RESUMEN
Background: Combined atlas-axis fractures are rare occurrences with substantially higher rates of neurologic deficits compared with isolated injuries. Given the intricate anatomic relationship between the atlas and axis vertebra, variable fracture patterns may occur, warranting special considerations from surgeons. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE was performed following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies on acute combined atlas-axis fractures that provided data on patient demographics, presentation (injury mechanism, neurologic deficits, fracture type), management, complications, and study conclusions were reviewed. Results: A total of 22 articles published from 1977 to 2022, comprising 230 patients, were included in the final analysis. Thirty-seven of the 213 patients (17%) presented with neurologic deficits. The most common atlas injuries were posterior arch fractures (54/169 patients; 32%), combined posterior arch/anterior arch fractures (44/169 patients; 26%), and anterior arch fractures (43/169 patients; 25%). The most common axis injuries were type II odontoid fractures (115/175 patients; 66%). Of the 127 patients managed operatively (127/230 patients; 55%), 45 patients (35%) were treated with C1-C2 posterior spinal fusion, 33 patients (26%) were treated with odontoid screw fixation and anterior/posterior C1-C2 trans-articular screws, 16 patients (13%) were treated with occiputocervical fusion and 12 patients (9%) were treated with odontoid screw fixation alone. Conclusions: Management strategies are generally based on the type of axis fracture as well as the condition of the transverse ligament. Patients with stable fractures can be successfully managed nonoperatively with a cervical collar or halo immobilization. Combined atlas-axis fractures with an atlantodental interval >5 mm, C1 lateral mass displacement >7 mm, C2-C3 angulation >11° or an MRI demonstrating a disrupted transverse ligament are suggestive of instability and are often successfully managed with surgical intervention. There is no consensus regarding surgical technique.
RESUMEN
Background: The opioid epidemic represents a major public health issue in the United States and has led to significant morbidity and mortality. On July 1 2018, Florida implemented state-law House Bill 21 (HB21), limiting opioid prescriptions to a 3-day supply for acute pain or 7 days if an exception is documented. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of HB21 on opioid prescribing patterns after spine surgery. Methods: Patients 18 years and older who underwent spine surgery between January 2017 and January 2021 were eligible for inclusion. Information including demographics, pills, days, and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) was obtained via retrospective chart review using the Florida Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and Epic Chart Review. Student's t tests and Fisher's exact tests were used for comparison of continuous variables. Multiple logistic regression was utilized to determine which variables were associated with postoperative opioid prescriptions. p<.05 was considered significant. Results: We reviewed 114 patients who underwent spine surgery from January 2017 to July 2018 and 264 patients from July 2018 to January 21. There were no significant differences between the groups in age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, number of levels fused, or preoperative opioid use. The average number of MMEs, pills prescribed and days in the first postoperative prescription decreased significantly after HB21. Multiple logistic regression revealed that the variable most predictive of MMEs and number of pills in the first postoperative prescription was postlaw status (p=.002, p=.50). Conclusions: Florida law HB21 was successful in decreasing postoperative opioid prescriptions after spine surgery, however, the need for additional progress remains. Legislation should be combined with multimodal pain regimens, as well as patient and provider education in order to further decrease postoperative opioid requirements. Future studies should include a larger number of patients treated by multiple spine surgeons across multiple institutions in order to further evaluate the effects of HB21 on postoperative opioid prescriptions.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: The authors aim to review comparative outcome measures between robotic and free-hand spine surgical procedures including: accuracy of spinal instrumentation, radiation exposure, operative time, hospital stay, and complication rates. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Misplacement of pedicle screws in conventional open as well as minimally invasive surgical procedures has prompted the need for innovation and allowed the emergence of robotics in spine surgery. Before incorporation of robotic surgery in routine practice, demonstration of improved instrumentation accuracy, operative efficiency, and patient safety are required. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, OVID-MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases was performed for articles relevant to robotic assistance of pedicle screw placement. Inclusion criteria were constituted by English written randomized control trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies involving robotic instrumentation in the spine. Following abstract, title, and full-text review, 32 articles were selected for study inclusion. RESULTS: Intrapedicular accuracy in screw placement and subsequent complications were at least comparable if not superior in the robotic surgery cohort. There is evidence supporting that total operative time is prolonged in robot-assisted surgery compared to conventional free-hand. Radiation exposure appeared to be variable between studies; radiation time did decrease in the robot arm as the total number of robotic cases ascended, suggesting a learning curve effect. Multilevel procedures appeared to tend toward earlier discharge in patients undergoing robotic spine surgery. CONCLUSION: The implementation of robotic technology for pedicle screw placement yields an acceptable level of accuracy on a highly consistent basis. Surgeons should remain vigilant about confirmation of robotic-assisted screw trajectory, as drilling pathways have been shown to be altered by soft tissue pressures, forceful surgical application, and bony surface skiving. However, the effective consequence of robot-assistance on radiation exposure, length of stay, and operative time remains unclear and requires meticulous examination in future studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.