Study Design A retrospective single center cohort study with prospective collected data from an institutional spine registry. Objectives To determine whether restoration of lordosis L5/S1 is possible with both anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to find out which technique is superior to recreate lordosis in L5/S1. Methods Seventy-seven patients with ALIF and seventy-nine with TLIF L5/S1 were included. Operation time, estimated blood loss), and complications were evaluated. Segmental lordosis L5/S1 and L4/5, overall lordosis, and proximal lordosis (L1 to L4) were measured in X-rays before and after surgery. Oswesery disability index and EQ-5D were assessed before surgery, and 3 and 12 months after surgery. Results Mean operation time was 176.9 minutes for ALIF and 195.7 minutes for TLIF (p = 0.048). Estimated blood loss was 249.2 cc for ALIF and 362.9 cc for TLIF (p = 0.005). In terms of complications, only a difference in dural tears were found (TLIF 6, ALIF none; p = 0.014). Lordosis L5/S1 increased in the ALIF group (15.8 to 24.6°; p < 0.001), whereas no difference was noted in the TLIF group (18.4 to 19.4°; p = 0.360). Clinical results showed significant improvement in the Oswesery disability index (ALIF: 43 to 21.9, TLIF: 45.2 to 23.0) and EQ-5D (ALIF: 0.494 to 0.732, TLIF: 0.393 to 0.764) after 12 months in both groups, without differences between the groups. Conclusion ALIF and TLIF are comparable methods for performing fusion at L5/S1, with good clinical outcomes and comparable rates of complications. However, there is only a limited potential for recreating lordosis at L5/S1 with a TLIF.

Adult scoliosis is defined as a spinal deformity with a Cobb angle of more than 10 degrees in the coronal plain in a skeletally mature patient. Patients predominantly suffer from back pain symptoms, often accompanied by signs of spinal stenosis (central as well as lateral). Asymmetric degeneration leads to asymmetric load and therefore to a progression of the degeneration and deformity as either scoliosis (0.5-1 degree per year), kyphosis, or both. The diagnostic evaluation includes static and dynamic imaging, magnetic resonance imaging, and myelo-computed tomography, as well as invasive diagnostic procedures such as discograms, facet blocks, and epidural and root blocks. The treatment, either conservative or surgical, is then tailored to the patient's specific symptomatology. Surgical management is usually complex and must take into account an array of specific problems, including the patient's age and general medical condition, the length of the fusion, the condition of the adjacent segments, the condition of the lumbosacral junction, osteoporosis, and any previous scoliosis surgery. The main goal of corrective surgery is a balancing of the coronal and sagittal planes.This review focuses on the special indications for vertebral body cement augmentation in patients with osteoporosis and the problem of adjacent level degeneration and its surgical management.

For more than 2 decades ventral derotation spondylodesis (Zielke VDS) as a major improvement over Dwyer instrumentation (DI) was the gold standard of instrumented curve correction and stabilization from the anterior approach. As the first available system it enables a true three-dimensional curve correction. A disadvantage is the low internal stabilization capability with a need for long-term external stabilization by means of cast and brace treatment postoperatively. Meanwhile with the development of modern single and dual solid rod systems these disadvantages can be avoided completely. Video-assisted (thoracoscopic) anterior scoliosis surgery accounts for less than 2% of anteriorly treated scoliosis cases, mainly due to a long operating time and significant learning curve.From the posterior approach the Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation (CDI) as a polysegmentally attached posterior hook threaded dual rod system used to be state of the art for a long time, since it eliminated the disadvantages of Harrington instrumentation (HI) in terms of only one-dimensional correction and low stabilization capabilities. However even with CDI effective derotation was impossible. In posterior scoliosis surgery there is a strong trend away from hook systems towards transpedicular segmentally fixed dual rod systems not only in the lumbar spine but also in the thoracic area. Advantages of these newer techniques are shorter fusion, improved correction, and less loss of correction over time.Advantages of modern anterior instrumentation systems in comparison to posterior transpedicular instrumented dual rod systems are less blood loss, better derotation, slightly shorter fusion levels, and a better influence on sagittal plane control or improvement especially for hypokyphotic thoracic scoliosis cases. Our data also document a superior spontaneous correction of the lumbar curve after selective anterior instrumented correction (Lenke 1B+C), although other studies could not find significant differences. In our experience the neurological risk of anterior instrumented correction is also lower than that of posterior scoliosis surgery, although the morbidity and mortality data of the Scoliosis Research Society could not prove that anymore in recent years. A negative effect of anterior transthoracic scoliosis surgery in comparison to posterior surgery is a more negative effect on lung function, which improves slower after surgery and does not quite reach the levels of posterior surgery at follow-up. But new data on posterior segmental transpedicular correction and fusion also prove a lordosating effect with negative effect on lung function.

No abstract

Since the materials used in hip and knee implants in Denmark are not substantially different, these results are unlikely to reflect an implant effect but rather the selection criteria of referral for implant surgery.