Chapter 25 Fundamentals of Spine Surgery
Patient Selection
The Spine Patient Outcome Research Trial (SPORT) highlights some of the difficulties in executing a randomized, multicentric trial.1–3 SPORT was the first comprehensive study to look at different ways of treating low back and leg pain and the effectiveness of those treatments. Even though this was a prospective, randomized trial, the amount of crossover between the surgical and nonsurgical arms ultimately rendered the analyses nonrandomized. Additionally, blinding was not possible in a surgical trial, which could have also introduced several confounders into the analyses.
The excellent design and timely execution of carotid endarterectomy studies such as the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) provide a paradigm for the potential benefits of outcomes research.4,5 These studies clearly defined objective criteria for surgical treatment, based on risk and benefit ratios. Although outcome assessment is obviously more straightforward for carotid endarterectomy than spine surgery, the carotid endarterectomy trials nevertheless serve as a reminder of the powerful influence such trials can exert on surgical practice. These trials not only have established the safety and efficacy of the procedure itself, but also have provided unambiguous guidelines for patient selection. However, the suboptimal prospective study of extracranial-to-intracranial bypass for ischemic stroke, which concluded that surgical treatment was less effective than medical therapy, does illustrate some weaknesses of this type of study.6
Newer studies such as the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) and the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study (COSS) are using the prospective, randomized study design in an attempt to generate level 1 data to guide evidence-based medicine practices.
Consent for Surgery
Informed Consent
Several studies have shown that patients often are unable to recall the content of the information that the physician conveyed during the session at which informed consent was supposedly obtained.7–9 Sometimes these scenarios are the basis for legal claims against unsuspecting physicians, who are accused of not informing the patient adequately of potential complications. Physicians can avoid these confrontations by carefully documenting their conversations with patients and their families in the medical record, indicating both the time and the date of the conversation as evidence that it occurred before any intervention. Note that this documentation should be in addition to written patient consent. However, legal repercussions aside, the demonstration that patients often do not remember information provided by physicians is certainly not a logical argument against the virtue of informed consent. There are many instances in life when one is unable to recall the reasons or motivations for making even the most important decisions.
Surgical Considerations
Spinal Anatomy and Biomechanics
Once the physician and the patient have decided to pursue surgical treatment of the spine disorder, the surgeon must define the goal of the procedures and a course to obtain that goal. A surgical approach and objectives are defined during this interval. Because of the lack of prospective data on surgical treatments, the spine surgeon often must rely on personal experiences, along with common sense, in the treatment of spine disorders.
• Principle 1. The ventral surgical approach is generally the preferred approach in patients with a loss of cervical lordosis. The ventral approach decompresses ventral mass and tends to preserve the dorsal tension band. This minimizes the risk of further kyphotic deformation. Conversely, the dorsal approach is relatively contraindicated in patients with a loss of cervical lordosis, because it weakens the dorsal tension band, which tends to exacerbate progressive spinal deformity.
• Principle 2. Dorsal distraction of the lumbar spine is an undesirable force application because it tends to produce a flattened back. The loss of lordosis is not uncommon as a complication of lumbar spine surgery. The flattened back is a common cause of chronic low back pain, because it alters the normal spinal sagittal balance. Fortunately, this problem can nearly always be avoided if the surgeon obeys this principle.
• Principle 3. With a dorsal fusion operation, a more dorsally placed fusion mass more effectively resists kyphotic deformation. The dorsal fusion mass resists kyphotic deformity in direct proportion to the length of the moment arm through which it acts. The moment arm is defined as the distance between the fusion mass and the more ventrally located instantaneous axis of rotation (IAR). Therefore, the greater the distance from the fusion mass to the IAR, the longer the moment arm available for the resistance of kyphotic deformation.
• Principle 4. The effectiveness of a spinal brace is inversely proportional to the axial distance between the spine and the inner shell of the brace, and is directly proportional to the length of the brace. These relationships are explained by the theoretical principle that the efficacy of bracing is related to the cosine of the angle defined by the edge of the brace, the IAR at the unstable segment, and the long axis of the spine. The implication is that a long, tight-fitting spinal brace will result in more effective spinal stabilization than a short, loose-fitting brace.
• Principle 5. In general, a ventrally placed short-segment fixation device should be applied in a compression mode. This mode of force application allows the fixation device to share the axial load with its associated interbody strut. Conversely, when such an implant is placed in the distraction mode, there is an undesirable allocation of forces. In this case the spinal implant bears the entire load, which greatly increases the chance of implant failure. The principle of load sharing versus load bearing is a key principle in the practice of spinal stabilization.
