METHODS: A prospective observational study included thirty patients without spinal abnormality who underwent supine and prone magnetic resonance imaging without abdominal compression. The spinal levels of the aortic bifurcation and confluence of the common iliac veins were identified. The proximity of the anterior iliac vessels to the anterior and posterior aspects of the anulus fibrosus in sagittal and coronal planes was measured by two observers, and interobserver reliability was calculated.

RESULTS: The aortic bifurcation and confluence of the common iliac veins were most commonly at the level of the L4 vertebral body and migrated cranially with prone positioning. The common iliac vessels were closer to the anterior aspect of the intervertebral disc and to the midline at L4-L5 as compared with L5-S1, consistent with the bifurcation at the L4 vertebral body. Prone positioning resulted in greater distances between the disc and iliac vessels at L4-L5 and L5-S1 by an average of 3 mm. The position of the anterior aspect of the anulus with respect to each iliac vessel demonstrated substantial variation between subjects. The intraclass correlation coefficient for measurement of vessel position exceeded 0.9, demonstrating excellent interobserver reliability.

CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the L4 level of the aortic bifurcation and iliac vein coalescence but also demonstrated substantial mobility of the great vessels with positioning. Supine magnetic resonance imaging will underestimate the proximity of the vessels to the intervertebral disc. Large interindividual variation in the location of vasculature was noted, emphasizing the importance of careful study of the location of the retroperitoneal vessels on a case-by-case basis.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Anatomic relationships between vessels and intervertebral discs on supine magnetic resonance imaging may differ from relationships during surgery with the patient in a prone position.

METHODS: An as-treated analysis was performed on patients enrolled in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) for the treatment of intervertebral lumbar disc herniation. Randomized and observational cohorts were combined. A comparison was made between patients who had had symptoms for six months or less (n = 927) and those who had had symptoms for more than six months (n = 265). Primary and secondary outcomes were measured at baseline and at regular follow-up intervals up to four years. The treatment effect for each outcome measure was determined at each follow-up period for the duration of symptoms for both groups.

RESULTS: At all follow-up intervals, the primary outcome measures were significantly worse in patients who had had symptoms for more than six months prior to treatment, regardless of whether the treatment was operative or nonoperative. When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the operative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) (mean change, 48.3 compared with 41.9; p < 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 47.7 compared with 41.2; p < 0.001), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, -41.1 compared with -34.6; p < 0.001) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months (with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms on the SF-36 and indicating more severe symptoms on the Oswestry Disability Index). When the values at the time of the four-year follow-up were compared with the baseline values, patients in the nonoperative treatment group who had had symptoms for six months or less had a greater increase in the bodily pain domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 31.8 compared with 21.4; p < 0.001), a greater increase in the physical function domain of the SF-36 (mean change, 29.5 compared with 22.6; p = 0.015), and a greater decrease in the Oswestry Disability Index score (mean change, -24.9 compared with -18.5; p = 0.006) as compared with those who had had symptoms for more than six months. Differences in treatment effect between the two groups related to the duration of symptoms were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Increased symptom duration due to lumbar disc herniation is related to worse outcomes following both operative and nonoperative treatment. The relative increased benefit of surgery compared with nonoperative treatment was not dependent on the duration of the symptoms.

METHODS: Surgical candidates with a history of at least 12 weeks of symptoms and spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis (as confirmed on imaging) were enrolled in either a randomized cohort or an observational cohort at 13 U.S. spine clinics. Treatment was decompressive surgery or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcomes were measures of bodily pain and physical function on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.

RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort, and 365 patients were enrolled in the observational cohort. At 2 years, 67% of patients who were randomly assigned to surgery had undergone surgery, whereas 43% of those who were randomly assigned to receive nonsurgical care had also undergone surgery. Despite the high level of nonadherence, the intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort showed a significant treatment effect favoring surgery on the SF-36 scale for bodily pain, with a mean difference in change from baseline of 7.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 14.1); however, there was no significant difference in scores on physical function or on the Oswestry Disability Index. The as-treated analysis, which combined both cohorts and was adjusted for potential confounders, showed a significant advantage for surgery by 3 months for all primary outcomes; these changes remained significant at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS: In the combined as-treated analysis, patients who underwent surgery showed significantly more improvement in all primary outcomes than did patients who were treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000411 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

METHODS: Surgical candidates from 13 centers in 11 U.S. states who had at least 12 weeks of symptoms and image-confirmed degenerative spondylolisthesis were offered enrollment in a randomized cohort or an observational cohort. Treatment was standard decompressive laminectomy (with or without fusion) or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcome measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scores (100-point scales, with higher scores indicating less severe symptoms) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (100-point scale, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years.

RESULTS: We enrolled 304 patients in the randomized cohort and 303 in the observational cohort. The baseline characteristics of the two cohorts were similar. The one-year crossover rates were high in the randomized cohort (approximately 40% in each direction) but moderate in the observational cohort (17% crossover to surgery and 3% crossover to nonsurgical care). The intention-to-treat analysis for the randomized cohort showed no statistically significant effects for the primary outcomes. The as-treated analysis for both cohorts combined showed a significant advantage for surgery at 3 months that increased at 1 year and diminished only slightly at 2 years. The treatment effects at 2 years were 18.1 for bodily pain (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.5 to 21.7), 18.3 for physical function (95% CI, 14.6 to 21.9), and -16.7 for the Oswestry Disability Index (95% CI, -19.5 to -13.9). There was little evidence of harm from either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS: In nonrandomized as-treated comparisons with careful control for potentially confounding baseline factors, patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis treated surgically showed substantially greater improvement in pain and function during a period of 2 years than patients treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000409 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

METHODS: Radiographs of the cervical spine of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had undergone total joint arthroplasty over a five-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The radiographs were evaluated for predictors of paralysis (a posterior atlantodental interval of<14 >mm) and were compared with traditional parameters of instability (an anterior atlantodental interval of >3 mm or subaxial subluxation of >3 mm).

RESULTS: Forty-nine of the sixty-five patients who were identified had flexion and extension lateral radiographs available for review. Only one of these patients had a posterior atlantodental interval of <14 >mm, and only three had a space available for the cord that measuredcomparison, twenty patients had radiographic evidence of instability on the basis of traditional parameters.

CONCLUSIONS: Although nearly one-half of the patients in the present study had radiographic evidence of cervical instability on the basis of traditional measurements, only four patients (8%) had a radiographic finding that was predictive of paralysis. Thus, while radiographic evidence of cervical instability was not infrequent in this population of patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis, radiographic predictors of paralysis were much less common.

METHODS: Somatosensory evoked potential and transcranial electric motor evoked potential data recorded for 427 patients undergoing anterior or posterior cervical spine surgery between January 1999 and March 2001 were analyzed. All patients who showed substantial (at least 60%) or complete unilateral or bilateral amplitude loss, for at least ten minutes, during the transcranial electric motor evoked potential and/or somatosensory evoked potential monitoring were identified.

RESULTS: Twelve of the 427 patients demonstrated substantial or complete loss of amplitude of the transcranial electric motor evoked potentials. Ten of those patients had complete reversal of the loss following prompt intraoperative intervention, whereas two awoke with a new motor deficit. Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring failed to identify any change in one of the two patients, and the change in the somatosensory evoked potentials lagged behind the change in the transcranial electric motor evoked potentials by thirty-three minutes in the other. No patient showed loss of amplitude of the somatosensory evoked potentials in the absence of changes in the transcranial electric motor evoked potentials. Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring was 100% sensitive and 100% specific, whereas somatosensory evoked potential monitoring was only 25% sensitive; it was, however, 100% specific.

CONCLUSIONS: Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring appears to be superior to conventional somatosensory evoked potential monitoring for identifying evolving motor tract injury during cervical spine surgery. Surgeons should strongly consider using this modality when operating on patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy in general and on those with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in particular.

METHODS: One hundred and ninety patients were followed clinically and radiographically for at least two years (range, two to fifteen years). Fifty-nine of the patients had corpectomy with strut-grafting, and 131 patients had multiple discectomies and interbody grafting. Fifty-five of the 190 patients had a history of active cigarette-smoking; fifteen of the fifty-five had corpectomy with strut-grafting, and forty had multilevel discectomies and interbody grafting. Internal fixation was not used in any patient. The reconstruction techniques and postoperative bracing regimen were similar between smokers and nonsmokers. Osseous union was judged on dynamic lateral radiographs made at least two years following surgery, and clinical outcomes were judged on the basis of pain level, medication usage, and daily activity level.

RESULTS: Of the forty smokers who had undergone multilevel interbody grafting, twenty had a solid fusion at all levels, whereas sixty-nine of the ninety-one nonsmokers had solid fusion at all levels (p < 0.02; chi-square test). This difference was especially pronounced among patients who had had a two-level interbody grafting procedure (p < 0.002; chi-square test). With the numbers available, there was no difference in the rate of fusion between smokers (fourteen of fifteen) and nonsmokers (forty-one of forty-four) who had undergone corpectomy and strut-grafting, as 93% of both groups had a solid union. In addition, clinical outcomes were significantly worse among smokers when compared with nonsmokers (p < 0.03; rank-sum analysis).

CONCLUSIONS: Smoking had a significant negative impact on healing and clinical recovery after multilevel anterior cervical decompression and fusion with autogenous interbody graft for radiculopathy or myelopathy. Since smoking had no apparent effect upon the healing of autogenous iliac-crest or fibular strut grafts, subtotal corpectomy and autogenous strut-grafting should be considered when a multilevel anterior cervical decompression and fusion is performed in patients who are unable or unwilling to stop smoking prior to surgical treatment.

METHODS: A consecutive series of 374 patients who had a total of 409 anterior cervical arthrodeses for the treatment of cervical spondylosis with radiculopathy or myelopathy, or both, were followed for a maximum of twenty-one years after the operation. The annual incidence of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease was defined as the percentage of patients who had been disease-free at the start of a given year of follow-up in whom new disease developed during that year. The prevalence was defined as the percentage of all patients in whom symptomatic adjacent-segment disease developed within a given period of follow-up. The natural history of the disease was predicted with use of a Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis. The hypothesis that new disease at an adjacent level is more likely to develop following a multilevel arthrodesis than it is following a single-level arthrodesis was tested with logistic regression.

RESULTS: Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease occurred at a relatively constant incidence of 2.9 percent per year (range, 0.0 to 4.8 percent per year) during the ten years after the operation. Survivorship analysis predicted that 25.6 percent of the patients (95 percent confidence interval, 20 to 32 percent) who had an anterior cervical arthrodesis would have new disease at an adjacent level within ten years after the operation. There were highly significant differences among the motion segments with regard to the likelihood of symptomatic adjacent-segment disease (p

CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease may affect more than one-fourth of all patients within ten years after an anterior cervical arthrodesis. A single-level arthrodesis involving the fifth or sixth cervical vertebra and preexisting radiographic evidence of degeneration at adjacent levels appear to be the greatest risk factors for new disease. Therefore, we believe that all degenerated segments causing radiculopathy or myelopathy should be included in an anterior cervical arthrodesis. Although our findings suggest that symptomatic adjacent-segment disease is the result of progressive spondylosis, patients should be informed of the substantial possibility that new disease will develop at an adjacent level over the long term.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

METHODS: Surgical candidates with a history of at least 12 weeks of symptoms and spinal stenosis without spondylolisthesis (as confirmed on imaging) were enrolled in either a randomized cohort or an observational cohort at 13 U.S. spine clinics. Treatment was decompressive surgery or usual nonsurgical care. The primary outcomes were measures of bodily pain and physical function on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) and the modified Oswestry Disability Index at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years.

RESULTS: A total of 289 patients were enrolled in the randomized cohort, and 365 patients were enrolled in the observational cohort. At 2 years, 67% of patients who were randomly assigned to surgery had undergone surgery, whereas 43% of those who were randomly assigned to receive nonsurgical care had also undergone surgery. Despite the high level of nonadherence, the intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized cohort showed a significant treatment effect favoring surgery on the SF-36 scale for bodily pain, with a mean difference in change from baseline of 7.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 14.1); however, there was no significant difference in scores on physical function or on the Oswestry Disability Index. The as-treated analysis, which combined both cohorts and was adjusted for potential confounders, showed a significant advantage for surgery by 3 months for all primary outcomes; these changes remained significant at 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS: In the combined as-treated analysis, patients who underwent surgery showed significantly more improvement in all primary outcomes than did patients who were treated nonsurgically. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000411 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

BACKGROUND: The Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY) was designed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to measure, compare, and analyze the burden of various diseases. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on the assessment of burden of traumatic spinal fracture (TSF) in an Iranian community. We estimated burden of TSF includes both isolated (iTSF) and associated injuries related to traumatic spinal fractures (aTSF) in Tehran, the capital of Iran, for the year 2006-2007 using DALYs.

METHODS: Burden of TSF was estimated based on information provided by the national data on Iranian trauma, data from the WHO, and literature data using disease modeling (DISMOD). Incidence of TSF and associated injuries were obtained from two population based studies and National Trauma Data Bank in Iran, while duration, and relative risk of mortality (RRM) were obtained from WHO data and the literature. The incidence, duration, and relative risk of mortality (RRM) were used to calculate DALY for TSF. To calculate DALY, the years of life lost because of premature mortality (YLL) were added to the number of years lost because of disability (YLD). DALYs were calculated separately for both iTSF and aTSF. In-hospital YLD and post-hospital YLL for iTSF and in-hospital YLL and YLD were calculated for aTSFs.

