Objective: : This study aims to evaluate and compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with metastatic spinal tumors who underwent either short-segment fixation with anterior support or long-segment fixation with a separation surgery in the thoracic or lumbar spine. Methods: : We conducted a retrospective analysis of adult patients who were treated surgically for spinal metastases in the thoracic or lumbar spine at a single tertiary referral center between April 2014 and December 2022. Surgical treatments included spinal cord decompression, short-segment fixation with maximal circumferential debulking of the lytic tumor portion and anterior support, or longsegment fixation without anterior support, followed by separation surgery and posterolateral fusion. We compared the two fixation strategies based on patient demographics, preoperative diagnoses, surgical data, neurological assessments, and changes in segmental Cobb angles immediately after surgery, and at the final follow-up. Results: : A total of 91 patients were included (short-segment, 44; long-segment, 47). No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding age, sex, comorbidities, primary cancer location, postoperative complications, or reoperation rates. Furthermore, no significant differences in the sagittal Cobb angles, including global angle (thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis) and segmental angle were noted from the preop to the final follow-up. Compared to traditional long-segment fixation, short-segment fixation with anterior support significantly improved neurological outcomes in the thoracic region and reduced the length of hospital stay. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding complications or other clinical outcomes. Conclusion : Short-segment fixation is comparable to long-segment fixation in the management of thoracolumbar metastatic spinal tumors, with no significant differences in radiographic outcomes. However, short-segment fixation provides the added advantages of improved neurological outcomes in the thoracic region and shorter hospital stays.

Objective: The cervical spine presents challenges in treating metastatic cervical spinal tumors (MCSTs). Although the efficacy of cervical pedicle screw placement (CPS) has been well established, its use in combination with 5.5-mm rods for MCST has not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CPS combined with 5.5-mm rods in treating MCST and compare it with that of CPS combined with traditional 3.5-mm rods. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 58 patients with MCST who underwent posterior cervical spinal fusion surgery by a single surgeon between March 2012 and December 2022. Data included demographics, surgical details, imaging results, numerical rating scale score for neck pain, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire responses. Results: Preoperative Spinal Instability Neoplastic Scores were significantly higher in the 5.5-mm rod group. Greater kyphotic changes in the index vertebra were observed in the 3.5-mm rod group. Neck pain reduction was significantly better in the 5.5-mm rod group. Conclusion CPS with 5.5-mm rods provides superior biomechanical stability and effectively resists forward bending momentum in posterior MCST fusion surgery. These findings support the use of 5.5-mm rods to enhance surgical outcomes.

Objective: The cervical spine presents challenges in treating metastatic cervical spinal tumors (MCSTs). Although the efficacy of cervical pedicle screw placement (CPS) has been well established, its use in combination with 5.5-mm rods for MCST has not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CPS combined with 5.5-mm rods in treating MCST and compare it with that of CPS combined with traditional 3.5-mm rods. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 58 patients with MCST who underwent posterior cervical spinal fusion surgery by a single surgeon between March 2012 and December 2022. Data included demographics, surgical details, imaging results, numerical rating scale score for neck pain, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire responses. Results: Preoperative Spinal Instability Neoplastic Scores were significantly higher in the 5.5-mm rod group. Greater kyphotic changes in the index vertebra were observed in the 3.5-mm rod group. Neck pain reduction was significantly better in the 5.5-mm rod group. Conclusion CPS with 5.5-mm rods provides superior biomechanical stability and effectively resists forward bending momentum in posterior MCST fusion surgery. These findings support the use of 5.5-mm rods to enhance surgical outcomes.

Objective: The cervical spine presents challenges in treating metastatic cervical spinal tumors (MCSTs). Although the efficacy of cervical pedicle screw placement (CPS) has been well established, its use in combination with 5.5-mm rods for MCST has not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CPS combined with 5.5-mm rods in treating MCST and compare it with that of CPS combined with traditional 3.5-mm rods. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 58 patients with MCST who underwent posterior cervical spinal fusion surgery by a single surgeon between March 2012 and December 2022. Data included demographics, surgical details, imaging results, numerical rating scale score for neck pain, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire responses. Results: Preoperative Spinal Instability Neoplastic Scores were significantly higher in the 5.5-mm rod group. Greater kyphotic changes in the index vertebra were observed in the 3.5-mm rod group. Neck pain reduction was significantly better in the 5.5-mm rod group. Conclusion CPS with 5.5-mm rods provides superior biomechanical stability and effectively resists forward bending momentum in posterior MCST fusion surgery. These findings support the use of 5.5-mm rods to enhance surgical outcomes.

The integrity of the high cervical spine, the transition zone from the brainstem to the spinal cord, is crucial for survival and daily life. The region protects the enclosed neurovascular structure and allows a substantial portion of the head motion. Injuries of the high cervical spine are frequent, and the fractures of the C2 vertebra account for approximately 17–25% of acute cervical fractures. We review the two major types of C2 vertebral fractures, odontoid fracture and Hangman’s fracture. For both types of fractures, favorable outcomes could be obtained if the delicately selected conservative treatment is performed. In odontoid fractures, as the most common fracture on the C2 vertebrae, anterior screw fixation is considered first for type II fractures, and C1–2 fusion is suggested when nonunion is a concern or occurs. Hangman's fractures are the second most common fracture. Many stable extension type I and II fractures can be treated with external immobilization, whereas the predominant flexion type IIA and III fractures require surgical stabilization. No result proves that either anterior or posterior surgery is superior, and the surgeon should decide on the surgical method after careful consideration according to each clinical situation. This review will briefly describe the basic principles and current treatment concepts of C2 fractures.

