Objective This study aims to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of posterior reduction and fusion strategies, with or without interfacet joints distraction and cage implantation, based on reducibility, in the surgical management of atlantoaxial dislocation (AAD).
Methods Patients who underwent posterior reduction and fusion surgery for AAD in our institution were included. They were categorized into 2 groups based on reducibility. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), visual analogue scale (VAS), and patient-reported satisfaction scores were collected. The atlantodental interval, distance of the tip of the odontoid to Chamberlain’s line (DOCL), clivus-axial angle (CXA) and mean obliquity of the atlantoaxial articular facet (OAAF) were measured on computed tomography (CT) images. Fusion was evaluated using CT and dynamic x-rays.
Results A total of 90 patients (45 males and 45 females) were included. Among them, 54 patients in the reducible group underwent direct posterior reduction and fusion, and 36 patients in the irreducible group were treated with additional interfacet joint distraction and cage implantation. All patients showed significant improvements in JOA and VAS scores postoperatively. In the irreducible group, the preoperative CXA was smaller, whereas the OAAF was greater. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified optimal cutoff value of OAAF in predicting reducibility was 32.4° (sensitivity: 86.1%, specificity: 81.5%). Postoperative changes in DOCL and CXA were more pronounced in irreducible group. The fusion rates were comparable in the 2 groups (92.6% vs. 94.4%, p=0.730).
Conclusion The reducibility-based posterior reduction fusion strategy achieves satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in the surgical management of AAD. For reducible cases, direct reduction under continuous intraoperative skull traction is preferred to minimize surgical trauma. In contrast, interfacet joints distraction and cage implantation are essential for irreducible cases. Preoperative OAAF may act as a potential predictor of reducibility.
Objective Long-segment fusion in adult spinal deformity (ASD) is often needed, but more focal surgeries may provide significant relief with less morbidity. The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery (MISDEF2) algorithm guides minimally invasive ASD surgery, but it may be useful in open ASD surgery. We classified ASD patients undergoing focal decompression, limited decompression and fusion, and full correction according to MISDEF2 and correlated outcomes.
Methods A retrospective study of ASD patients treated by 2 surgeons at our hospital was performed. Inclusion criteria were: age > 50, minimum 2-year follow-up, and open ASD surgery. Tumor, trauma, and infections were excluded. Patients had open surgery including focal decompression, short segment fusion, or full scoliosis correction. All patients were categorized by MISDEF2 into 4 classes based upon spinopelvic parameters. Perioperative metrics were assessed. Radiographic correction, complications and reoperation were recorded.
Results A total of 136 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 46 ± 15.8 months (range, 24–118 months). Forty-seven underwent full deformity correction, 71 underwent short segment fusion, and 18 underwent decompression alone. There were 24 cases of class I, 66 cases of class II, 23 cases of class III, and 23 cases of class IV patients. Patients in class I and II had perioperative complication rates of 0% and 16.7% and revision rates of 8% and 21.2% when undergoing focal decompression or limited fusion. However, class II patients undergoing full correction had higher perioperative complications rate (p = 0.03) and revision surgery rates (p = 0.047). This difference was not seen in class III patients (p > 0.05). All class IV patients underwent full correction, but they had higher perioperative complication rates (p < 0.019), comparable revision surgery rates (p = 0.27), and better radiographic realignment (p < 0.001). In addition, full deformity correction was associated with longer length of stay, increased blood loss, and longer operative time (p < 0.001).
