Study Design. A retrospective kinematic magnetic resonance imaging (kMRI) study. Objective. To evaluate the utility of kMRI in determining the relationship between cervical sagittal balance and TI alignment. Summary of Background Data. Thoracic inlet parameters play an important role in cervical spine sagittal balance. However, most of the literature is based on lower resolution cervical X-rays or CT scans in the supine position. Methods. Cervical spine kMRI of 83 patients with degenerative cervical spine conditions (20–68 yr of age) was analyzed for: (1) cervical spine parameters: C2–C7 angle, C2–C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), cranial tilt, and cervical tilt; and (2) T1 parameters: thoracic inlet angle (TIA), T1 slope, and neck tilt (NT). Multiple logistic regression analysis and Pearson correlation coefficients were performed. Results. The mean TIA, T1 slope, and NT were 78.0, 33.2, and 44.8°, respectively. The mean C2–7 angle, SVA of C2–C7, cervical tilt, and cranial tilt were −15.4°, 22.0 mm, 18.1°, and 15.1°, respectively. The ratio of cervical:cranial tilt was maintained as 55:45%. A significant correlation was found between the C2–C7 angle and T1 slope (r = 0.731), TIA and C2–C7 angle (r = 0.406), cervical tilt with C2–C7 angle (r = 0.671), T1 slope with TIA (r = 0.429), TIA with neck tilt (r = 0.733), TIA with cervical tilt (r = 0.377), SVA C2–C7 with cervical tilt (r = −0.480), SVA C2–C7 with cranial tilt (r = 0.912), and C2–7 SVA with the ratio of cranial tilt to cervical tilt (r = 0.694). Conclusion. An individual with a large T1 slope required large cervical lordosis to preserve physiologic sagittal balance of the cervical spine. Cranial tilt was the cervical parameter most strongly correlated with SVA C2–C7, and thus may be a good parameter to assess decompensation of cervical sagittal balance. Level of Evidence: 3

Retrospective analysis of national insurance billing database. To examine trends in reoperation after single-level lumbar discectomy. Lumbar discectomy is the most commonly performed procedure for treatment of radiculopathy caused by disc herniation. Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the advantage of discectomy over nonsurgical treatment options, allowing for a more rapid reduction in symptoms. However, population-level data regarding reoperation after single level discectomy is limited. Data were collected using the commercially available PearlDiver software for patients billed with the Current Procedural Terminology code for our index procedure, hemilaminotomy and removal of disc material, between January 2007 and September 2014. The index group was then followed for up to 4 years for recurrent lumbar surgery, including spinal fusion, laminectomy, and additional discectomy. Analysis of data obtained from 13,654 patient records revealed a rate of additional lumbar surgeries after single-level discectomy of 3.95% (539/13654) within 3 months and 12.2% (766/6274) within 4 years of the index procedure. Lumbar spinal fusion was performed on 5.9% (370/6274) of patients within 4 years. Patients who received a re-exploration discectomy within 2 years of the index procedure went on to receive lumbar fusion at a rate of 38.4% (48/125) within the 4 years after the re-exploration discectomy. The average additional cost of lumbar reoperation, as measured by insurance reimbursement, was approximately $11,161 per-patient per year. We report an overall 4-year reoperation rate of 12.2% after single-level discectomy. In addition, we report a rate of progression to lumbar fusion following re-exploration discectomy of 38.4% within 4 years of reoperation. Further studies are needed regarding the best treatment algorithm in patients with reherniation or iatrogenic instability after lumbar discectomy. This study should enhance the shared decision making process by providing surgeons and patients with valuable data regarding the frequency and nature of reoperations after discectomy. Level of Evidence: 3