• Principle 6. Three-column spinal injury (circumferential injury) indicates overt spinal instability, which usually requires spinal stabilization. This principle is based on the three-column theory of spinal stability. The three columns are divided into: (1) an anterior column, which consists of the ventral half of the vertebral body; (2) a middle column, which consists of the dorsal half of the vertebral body; and (3) a posterior column, which consists of all of those elements that are dorsal to the vertebral body. Interruption of any one, or even two, of these columns does not necessarily lead to spinal instability. However, significant interruption of all three columns almost invariably destabilizes the spine. In these cases, surgical spinal stabilization helps protect the neural elements from initial or progressive injury, and facilitates early mobilization of the patient.
• Principle 7. With time, spinal instrumentation will almost certainly fail without the acquisition of a concomitant bony fusion. This principle emphasizes the limited role of spinal instrumentation in maintaining spinal alignment. As a corollary to this principle, it is often said that there is a race between spinal implant failure and the acquisition of a bony fusion. The implication is that the surgeon must be cognizant that the goal of spinal instrumentation is to maintain spinal alignment only as long as it takes to acquire an adequate fusion. It follows from this that the execution of a meticulous arthrodesis procedure is imperative.
• Principle 8. Spinal decompression procedures that decompress the neural elements are performed at the expense of spinal stability. This principle does not imply that neural element decompression (such as is accomplished by lumbar discectomy) invariably results in spinal instability. It should, however, serve as a reminder to the surgeon that the question of spinal stability must always be included in the process of surgical decision making and surgical planning. Appropriate measures must always be taken to avoid or to compensate for this problem. For example, a medial facetectomy greater than one-third the size of the facet tends to destabilize the joint, and may require an instrumented fusion.
• Principle 9. Herniated midline thoracic discs usually should be approached ventrally though a thoracotomy. Lateral extracavitary and transpedicular approaches to the thoracic spine allow for paramedian decompression of ventral elements. However, for midline ventral pathology (such as a herniated disc), a ventral approach though a thoracotomy is advisable because of the high rate of neurologic injury associated with dorsal decompression of ventral elements in the thoracic spine. The significant rate of postoperative neurologic deficits after laminectomy for thoracic disc herniation is thought to be due to a combination of vascular insufficiency and microcontusions secondary to spinal cord manipulation.10
• Principle 10. Closed reduction of cervical spine dislocations entails “recreating” the mechanism of injury while applying traction. This helps to unlock the facets and allows them to fall back into realignment. For example, in the case of bilateral jumped facets secondary to hyperflexion, the neck must be maintained in flexion while traction forces are applied to achieve successful reduction. Similarly, for a unilateral jump, the rotational forces of the mechanism of injury must be recreated for the facets to unlock.
And, finally, the golden rule: The surgeon should violate any of the aforementioned principles if they conflict with more reasonable or more general principles, or if they conflict with what is obvious (common sense).
Byrne D.J., Napier A., Cuschieri A. How informed is signed consent? Br Med J. 1988;296:839-840.
Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study: endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA. 1995;273:1421-1428.
Herz D.A., Looman J.E., Lewis L.K. Informed consent: is it a myth? Neurosurgery. 1992;30:453-458.
North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators: Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:445-453.
Surgery vs non-operative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441-2450.
1. Surgery vs non-operative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441-2450.
2. Surgery vs non-operative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2257-2270.
3. Surgical vs nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(8):794-810.
4. Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study: endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. JAMA. 1995;273:1421-1428.
5. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators: beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:445-453.
6. EC-IC Bypass Study Group: Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke: results of an international randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:1191-1200.
7. Byrne D.J., Napier A., Cuschieri A. How informed is signed consent? Br Med J. 1988;296:839-840.
8. Herz D.A., Looman J.E., Lewis L.K. Informed consent: is it a myth? Neurosurgery. 1992;30:453-458.
9. Kekuchi K., Hara T., Hara T. Patient understanding of the informed consent for cataract surgery. J Ophthalmic Nurs Technol. 1996;15:216-219.
10. Zeidman S.M., Rosner M.K., Poffenbarger J.G. Thoracic disc disease, spondylosis, and stenosis. In: Benzel E.C., Stillerman C.V., editors. The thoracic spine. St. Louis: Quality Medical; 1999:297-303.