Conclusion The MISDEF2 algorithm may help guide ASD surgical decision making even in open surgery, with focal treatment used in class I and II patients as a viable alternative and full correction implemented in class IV patients because of severe malalignment. However, class II patients with ASD undergoing full deformity correction do have higher complication rates.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Passive surgical correction of rigid adult spine deformities to normative alignment and balance Crescenzo Capone, Tobias Pötzel, Denis Bratelj, Marcel Rudnick, Rajeev K. Verma, Michael Fiechter Scientific Reports.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Outcome and complication following single-staged posterior minimally invasive surgery in adult spinal deformity Chun Yeh, Pang-Hsuan Hsiao, Michael Jian-Wen Chen, Yuan-Shun Lo, Chun Tseng, Chia-Yu Lin, Ling-Yi Li, Chien-Ying Lai, Chien-Chun Chang, Hsien-Te Chen BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Moderate sagittal plane deformity patients have similar radiographic and functional outcomes with either anterior or posterior surgery Anton Denisov, Andrea Rowland, Nikita Zaborovskii, Dmitrii Ptashnikov, Dimitriy Kondrashov European Spine Journal.2024; 33(2): 620. CrossRef
Limited Intervention in Adult Scoliosis—A Systematic Review Zuhair Jameel Mohammed, John Worley, Luke Hiatt, Sakthivel Rajan Rajaram Manoharan, Steven Theiss Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(4): 1030. CrossRef
Comparison of the effects between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis Li Jun, Tao Zou, Jia J. Wei, Tianqun Huo, Wen Min, Chengjian Wei, Hong Zhao Journal of Orthopaedics.2024; 58: 58. CrossRef
Complication Rates and Utilization Trends of 3-Level Posterior Column Osteotomy Compared to Single-Level Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Emily S. Mills, Kevin Mertz, Ethan Faye, Jennifer A. Bell, Andy T. Ton, Jeffrey C. Wang, Ram K. Alluri, Raymond J. Hah Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 662. CrossRef
Surgical outcome of minimal invasive oblique lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis Jun Seok Lee, Dong Wuk Son, Su Hun Lee, Soon Ki Sung, Sang Weon Lee, Geun Sung Song, Young Ha Kim, Chang Hwa Choi Medicine.2022; 101(48): e31879. CrossRef
Katherine E. Pierce, Peter G. Passias, Avery E. Brown, Cole A. Bortz, Haddy Alas, Lara Passfall, Oscar Krol, Nicholas Kummer, Renaud Lafage, Dean Chou, Douglas C. Burton, Breton Line, Eric Klineberg, Robert Hart, Jeffrey Gum, Alan Daniels, Kojo Hamilton, Shay Bess, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Christopher Shaffrey, Frank A. Schwab, Justin S. Smith, Virginie Lafage, Christopher Ames, on behalf of the International Spine Study Group (ISSG)
Neurospine 2021;18(3):506-514. Published online September 30, 2021
Objective To prioritize the cervical parameter targets for alignment.
Methods Included: cervical deformity (CD) patients (C2–7 Cobb angle > 10°, cervical lordosis > 10°, cervical sagittal vertical axis [cSVA] > 4 cm, or chin-brow vertical angle > 25°) with full baseline (BL) and 1-year (1Y) radiographic parameters and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores; patients with cervical [C] or cervicothoracic [CT] Primary Driver Ames type. Patients with BL Ames classified as low CD for both parameters of cSVA ( < 4 cm) and T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS–CL) ( < 15°) were excluded. Patients assessed: meeting minimum clinically important differences (MCID) for NDI ( < -15 ΔNDI). Ratios of correction were found for regional parameters categorized by primary Ames driver (C or CT). Decision tree analysis assessed cutoffs for differences associated with meeting NDI MCID at 1Y.
Results Seventy-seven CD patients (mean age, 62.1 years; 64% female; body mass index, 28.8 kg/m2). Forty-one point six percent of patients met MCID for NDI. A backwards linear regression model including radiographic differences as predictors from BL to 1Y for meeting MCID for NDI demonstrated an R2 of 0.820 (p = 0.032) included TS–CL, cSVA, McGregor’s slope (MGS), C2 sacral slope, C2–T3 angle, C2–T3 SVA, cervical lordosis. By primary Ames driver, 67.5% of patients were C, and 32.5% CT. Ratios of change in predictors for MCID NDI patients for C and CT were not significant between the 2 groups (p > 0.050). Decision tree analysis determined cutoffs for radiographic change, prioritizing in the following order: ≥ 42.5° C2–T3 angle, > 35.4° cervical lordosis, < -31.76° C2 slope, < -11.57-mm cSVA, < -2.16° MGS, > -30.8-mm C2–T3 SVA, and ≤ -33.6° TS–CL.
