than weight-based, dose given once per day.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first known Delphi study to address anticoagulation/antiplatelet recommendations for elective spine surgery (preoperatively and postoperatively); our Delphi consensus recommendations from 20 spine surgeons achieved consensus on 26/27 items. These results will potentially help standardize the management of preoperative AC/AP medication and VTE chemoprophylaxis after adult elective spine surgery.

What Are the Benefits of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion on the Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Deformity

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) combined with posterior spinal fusion (PSF) with that of conventional PSF in the treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Spinopelvic parameters, surgical data, complications, and clinical outcomes at the last follow-up were compared between patients with ASD who underwent LLIF combined with PSF (LLIF+PSF group) and those who underwent conventional PSF (only-PSF group).

RESULTS

Ten studies, comprising 621 patients with ASD (313 in the LLIF+PSF group and 308 in the only-PSF group), were included. The level of evidence was III for 7 studies and IV for 3 studies. There was no significant difference in the improvement in the visual analog scale score, systemic complication rate, and revision rate between groups. In the LLIF+PSF group, we noted a superior restoration of lumbar lordosis (weighted mean difference [WMD], 9.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.10 to 12.44, P < .001), pelvic tilt (WMD, -2.50; 95% CI -4.25 to -.75, P = .005), sagittal vertical axis (WMD, -21.92; 95% CI -30.73 to -13.11, P < .001), and C7 plumb line-center sacral vertical line (WMD, -4.03; 95% CI -7.52 to -.54, P = .024); a lower estimated blood loss (WMD, -719.99; 95% CI -1105.02 to -334.96, P < .001) while a prolonged operating time (WMD, 104.89; 95% CI 49.36 to 160.43, P < .001); lower incidence of pseudarthrosis (risk ratio [RR], .26; 95% CI .08 to .79, P = .017) while higher incidence of neurologic deficits (RR, 2.04; 95% CI 1.27 to 3.25, P = .003); and a better improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score (WMD, -7.04; 95% CI -10.155 to -3.93, P < .001) and Scoliosis Research Society-22 total score (WMD, .27; 95% CI .11 to .42, P = .001). The level of evidence in this systematic review and meta-analysis was II.

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional PSF, LLIF combined with PSF was associated with superior restoration of sagittal and coronal alignment, lower incidence of pseudarthrosis, better improvement in quality of life, and less surgical invasiveness in the treatment of ASD, albeit at the cost of prolonged surgical times and substantially high incidence of lower extremity symptoms. Surgeons should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of this procedure, and inform patients about its side effects.

Equipoise for Lateral Access Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of lateral access surgery among surgeons from the Asia-Pacific region to determine equipoise for areas of contentious use.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to members of the Asia Pacific Spine Society. Surgeons were asked about their past experiences with lateral access surgery, including their advantages and disadvantages, specific surgical strategies, choices in implant-related factors, order of levels to operate on in multilevel reconstruction surgery, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 69 of 102 surgeons (67.6%) had performed lateral access surgery previously. In total, 56 participating surgeons (54.9%) agreed that anterior column reconstruction via lateral access is most of time superior to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and other techniques. Surgeons would consider laminectomy instead of indirect decompression in the presence of severe central or lateral recess stenosis, thickened ligamentum flavum, and facet joint hypertrophy. For the order of levels to operate on in multiple level reconstruction for deformity, where 1 stands for L3-L4 or higher, 2 stands for L4-L5, and 3 stands for L5-S1, 2-1-3 (28/95, 29.5%) was most common, followed by 1-2-3 (26/95, 27.4%), and 3-2-1 (21/95, 22.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral access surgery is seeing greater use in the Asia-Pacific region, especially in upper middle- to high-income countries, whereas keenness of surgeons who practice in lower middle- to low-income countries can be improved by more training, resources, and reasonable cost. A high percentage of surgeons do not consider indirect decompression for spinal stenosis. There was no consensus on the order of levels in multiple level reconstruction for deformity.

The feasibility and efficacy of computer-assisted screw inserting planning in the surgical treatment for severe spinal deformity: a prospective study

Background

The objective of the study was to explore the feasibility and efficacy of computer-assisted screw inserting planning (CASIP) in the surgical treatment for severe spinal deformity.

Methods

A total of 50 patients participated in this prospective cohort study. 25 patients were allocated into CASIP group and 25 patients were in Non-CASIP group. The demographic data, radiological spinal parameters were documented and analyzed. Each pedicle screw insertion was classified as satisfactory insertion or unsatisfactory insertion based on Gertzbein-Robbins classification. The primary outcome was the accuracy of pedicle screw placement. The secondary outcomes were the rate of puncturing screws, estimated blood loss, surgical time, correction rate and other radiological parameters.

Results

A total of 45 eligible patients completed the study. 20 patients were in CASIP group and 25 patients were in Non- CASIP group. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement in CASIP Group and Non-CASIP Group were (92.0 ± 5.5) % and (82.6 ± 8.3) % (P < 0.05), and the rate of puncturing screws were (0 (0–0)) % and (0 (0-6.25)) % (P < 0.05). The median surgical time were 280.0 (IQR: 260.0–300.0) min and 310 (IQR: 267.5–390.0) min in two group and showed significant statistic difference (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

CASIP has good feasibility and can gain a more accurate and reliable instruments fixation, with which spine surgeons can make a detailed and personalized screw planning preoperatively to achieve satisfying screw placement.