Minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgery is associated with limited dissection as compared to open surgical procedures and this can result in decreased visualization. The use of computer-assisted navigation technology, however, allows surgeons greater visualization of bony and soft tissue anatomy through limited MIS incisions. This article outlines the potential benefits of intraoperative navigation during minimally invasive spinal surgery procedures to reduce intra-operative radiation exposure and enhance surgical accuracy. We also offer the senior author’s surgical setup and technique related to a skin-based navigation system. Future research is required into the use of augmented reality for surgeons during a navigated MIS surgery.

Background: Lumbar interbody fusion is among the most common types of spinal surgery performed. Over time, the term has evolved to encompass a number of different approaches to the intervertebral space, as well as differing implant materials. Questions remain over which approaches and materials are best for achieving fusion and restoring disc height. Questions/Purposes: We reviewed the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and devices used to achieve and augment fusion between the disc spaces in the lumbar spine. Methods: Using search terms specific to lumbar interbody fusion, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar and identified 4993 articles. We excluded those that did not report clinical outcomes, involved cervical interbody devices, were animal studies, or were not in English. After exclusions, 68 articles were included for review. Results: Posterior approaches have advantages, such as providing 360° support through a single incision, but can result in retraction injury and do not always restore lordosis or correct deformity. Anterior approaches allow for the largest implants and good correction of deformities but can result in vascular, urinary, psoas muscle, or lumbar plexus injury and may require a second posterior procedure to supplement fixation. Titanium cages produce improved osteointegration and fusion rates but also increase subsidence caused by the stiffness of titanium relative to bone. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has an elasticity closer to that of bone and shows less subsidence than titanium cages, but as an inert compound PEEK results in lower fusion rates and greater osteolysis. Combination PEEK–titanium coating has not yet achieved better results. Expandable cages were developed to increase disc height and restore lumbar lordosis, but the data on their effectiveness have been inconclusive. Three-dimensionally (3D)-printed cages have shown promise in biomechanical and animal studies at increasing fusion rates and reducing subsidence, but additive manufacturing options are still in their infancy and require more investigation. 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.

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. 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: Cervical alignment is vital for maintaining horizontal gaze and sagittal balance. The aims of this study were to summarize previously published descriptions of normative cervical alignment and to analyze a cohort of asymptomatic volunteers in order to identify natural clusters of normal radiographic parameters. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature on radiographic measurements of asymptomatic volunteers through a search of MEDLINE and ScienceDirect databases. We then performed an analysis of demographic and radiographic parameters of volunteers without back or neck complaints. Only subjects with a chin-brow vertical angle (CBVA) within previously published normal limits were retained for analysis. A 2-step cluster analysis was used to find natural groups of cervical alignment. Differences among groups were investigated with a post hoc analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: We included 37 articles in our analysis. There was a broad spectrum of both C2-C7 lordosis-kyphosis and T1 slope across ages and sexes. Of the 119 asymptomatic volunteers who were available for analysis, 84 (with a mean age [and standard deviation] of 49.0 ± 17.1 years) had a CBVA ranging from −4.7° to 17.7°. The cluster analysis identified 3 alignment groups based on cervical lordosis-kyphosis and T1 slope (silhouette measure of cohesion, >0.6). Twenty-seven volunteers (32.1%) were identified as the “kyphotic curve cohort” (KCC) (mean C2-C7 Cobb angle, −8.6° ± 7.3°; mean T1 slope, 17.4° ± 6.6°), 43 volunteers (51.2%) were identified as the “medium lordosis cohort” (MLC) (mean C2-C7 Cobb angle, 8.7° ± 7.2°; mean T1 slope, 26.6° ± 4.0°), and 14 volunteers (16.7%) were identified as the “large lordosis cohort” (LLC) (mean C2-C7 Cobb angle, 21.2° ± 7.2°, mean T1 slope, 39.5° ± 6.4°) (p < 0.001 for both). Moving from KCC to LLC, there was a significant decrease in C0-C2 lordosis (p = 0.016). Examination of the cervical vertebral orientation demonstrated that C4 had a constant orientation relative to the horizontal (p = 0.665). Correlation analysis between C2-C7 and vertebral orientations again demonstrated that C4 orientation was independent of C2-C7 alignment. Conclusions: We have identified 3 morphotypes of the cervical spine based on C2-C7 alignment and T1 slope. These findings demonstrate the broad definition of normal cervical alignment and the range of cervical lordosis-kyphosis that is acceptable.

Study Design.: Retrospective cross-sectional cohort. Objective.: The aim of this sudy was to determine whether muscle health measurements are associated with health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs) for patients with lumbar spine pathology. Summary of Background Data.: Poor muscle health has been implicated as a source of pain/dysfunction for patients with lumbar spine pathology. Our aim was to quantify the relationship using muscle health measurements and HRQOLs. Methods.: Three hundred and eight patients were included (mean age 57.7 ± standard deviation 18.2 years’ old). We randomly selected patients into a derivation cohort (200) and validation cohort (108) to create our muscle health grade. We measured muscle health by the lumbar indentation value (LIV), goutallier classification (GC), and ratio of paralumbar muscle cross-sectional area over body mass index (PL-CSA/BMI). A muscle health grade was derived based on whether a measurement showed a statistically significant impact on visual analog scale back and leg pain (VAS-leg and VAS-leg), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), short-form 12 physical health score (SF-12 PHS), short-form 12 mental health score (SF-12 MHS) and Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). A variety of statistical tools were used to determine whether there was a relationship between a measurement and HRQOLs. Results.: In the derivation cohort, a muscle health grade was created based on the GC and PL-CSA/BMI ratio. For patients with a GC ≤2, one point was given. For patients with a PL-CSA/BMI ≥130, one point was given. Patients with 2 points were graded as “A” and 0 or 1 point were graded “B.” Within the validation cohort of patients, there was a statistically significant higher PROMIS (mean 34.5 ± standard deviation 12.6 vs. 27.6 ± 14.0, P = 0.002), ODI (38.8 ± 18.3 vs. 45.8 ± 18.1, P = 0.05) and SF-12 PHS (34.7 ± 11.3 vs. 29.1 ± 6.3, P = 0.002) for patients with a good muscle health grade of “A.” Conclusion.: This study offers an objective measurement of muscle health that correlates with HRQOLs for patients with lumbar spine pathology. Level of Evidence: 3