Claudio Lamartina

Study design: A systematic review of the literature about differential diagnosis between spine infection and bone tumors of the spine. Background and Purpose: The differential diagnosis between spine infection and bone tumors of the spine can be misled by the prevalence of one of the conditions over the other in different areas of the world. A review of the existing literature on suggestive or even pathognomonic imaging aspects of both can be very useful for correctly orientating the diagnosis and deciding the most appropriate area for biopsy. The purpose of our study is to identify which imaging technique is the most reliable to suggest the diagnosis between spine infection and spine bone tumor. Methods: A primary search on Medline through PubMed distribution was made. We identified five main groups: tuberculous, atypical spinal tuberculosis, pyogenic spondylitis, and neoplastic (primitive and metastatic). For each group, we evaluated the commonest localization, characteristics at CT, CT perfusion, MRI, MRI with Gadolinium, MRI diffusion (DWI) and, in the end, the main features for each group. Results: A total of 602 studies were identified through the database search and a screening by titles and abstracts was performed. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 34 articles were excluded and a total of 22 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. For each article, the role of CT-scan, CT-perfusion, MRI, MRI with Gadolinium and MRI diffusion (DWI) in distinguishing the most reliable features to suggest the diagnosis of spine infection versus bone tumor/metastasis was collected. Conclusion: Definitive differential diagnosis between infection and tumor requires biopsy and culture. The sensitivity and specificity of percutaneous biopsy are 72% and 94%, respectively. Imaging studies can be added to address the diagnosis, but a multidisciplinary discussion with radiologists and nuclear medicine specialists is mandatory.

Study Design: Survey of cases. Objective: To evaluate the opinion of experts in the diagnostic process of clinically relevant Spinal Post-traumatic Deformity (SPTD). Summary of Background Data: SPTD is a potential complication of spine trauma that can cause decreased function and quality of life impairment. The question of when SPTD becomes clinically relevant is yet to be resolved. Methods: The survey of 7 cases was sent to 31 experts. The case presentation was medical history, diagnostic assessment, evaluation of diagnostic assessment, diagnosis, and treatment options. Means, ranges, percentages of participants, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: Seventeen spinal surgeons reviewed the presented cases. The items’ fracture type and complaints were rated by the participants as more important, but no agreement existed on the items of medical history. In patients with possible SPTD in the cervical spine (C) area, participants requested a conventional radiograph (CR) (76%–83%), a flexion/extension CR (61%–71%), a computed tomography (CT)-scan (76%–89%), and a magnetic resonance (MR)-scan (89%–94%). In thoracolumbar spine (ThL) cases, full spine CR (89%–100%), CT scan (72%–94%), and MR scan (65%–94%) were requested most often. There was a consensus on 5 out of 7 cases with clinically relevant SPTD (82%–100%). When consensus existed on the diagnosis of SPTD, there was a consensus on the case being compensated or decompensated and being symptomatic or asymptomatic. Conclusions: There was strong agreement in 5 out of 7 cases on the presence of the diagnosis of clinically relevant SPTD. Among spine experts, there is a strong consensus to use CT scan and MR scan, a cervical CR for C-cases, and a full spine CR for ThL-cases. The lack of agreement on items of the medical history suggests that a Delphi study can help us reach a consensus on the essential items of clinically relevant SPTD. Level of Evidence: Level V

Study design A single-centre retrospective study. Background and Purpose Although adult patients spend most of their time in sitting positions, the assessment of spinopelvic parameters in adult deformity surgery is commonly performed in standing X-rays. Our study compares the standing and sitting sagittal alignment parameters in subjects who underwent thoracolumbar fusion. Methods Patients who underwent corrective surgery for adult scoliosis with at least five instrumented vertebra were stratified according to the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) and pelvic fixation. Group A:UIV proximal to T6 with pelvis fixation. B:UIV lower than T6 and pelvic fixation. Group C: thoracolumbar fusion without pelvic fixation. Post-operative spinopelvic sagittal parameters were measured in both standing and sitting X-rays. Results A total of 51 patients were enrolled in the study (11:Males and 40:Females). The mean age was 52.3 ± 21.7y/o. The comparison of post-operative standing and sitting X-ray within the group A and B showed that a significant change was observed in terms of JA-Junctional Angle-(Group A 6.3 ± 4.3 vs. 8.1 ± 3.3, p value = 0.03) (Group B 8.5 ± 6.4 vs. 10.9 ± 6.4, p value = 0.02). Group C showed statistically significant difference in terms of PT (15.6 ± 11.2 vs. 19.3 ± 9.2, p value = 0.04), AVA-Acetabular Version Angle-(41.1 ± 5.9 vs. 48.3 ± 6.6, p value < 0.01) and LL (− 51.3 ± 16.0 vs. − 42.6 ± 10.7, p value < 0.01). Conclusion In our series, the post-operative sagittal alignment showed peculiar behaviours and adaptations in sitting position, depending on the length and the site of the instrumented area. If the pelvis is included, the JA tends to significantly increase in sitting position. These findings can improve the knowledge of pathologies as proximal junctional kyphosis or specific cases of anterior hip impingement. Level of evidence IV.

