2.Intraoperative Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Navigation Versus 2-Dimensional Fluoroscopy in Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Comparative Analysis
Gianluca VADALÀ ; Giuseppe Francesco PAPALIA ; Fabrizio RUSSO ; Paolo BRIGATO ; Luca AMBROSIO ; Rocco PAPALIA ; Vincenzo DENARO
Neurospine 2024;21(1):76-82
Objective:
Several studies have advocated for the higher accuracy of transpedicular screw placement under cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) compared to conventional 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy. The superiority of navigation systems in perioperative and postoperative outcomes remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare operative time, screw placement time and accuracy, total radiation dose, perioperative and postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent transpedicular screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) using intraoperative CBCT navigation versus 2D fluoroscopy.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients affected by single-level DLS who underwent posterior lumbar instrumentation with transpedicular screw fixation using surgical CBCT navigation (NV group) or 2D fluoroscopy-assisted freehand technique (FH group). Demographics, screw placement time and accuracy, operative time, total radiation dose, intraoperative blood loss, screw revision rate, complications, and length of stay (LOS) were assessed.
Results:
The study included a total of 30 patients (NV group: n = 15; FH group: n = 15). The mean screw placement time, operative time, and LOS were significantly reduced in the NV group compared to the FH group (p < 0.05). The total radiation dose was significantly higher in the NV group (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found in terms of blood loss and postoperative complications.
Conclusion
This study suggests that intraoperative CBCT-navigated single-level lumbar transpedicular screw fixation is superior in terms of mean screw placement time, operative time, and LOS compared to 2D fluoroscopy, despite a higher intraoperative radiation exposure.
3.Surgeon Preference Regarding Wound Dressing Management in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: An AO Spine Global Cross-Sectional Study
Luca AMBROSIO ; Gianluca VADALÀ ; Javad TAVAKOLI ; Laura SCARAMUZZO ; Giovanni Barbanti BRODANO ; Stephen J. LEWIS ; So KATO ; Samuel K. CHO ; S. Tim YOON ; Ho-Joong KIM ; Matthew F. GARY ; Vincenzo DENARO ;
Neurospine 2024;21(1):204-211
Objective:
To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions.
Methods:
A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed.
Results:
Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.
5.Intraoperative Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Navigation Versus 2-Dimensional Fluoroscopy in Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Comparative Analysis
Gianluca VADALÀ ; Giuseppe Francesco PAPALIA ; Fabrizio RUSSO ; Paolo BRIGATO ; Luca AMBROSIO ; Rocco PAPALIA ; Vincenzo DENARO
Neurospine 2024;21(1):76-82
Objective:
Several studies have advocated for the higher accuracy of transpedicular screw placement under cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) compared to conventional 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy. The superiority of navigation systems in perioperative and postoperative outcomes remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare operative time, screw placement time and accuracy, total radiation dose, perioperative and postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent transpedicular screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) using intraoperative CBCT navigation versus 2D fluoroscopy.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients affected by single-level DLS who underwent posterior lumbar instrumentation with transpedicular screw fixation using surgical CBCT navigation (NV group) or 2D fluoroscopy-assisted freehand technique (FH group). Demographics, screw placement time and accuracy, operative time, total radiation dose, intraoperative blood loss, screw revision rate, complications, and length of stay (LOS) were assessed.
Results:
The study included a total of 30 patients (NV group: n = 15; FH group: n = 15). The mean screw placement time, operative time, and LOS were significantly reduced in the NV group compared to the FH group (p < 0.05). The total radiation dose was significantly higher in the NV group (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found in terms of blood loss and postoperative complications.
Conclusion
This study suggests that intraoperative CBCT-navigated single-level lumbar transpedicular screw fixation is superior in terms of mean screw placement time, operative time, and LOS compared to 2D fluoroscopy, despite a higher intraoperative radiation exposure.
6.Surgeon Preference Regarding Wound Dressing Management in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: An AO Spine Global Cross-Sectional Study
Luca AMBROSIO ; Gianluca VADALÀ ; Javad TAVAKOLI ; Laura SCARAMUZZO ; Giovanni Barbanti BRODANO ; Stephen J. LEWIS ; So KATO ; Samuel K. CHO ; S. Tim YOON ; Ho-Joong KIM ; Matthew F. GARY ; Vincenzo DENARO ;
Neurospine 2024;21(1):204-211
Objective:
To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions.
