Hagendudley8150

estigation. Conclusions All of the approaches to spinal fusion have plusses and minuses that must be considered when determining which to use, and newer-technology implants, such as PEEK with titanium coating, expandable, and 3D-printed cages, have tried to improve upon the limitations of existing grafts but require further study.Background Anterior cervical fusion offers surgeons a safe and reliable surgical option for single-level and multilevel pathology; however, multilevel fusions pose a higher risk of complications than single-level fusions, including possible pseudoarthrosis, adjacent segment disease, sagittal imbalance, and construct subsidence. Various techniques can be used to mitigate risk in multilevel anterior cervical fusion. Questions/purposes We reviewed the literature to determine the best surgical strategies in multilevel anterior cervical fusion. Methods We searched the PubMed database for articles published from January 1980 through July 2019. Two authors identified relevant articles and then manually screened them for others to include in this review. Results We initially identified 1936 articles and included 48 in our review. We found that clinical outcomes of multilevel anterior cervical fusion can be optimized through the use of biologics and graft selection, the evaluation of pre-existing deformity, the assessment of comorbidities, and the selection of fusion levels. Meticulous surgical technique in conjunction with modern surgical tools, such as instrumentation and biologics, allow surgeons to address complex cervical problems while limiting morbidity and enhancing clinical outcomes. Conclusions Multilevel anterior cervical fusions offer a relatively safe and reliable treatment option for both single-level and multilevel pathology.Background In the past decade, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has gained in popularity. A proposed advantage is the achievement of indirect neural decompression. However, evidence of the effectiveness of LLIF in neural decompression in lumbar degenerative conditions remains unclear. Questions/purposes We sought to extrapolate clinical and radiological results and consequently the potential benefits and limitations of LLIF in indirect neural decompression in degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature in English using the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist. Scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain were extracted, as were data on the following radiological measurements disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal area (FA), central canal area (CA). Results In the 42 articles included, data on 2445 patients (3779 levels treated) with a mean follow-up of 14.8 ± 5.9 months were analyzed. Mean improvements in VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI scale scores were 4.1 ± 2.5, 3.9 ± 2.2, and 21.9 ± 7.2, respectively. Post-operative DH, FH, FA, and CA measurements increased by 68.6%, 21.9%, 37.7%, and 29.3%, respectively. Conclusion Clinical results indicate LLIF as an efficient technique in indirect neural decompression. Analysis of radiological data demonstrates the effectiveness of symmetrical foraminal decompression. Data regarding indirect decompression of central canal and lateral recess are inconclusive and contradictory. Bony stenosis appears as an absolute contraindication. The role of facet joint degeneration is unclear. This systematic review provides a reference for surgeons to define the potential and limitations of LLIF in indirect neural elements decompression.Spinal fusion surgery is performed all over the world to help patients with cervical and thoracolumbar pathology. As outcomes continue to improve in patients with spine-related pathology, it is important to understand how we got to modern day spinal fusion surgery. read more Scientific innovations have ranged from the first spinal fusions performed with basic instrumentation in the late nineteenth century to contemporary tools such as pedicle screws, bone grafts, and interbody devices. This article tracks this technological growth so that surgeons may better serve their patients in treating spine-related pain and disability.Background Adjacent segment disease (ASDz) is a potential complication following lumbar spinal fusion. A common nomenclature based on etiology and ASDz type does not exist and is needed to assist with clinical prognostication, decision making, and management. Questions/purposes The objective of this study was to develop an etiology-based classification system for ASDz following lumbar fusion. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of 65 consecutive patients who had undergone both a lumbar fusion performed by a single surgeon and a subsequent procedure for ASDz. We established an etiology-based classification system for lumbar ASDz with the following six categories "degenerative" (degenerative disc disease or spondylosis), "neurologic" (disc herniation, stenosis), "instability" (spondylolisthesis, rotatory subluxation), "deformity" (scoliosis, kyphosis), "complex" (fracture, infection), or "combined." Based on this scheme, we determined the rate of ASDz in each etiologic category. Results Of the 65 patients, 27 (41.5%) underwent surgery for neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy for adjacent-level stenosis or disc herniation and were classified as "neurologic." Ten patients (15.4%) had progressive degenerative disc pathology at the adjacent level and were classified as "degenerative." Ten patients (15.4%) had spondylolisthesis or instability and were classified as "instability," and three patients (4.6%) required revision surgery for adjacent-level kyphosis or scoliosis and were classified as "deformity." Fifteen patients (23.1%) had multiple diagnoses that included a combination of categories and were classified as "combined." Conclusion This is the first study to propose an etiology-based classification scheme of ASDz following lumbar spine fusion. This simple classification system may allow for the grouping and standardization of patients with similar pathologies and thus for more specific pre-operative diagnoses, personalized treatments, and improved outcome analyses.