Object: Delayed or inappropriate treatment of spinal epidural abscess (SEA) can lead to serious morbidity or death. It is a rare event with significant variation in its causes, anatomical locations, and rate of progression. Traditionally the treatment of choice has involved emergency surgical evacuation and a prolonged course of antibiotics tailored to the offending pathogen. Recent publications have advocated antibiotic treatment without surgical decompression in select patient populations. Clearly defining those patients who can be safely treated in this manner remains in evolution. The authors review the current literature concerning the treatment and outcome of SEA to make recommendations concerning what population can be safely triaged to nonoperative management and the optimal timing of surgery. Methods: A PubMed database search was performed using a combination of search terms and Medical Subject Headings, to identify clinical studies reporting on the treatment and outcome of SEA. Results: The literature review revealed 28 original case series containing at least 30 patients and reporting on treatment and outcome. All cohorts were deemed Class III evidence, and in all but two the data were obtained retrospectively. Based on the conclusions of these studies along with selected smaller studies and review articles, the authors present an evidence-based algorithm for selecting patients who may be safe candidates for nonoperative management. Conclusions: Patients who are unable to undergo an operation, have a complete spinal cord injury more than 48 hours with low clinical or radiographic concern for an ascending lesion, or who are neurologically stable and lack risk factors for failure of medical management may be initially treated with antibiotics alone and close clinical monitoring. If initial medical management is to be undertaken the patient should be made aware that delayed neurological deterioration may not fully resolve even after prompt surgical treatment. Patients deemed good surgical candidates should receive their operation as soon as possible because the rate of clinical deterioration with SEA is notoriously unpredictable. Although patients tend to recover from neurological deficits after treatment of SEA, the time point when a neurological injury becomes irreversible is unknown, supporting emergency surgery in those patients with acute findings.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety between iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) and local autologous bone and allograft in the lumbar spine. Methods: A systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases identified studies evaluating spinal fusion in patients with degenerative joint disease using ICBG, local autograft, or allograft in the thoracolumbar spine. Results: Six comparative studies met our inclusion criteria. A “low” strength of the overall body of evidence suggested no difference in fusion percentages in the lumbar spine between local autograft and ICBG. We found no difference in fusion percentages based on low evidence comparing allograft with ICBG autograft. There were no differences in pain or functional results comparing local autograft or allograft with ICBG autograft. Donor site pain and hematoma/seroma occurred more frequently in ICBG autograft group for lumbar fusion procedures. There was low evidence around the estimate of patients with donor site pain following ICBG harvesting, ranging from 16.7 to 20%. With respect to revision, low evidence demonstrated no difference between allograft and ICBG autograft. There was no evidence comparing patients receiving allograft with local autograft for fusion, pain, functional, and safety outcomes. Conclusion: In the lumbar spine, ICBG, local autograft, and allograft have similar effectiveness in terms of fusion rates, pain scores, and functional outcomes. However, ICBG is associated with an increased risk for donor site-related complications. Significant limitations exist in the available literature when comparing ICBG, local autograft, and allograft for lumbar fusion, and thus ICBG versus other fusion methods necessitates further investigation.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety between iliac crest bone graft (ICBG), non-ICBG autologous bone, and allograft in cervical spine fusion. To avoid problems at the donor site, various allograft materials have been used as a substitute for autograft. However, there are still questions as to the comparative effectiveness and safety of cadaver allograft compared with autologous ICBG. Methods: A systematic search of multiple major medical reference databases was conducted to identify studies evaluating spinal fusion in patients with cervical degenerative disk disease using ICBG compared with non-ICBG autograft or allograft or non-ICBG autograft compared with allograft in the cervical spine. Radiographic fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and functional outcomes were the primary outcomes of interest. Adverse events were evaluated for safety. Results: The search identified 13 comparative studies that met our inclusion criteria: 2 prospective cohort studies and 11 retrospective cohort studies. Twelve cohort studies compared allograft with ICBG autograft during anterior cervical fusion and demonstrated with a low evidence level of support that there are no differences in fusion percentages, pain scores, or functional results. There was insufficient evidence comparing patients receiving allograft with non-ICBG autograft for fusion, pain, revision, and functional and safety outcomes. No publications directly comparing non-ICBG autograft with ICBG were found. Conclusion: Although the available literature suggests ICBG and allograft may have similar effectiveness in terms of fusion rates, pain scores, and functional outcomes following anterior cervical fusion, there are too many limitations in the available literature to draw any significant conclusions. No individual study provided greater than class III evidence, and when evaluating the overall body of literature, no conclusion had better than low evidence support. A prospective randomized trial with adequate sample size to compare fusion rates, efficacy measures, costs, and safety is warranted.

Study Design.: Retrospective matched cohort analysis. Objective.: To compare the accuracy of S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screw placement by robotic guidance versus free hand technique. Summary of Background Data.: Spinopelvic fixation utilizing S2AI screws provides optimal fixation across the lumbosacral junction allowing for solid fusion, especially in long segment fusion constructs. Traditionally, S2AI screw placement has required fluoroscopic guidance for accurate screw placement. Herein, we present the first series comparing a free hand and robotic-guided technique for S2AI screw placement. Methods.: Sixty-eight consecutive patients who underwent S2AI screw placement by either a free hand or robotic technique between 2015 and 2016 were reviewed. Propensity score-matching was utilized to control for preoperative characteristic imbalances. Screw position and accuracy were evaluated using three-dimensional manipulation of computed tomography scan reconstructions from intraoperative O-arm imaging. Results.: A total of 51 patients (105 screws) were matched, 28 (59 screws) in the free hand group (FHG) and 23 (46 screws) in the robot group (RG). The mean age in the FHG and RG were 57.9 ± 14.6 years and 61.6 ± 12.0 years (P = 0.342), respectively. The average caudal angle in the sagittal plane was significantly larger in the RG (31.0 ± 10.0° vs. 25.7 ± 8.8°, P = 0.005). There was no difference between the FHG and RG in the horizontal angle, measured in the axial plane using the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS) as a reference (41.1 ± 8.1° vs. 42.8 ± 6.6°, P = 0.225), or the S2AI to S1 screw angle (9.4 ± 7.0° vs. 11.3 ± 9.9°, P = 0.256), respectively. There was no difference in the overall accuracy between FHG and RG (94.9% vs. 97.8%, P = 0.630). Additionally, there were no significant intraoperative neurovascular or visceral complications associated with S2AI screw placement. Conclusion.: Free hand and robotic-guided S2AI screw placement both prove to be safe, accurate, and reliable techniques for achieving spinopelvic fixation. Level of Evidence: 3