Abhijeet Kadam

STUDY DESIGN: A narrative review of literature. OBJECTIVE: This manuscript intends to provide a review of clinically relevant bone substitutes and bone expanders for spinal surgery in terms of efficacy and associated clinical outcomes, as reported in contemporary spine literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ever since the introduction of allograft as a substitute for autologous bone in spinal surgery, a sea of literature has surfaced, evaluating both established and newly emerging fusion alternatives. An understanding of the available fusion options and an organized evidence-based approach to their use in spine surgery is essential for achieving optimal results. METHODS: studies were excluded. Primary endpoints were radiological fusion rates and successful clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 181 clinical studies were found suitable to be included in the review. More than a third of the published articles (62 studies, 34.25%) focused on BMP. Ceramics (40 studies) and Allografts (39 studies) were the other two highly published groups of bone substitutes. Highest radiographic fusion rates were observed with BMPs, followed by allograft and DBM. There were no significant differences in the reported clinical outcomes across all classes of bone substitutes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear publication bias in the literature, mostly favoring BMP. Based on the available data, BMP is however associated with the highest radiographic fusion rate. Allograft is also very well corroborated in the literature. The use of DBM as a bone expander to augment autograft is supported, especially in the lumbar spine. Ceramics are also utilized as bone graft extenders and results are generally supportive, although limited. The use of autologous growth factors is not substantiated at this time. Cell matrix or stem cell-based products and the synthetic peptides have inadequate data. More comparative studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bone graft substitutes overall.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the segmental correction obtained from 20° and 30° hyperlordotic cages (HLCs) used for anterior lumbar interbody fusion in staged anterior and posterior fusion in adults with degenerative spinal pathology and/or spinal deformities. METHODS The authors report a retrospective case series of 69 HLCs in 41 patients with adult degenerative spine disease and/or deformities who underwent staged anterior, followed by posterior, instrumentation and fusion. There were 29 females and 12 males with a mean age of 55 years (range 23-76 years). The average follow-up was 10 months (range 2-28 months). Radiographic measurements of segmental lordosis and standard sagittal parameters were obtained on pre- and postoperative radiographs. Implant subsidence was measured at the final postoperative follow-up. RESULTS For 30° HLCs, the mean segmental lordosis achieved was 29° (range 26°-34°), but in the presence of spondylolisthesis this was reduced to 19° (range 12°-21°) (p < 0.01). For 20° HLCs, the mean segmental lordosis achieved was 19° (range 16°-22°). The overall mean lumbar lordosis increased from 39° to 59° (p < 0.01). The mean sagittal vertical axis (SVA) reduced from 113 mm (range 38-320 mm) to 43 mm (range -13 to 112 mm). Six cages (9%) displayed a loss of segmental lordosis during follow-up. The mean loss of segmental lordosis was 4.5° (range 3°-10°). A total complication rate of 20% with a 4.1% transient neurological complication rate was observed. The mean blood loss per patient was 240 ml (range 50-900 ml). CONCLUSIONS HLCs provide a reliable and stable degree of segmental lordosis correction. A 30° HLC will produce correction of a similar magnitude to a pedicle subtraction osteotomy, but with a lower complication rate and less blood loss.

OBJECTIVE The authors' aim in this study was to evaluate whether sagittal plane correction can be obtained from the front by overpowering previous posterior instrumentation and/or fusion with hyperlordotic anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages in patients undergoing revision surgery for degenerative spinal conditions and/or spinal deformities. METHODS The authors report their experience with the application of hyperlordotic cages at 36 lumbar levels for ALIFs in a series of 20 patients who underwent revision spinal surgery at a single institution. Included patients underwent staged front-back procedures: ALIFs with hyperlordotic cages (12°, 20°, and 30°) followed by removal of posterior instrumentation and reinstrumentation from the back. Patients were divided into the following 2 groups depending on the extent of posterior instrumentation and fusion during the second stage: long constructs (≥ 6 levels with extension into thoracic spine and/or pelvis) and short constructs (< 6 levels). Preoperative and postoperative standing radiographs were evaluated to measure segmental lordosis (SL) along with standard sagittal parameters. Radiographic signs of pseudarthrosis at previously fused levels were also sought in all patients. RESULTS The average patient age was 54 years (range 30-66 years). The mean follow-up was 11.5 months (range 5-26 months). The mean SL achieved with 12°, 20°, and 30° cages was 13.1°, 19°, and 22.4°, respectively. The increase in postoperative SL at the respective surgically treated levels for 12°, 20°, and 30° cages that were used to overpower posterior instrumentation/fusion averaged 6.1° (p < 0.05), 12.5° (p < 0.05), and 17.7° (p < 0.05), respectively. No statistically significant difference was found in SL correction at levels in patients who had pseudarthrosis (n = 18) versus those who did not (n = 18). The mean overall lumbar lordosis increased from 44.3° to 59.8° (p < 0.05). In the long-construct group, the mean improvement in sagittal vertical axis was 85.5 mm (range 19-249.3 mm, p < 0.05). Endplate impaction/collapse was noted in 3 of 36 levels (8.3%). The anterior complication rate was 13.3%. No neurological complications or vascular injuries were observed. CONCLUSIONS ALIF in which hyperlordotic cages are used to overpower posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion can be expected to produce an increase in SL of a magnitude that is roughly half of the in-built cage lordotic angle. This technique may be particularly suited for lordosis correction from the front at lumbar levels that have pseudarthrosis from the previous posterior spinal fusion. Meticulous selection of levels for ALIF is crucial for safely and effectively performing this technique.

STUDY DESIGN: Technical report on cadavers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate preliminary feasibility and safety of lumbar sagittal alignment correction with anterior hyperlordotic cages used to overpower previous posterior spinal instrumentation. METHODS: Hyperlordotic 30° anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages were inserted in collapsed L5-S1 disc space of 2 cadavers to overpower prior posterior L5-S1 pedicle screws and rod constructs. A distinct technique of opening up the disc space and creation of intersegmental lordosis was employed using a large endplate distractor and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) paddle distractor. Assessment of increase in the intersegmental lordosis (ISL) was made using lateral fluoroscopic imaging. Postprocedural computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained to evaluate any failure of posterior instrumentation and to serve as a surrogate marker for bone quality. RESULTS: The 2 cadavers selected (from an available number of 10) were males: 82 and 84 years of age, respectively. Both had marked L5-S1 disc space collapse. The ISL achieved with hyperlordotic cages was 27.6° for the first cadaver (up from 4.9°) and 23.1° for the second one (up from 4.6°). No obvious screw-rod failure or cutout of instrumentation occurred. Postprocedure CT scans did not reveal any loosening of screws or cutout through endplates. Hounsfield unit values calculated on axial CT cuts were 73.50 (osteoporosis) and 80.70 (osteopenia) respectively for the 2 cadavers. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the cadaveric experiment, overpowering of posterior instrumentation can be effectively achieved. Biomechanical and clinical studies are indicated to further evaluate the suitability and safety of this technique.