Conclusion Certain ratios of correction of cervical parameters contribute to improving neck disability. Prioritizing these radiographic alignment parameters may help optimize patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing CD surgery.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Current Concepts of Sagittal Alignment in Adult Cervical Deformity Zeeshan M. Sardar, Justin L. Reyes, Josephine R. Coury, K. Daniel Riew Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2026; 34(2): e176. CrossRef
A systematic review and meta-analysis of sagittal cervical spine parameters: Normative values, correlation with quality of life, and biomechanical modeling Vinicius Ricieri Ferraz, Carlos R. Goulart, Tobias Alecio Mattei North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2026; 25: 100819. CrossRef
Clinical Outcomes Following Cervical Deformity Correction Alexa Semonche, Anthony L. Mikula, Justin K. Scheer, Vedat Deviren, Christopher P. Ames Clinical Spine Surgery.2025; 38(9): 466. CrossRef
Horizontal Gaze Assessment: An Extensive Narrative Review Sara Henao Romero, Julián Alfonso Sierra Peña, Roberto Carlos Diaz Orduz, Miguel Enrique Berbeo-Calderon World Neurosurgery.2024; 187: e1011. CrossRef
Lower Hounsfield Units at the Planned Lowest Instrumented Vertebra Is an Independent Risk Factor for Complications Following Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery Tyler K. Williamson, Ezekial J. Koslosky, Jordan Lebovic, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Peter Tretiakov, Jamshaid Mir, Pooja Dave, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Bassel G. Diebo, Heiko Koller, Renaud Lafage, Virginie Lafage, Peter G. Passias Clinical Spine Surgery.2024; 37(10): E503. CrossRef
The Conceptualization and Derivation of the Cervical Lordosis Distribution Index Peter G. Passias, Tyler K. Williamson, Pooja Dave, Justin S. Smith, Oscar Krol, Renaud Lafage, Breton Line, Bassel G. Diebo, Alan H. Daniels, Eric O. Klineberg, Robert K. Eastlack, Shay Bess, Frank J. Schwab, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Virginie Lafage, Chri Spine.2024; 49(24): 1685. CrossRef
A Hierarchical Approach to Realignment Strategies in Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery Tyler K. Williamson, Jordan Lebovic, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Bailey Imbo, Rachel Joujon-Roche, Peter Tretiakov, Oscar Krol, Claudia Bennett-Caso, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Pooja Dave, Kimberly McFarland, Jamshaid Mir, Ekamjeet Dhillon, Heiko Koller, Bassel G. Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(3): 106. CrossRef
Reciprocal Changes in the Whole-Body Following Realignment Surgery in Adult Spinal Deformity Jae-Koo Lee, Seung-Jae Hyun, Ki-Jeong Kim Asian Spine Journal.2022; 16(6): 958. CrossRef
Do the newly proposed realignment targets for C2 and T1 slope bridge the gap between radiographic and clinical success in corrective surgery for adult cervical deformity? Lara Passfall, Tyler K. Williamson, Oscar Krol, Jordan Lebovic, Bailey Imbo, Rachel Joujon-Roche, Peter Tretiakov, Katerina Dangas, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Heiko Koller, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Bassel G. Diebo, Shaleen Vira, Renaud Lafage, Virginie Lafage, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.2022; 37(3): 368. CrossRef
Odontoid Incidence: A Novel Cervical Parameter Influencing Cervical Alignment From Top to Bottom Jae-Koo Lee, Seung-Jae Hyun, Ki-Jeong Kim Neurospine.2022; 19(2): 463. CrossRef
Defining Cervical Sagittal Plane Deformity – When Are Sagittal Realignment Procedures Necessary in Patients Presenting Primarily With Radiculopathy or Myelopathy? Venu M. Nemani, Philip K. Louie, Caroline E. Drolet, John M. Rhee Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 876. CrossRef
