Zonal T2 mapping and dGEMRIC (delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage) are diagnostic quantitative techniques to evaluate the biochemical health of articular cartilage. We adapted these techniques to investigate the results of osteochondral allograft transplantation and correlated the findings with patient-reported outcomes. Nine patients with contained ICRS (International Cartilage Repair Society) grade-4 defects of the articular portion of a femoral condyle were treated with fresh osteochondral allografts and were evaluated prospectively with dGEMRIC and T2 mapping before and after gadolinium administration. The KOOS (Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) subjective scores were obtained at baseline and at one and two years postoperatively. For quantitative T2 mapping, regions of interest were drawn in the deep and superficial layers of allograft and control cartilage. For dGEMRIC analyses, the relaxation rate, post-gadolinium change in relaxation rate, and ratio between changes in the allograft and control regions of interest were calculated from T1 values. The mean ratio between the post-gadolinium changes in the allograft and control cartilage was 1.13 at one year and 1.55 at two years, and the ratio increased in eight of nine patients from one to two years. There was no difference between the mean T2 values in the deep zone of the allograft and control cartilage at one or two years (p > 0.05), but mean T2 values were higher in the superficial zone of the allograft cartilage at one (p < 0.0001) and two (p < 0.028) years. The mean improvement from baseline was significant at one and two years for the IKDC and all five KOOS subdomains (p < 0.05). All or nearly all patients showed improvements in all clinical outcomes scores at one year. Functional MRI techniques can be applied to noninvasively assess the biochemical health of cartilage after osteochondral allograft transplantation. The MRI findings correlated with certain patient-reported outcomes in the early postoperative period. Relative glycosaminoglycan content and the collagen structure of allograft cartilage may undergo time-dependent degeneration. A patient’s perception of clinical outcome and quality of life is likely multifactorial and is impacted by more than the health of the allograft cartilage. Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Study Design. Retrospective study developing diagnostic criteria. Objective. To validate 2 computed tomography–based findings, extragraft bone bridging (ExGBB) and intragraft bone bridging (InGBB), as diagnostic criteria for anterior cervical fusion using subsequent surgical confirmation and to demonstrate the different diagnostic accuracy on the basis of the graft material used. Summary of Background Data. The accuracy and the methodology for evaluating bone bridging on computed tomographic scans to determine anterior cervical fusion status have not been validated or standardized. Methods. One hundred ten patients with 254 surgically explored segments along with reconstructed computed tomographic scans were included. Bone bridging at each cervical level was assessed for ExGBB and InGBB. ExGBB was defined as complete cortical bridging at any peripheral margins (anterior, posterior, left, or right) of the operated disc space, outside of the graft. InGBB was defined as cortical or trabecular bridging within the confines of the graft only. ExGBB and InGBB were serially evaluated on reformatted coronal and sagittal views by 3 independent raters. The reliabilities and validities correlated with surgical exploration were evaluated. Results. Surgical exploration revealed 123 fused and 131 pseudarthrosis segments. The reliability of 3 raters showed near perfect agreement for ExGBB and substantial agreement for InGBB. ExGBB also had higher validity for all raters than did InGBB. The autocortical graft group had the highest accuracy for both InGBB and ExGBB, with both values being nearly identical. The allograft group had the next highest validity values. For the cage group, InGBB had the lowest specificity (53.2%) and positive predictive value (35.5%), whereas ExGBB had 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value. Conclusion. ExGBB seems to be a far more reliable and accurate to determine anterior cervical fusion. The diagnostic criteria using bone bridging should be different based on the intradiscal materials. With cages in particular, InGBB seems unreliable and ExGBB is necessary to determine anterior cervical fusion. Level of Evidence: 2

Objective: To compare the safety profiles of biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) and microscopic spinal surgery (MSS) for lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis by analyzing the associated adverse events.Methods: We pooled data from 2 prospective randomized controlled trials involving 220 patients (110 in each group) who underwent single-level lumbar surgery. Participants aged 20–80 years with radiating pain due to lumbar disc herniation or spinal stenosis were included in this study. Adverse events were recorded and analyzed over a 12-month follow-up period.Results: The overall adverse event rates were 9.1% (10 of 110) in the BESS group and 17.3% (19 of 110) in the MSS group, which were not statistically significantly different (p=0.133). Notably, wound dehiscence occurred in 8.2% of MSS cases but in none of the BESS cases. Both groups showed similarly low rates of complications, such as dural tears, epidural hematoma, and nerve root injury. The most common adverse event in the BESS group was recurrent disc herniation (2.7%), whereas that in the MSS group was wound dehiscence (8.2%).Conclusion: BESS demonstrated a safety profile comparable to that of MSS for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and spinal stenosis, with a trend towards fewer overall complications. BESS offers particular advantages in terms of reducing wound-related complications. These findings suggest that BESS is a safe alternative to conventional MSS and potentially offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising patient safety.