Yoichi Shimada

ACDF with a PEEK cage clinically provides a good outcome with minor donor site morbidity despite unsatisfactory radiological findings-A prospective cohort study of a PEEK cage in stand-alone usage-

Study Design A prospective cohort study was conducted on patients with anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with a polyetheretherketone cage (PEEKc). Background Advantages of a PEEKc have been proposed in the study. However, benefits of using a PEEKc in ACDF are still controversial. Objective To investigate the advantages of a PEEKc in ACDF. Materials and Methods A total of 27 patients was enrolled in the study. The mean age of patients was 55±10 years (mean±standard deviation). The mean duration of symptoms was 17±21 months. Surgery was conducted at C3/4 in 1, C4/5 in 3, C5/6 in 11, C6/7 in 9, C7/T1 in 2, and C5/6/7 in 1 patient. The mean follow-up period was 2.1±1.3 years. Clinical outcomes were analyzed by the Japanese Orthopedic Association Scores (JOA scores) and its recovery rate. Perioperative complications were also investigated. Radiologically, studies were conducted on interbody lordotic angle (IBLA), interbody height (IBH), and bone fusion rates. Results The JOA score was 14.7±1.4 preoperatively and 16.3±1.3 at the final follow-up. A significant improvement was observed (p<0.05). The mean recovery rate of JOA scores was 74.0±25.0%. The preoperative IBLA was 0.5±6.1°. The mean IBLA at the final follow-up was 1.9±5.6°. The preoperative IBH was 34.2±3.5 mm. The mean IBH at the final follow-up was 34.3±3.5 mm. No significant improvement in IBLA and IBH was observed. A complete union rate at 1 year and 2.3 years (range, 2.0-6.0) after surgery was 29% (8/28 segments) and 61% (11/18 segments). No major complications were observed. Conclusions Despite an unsatisfactory bone union rate and no significant improvement in IBLA and IBH at the final follow-up, ACDF with a PEEKc clinically provided a stable outcome with less surgical invasion and minor donor-site morbidity.

Sacroiliac joint pain after multiple-segment lumbar fusion: a long-term observational study-Non-fused sacrum vs. fused sacrum

Introduction Sacroiliac joint pain (SIJP) after lumbar fusion surgery has recently gained attention as a source of low back pain after lumbar fusion. There are two risk factors for postoperative SIJP, i.e., fusion involving the sacrum and multiple-segment fusion. In this study, we examined whether SIJP could occur more frequently in patients with two risk factors (multiple-segment fusion to sacrum). Further, we examined SIJP after multiple-segment (≥3) lumbar fusion, focusing on the difference between floating fusion (non-fused sacrum) and fixed fusion (fused sacrum). Methods Ninety-one patients who underwent multiple-segment lumbar fusion were included. Patients without preoperative clinical SIJP were considered. Of these, 17 developed new-onset SIJP. We investigated postoperative SIJP development, duration from surgery to SIJP onset, and postoperative treatment outcomes of SIJP patients using Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores. We compared the findings between floating fusion group and fixed fusion group. Results The incidence of SIJP was significantly higher with fixed fusion (32.1%) than with floating fusion (12.7%). The mean time of onset of sacroiliac joint pain was at 8.63 (2-13) months after surgery in the floating fusion group and 3.78 (1-10) months after surgery in the fixed fusion group, indicating that incidence occurred significantly earlier in the fixed fusion group. Our treatment outcome indicated that the mean JOA score significantly improved in the floating fusion group from 5.13 at the time of onset to 9.50 at the time of final follow-up; however, in the fixed fusion group, it improved from 5.78 at the time of onset to 7.33 at the time of final follow-up, indicating no significant improvement. Conclusions In multiple-segment lumbar fusion, fixed fusion (fused sacrum) has a very high risk of SIJP. In addition, the onset of SIJP in such cases may occur earlier. This aspect deserves consideration, given the difficulty of pain treatment.