Methods: Retrospective study of 120 patients (223 fusion levels) who underwent ACDF between 2016 and 2021. Spacer types included structural allografts, PEEK, titanium, and ceramic cages. Radiographic measurements of subsidence were obtained from immediate (≤8 weeks) and long-term (≥6 months) postoperative lateral cervical radiographs. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess the association between spacer type and subsidence, adjusting for patient demographics, surgical levels, smoking history, and osteopenia. Results: The mean age of patients was 53.6±10.9 years and 41.7% were male; 47.5% had a smoking history and 20.8% had osteopenia. There were 38 one-level (31.7%), 61 two-level (50.8%), and 21 three-level fusions (17.5%). Spacer distribution included 62 structural allografts (51.7%), 27 PEEK (22.5%), 20 titanium (16.7%), and 11 ceramic (9.2%) cages. On multivariable analysis, PEEK cages were associated with significantly less anterior subsidence (β=−0.972, p <0.001) and posterior subsidence (β=−0.666, p=0.001) compared to allografts, and greater preservation of segmental lordosis (β=1.393, p=0.024). No significant differences in subsidence were found between titanium, ceramic, and allograft spacers. Conclusions PEEK cages showed reduced subsidence and better preservation of cervical lordosis compared to structural allografts, while titanium and ceramic cages did not differ significantly from structural allografts. These results suggest that PEEK cages may help minimize subsidence-related complications and improve outcomes.

Objective: : Posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF) is a minimally invasive surgical technique for treating cervical radiculopathy. Traditionally, PECF is performed under general anesthesia in the prone position, but concerns over anesthesia-related complications have led to the exploration of local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position as an alternative. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes, safety, and efficacy of PECF performed under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position versus general anesthesia in the prone position. Methods: : We conducted a retrospective analysis of 13 patients who underwent PECF under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position. The outcomes were compared with data from 357 patients across eight studies who underwent PECF under general anesthesia in the prone position. Outcomes measures included Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry disability index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), minimally clinically important difference (MCID), and complications. Results: : Patients in the local anesthesia group demonstrated significant reductions in neck pain (VAS-N : 4.93±1.32 to 1.49±0.52, p<0.001) and arm pain (VAS-A : 8.69±0.75 to 1.85±1.46, p<0.001), achieving a mean pain reduction of 78.8%. These improvements were comparable to the general anesthesia group (VAS-N : 4.80 to 1.28; VAS-A : 6.71 to 1.23). Functional outcomes improved significantly in both groups, with ODI scores improving from 54.76% to 9.82% locally and from 39.92% to 9.62% in the general group. Although LOS was slightly longer for the local anesthesia group (5.85±3.20 vs. 4.81±2.17 days, p=0.18), post-procedure monitoring time was significantly shorter (3.2 vs. 7.4 hours, p<0.001). The local anesthesia group reported zero complications (0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0–22.8%) compared to an 8.68% complication rate (95% CI, 5.8–11.6%) in the general anesthesia cohort (p=0.612). Conclusion : PECF under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position provides comparably effective pain relief and functional improvement comparable to general anesthesia, though the difference in complication rates was not statistically significant and requires larger studies for confirmation. This technique may be particularly advantageous for patients at higher risk for anesthesia-related complications. Further research is warranted to validate these findings in larger, prospective studies.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Endoscopic spine surgery (ESS) is growing in popularity worldwide. An expanding body of literature demonstrates rapid functional recovery with reduced morbidity compared to open techniques. Both full endoscopic spine surgery, or uniportal endoscopy, and unilateral biportal endoscopy (UBE) can be employed in conjunction with various navigation and enabling technologies for assistance with localization of anatomic orientation and assessment of the intraoperative target spinal pathology. This review article describes various navigation technologies in ESS, including 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopic imaging, 2D fluoroscopic navigation, 3-dimensional C-arm navigation, augmented reality, and spinal robotics. Employment of enabling navigation and emerging technology with the registration of patient-specific anatomy enables clear delineation of anatomic landmarks and facilitation of a successful procedure. Additionally, avoidance of common pitfalls during use of navigation systems in ESS is discussed in this review.

Objective: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT’s 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. Methods: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. Results: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT’s GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model’s performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model’s responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

Objective: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT’s 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. Methods: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. Results: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT’s GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model’s performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model’s responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

Objective: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT’s 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. Methods: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. Results: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT’s GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model’s performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model’s responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.