Background and purpose Anterior lumbar approaches are recommended for clinical conditions that require interbody stability, spinal deformity corrections or a large fusion area. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in lateral decubitus position (LatALIF) has gained progressive interest in the last years. The study aims to describe the current habit, the perception of safety and the perceptions of need of vascular surgeons according to experienced spine surgeons by comparing LatALIF to the standard L5-S1 supine ALIF (SupALIF). Methods A two-round Delphi method study was conducted to assess the consensus, within expert spine surgeons, regarding the perception of safety, the preoperative planning, the complications management and the need for vascular surgeons by performing anterior approaches (SupALIF vs LatALIF). Results A total of 14 experts voluntary were involved in the survey. From 82 sentences voted in the first round, a consensus was reached for 38 items. This included the feasibility of safe LatALIF without systematic involvement of vascular surgeon for routine cases (while for revision cases the involvement of the vascular surgeon is an appropriate option) and the appropriateness of standard MRI to evaluate the accessibility of the vascular window. Thirteen sentences reached the final consensus in the second round, whereas no consensus was reached for the remaining 20 statements. Conclusions The Delphi study collected the consensus on several points, such as the consolidated required experience on anterior approaches, the accurate study of vascular anatomy with MRI, the management of complications and the significant reduction of the surgical times of the LatALIF if compared to SupALIF in combined procedures. Furthermore, the study group agrees that LatALIF can be performed without the need for a vascular surgeon in routine cases.

Study design A single-centre retrospective study. Background and purpose This study aims to investigate the rate of L5 radiculopathy, to identify imaging features associated with the complication and to evaluate the clinical outcomes in adult spine deformity patients undergoing L5-S1 ALIF with hyperlordotic cages. Methods Design: retrospective cohort study. A single-centre prospective database was queried to analyse patients undergoing hyperlordotic (HL) ALIF with posterior fusion to correct spinal deformity. Clinical status was evaluated by back and leg pain numeric rate scale and Oswestry Disability Index pre-operatively and at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up. Spinopelvic parameters, such as pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis and L5-S1 lordosis, posterior disc height (PDH) and anterior disc height, were assessed pre-operatively and post-operatively on standardized full-spine standing EOS images. The sagittal foraminal area was measured pre- and post-operatively on a CT scan. Results Thirty-nine patients with a mean age of 63.2 ± 8.6 years underwent HL-ALIF from January 2016 to December 2019. Seven of them developed post-operative root pain (5) or weakness (2) (Group A), while thirty-two did not (Group B). Root impairment was associated with greater segmental correction magnitude, 26° ± 11.1 in Group A versus 15.1° ± 9.9 in Group B (p < 0.05), and to smaller post-operative PDH, 5.9 mm ± 2.7 in Group A versus 8.3 mm ± 2.6 (p < 0.05). Conclusions Post-operative root problems were observed in 17.9% of patients undergoing HL-ALIF for adult spine deformity. L5 radiculopathy was associated with larger sagittal angular corrections and smaller post-operative posterior disc height. One patient (2.6%) needed L5 root decompression. At 12 months of follow-up, results were equivalent between groups. Level of evidence I Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Purpose: Identifying perioperative factors that may influence the outcomes of long spine fusion for the treatment of adult deformity is key for tailored surgical planning and targeted informed consent. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between demographic or perioperative factors and clinical outcomes 2 years after long spine fusion for the treatment of adult deformity. Methods: This study is a multivariate analysis of retrospectively collected data. All patients who underwent long fusion of the lumbar spine for adult spinal deformity (January 2016–June 2019) were included. The outcomes of interest were the Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogic scale (VAS) preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years’ follow up, age, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, upper and lowest instrumented vertebrae (UIV and LIV, respectively), length of surgery, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay. Results: Data from 192 patients were available. The ODI at 2 years correlated weakly to moderately with age (r = 0.4), BMI (r = 0.2), ASA (r = 0.3), and LIV (r = 0.2), and strongly with preoperative ODI (r = 0.6). The leg VAS at 2 years moderately correlated with age (r = 0.3) and BMI (r = 0.3). Conclusion: ODI and VAS at 2 years’ follow-up had no to little association to preoperative age, health status, LIV, or other peroperative data, but showed a strong correlation with preoperative ODI and pain level.