Classification(s) of Cervical Deformity Austin C. Kaidi, Han Jo Kim Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 862. CrossRef
Clinical Impact and Correlations of Odontoid Parameters Following Multilevel Posterior Cervical Fusion Surgery Jae-Koo Lee, Seung-Jae Hyun, Seung Heon Yang, Ki-Jeong Kim Neurospine.2022; 19(4): 912. CrossRef
Regional Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery: Can It Be a Standard in the Future? Jae-Koo Lee, Jong Hwa Park, Seung-Jae Hyun, Daniel Hodel, Oliver N. Hausmann Neurospine.2021; 18(4): 733. CrossRef
Alexander F. Haddad, John F. Burke, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Andrew K. Chan, Michael M. Safaee, John J. Knightly, Rory R. Mayer, Brenton H. Pennicooke, Anthony M. Digiorgio, Philip R. Weinstein, Aaron J. Clark, Dean Chou, Sanjay S. Dhall
Neurospine 2021;18(2):292-302. Published online June 30, 2021
Objective The use of telemedicine has dramatically increased due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many neurosurgeons are now using telemedicine technologies for preoperative evaluations and routine outpatient visits. Our goal was to standardize the telemedicine motor neurologic examination, summarize the evidence surrounding clinical use of telehealth technologies, and discuss financial and legal considerations.
Methods We identified a 12-member panel composed of spine surgeons, fellows, and senior residents at a single institution. We created an initial telehealth strength examination protocol based on published data and developed 10 agree/disagree statements summarizing the protocol. A blinded Delphi method was utilized to build consensus for each statement, defined as > 80% agreement and no significant disagreement using a 2-way binomial test (significance threshold of p < 0.05). Any statement that did not meet consensus was edited and iteratively resubmitted to the panel until consensus was achieved. In the final round, the panel was unblinded and the protocol was finalized.
Results After the first round, 4/10 statements failed to meet consensus ( < 80% agreement, and p = 0.031, p = 0.031, p = 0.003, and p = 0.031 statistical disagreement, respectively). The disagreement pertained to grading of strength of the upper (3/10 statements) and lower extremities (1/10 statement). The amended statements clarified strength grading, achieved consensus ( > 80% agreement, p > 0.05 disagreement), and were used to create the final telehealth strength examination protocol.
Conclusion The resulting protocol was used in our clinic to standardize the telehealth strength examination. This protocol, as well as our summary of telehealth clinical practice, should aid neurosurgical clinics in integrating telemedicine modalities into their practice.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Unlocking global neurosurgery: how telemedicine addresses unmet needs and future prospects — a scoping review Nicolas Melo Sierra, Erwin Hernando Hernández Rincón, Valeria Neira Bejarano, Kemel A. Ghotme Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2026; 152: 112121. CrossRef
The role of advocacy and policy in advancing global neurosurgery Toufik Abdul-Rahman, Sarah M. Badar, Sruthi Ranganathan, Aderinto Nicholas, Joecelyn Kirani Tan, Ogungbemi Evelyn Faith, Mrinmoy Kundu, Andrew Awuah Wireko, Anam Sayed Mushir Ali, Oday Atallah, Viktoriia Horbas, Tetiana P. Teslyk, Valentyna Bumeister Annals of Medicine & Surgery.2025; 87(4): 2049. CrossRef
To Zoom or not to Zoom? A retrospective comparative study to assess the validity of video versus face-to-face consultations and examinations for diagnosing lower back pain in Wales Megan Havard, Ronan McKeogh, Abi Goodier, Gemma Johns, Sashin Ahuja Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(3): 415. CrossRef
