Object The authors recently used a combined approach of minimally invasive transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and open posterior segmental pedicle screw instrumentation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for the correction of coronal deformity. The complications and radiographic outcomes were compared with a posterior-only approach for scoliosis correction. Methods The authors retrospectively reviewed all deformity cases that were surgically corrected at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian Hospital between June 2007 and August 2009. Eight patients underwent combined transpsoas and posterior approaches for adult degenerative thoracolumbar scoliosis. The comparison group consisted of 4 adult patients who underwent a posterior-only scoliosis correction. Data on intra- and postoperative complications were collected. The pre- and postoperative posterior-anterior and lateral scoliosis series radiographic films were reviewed, and comparisons were made for coronal deformity, apical vertebral translation (AVT), and lumbar lordosis. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by comparing pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores. Results The median preoperative coronal Cobb angle in the combined approach was 38.5° (range 18–80°). Following surgery, the median Cobb angle was 10° (p < 0.0001). The mean preoperative AVT was 3.6 cm, improving to 1.8 cm postoperatively (p = 0.031). The mean preoperative lumbar lordosis in this group was 47.3°, and the mean postoperative lordosis was 40.4°. Compared with posterior-only deformity corrections, the mean values for curve correction were higher for the combined approach than for the posterior-only approach. Conversely, the mean AVT correction was higher in the posterior-only group. One patient in the posterior-only group required revision of the instrumentation. One patient who underwent the transpsoas XLIF approach suffered an intraoperative bowel injury necessitating laparotomy and segmental bowel resection; this patient later underwent an uneventful posterior-only correction of her scoliotic deformity. Two patients (25%) in the XLIF group sustained motor radiculopathies, and 6 of 8 patients (75%) experienced postoperative thigh paresthesias or dysesthesias. Motor radiculopathy resolved in 1 patient, but persisted 3 months postsurgery in the other. Sensory symptoms persisted in 5 of 6 patients at the most recent follow-up evaluation. The mean clinical follow-up time was 10.5 months for the XLIF group and 11.5 months for the posterior-only group. The mean visual analog scale score decreased from 8.8 to 3.5 in the XLIF group, and it decreased from 9.5 to 4 in the posterior-only group. Conclusions Radiographic outcomes such as the Cobb angle and AVT were significantly improved in patients who underwent a combined transpsoas and posterior approach. Lumbar lordosis was maintained in all patients undergoing the combined approach. The combination of XLIF and TLIF/posterior segmental instrumentation techniques may lead to less blood loss and to radiographic outcomes that are comparable to traditional posterior-only approaches. However, the surgical technique carries significant risks that require further evaluation and proper informed consent.

IMPORTANCE Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction worldwide. It remains unknown whether a ventral or dorsal surgical approach provides the best results.OBJECTIVE To determine whether a ventral surgical approach compared with a dorsal surgical approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy improves patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of patients aged 45 to 80 years with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy enrolled at 15 large North American hospitals from April 1, 2014, to March 30, 2018; final follow-up was April 15, 2020.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to undergo ventral surgery (n = 63) or dorsal surgery (n = 100). Ventral surgery involved anterior cervical disk removal and instrumented fusion. Dorsal surgery involved laminectomy with instrumented fusion or open-door laminoplasty. Type of dorsal surgery (fusion or laminoplasty) was at surgeon's discretion. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was 1-year change in the Short Form 36 physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) score (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]; minimum clinically important difference = 5). Secondary outcomes included 1-year change in modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score, complications, work status, sagittal vertical axis, health resource utilization, and 1-and 2-year changes in the Neck Disability Index and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions score.RESULTS Among 163 patients who were randomized (mean age, 62 years; 80 [49%] women), 155 (95%) completed the trial at 1 year (80% at 2 years). All patients had surgery, but 5 patients did not receive their allocated surgery (ventral: n = 1; dorsal: n = 4). One-year SF-36 PCS mean improvement was not significantly different between ventral surgery (5.9 points) and dorsal surgery (6.2 points) (estimated mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, −2.6 to 3.1; P = .86). Of 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. Rates of complications in the ventral and dorsal surgery groups, respectively, were 48% vs 24% (difference, 24%; 95% CI, 8.7%-38.5%; P = .002) and included dysphagia (41% vs 0%), new neurological deficit (2% vs 9%), reoperations (6% vs 4%), and readmissions within 30 days (0% vs 7%).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing cervical spinal surgery, a ventral surgical approach did not significantly improve patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year compared with outcomes after a dorsal surgical approach.

Object Occipital condyle fractures (OCFs) are rare injuries and their treatment remains controversial. Several classification systems have been proposed, first by Anderson and Montesano and more recently by Tuli and colleagues and Hanson and associates, who sought to stratify these fractures in a manner that would guide treatment that has typically ranged from semirigid collar immobilization to halo fixation or occipitocervical fusion. It has been the authors' impression, based on experience with OCFs at their institution, that classification is cumbersome and contributes little to the clinical decision-making process, while the identification of craniocervical misalignment and neural element compromise is paramount, and sufficient, for the planning of treatment. Methods The authors performed a retrospective review of 24,745 consecutive trauma presentations to a single Level I trauma center (UPMC Presbyterian Hospital) over a 6-year period, identifying 100 patients with 106 OCFs. All patients were evaluated by the spine trauma service and underwent imaging of the craniocervical junction using reconstructed CT scans. Patient characteristics, fracture characteristics (including fracture classification according to the 2 major classification systems), initial management, and status at follow-up were recorded. Results The incidence of OCF in this trauma population was 0.4%. Two patients had evidence of craniocervical misalignment on reconstructed CT imaging at the time of admission; both patients underwent occipitocervical fusion. One patient underwent occipitocervical fusion for unrelated C1–2 fractures. The remainder of those surviving to discharge, whose fractures represented all fracture subtypes, received treatment with a rigid cervical collar or counseling alone. No patients, including 4 patients with bilateral OCFs, were found to have developed delayed craniocervical instability or misalignment on follow-up, or to require further neurosurgical intervention for an OCF. Neural element compression was not identified in any of the patients, and there were no cases of delayed cranial neuropathy. Conclusions Beyond the identification of craniocervical misalignment on reconstructed CT scans at admission, further classification of OCFs is unnecessary. Management should consist of up-front occipitocervical fusion or halo fixation in cases demonstrating occipitocervical misalignment, or of immobilization in a rigid cervical collar followed by delayed clinical and radiographic evaluation in a spine trauma clinic if misalignment is not present.

4.