No abstract

Purpose To describe the clinical outcomes and complications in a consecutive series of extreme lateral interbody fusion cases. Methods Retrospective cohort review of 97 consecutive patients from three centers with minimum 6-month followup (mean 12 months). Functional status was evaluated by preoperative and last follow-up Oswestry Disability Index score. Leg and back pain were evaluated by visual analog scales. Complications were recorded and permanent complications and neurological impairment was actively investigated at last follow-up. Results No permanent neurological impairment, vascular or visceral injuries were observed. Transient neurological symptoms presented in 7% of cases, all resolved within 1 month from surgery. Transient thigh discomfort was observed in 9%. Clinical success was recorded in 92% of cases. Conclusions Extreme lateral interbody fusion is a safe and effective technique for anterior interbody fusion.

Over the past decade, extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) has gained in popularity as a minimally invasive alternative to direct anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and ALIF's associated morbidity. Most notably, XLIF largely avoids vascular and visceral structures that are required to be mobilized in ALIF. In this case report, the authors describe a rare complication of a bowel injury in a 70-year-old male who underwent an L3-4 and L4-5 lateral transpsoas approach for interbody fusion.

BackgroundDisc arthroplasty is gaining popularity for treatment of low-back pain caused by degenerative disc disease (DDD). It can involve total disc replacement or partial disc or nucleus replacement (or augmentation). Compared with total disc replacement, nucleus replacement is less invasive, has less surgical risk, has faster postoperative recovery, and doesn't “burn bridges” should further surgery be required. However, nucleus replacement has a high risk of implant expulsion because the device is not fixed to the vertebrae. Nubac is the first polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-on-PEEK articulated disc arthroplasty device designed to optimally restore the lumbar anatomy and biomechanics.MethodsISO 10993 standards were used to evaluate the biocompatibility of the PEEK material. Chemical and thermal–mechanical tests and in vivo study assessed PEEK's biostability after exposure to high g irradiation and harsh oxidative conditions. Biomechanical tests to evaluate kinematic properties and anatomical restoration of the implanted lumbar motion segments and implant expulsion risk assessments were performed with a human cadaveric model. Because of the novelty of PEEK-on-PEEK as a self-mating articulating material, extensive wear tests were conducted with unidirectional and coupled motions. Static and fatigue strength also were tested. Animal study with a baboon model was conducted with gross, radiographic, biomechanical, and histological evaluations at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Preliminary clinical data were collected through a prospective multicenter cohort study.ResultsPEEK demonstrated exceptional biocompatibility and biodurability. Nubac restored disc height and motion segment range of motion. The unique articulating design of the Nubac demonstrated low risk of implant expulsion in a human cadaveric model. Wear tests showed that the Nubac has minimal wear and compares favorably to other disc arthroplasty materials. The Nubac also had excellent static and fatigue properties for the intended application. The animal study showed that the Nubac caused no adverse local or systematic tissue reaction and there was no detectable wear debris. The preliminary clinical data showed no major intraoperative vascular and neurological complications. There was significant Visual Analog Scale and Oswestry Disability Index score improvement.ConclusionsThe preclinical data supported the design rationale, and the preliminary clinical data (level II evidence) on safety and efficacy were encouraging.Clinical RelevanceThe Nubac could be a viable first surgical option for patients with back pain caused by DDD.

SummaryIntroduction. Osteoporosis is a complication of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with prostate carcinoma. The best defense against osteoporosis in prostate cancer is to identify patients with a high risk for fracture during the first clinical visit, select an effective anti-osteoporosis agent, and advise the patient to change his lifestyle and diet to prevent further bone loss. New agents include denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the RANK ligand (RANKL). RANKL promotes the formation, activity, and survival of osteoclasts and, thus, supports the breakdown of bone. Purpose. This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind prospective study on use of denosumab versus alendronate in the therapy of secondary osteoporosis related to ADT in prostate cancer patients in three European countries (Italy, France, Switzerland). Patients and methods. In this 24-month observation study we enrolled 234 patients with diagnosis of osteoporosis underwent ADT for prostate cancer. All patients aged ≥55 years and had a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) T-score <-1.0 (hip or spine, measured within last 2 years) and ≥ 1 fragility fracture. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months or alendronate (70 mg weekly) for 2 years. All patient received supplemental vitamin D (600 IU per day) and supplemental calcium to maintain a calcium intake of 1200 mg per day. Effectiveness of therapy in both groups (denosumab group and alendronate group) was assessed by changes in bone turnover markers (BTMs), Bone Mineral Density (BMD), fracture incidence, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score for back pain, and Short Form-8 (SF-8TM) health survey score for healthrelated quality of life (HRQoL). Percent changes from baseline in BTMs and BMD were assessed using the paired t test; a P-value 0.05). Mean changes in BMD at final follow-up differed significantly between two groups. BMD changes at the lumbar spine at 24 months were 5.6% with denosumab vs -1.1% with alendronate (P<0.001). New vertebral fractures developed in fewer patients in the denosumab group than in the alendronate group during the 24-month period, although this difference was not significant (P=0.10). Back pain significantly (P<0.001) improved from baseline at all time points during the study in both study groups. SF-8 health survey scores significantly improved following treatment with both drugs. Incidence of adverse drug reactions were similar in both groups. Conclusion. In our study denosumab and alendronate showed similar clinical efficacy in the therapy of ADT-related osteoporosis in men with prostate carcinoma; both drugs provided significant improvements in back pain and general health conditions. Denosumab showed significant increase of BTMs and BMD than alendronate with lower rate of new vertebral fractures.