A Delphi consensus to identify the key screening tests/questions for a digital neurological examination for epidemiological research Vasco Ribeiro Ferreira, Carol Brayne, Paolo Ragonese, Carlos Ketzoian, Marta Piccioli, Lorenzo Tinti, Carlo Casali, Cherubino di Lorenzo, Claudia Ramos, João Azevedo, Adriana Gomes, Roderick Stewart, Hein Haas, Stan Hoppenbrouwer, Esther Metting, Valentin Journal of Neurology.2024; 271(5): 2694. CrossRef
Feasibility and effectiveness of telehealth in the management of cervicothoracic and lumbar pain during the first six months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: A case series George Rappard, Jake Harb, Caitlin Yi, Robb Russell Interventional Pain Medicine.2023; 2(3): 100260. CrossRef
Telehealth in PM&R: Past, present, and future in clinical practice and opportunities for translational research Adam S. Tenforde, Joshua J. Alexander, Marcalee Alexander, Thiru M. Annaswamy, Conley J. Carr, Philip Chang, Monique Díaz, Mary A. Iaccarino, Stephen B. Lewis, Carolyn Millett, Sindhu Pandit, Claudia P. Ramirez, Robert Rinaldi, Megan Roop, Chloe S. Slocum PM&R.2023; 15(9): 1156. CrossRef
Quality of Spine Surgery Information on Social Media: A DISCERN Analysis of TikTok Videos Tejas Subramanian, Kasra Araghi, Izzet Akosman, Olivia Tuma, Amier Hassan, Ali Lahooti, Anthony Pajak, Pratyush Shahi, Robert Merrill, Omri Maayan, Evan Sheha, James Dowdell, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz Qureshi Neurospine.2023; 20(4): 1443. CrossRef
Commentary: The Legal and Socioeconomic Considerations in Spine Telemedicine Mohamad Bydon, Giorgos D. Michalopoulos Neurosurgery.2022; 90(5): e125. CrossRef
Appropriate Telemedicine Utilization in Spine Surgery Sravisht Iyer, Patawut Bovonratwet, Dino Samartzis, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Howard S. An, Waleed Awwad, Scott L. Blumenthal, Jason P.Y. Cheung, Peter B. Derman, Mohammad El-Sharkawi, Brett A. Freedman, Roger Hartl, James D. Kang, Han Jo Kim, Philip K. Louie Spine.2022; 47(8): 583. CrossRef
A Systematic Review of Outpatient Telemedicine Use in Neurosurgery Since the Start of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Jeffrey Z. Nie, Constantine L. Karras, Pavlos Texakalidis, S. Joy Trybula, Nader S. Dahdaleh World Neurosurgery.2022; 167: e1090. CrossRef
Patient satisfaction and cost savings analysis of the telemedicine program within a neuro-oncology department James K. C. Liu, Richard Kang, Arkady Bilenkin, Rachel Prorok, Junmin Whiting, Krupal B. Patel, Andre Beer-Furlan, Cristina Naso, Andrea Rogers, Xavier Baez Castro, Edwin Peguero, Sepideh Mokhtari, Nam Tran, Arnold Etame, Yolanda Pina, Philippe E. Spiess, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.2022; 160(2): 517. CrossRef
Objective The oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) can be done with either fluoroscopy or navigation. However, it is unclear how navigation affects the overall flow of the procedure. We wished to report on the accuracy of this technique using navigation and on how navigation affects surgical time and complications.
Methods A retrospective review was undertaken to evaluate patients who underwent OLIF using spinal navigation at University of California San Francisco. Data collected were demographic variables, perioperative variables, and radiographic images. Postoperative lateral radiographs were analyzed for accuracy of cage placement. The disc space was divided into 4 quadrants from anterior to posterior, zone 1 being anterior, and zone 4 being posterior. The accuracy of cage placement was assessed by placement.
