Study Design.: An experimental laboratory-based biomechanical study. Objective.: To investigate the correlation between cage size and subsidence and to quantify the resistance to subsidence that a larger cage can provide. Summary of Background Data.: The assumption that a bigger interbody cage confers less subsidence has not been proven. There was no previous study that has shown the superiority of lateral cages to bullet cages in terms of subsidence and none that has quantified the correlation between cage size and subsidence. Methods.: A cage was compressed between two standardized polyurethane foam blocks at a constant speed. Four sizes of bullet cages used for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and six sizes of lateral cages used for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) were tested. The force required for a 5 mm subsidence, axial area of cages, and stiffness were analyzed. Results.: A larger cage required a significantly higher force for a 5 mm subsidence. Longer bullet cages required marginal force increments of only 6.2% to 14.6% compared to the smallest bullet cage. Lateral cages, however, required substantially higher increments of force, ranging from 136.4% to 235.7%. The average force of lateral cages was three times that of bullet cages (6426.5 vs. 2115.9 N), and the average stiffness of the LLIF constructs was 3.6 times that of the TLIF constructs (635.5 vs. 2284.2 N/mm). There was a strong correlation between the axial area of cages and the force for a 5 mm subsidence. Every 1 mm² increment of axial area corresponded to approximately 8 N increment of force. Conclusion.: Cage size correlated strongly with the force required for a 5 mm subsidence. The LLIF constructs required higher force and were stiffer than the TLIF constructs. Among bullet cages, longer cages only required marginal increments of force. Lateral cages, however, required substantially higher force. Level of Evidence: N/A

We aimed to determine the 2-year mortality and morbidity rates following spine surgery in elderly patients (age ≥80 years) and to study the associated risk factors. The records of patients ≥80 years of age who underwent spine surgery during the years 2003-2015 at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore were retrospectively reviewed. Information was collected on their demographic characteristics, comorbidities, diagnosis, general and neurological status, type of surgery, and outcomes. The mortality and morbidity rates over a 2-year period were analyzed. Bivariate analyses were carried out to identify factors associated with mortality. We selected 47 patients (mean age, 83.3 years; range, 80-91 years) who were followed up for a mean duration of 27.7 months. The mortality rates at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years following surgery were 2.1%, 8.5%, 10.6%, and 12.8%, respectively. The factors significantly associated with mortality included multiple comorbidities, nondegenerative aetiology, and vertebral fractures. The overall morbidity rate was 48.9%, and 17% of this cohort had major complications. Surgeons should strategize management protocols with due consideration of the mortality and morbidity rates, and be wary of operating on patients with multiple comorbidities, nondegenerative conditions, and vertebral fractures.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: We intend to evaluate the accuracy and safety of cervical pedicle screw (CPS) insertion under O-arm-based 3-dimensional (3D) navigation guidance. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent CPS insertion under intraoperative O-arm-based 3D navigation during the years 2009 to 2018. The radiological accuracy of CPS placement was evaluated using their intraoperative scans. Results: A total of 297 CPSs were inserted under navigation. According to Gertzbein classification, 229 screws (77.1%) were placed without any pedicle breach (grade 0). Of the screws that did breach the pedicle, 51 screws (17.2%) had a minor breach of less than 2 mm (grade 1), 13 screws (4.4%) had a breach of between 2 and 4 mm (grade 2), and 4 screws (1.3%) had a complete breach of 4 mm or more (grade 3). Six screws were revised intraoperatively. There was no incidence of neurovascular injury in this series of patients. 59 of the 68 breaches (86.8%) were found to perforate laterally, and the remaining 9 (13.2%) medially. It was noted that the C5 cervical level had the highest breach rate of 33.3%. Conclusions: O-arm-based 3D navigation can improve the accuracy and safety of CPS insertion. The overall breach rate in this study was 22.9%. Despite these breaches, there was no incidence of neurovascular injury or need for revision surgery for screw malposition.

Study Design.: An experimental laboratory-based biomechanical study. Objective.: The objective of this study was to evaluate, in a synthetic bone model, the difference in primary and revision pull-out strength using pedicle screws of different thread designs. Summary of Background Data.: Over the past few decades, there has been a growing interest in optimizing the screw pull-out strength using various screw designs (single-thread, mixed-thread, dual-thread). Although primary pull-out strength has been studied previously, little is known about revision pull-out strength of different pedicle screws. Methods.: The pull-out strengths of three different pedicle screw designs (single-thread, mixed-thread, dual-thread) were tested in standardized polyurethane foam in three sequences. Sequence 1: A 6.5 mm screw was inserted into the foam block and the primary pull-out strength measured. Sequence 2: A 6.5 mm screw was inserted, removed, and then reinserted into the same foam block. The revision pull-out strength was then measured. Sequence 3: A 6.5 mm screw was inserted, removed and a 7.5-mm screw of the same thread design was reinserted. The revision pull-out strength was then measured. Results.: The primary pull-out strength was similar across screw designs, although dual-thread screws showed higher primary pull-out strength (2628.8 N) compared to single-thread screws (2184.4 N, P < 0.05). For revision pull-out strength, the mixed-thread screws had significant reduction in revision pull-out strength of 18.6% (1890.2 N, P = 0.0173). Revision with a larger diameter screw improved the pull-out strength back to baseline. Single and dual-thread screws showed no significant reduction in revision pull-out strength. Conclusion.: The dual-threaded screws provided the strongest primary pull-out strength for spinal fixation. The mixed-thread screws, however, had the poorest revision pull-out strength, decreasing by 18.6% compared to other screw designs. In cases in which mixed-threaded screws have to be revised (at the index or revision surgery), surgeons should consider the use of larger diameter screws to improve the pull-out strength. Level of Evidence: 5

Lumbar interbody fusion procedures have seen a significant evolution over the years, with various approaches being developed to address spinal pathologies and instability, including posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). LLIF, a pivotal technique in the field, initially emerged as extreme/direct lateral interbody fusion (XLIF/DLIF) before the development of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). To ensure comprehensive circumferential stability, LLIF procedures are often combined with posterior stabilization (PS) using pedicle screws. However, achieving this required repositioning of the patient during the surgical procedure. The advent of single-position surgery (SPS) has revolutionized the procedure by eliminating the need for patient repositioning. With SPS, LLIF along with PS can be performed either in the lateral or prone position, resulting in significantly reduced operative time. Ongoing research endeavors are dedicated to further enhancing LLIF procedures making them even safer and easier. Notably, the integration of robotic technology into SPS has emerged as a game-changer, simplifying surgical processes and positioning itself as a vital asset for the future of spinal fusion surgery. This literature review aims to provide a succinct summary of the evolutionary trajectory of lumbar interbody fusion techniques, with a specific emphasis on its recent advancements.