Objective: The cervical spine presents challenges in treating metastatic cervical spinal tumors (MCSTs). Although the efficacy of cervical pedicle screw placement (CPS) has been well established, its use in combination with 5.5-mm rods for MCST has not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CPS combined with 5.5-mm rods in treating MCST and compare it with that of CPS combined with traditional 3.5-mm rods. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 58 patients with MCST who underwent posterior cervical spinal fusion surgery by a single surgeon between March 2012 and December 2022. Data included demographics, surgical details, imaging results, numerical rating scale score for neck pain, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire responses. Results: Preoperative Spinal Instability Neoplastic Scores were significantly higher in the 5.5-mm rod group. Greater kyphotic changes in the index vertebra were observed in the 3.5-mm rod group. Neck pain reduction was significantly better in the 5.5-mm rod group. Conclusion CPS with 5.5-mm rods provides superior biomechanical stability and effectively resists forward bending momentum in posterior MCST fusion surgery. These findings support the use of 5.5-mm rods to enhance surgical outcomes.

Objective: The cervical spine presents challenges in treating metastatic cervical spinal tumors (MCSTs). Although the efficacy of cervical pedicle screw placement (CPS) has been well established, its use in combination with 5.5-mm rods for MCST has not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CPS combined with 5.5-mm rods in treating MCST and compare it with that of CPS combined with traditional 3.5-mm rods. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 58 patients with MCST who underwent posterior cervical spinal fusion surgery by a single surgeon between March 2012 and December 2022. Data included demographics, surgical details, imaging results, numerical rating scale score for neck pain, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire responses. Results: Preoperative Spinal Instability Neoplastic Scores were significantly higher in the 5.5-mm rod group. Greater kyphotic changes in the index vertebra were observed in the 3.5-mm rod group. Neck pain reduction was significantly better in the 5.5-mm rod group. Conclusion CPS with 5.5-mm rods provides superior biomechanical stability and effectively resists forward bending momentum in posterior MCST fusion surgery. These findings support the use of 5.5-mm rods to enhance surgical outcomes.

Spinal epidural arteriovenous fistula (SEDAVF) is a rare vascular malformation. Due to the mass effect of enlarged epidural veins and venous hypertension, progressive radiculopathy and myelopathy are likely to occur. A 33-year-old female presented with right upper extremity weakness for a month. The cause of this symptom was a SEDAVF, which was located near the C5-6-7 foramens and compressed the nerve roots. In the absence of intradural venous drainage, endovascular treatment is often difficult because of the large venous pouch. We performed endovascular trapping of the vertebral artery (VA) and loose packing of the coil material on the AVF to minimize mass effects. Immediately after embolization, the fistula was occluded, but a small new feeder vessel developed a day later. An n-butyl cyanoacrylate embolization was performed, and the fistula was successfully occluded.

The prevalence and medical costs of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) are on the rise. However, a concrete evidence-based treatment guideline has not yet been established. Despite that numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were performed, the study design and outcome measurement were heterogeneous, and the results were not unified. The purpose of this review is to compare the results of high level-evidence studies to provide a background for evidence-based OVCF treatment. Many reports showed that vertebroplasty has better clinical outcomes than non-surgical treatment for OVCF, but the results of three double-blinded RCTs with the highest level of evidence did not show a significant difference between vertebroplasty and sham procedure. Whether undergoing surgical or non-surgical treatment, OVCF patient management should be started by managing osteoporosis first. Meanwhile, in the results of RCTs related to the comparison of conservative treatment modalities, the benefit of braces and a specific analgesic prescription protocol was also unclear. The presented results of each clinical trial were generally inconsistent and may not be appropriate in all situations. Any decision by clinicians to apply this evidence must be made considering individual patients and available resources. At present, controversy remains about the best treatment modality for OVCF. Large, multicenter, placebo/sham-controlled trials are needed to address this gap and establish strong evidence-based guidelines.

Objective: : To compare the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with wide facetectomy in the treatment of parallel-shaped bony foraminal stenosis (FS). Methods: : Thirty-six patients underwent surgery due to one-or-two levels of parallel-shaped cervical FS. ACDF was performed in 16 patients, and PCF using CPS was performed in 20 patients. All patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Standardized outcome measures such as Numeric rating scale (NRS) score for armeck pain and Neck disability index (NDI) were evaluated. Cervical radiographs were used to compare the C2–7 Cobb’s angle, segmental angle, and fusion rates. Results: : There was an improvement in NRS scores after both approaches for radicular arm pain (mean change -6.78 vs. -8.14, p=0.012), neck pain (mean change -1.67 vs. -4.36, p=0.038), and NDI score (-19.69 vs. -18.15, p=0.794). The segmental angle improvement was greater in the ACDF group than in the posterior group (9.4°±2.7° vs. 3.3°±5.1°, p=0.004). However, there was no significant difference in C2–7 Cobb angle between groups (16.2°±7.9° vs. 14.8°±8.5°, p=0.142). As a complication, dysphagia was observed in one case of the ACDF group. Conclusion : In the treatment of parallel-shaped bony FS up to two surgical levels, segmental angle improvement was more favorable in patients who underwent ACDF. However, PCF with wide facetectomy using CPS should be considered as an alternative treatment option in cases where the anterior approach is burdensome.