Results There were 214 patients who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 350 levels were instrumented from L1 to L5 using navigation. The mean follow-up time was 17.42 months. The mean surgical time was 211 minutes, and the average surgical time per level was 129.01 minutes. After radiographic analysis, 94.86% of cages were placed within quartiles 1 to 3. One patient (0.47%) underwent revision surgery because of suboptimal cage placement. For approach-related complications, transient neurological symptoms were 10.28%, there was no vascular injury.
Conclusion The use of navigation to perform OLIF from L1 to L5 resulted in a cage placement accuracy rate of 94.86% in 214 patients.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
CT Evaluation of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Review with an Integrated Framework for Principle-Based Interpretation Szu-Hsiang Peng, Jwo-Luen Pao Diagnostics.2026; 16(1): 140. CrossRef
Complications With Navigation-Assistance in Thoraco-Lumbar Spine Surgery Takeshi Fujii, Patricia Lipson, Kenneth T. Nguyen, Gianluca Vadalà, Laura Scaramuzzo, Patrick Hsieh, Katie Krause, Sangwook Tim Yoon, Philip K. Louie Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Accuracy of the Cage Placement in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and its Effects on the Radiological Outcome in Lumbar Degenerative Disease Longwei Chen, Zhiyuan Han, Jianwei Wei, Yunlong Sun, Lantao Liu, Haifei Liu, Dechun Wang Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(1): 127. CrossRef
Therapy Potential of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion 360 for Severe Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Lei Li, Yan Wang, Hao Zhang, Jialuo Han, Changpeng Qu, Yihao Sun, Hao Tao, Xuexiao Ma Orthopaedic Surgery.2025; 17(4): 1114. CrossRef
Osteogenic Potential and Bone Matrix Maturity: Comparison of Demineralized Bone Matrix and P15 Polypeptide iFactor® in an In Vitro Study Anell Olivos-Meza, Monica Maribel Mata-Miranda, Marcelo Robles-Rodríguez, Gustavo Jesús Vázquez-Zapién, Melissa Guerrero-Ruiz, Carlos Landa-Solís Medicina.2025; 61(5): 914. CrossRef
A Prospective Study of 3D Navigation-Guided Single-Position OLIF with Posterior Percutaneous Fixation Bharat Rajendraprasad Dave, Mrugank Narvekar, Ajay Krishnan, Devanand Degulmadi, Ravi Ranjan Rai, Mirant Bharat Dave Indian Spine Journal.2025; 8(2): 138. CrossRef
Single-position oblique lumbar interbody fusion with navigation: improved efficiency and screw accuracy compared to dual-position with fluoroscopy Hangeul Park, Hui Son, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sum Kim, Young-Rak Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
The Impact of Navigation in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Study of Historical Aspects, Current Techniques and Future Directions Ahmed Majid Heydar, Masato Tanaka, Shrinivas P. Prabhu, Tadashi Komatsubara, Shinya Arataki, Shogo Yashiro, Akihiro Kanamaru, Kazumasa Nanba, Hongfei Xiang, Huynh Kim Hieu Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(16): 4663. CrossRef
Spinal Navigation for Lateral Instrumentation of the Thoracolumbar Spine Maximilian Schwendner, Raimunde Liang, Vicki M. Butenschöen, Sandro M. Krieg, Sebastian Ille, Bernhard Meyer Operative Neurosurgery.2023; 25(4): 303. CrossRef
Antepsoas Approaches to the Lumbar Spine Travis S. CreveCoeur, Colin P. Sperring, Anthony M. DiGiorgio, Dean Chou, Andrew K. Chan Neurosurgery Clinics of North America.2023; 34(4): 619. CrossRef
Incidence of major and minor vascular injuries during lateral access lumbar interbody fusion procedures: a retrospective comparative study and systematic literature review Alexander O. Aguirre, Mohamed A. R. Soliman, Shady Azmy, Asham Khan, Patrick K. Jowdy, Jeffrey P. Mullin, John Pollina Neurosurgical Review.2022; 45(2): 1275. CrossRef
