Acute spinal cord injury (SCI) often results in severe neurologic deficits, with hemodynamic instability contributing to secondary ischemic damage. Beyond surgical decompression, maintaining adequate mean arterial pressure (MAP) is key to enhancing spinal cord perfusion and oxygenation. Vasopressor therapy is frequently used to achieve hemodynamic stability, but optimal MAP targets and vasopressor selection remain controversial. This review explores updated guidelines and current evidence regarding MAP management and the use of vasopressors in SCI, focusing on their impact on spinal cord perfusion and neurologic outcomes. Recent studies highlight the role of durotomy in directly improving spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) by reducing intraspinal pressure (ISP), offering a complementary mechanical intervention as part of pharmacologic therapies. Recent guidelines suggest an MAP range of 75–80 mmHg as a lower limit and 90–95 mmHg as an upper limit for 3–7 days post-injury, highlighting the need for personalized hemodynamic management. Norepinephrine is commonly preferred due to its balanced effects on peripheral vascular resistance and spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP), though dopamine, phenylephrine, and dobutamine each offer unique hemodynamic profiles suited to specific clinical scenarios. Despite their benefits, vasopressors carry significant risks, including arrhythmias and potential myocardial strain, necessitating careful selection based on individual patient factors. Further research is needed to refine vasopressor use and establish evidence-based protocols that optimize neurologic recovery, alongside continued exploration of SCPP as a potential therapeutic target.

Management of unstable upper lumbar fractures with corpectomy and posterior fixation is technically demanding, and conventional workflows may require intraoperative repositioning, increasing operative complexity. Lateral mini-open upper lumbar corpectomy (LMULC) paired with robotic-assisted (RA) posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPPSF) can be performed in a single position to facilitate ventral spinal decompression and stabilization in the anatomically constrained upper lumbar spine. In this study, we describe the operative technique and report four illustrative cases of unstable L1 or L2 fractures treated with single-position LMULC, RA-PPPSF, and short-segment fusion. Clinical, radiological, intraoperative variables and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. The mean age was 52.3 ± 17.7 years. The median operation time was 314 min (range 268–361 min); the median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 225 mL (range 100–400 mL). The median preoperative kyphosis was 10.15° (range 8.4–14.6°), the median postoperative kyphosis measured 6.65° (range 1.7–10.8°) and the median correction achieved was 3.5° (range −2.4–12.9°). The median visual analog scale (VAS) pain score reduced from 7 (range 7–9) preoperatively to 4.5 (range 2–6) postoperatively at discharge. At a median follow-up of 12 months (range 6–15 months), all patients had uncomplicated recoveries, demonstrated solid fusion on imaging, and reported favorable MacNab outcomes. Single-position LMULC with RA-PPPSF was technically feasible in this preliminary illustrative series and resulted in favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes. However, further studies in larger cohorts are warranted to help confirm these findings and better define the potential advantages and limitations of this technique.

Background/Objectives: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and predictors of rhBMP-2 use in atlantoaxial (C1–2) fusion through institutional outcomes and a pooled analysis from the literature. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adult patients who underwent C1–2 fusion at a tertiary care center between 2015 and 2020. Primary outcomes included radiographic fusion and postoperative complications. Univariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of intraoperative rhBMP-2 use. A subset of eight patients who underwent isolated C1–2 fusion using rhBMP-2 were analyzed and evaluated against 260 cases from a PRISMA-compliant systematic review of the literature. Results: Among our 49 patients (mean age, 61.8 ± 22.8 years; 57% female), 24 (49%) received rhBMP-2. Radiographic fusion or early signs were observed in 89.8% of patients, with no significant difference between rhBMP-2 and non-rhBMP-2 groups (p = 0.678). Complications were similar (12.5% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.702). All postoperative instabilities occurred in non-rhBMP-2 patients (p = 0.043). Degenerative pathology was associated with increased use of rhBMP-2 (OR of 7.96, p = 0.051), while trauma was associated with decreased use (OR of 0.21, p = 0.019). Among the eight local isolated cases, seven achieved fusion and none required revision. Our literature review yielded a group of 260 patients, 241 of which achieved successful fusion with a complication rate of 10.8% and a revision surgery rate of 3.8%. Conclusions: rhBMP-2 appears to be a safe and effective adjunct in C1–2 fusion, with outcomes comparable to alternative techniques. Although off-label, its selective use may benefit patients at risk of nonunion. Interpretation should be tempered by the retrospective design and heterogeneity across cohorts; pooled rates are descriptive. Further prospective studies are needed to establish standardized protocols, optimal dosing, and long-term efficacy.