The study aims to create a preoperative model from baseline demographic and health-related quality of life scores (HRQOL) to predict a good to excellent early clinical outcome using a machine learning (ML) approach. A single spine surgery center retrospective review of prospectively collected data from January 2016 to December 2020 from the institutional registry (SpineREG) was performed. The inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, both sexes, lumbar arthrodesis procedure, a complete follow up assessment (Oswestry Disability Index—ODI, SF-36 and COMI back) and the capability to read and understand the Italian language. A delta of improvement of the ODI higher than 12.7/100 was considered a “good early outcome”. A combined target model of ODI (Δ ≥ 12.7/100), SF-36 PCS (Δ ≥ 6/100) and COMI back (Δ ≥ 2.2/10) was considered an “excellent early outcome”. The performance of the ML models was evaluated in terms of sensitivity, i.e., True Positive Rate (TPR), specificity, i.e., True Negative Rate (TNR), accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC). A total of 1243 patients were included in this study. The model for predicting ODI at 6 months’ follow up showed a good balance between sensitivity (74.3%) and specificity (79.4%), while providing a good accuracy (75.8%) with ROC AUC = 0.842. The combined target model showed a sensitivity of 74.2% and specificity of 71.8%, with an accuracy of 72.8%, and an ROC AUC = 0.808. The results of our study suggest that a machine learning approach showed high performance in predicting early good to excellent clinical results.

Background: Different surgical approaches are available for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) to treat disc degeneration. However, a quantification of their invasiveness is lacking, and the definition of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has not been biochemically detailed. We aimed at characterizing the inflammatory, hematological, and clinical peri-surgical responses to different LIF techniques. Methods: 68 healthy subjects affected by single-level discopathy (L3 to S1) were addressed to MIS, anterior (ALIF, n = 21) or lateral (LLIF, n = 23), and conventional approaches, transforaminal (TLIF, n = 24), based on the preoperative clinical assessment. Venous blood samples were taken 24 h before the surgery and 24 and 72 h after surgery to assess a wide panel of inflammatory and hematological markers. Results: martial (serum iron and transferrin) and pro-angiogenic profiles (MMP-2, TWEAK) were improved in ALIF and LLIF compared to TLIF, while the acute phase response (C-reactive protein, sCD163) was enhanced in LLIF. Conclusions: MIS procedures (ALIF and LLIF) associated with a reduced incidence of post-operative anemic status, faster recovery, and enhanced pro-angiogenic stimuli compared with TLIF. LLIF associated with an earlier activation of innate immune mechanisms than ALIF and TLIF. The trend of the inflammation markers confirms that the theoretically defined mini-invasive procedures behave as such.

Background and purpose In cases of spine surgical revisions of patients affected by sagittal malalignment, the restoration of the ideal lumbar lordosis (LL) is mandatory. ALIF procedures represent a powerful and effective approach to improve the LL in case of hypolordosis. This study evaluates the feasibility of ALIF to overpower posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion mass in revision spine surgery and secondarily to estimate complications, clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods This is a single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on the use of ALIF overpowering in cases of lumbosacral instrumentation and/or fusion. Demographic, comorbidity, corrective strategy adopted, surgical data, clinical and radiological results, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. Results Twelve patients (3 male; 9 female) underwent overpowering ALIF L5-S1 were included in the study with a mean FU of 34.0 ± 13.4 months. In 10 cases, a posterior titanium instrumentation and fusion mass were present; in 2 patients, only a fusion mass was present. Indicators of pain and disability improved in all patients (p < 0.01). Sagittal realignment with the restoration of ideal spinopelvic parameters was obtained in all cases. One peritoneal lesion requiring intraoperative suture without sequelae, two cases of postoperative radiculopathy, and one posterior wound infection requiring surgical debridement and antibiotic therapy were reported. Conclusions Anterior implant of lordotic and hyperlordotic cages with increasing segmental lordosis is possible in the presence of posterior instrumentation and/or solid fusion mass. The biomechanical strength of this corrective technique can overcome posterior instrumentation and bone fusion resistance, therefore allowing a single-staged surgery for sagittal realignment.