Pearls and Pitfalls of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Narrative Review Hyoungmin Kim, Bong-Soon Chang, Sam Yeol Chang Neurospine.2022; 19(1): 163. CrossRef
Techniques for psoas navigation in lateral lumbar interbody fusion Vyshak Chandra, Ken Porche, Gregory J.A. Murad, Adam J. Polifka Seminars in Spine Surgery.2022; 34(2): 100941. CrossRef
A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Perioperative Complications in Navigated versus Conventional Thoracolumbar Fusion in the Setting of Adult Spinal Deformity Darius Ansari, Justin T. DesLaurier, Zayed Almadidy, Nauman S. Chaudhry, Ankit I. Mehta World Neurosurgery.2022; 162: e616. CrossRef
Radiation Dose Reduction and Surgical Efficiency Improvement in Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Assisted by Intraoperative O-arm Navigation: A Retrospective Observational Study Junfeng Gong, Xinle Huang, Liwen Luo, Huan Liu, Hao Wu, Ying Tan, Changqing Li, Yu Tang, Yue Zhou Neurospine.2022; 19(2): 376. CrossRef
Characteristics and hotspots of the 50 most cited articles in the field of pre-psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion Guang-Xun Lin, Chien-Min Chen, Shang-Wun Jhang, Ming-Tao Zhu, Pengfei Lyu, Bao-Shan Hu Frontiers in Surgery.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Comparative Analysis of ABM/P-15, Bone Morphogenic Protein and Demineralized Bone Matrix after Instrumented Lumbar Interbody Fusion Ashwin Sathe, Sang-Ho Lee, Shin-Jae Kim, Sang Soo Eun, Yong Soo Choi, Shih-min Lee, Ju-Wan Seuk, Yoon Sun Lee, Sang-Ha Shin, Junseok Bae Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2022; 65(6): 825. CrossRef
Single-Position Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation under O-Arm Navigation: A Retrospective Comparative Study Hyung Cheol Kim, Yeong Ha Jeong, Sung Han Oh, Jong Min Lee, Chang Kyu Lee, Seong Yi, Yoon Ha, Keung Nyun Kim, Dong Ah Shin Journal of Clinical Medicine.2022; 12(1): 312. CrossRef
Novel Applications of Spinal Navigation in Deformity and Oncology Surgery—Beyond Screw Placement Elie Massaad, Ganesh M Shankar, John H Shin Operative Neurosurgery.2021; 21(Supplement): S23. CrossRef
Simultaneous Robotic Single-Position Surgery (SR-SPS) with Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Series Luis Daniel Diaz-Aguilar, Vrajesh Shah, Alexander Himstead, Nolan J. Brown, Mickey E. Abraham, Martin H. Pham World Neurosurgery.2021; 151: e1036. CrossRef
Commentary: Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion From L2 to S1: 2-Dimensional Operative Video Yamaan S Saadeh, Michael J Strong, Whitney E Muhlestein, Timothy J Yee, Mark E Oppenlander Operative Neurosurgery.2021; 21(6): E573. CrossRef
The feasibility of computer-assisted 3D navigation in multiple-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion in combination with posterior instrumentation for adult spinal deformity Michael J. Strong, Timothy J. Yee, Siri Sahib S. Khalsa, Yamaan S. Saadeh, Kevin N. Swong, Osama N. Kashlan, Nicholas J. Szerlip, Paul Park, Mark E. Oppenlander Neurosurgical Focus.2020; 49(3): E4. CrossRef
Objective This retrospective cohort study seeks to identify risk factors associated with complications following posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) surgery.
Methods Adults undergoing PCLF from 2012 through 2018 at a single center were identified. Demographic and radiographic data, surgical characteristics, and complication rates were compared. Multivariate logistic regression models identified independent predictors of complications following surgery.
