Background Spinal fusion surgery is performed about half a million times per year in the United States and millions more worldwide. It is an effective method for reducing pain, increasing stability, and correcting deformity in patients with various spinal conditions. In addition to being a well-established risk factor for a variety of medical conditions, smoking has deleterious effects on the bone healing of spinal fusions. This review aims to specifically analyze the ways in which smoking affects the outcomes of spinal fusion and to explore ways in which these negative consequences can be avoided. Purpose This article provides a complete understanding of the ways smoking affects spinal fusion from a biochemical and clinical perspective. Recommendations are also provided for ways in which surgeons can limit patient exposure to the most serious negative outcomes associated with cigarette smoking. Study Design/Setting This study was a retrospective literature review done using the NCBI database. The research was compiled at NYU Hospital for Joint Diseases and the NYU Center for Musculoskeletal Care. Methods A comprehensive literature review was done spanning research on a variety of subjects related to smoking and spinal fusion surgery. The biochemistry of smoking and fusion healing were examined in great detail. In addition, both in vivo animal studies and human clinical studies were evaluated to explore fusion success related to the effects of smoking and its biochemical factors on spinal fusion surgery. Results Smoking significantly increases the risk of pseudoarthrosis for patients undergoing both lumbar and cervical fusions. In addition to nonunion, smoking also increases the risk of other perioperative complications such as infection, adjacent-segment pathology, and dysphagia. Treatment options are available that can be explored to reduce the risk of smoking-related morbidity, such as nicotine replacement therapy and use of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). Conclusions It has been clearly demonstrated from both a biochemical and clinical perspective that smoking increases the rate of perioperative complications for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery, particularly pseudoarthosis. It has also been shown that there are certain approaches that can reduce the risk of morbidity. The most important recommendation is smoking cessation for four weeks after surgery. In addition, patients may be treated with certain surgical techniques, including the use of BMPs, to reduce the risk of pseudoarthrosis. Lastly, nicotine replacement therapy is an area of continued interest in relation to spinal fusion outcomes and more research needs to be done to determine its efficacy moving forward.

Purpose: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a common spinal deformity that affects millions of children worldwide. A variety of treatment algorithms exist for patients based on radiographic parameters such as the Cobb angle and the Risser stage. However, there has been a growing focus on nonradiographic outcomes such as back pain, which can cause functional disability and reduced quality of life for patients. In spite of this, back pain in AIS is poorly characterized in the literature. We aimed to summarize various factors that may influence back pain in AIS and the impact of different treatment methods on pain reduction. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review was undertaken using the PubMed and Cochrane database. Keywords that were utilized and combined with “Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis” included, “back pain,” “treatment,” “biomechanics,” “biochemistry,” “epidemiology,” and “biopsychosocial.” The literature was subsequently evaluated and deemed relevant or not relevant for inclusion. Results: A total of 93 articles were ultimately included in this review. A variety of contradictory literature was present for all sections related to epidemiology, underlying biomechanics and biochemistry, biopsychosocial factors, and treatment methodologies. Conclusion: Back pain in AIS is common but remains difficult to predict and treat. The literature pertaining to causative factors and treatment options is heterogeneous and inconclusive. Longer-term prospective studies combining biopsychosocial intervention in conjunction with existing curve correction techniques would be meaningful.

This study was the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes between conventional open surgery and biportal endoscopy for decompression and fusion of lumbar degenerative disease. Although conventional open spine surgery has been the standard approach for decades, biportal endoscopy has gained attention as a minimally invasive alternative with potential surgical outcome benefits. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including eight comparative studies on open and biportal endoscopic spine surgery. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies that reported outcomes, such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and hospital stay. Data were analyzed using a random effects model to evaluate the effect size between the two approaches. We analyzed 414 open and 383 biportal endoscopic lumbar surgical procedures. The open group had a mean age of 61.0 years and comprised 42.0% men, whereas the biportal group had a mean age of 59.8 years and comprised 46.7% men. Compared with open spine surgery, biportal surgery was associated with a significantly longer operative time but shorter length of hospital stay and similar preoperative VAS scores, ODI score, and postoperative outcomes at 1 year. Fusion subgroup analysis showed significantly lower VAS score for back pain with biportal surgery than with open surgery, but the other measures were comparable. Despite its longer operative time, biportal endoscopy led to shorter hospital stay and similar long-term pain and disability outcomes, compared with open spine surgery. Given the significant improvement in short-term leg pain relief after fusion procedures, biportal endoscopic spine surgery is a potential minimally invasive alternative to open surgery that warrants further study.

Surgical repair of articular cartilage defects in the knee currently utilizes surgical algorithms based on absolute defect size. These algorithms, which have not been validated, are currently utilized not only by surgeons but also by insurance carriers for justification of reimbursement policy. However, current algorithms do not account for morphological differences between individual patients and defect size relative to condylar dimension. We hypothesized that a significant difference in relative defect size compared with condylar dimension may exist between individuals. A 3T magnetic resonance imaging from 220 skeletally mature patients, 110 males and 110 females, were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included degenerative arthritis, anatomical defects, poor image quality, and genetic abnormalities such as dwarfism. Utilizing a radiological curved measurement probe, the femoral condylar articular width was obtained for both the medial and lateral condyles. The mean condylar width from a reproducible anatomic location representing the maximal condylar dimension was measured. Statistical analysis was performed using a two-sample t-test. The lateral condyle articular cartilage width (mm) for males and females was 31.62 ± 3.54 and 26.53 ± 3.70, respectively (p < 0.0001). The medical condyle articular cartilage width was 27.26 ± 4.42 and 23.05 ± 4.11 (p < 0.00001). There was a width variation up to 22.66 mm between male patients and 22.10 mm between female patients. Differences up to 28.26 mm were found between males and females. A condylar defect measuring 10 mm represents as little as 24.29% of a condyle in some males versus as much as 77.46% in smaller females. Existing surgical algorithms for condylar chondral defects apply absolute size to patients regardless of individual condylar variations. Our study suggests the relative sizes of the defect vary significantly from male to female patients as well as within the same gender. Future studies may investigate clinical outcomes utilizing surgical algorithms that take into account these differences.

The American College of Radiology has published appropriateness criteria to help guide when to use MRI. Many health insurance carriers use proprietary clinical guidelines for prior authorization of imaging studies. The purpose of this study was to compare the specific criteria in those guidelines, for neck pain both with and without radicular symptoms. An online search was conducted to identify the guidelines for authorization of cervical spine MRI used by the largest commercial insurance carriers in the United States by market share. Guidelines were analyzed for neck pain with and without radiculopathy. Cervical trauma, myelopathy, infection, neoplasm, multiple sclerosis, and postprocedural care were excluded. The remaining criteria were broken down into categories including clinical symptoms, conservative therapy, other required radiologic studies, and clinical re-evaluation. Individual criteria within each of the categories were compared. After evaluation of the top 56 insurance companies in the United States, 30 companies using four main utilization management companies remained for analysis. After direct comparison of publicly available guidelines documents, notable discrepancies existed between the four companies in all subcategories analyzed. In addition, varying amounts of evidence-based literature was identified to support criteria requirements for prior authorization. This study demonstrates that the guidelines used by private health insurance companies for cervical MRI authorization in the setting of neck pain with and without cervical radiculopathy are inconsistent and use objective measures that have not been validated in the literature. We think this warrants additional scrutiny and investigation.