Dataset Information

Prospective surgical solutions in degenerative spine: spinal simulation for optimal choice of implant and targeted device development.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The most important goal of surgical treatment for spinal degeneration, in addition to eliminating the underlying pathology, is to preserve the biomechanically relevant structures. If degeneration destroys biomechanics, the single segment must either be surgically stabilized or functionally replaced by prosthetic restoration. This study examines how software-based presurgical simulation affects device selection and device development.

Methods

Based on videofluoroscopic motion recordings and pixel-precise processing of the segmental motion patterns, a software-based surrogate functional model was validated. It characterizes the individual movement of spinal segments relative to corresponding cervical or lumbar spine sections. The single segment-based motion of cervical or lumbar spine of individual patients can be simulated, if size-calibrated functional X-rays of the relevant spine section are available. The software plug-in "biokinemetric triangle" has been then integrated into this software to perform comparative segmental motion analyses before and after treatment in two cervical device studies: the correlation of implant-induced changes in the movement geometry and patient-related outcome was examined to investigate, whether this surrogate model could provide a guideline for implant selection and future implant development.

Results

For its validation in 253 randomly selected patients requiring single-level cervical (n=122) or lumbar (n=131) implant-supported restoration, the biokinemetric triangle provided significant pattern recognition in comparable investigations (p<0.05) and the software detected device-specific changes after implant-treatment (p<0.01). Subsequently, 104 patients, who underwent cervical discectomy, showed a correlation of the neck disability index with implant-specific changes in their segmental movement geometry: the preoperative simulation supported the best choice of surgical implants, since the best outcome resulted from restricting the extent of the movement of adjacent segments influenced by the technical mechanism of the respective device (p<0.05).

Conclusions

The implant restoration resulted in best outcome which modified intersegmental communication in a way that the segments adjacent to the implanted segment undergo less change in their own movement geometry. Based on our software-surrogate, individualized devices could be created that slow down further degeneration of adjacent segments by influencing the intersegmental communication of the motion segments.

SUBMITTER: Salchow-Gille M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8668033 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTraditionally, technical proficiency for spinal anesthesia has been assessed using observational scales such as global rating scales or task specific checklists. However more objective metrics are required in order to improve novice's training programs. The aim of this study is to validate the hand motion analysis of the Imperial College Surgical Assessment Device (ICSAD) in a simulated model of spinal anesthesia.MethodsThree groups of physicians with different levels of experience were video recorded performing a spinal anesthesia in a simulated lumbar puncture torso. Participants' technical performance was assessed with ICSAD, a Global Rating Scale (GRS) and a specific Checklist. Differences between the 3 groups were determined by Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons. Spearman correlation coefficient between ICSAD variables and the scores of the observational scales were calculated to establish concurrent validity.ResultsThirty subjects participated in the study: ten novice (first year residents), 10 intermediate (third year residents) and 10 experts (attending anesthesiologists). GRS scores were significantly higher in experts, than intermediates and novices. Regarding total path length, number of movements and procedural time measured with ICSAD, all groups had significant differences between them (p = 0.026, p = 0.045 and p = 0.005 respectively). Spearman correlation coefficient was -0,46 (p = 0.012) between total path length measured with ICSAD and GRS scores.ConclusionsThis is the first validation study of ICSAD as an assessment tool for spinal anesthesia in a simulated model. Using ICSAD can discriminate proficiency between expert and novices and correlates with previously validated GRS. Its use in the assessment of spinal anesthesia proficiency provides complementary data to existing tools. Our results could be used to design future training programs with reliable goals to accomplish.

Project description:AimsPatients may present with concurrent symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, with surgical treatment being indicated for both. Whether arthroplasty of the hip or spinal surgery should be performed first remains uncertain.Materials and methodsClinical scenarios were devised for a survey asking the preferred order of surgery and the rationale for this decision for five fictional patients with both OA of the hip and degenerative lumbar disorders. These were symptomatic OA of the hip and: 1) lumbar spinal stenosis with neurological claudication; 2) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with leg pain; 3) lumbar disc herniation with leg weakness; 4) lumbar scoliosis with back pain; and 5) thoracolumbar disc herniation with myelopathy. This survey was sent to 110 members of The Hip Society and 101 members of the Scoliosis Research Society. The choices of the surgeons were compared among scenarios and between surgical specialties using the chi-squared test. The free-text comments were analyzed using text-mining.ResultsResponses were received from 51 hip surgeons (46%) and 37 spine surgeons (37%). The percentages of hip surgeons recommending 'hip first' differed significantly among scenarios: 59% for scenario 1; 73% for scenario 2; 47% for scenario 3; 47% for scenario 4; and 10% for scenario 5 (p < 0.001). The percentages of spine surgeons recommending 'hip first' were 49% for scenario 1; 70% for scenario 2; 19% for scenario 3; 78% for scenario 4; and 0% for scenario 5. There were significant differences between the groups for scenarios 3 (more hip surgeons recommended 'hip first'; p = 0.012) and 4 (more hip surgeons recommended 'spine first'; p = 0.006).ConclusionIn patients with coexistent OA of the hip and degenerative disorders of the spine, the question of 'hip or spinal surgery first' elicits relatively consistent answers in some clinical scenarios, but remains controversial in others, even for experienced surgeons. The nature of neurological symptoms can influence surgeons' decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):37-44.