The magnitude and potential duration of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is something that most doctors currently in practice have yet to experience. While considerable information regarding COVID-19 is being published every day, it is challenging to filter out the most relevant or appropriate information for our individual practice. The Spine Society of Singapore convened via a teleconference on April 24, 2020 to collaborate on a national level and share collective wisdom in order to tackle the ongoing crisis. In the teleconference, 13 spine surgeons from across various hospitals in Singapore constituted the panel of experts. The following topics were discussed: repurposing of surgeons, continuity of spine services, introduction of telemedicine, triaging of spinal surgeries, preoperative testing, new challenges in performing spine surgery, and preparing for the post-pandemic era. While some issues required only the sharing of best practices, the Delphi panel method was adopted to form a consensus on others. Existing spine specific triage guidelines were debated and a locally accepted set of guidelines was established. Although preoperative testing is currently not performed routinely, the panel voted in favor of its implementation because they concluded that it is vital to protect themselves, their colleagues, and their patients. Solutions to operating room specific concerns were also discussed. This article reflects the opinions and insights shared during this meeting and reviews the evidence relevant to the issues that were raised. The rapid consensus reached during the teleconference has enabled us to be concerted, and thus stronger, in our national efforts to provide the best standard of care via our spine services in these challenging times. We believe that this article will provide some guidance for addressing COVID-19 in spine surgery and encourage other national/regional societies to conduct similar discussions that would help their navigation of this pandemic.

Methods: We recruited young patients with nonspecific low back pain for <3 months, who were otherwise healthy. Each patient had EOS images taken in the flexed, erect and extended positions, in random order, as well as magnetic resonance imaging to assess for disk degeneration. Angular and disk height measurements were performed and compared in all three postures using paired t-tests. Changes in disk height relative to the erect posture were caclulated to determine the alignment-specific load-bearing area of each FSU. Results: Eighty-three patients (415 lumbar intervertebral disks) were studied. Significant alignment changes were found between all three postures at L1/2, and only between erect and flexion at the other FSUs. Disk height measurements showed that the neutral axis of the spine, marked by zones where disk heights did not change, varied between postures and was level specific. The load-bearing areas were also found to be more anterior in flexion and more posterior in extension, with the erect spine resembling the extended spine to a greater extent. Conclusions Load-bearing areas of the lumbar spine are sagittal alignment-specific and level-specific. This may imply that, depending on the surgical realignment strategy, attention should be paid not just to placing an intervertebral cage “as anterior as possible” for generating lordosis, but also on optimizing load-bearing in the lumbar spine.