RESULTS: TSF incidence was 16.35 (95%CI: 3.4-48.0) per 100,000. The incidence of TSF in males was more than twice that of females. The largest DALYs were seen in 15-29 years. The highest burden of associated injuries of TSF was related to spinal cord and head injury. DALYs for aTSF were estimated to be 2496.9 years (32.0 DALY/100,000 population). The YLD and YLL were almost similar. Total DALY for iTSF and aTSF was 2568.9 years (32.92 DALY/100,000 population). Based on the risk extracted from the literature, post-hospital increased risk of mortality was increased by 1318 DALY (16.89 DALY/100,000 population).

CONCLUSION: This study showed a considerable burden for TSFs mainly due to associated injuries and increased lifelong RRM in patients with TSF.

BACKGROUND: With greater technological developments in the care of musculoskeletal patients, we are entering an era of rapid change in our understanding of the pathophysiology of traumatic injury; assessment and treatment of polytrauma and related disorders; and treatment outcomes. In developed countries, it is very likely that we will have algorithms for the approach to many musculoskeletal disorders as we strive for the best approach with which to evaluate treatment success. This debate article is founded on predictions of future health care needs that are solely based on the subjective inputs and opinions of the world's leading orthopedic surgeons.Hence, it functions more as a forum-based rather than a scientific-based presentation. This exposé was designed to stimulate debate about the emerging patients' needs in the future predicted by leading orthopedic surgeons that provide some hint as to the right direction for orthopedic care and outlines the important topics in this area.

DISCUSSION: The authors aim to provide a general overview of orthopedic care in a typical developed country setting. However, the regional diversity of the United States and every other industrialized nation should be considered as a cofactor that may vary to some extent from our vision of improved orthopedic and trauma care of the musculoskeletal patient on an interregional level.In this forum, we will define the current and future barriers in developed countries related to musculoskeletal trauma, total joint arthroplasty, patient safety and injuries related to military conflicts, all problems that will only increase as populations age, become more mobile, and deal with political crisis.

SUMMARY: It is very likely that the future will bring a more biological approach to fracture care with less invasive surgical procedures, flexible implants, and more rapid rehabilitation methods. This international consortium challenges the trauma and implants community to develop outcome registries that are managed through health care offices and to prepare effectively for the many future challenges that lie in store for those who treat musculoskeletal conditions.

METHODS: Inter-observer agreement was measured for classification and treatment of PHFs. A total of sixteen fractures were imaged by plain X-ray (scapular AP and lateral), CT scan, and 3D CT reconstruction, yielding 48 randomized image sets. The observers consisted of 16 orthopaedic surgeons (4 upper extremity specialists, 4 general orthopedists, 4 senior residents, 4 junior residents), who were asked to classify each image set using the Neer system, and recommend treatment from four pre-selected choices. The results were evaluated by kappa reliability coefficients for inter-observer agreement between all imaging modalities and sub-divided by: fracture type and observer experience.

RESULTS: All kappa values ranged from "slight" to "moderate" (k = .03 to .57) agreement. For overall classification and treatment, no advanced imaging modality had significantly higher scores than X-ray. However, when sub-divided by experience, 3D reconstruction and CT scan both had significantly higher agreement on classification than X-ray, among upper extremity specialists. Agreement on treatment among upper extremity specialists was best with CT scan. No other experience sub-division had significantly different kappa scores. When sub-divided by fracture type, CT scan and 3D reconstruction had higher scores than X-ray for classification only in 4-part fractures. Agreement on treatment of 4 part fractures was best with CT scan. No other fracture type sub-division had significantly different kappa scores.

CONCLUSIONS: Although 3D reconstruction showed a slight improvement in the inter-observer agreement for fracture classification among specialized upper extremity surgeons compared to all imaging modalities, fracture types, and surgeon experience; overall all imaging modalities continue to yield low inter-observer agreement for both classification and treatment regardless of physician experience.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether an INR greater than 2 protects against pulmonary embolism.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 9112 patients with 10,122 admissions for joint arthroplasty between 2004 and 2008. All patients received warfarin for prophylaxis, aiming for an INR level of 2 or lower. We assessed 609 of 10,122 admissions (6%) for pulmonary embolism using CT, ventilation/perfusion scan, or pulmonary angiography, and 163 of 10,122 admissions (1.6%) had a proven pulmonary embolism.

RESULTS: Fifteen of 163 admissions (9%) had an INR greater than 2 before or on the day of workup compared to 35 of 446 admissions (8%) who were negative. We observed no difference between the INR values in patients with or without pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS: We found no clinically relevant difference in the INR values of patients who did or did not develop pulmonary embolism. The risk of bleeding should be weighed against the risk of pulmonary embolism when determining an appropriate target INR for each patient, as an INR less than 2 may reduce the risk of bleeding while still protecting against pulmonary embolism.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.