Results A total of 196 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The medical, surgical, and overall complication rates were 10.2%, 23.0%, and 29.1% respectively. Risk factors associated with medical complications in multivariate analysis included impaired ambulation status (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; p=0.02) and estimated blood loss over 500 mL (OR, 3.67; p=0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed preoperative narcotic use (OR, 2.43; p=0.02) and operative time (OR, 1.005; p=0.03) as risk factors for surgical complication, whereas antidepressant use was a protective factor (OR, 0.21; p=0.01). Overall complication was associated with preoperative narcotic use (OR, 1.97; p=0.04) and higher intraoperative blood loss (OR, 1.0007; p=0.03).
Conclusion Preoperative narcotic use and estimated blood loss predicted the incidence of complications following PCLF for CSM. Ambulation status was a significant predictor of the development of a medical complication specifically. These results may help surgeons in counseling patients who may be at increased risk of complication following surgery.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Risk factors of significant intraoperative blood loss in unilateral expansive open-door cervical laminoplasty for cervical compressive myelopathy: A retrospective observational study Hailong Yu, Hong Yuan, Zhihao Zhang, Xinyuan Zhao, Bin Zheng, Xiaoyu Wang, Yin Hu, Hongwei Wang Medicine.2026; 105(20): e48869. CrossRef
Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique through a Natural Anatomical Corridor for C1-C2 Screw Fixation Andres Mendez-Gutierrez, Mariana Agudelo-Arrieta, Miguel Enrique Berbeo, Roberto Diaz-Orduz Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2023; 8(1): 55. CrossRef
Risk Factors for Significant Intraoperative Blood Loss during Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Degenerative Cervical Diseases Hong Yuan, Yuanhang Zhao, Yin Hu, Zhonghua Liu, Yu Chen, Hongwei Wang, Hailong Yu, Liangbi Xiang Orthopaedic Surgery.2023; 15(11): 2822. CrossRef
Laminectomy alone versus laminectomy with lateral mass screw fixation in the treatment of multisegment cervical spinal canal stenosis: a comparative analysis Hany Elkholy, Mohamed Ahmed El Tabl, Osama Saber El Sherif Egyptian Journal of Neurosurgery.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Complications in posterior cervical spine surgery Julian G. Lugo-Pico, John G. Heller Seminars in Spine Surgery.2022; 34(1): 100921. CrossRef
Smoking Is an Independent Risk Factor for 90-Day Readmission and Reoperation Following Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion Ryan K Badiee, Andrew K Chan, Joshua Rivera, Annette Molinaro, Dean Chou, Praveen V Mummaneni, Lee A Tan Neurosurgery.2021; 88(6): 1088. CrossRef
Benefits of Early Ambulation in Elderly Patients Undergoing Lumbar Decompression and Fusion Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study Jie Huang, Zhan Shi, Fang‐fang Duan, Ming‐xing Fan, Shuo Yan, Yi Wei, Bing Han, Xue‐mei Lu, Wei Tian Orthopaedic Surgery.2021; 13(4): 1319. CrossRef
Defining limits of foramen magnum decompression in Chiari I malformation to prevent complications related to cerebellar migration: An anatomico-radiological study Shyam Sundar Krishnan, Pulak Nigam, Iyappan Ponnuswamy Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine.2026; 17(1): 55. CrossRef
Type I Chiari Malformation Without Concomitant Bony Instability: Assessment of Different Surgical Procedures and Outcomes in 73 Patients Kamlesh Rangari, Kuntal Kanti Das, Suyash Singh, Krishna G. Kumar, Kamlesh Singh Bhaisora, Jayesh Sardhara, Anant Mehrotra, Arun Kumar Srivastava, Awadhesh Kumar Jaiswal, Sanjay Behari Neurospine.2021; 18(1): 126. CrossRef
First
Prev