Methods:
A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed.
Results:
Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.
8.Intraoperative Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Navigation Versus 2-Dimensional Fluoroscopy in Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Comparative Analysis
Gianluca VADALÀ ; Giuseppe Francesco PAPALIA ; Fabrizio RUSSO ; Paolo BRIGATO ; Luca AMBROSIO ; Rocco PAPALIA ; Vincenzo DENARO
Neurospine 2024;21(1):76-82
Objective:
Several studies have advocated for the higher accuracy of transpedicular screw placement under cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) compared to conventional 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy. The superiority of navigation systems in perioperative and postoperative outcomes remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare operative time, screw placement time and accuracy, total radiation dose, perioperative and postoperative outcomes in patients who underwent transpedicular screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) using intraoperative CBCT navigation versus 2D fluoroscopy.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients affected by single-level DLS who underwent posterior lumbar instrumentation with transpedicular screw fixation using surgical CBCT navigation (NV group) or 2D fluoroscopy-assisted freehand technique (FH group). Demographics, screw placement time and accuracy, operative time, total radiation dose, intraoperative blood loss, screw revision rate, complications, and length of stay (LOS) were assessed.
Results:
The study included a total of 30 patients (NV group: n = 15; FH group: n = 15). The mean screw placement time, operative time, and LOS were significantly reduced in the NV group compared to the FH group (p < 0.05). The total radiation dose was significantly higher in the NV group (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found in terms of blood loss and postoperative complications.
Conclusion
This study suggests that intraoperative CBCT-navigated single-level lumbar transpedicular screw fixation is superior in terms of mean screw placement time, operative time, and LOS compared to 2D fluoroscopy, despite a higher intraoperative radiation exposure.
9.Surgeon Preference Regarding Wound Dressing Management in Lumbar Fusion Surgery: An AO Spine Global Cross-Sectional Study
Luca AMBROSIO ; Gianluca VADALÀ ; Javad TAVAKOLI ; Laura SCARAMUZZO ; Giovanni Barbanti BRODANO ; Stephen J. LEWIS ; So KATO ; Samuel K. CHO ; S. Tim YOON ; Ho-Joong KIM ; Matthew F. GARY ; Vincenzo DENARO ;
Neurospine 2024;21(1):204-211
Objective:
To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions.
Methods:
A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed.
Results:
Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001).
Conclusion
Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.
10.Importance of an Integrated Assessment of Functional Disability and Work Ability in Workers Affected by Low Back Pain
Fabrizio RUSSO ; Cristina Di TECCO ; Simone RUSSO ; Giorgia PETRUCCI ; Gianluca VADALÀ ; Vincenzo DENARO ; Sergio IAVICOLI
Safety and Health at Work 2024;15(1):66-72
Background:
This study examines the relationship between functional disability and work ability in workers affected by low back pain (LBP) through an analysis of correlations between the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Work Ability Index (WAI). The role of personal and work factors on functional disability/work ability levels has also been studied. LBP is the most common musculoskeletal problem and a major disabling health problem worldwide. Its etiology is multifactorial. Multidisciplinary approaches may help reduce the burden of pain and disability and improve job continuity and reintegration at work.
Methods:
A cohort of 264 patients affected by LBP from an Italian outpatient clinic were included in a clinical diagnostic/therapeutic trial aiming at rehabilitation and return to work through an integrated investigation protocol. Data were collected during the first medical examination using anamnestic and clinical tools. The final sample is composed of 252 patients, 57.1% man, 44.0 % blue collars, 46.4% with the high school degree, 45.6% married.
Results:
WAI and ODI reported a negative and fair correlation (r = –0.454; p = .000). Workers with acute LBP symptoms have a higher probability of severe disability than those with chronic LBP symptoms. White collars without depressive symptoms reported higher work ability – even in chronic disability conditions-than those with depressive symptoms.
Conclusion
The study found that ODI and WAI have a convergent validity and this suggests that the two tools measure capture distinctive aspects of disability related to personal, environmental, and occupational characteristics. The most important and modifiable prognostic factors found for ODI and WAI were depressive symptoms, workday absence, and intensity of back pain. The study also found a mild association between age and ODI. The study's findings highlight the importance of using a multidisciplinary approach to manage and prevent disability due to LBP.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail