Next Article in Journal
The Aftermath of Bariatric Surgery: Can the Average Emergency Surgeon Deal with Its Complications? Comment on Zawadzka et al. Current Knowledge and Perceptions of Bariatric Surgery among Diabetologists and Internists in Poland. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2028
Next Article in Special Issue
Cervical Paraspinal Chordoma: A Literature Review with a Novel Case Report
Previous Article in Journal
Andexanet Alfa for Reversal of Factor Xa Inhibitors in Intracranial Hemorrhage: Observational Cohort Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Is the Use of Intraoperative 3D Navigation for Thoracolumbar Spine Surgery a Risk Factor for Post-Operative Infection?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Can We Make Spine Surgery Safer and Better?

by
Rafael De la Garza Ramos
Department of Neurological Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY 10467, USA
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(12), 3400; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123400
Submission received: 8 June 2022 / Accepted: 11 June 2022 / Published: 13 June 2022
Driven mostly by an aging population, the utilization of spine surgery has increased exponentially over the last decades [1]. Chronic low back pain and spinal deformity continue to be leading causes of disability [2,3], and cancer patients with spinal metastases are living longer due to advancements in systemic and targeted therapies [4]. However, the management of complex spinal disorders continues to be challenging. Although the benefits of surgical intervention for deformity and spinal tumors have been well documented, these procedures are costly and associated with significant morbidity [5,6,7,8]. As such, finding value by improving safety and outcomes in treatment of these conditions remains a priority within our field and will most likely derive from multidisciplinary approaches, advanced techniques/enabling technologies, and predictive analytics.
Patient-centered care and the use of multidisciplinary collaborations inside and outside of the operating room is a cornerstone of safe and effective management of spinal disorders. Multiple studies have shown the benefits of multidisciplinary case conferences, tumor boards, and shared-decision making in the management of these conditions [9,10]. Naidu et al. recently showed that a multidisciplinary spine clinic significantly reduced the utilization of surgery as a first treatment option and provided quicker times to injections for patients afflicted with chronic back and/or leg pain [11]. A systematic review of ten studies examining multidisciplinary approaches in spinal deformity found that these strategies significantly reduced operative time and complication occurrence [9]. Similarly, Nguyen et al. showed that a multidisciplinary team approach consisting of neurosurgery, orthopedic oncology, plastic surgery, medical oncology, and radiation oncology was able to optimize surgical outcomes, reduce morbidity, and improve care and satisfaction in high-risk patients undergoing oncological spine surgery [12].
The second strategy to improve safety and outcomes includes the use of advanced techniques and enabling technologies. Anand et al. reported a 13-year experience treating severe adult spinal deformity with minimally invasive circumferential strategies without posterior osteotomies [13]. They examined 136 patients with major deformity and found a significant improvement in quality of life with a low rate of proximal junctional failure (2.2%) and pseudarthrosis (5.9%) [13]. In patients suffering from spinal tumors, minimally invasive techniques such as percutaneous fixation, hybrid/tubular approaches, and others have resulted in reduced blood loss, reduced perioperative morbidity, and favorable outcomes as well [14,15]. Echt et al. compared the minimally invasive approach to the traditional approach in patients undergoing separation surgery for metastatic disease, finding that the former was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and a comparable neurological outcome [15]. Other exciting technologies that have enormous potential include robotics, augmented reality, and virtual reality.
The third aspect that will most likely improve the safety and outcome of complex spine surgery is the use of advanced predictive analytics, particularly artificial intelligence. Machine and deep-learning algorithms can offer high predictive capability and can aid in complication prediction, survival prediction, and the identification of high-risk patients [16,17,18,19]. Patients that are predicted to have a poor outcome or a major complication could receive a modified treatment plan or be optimized preoperatively.
The field of spinal surgery is rapidly changing and we must adapt to it. As specialists dealing with such complex conditions, we must focus on providing humanized and personalized high-quality care to our patients. The use of the approaches described herein will most certainly help us achieve that.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kobayashi, K.; Ando, K.; Nishida, Y.; Ishiguro, N.; Imagama, S. Epidemiological trends in spine surgery over 10 years in a multicenter database. Eur. Spine J. 2018, 27, 1698–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hoy, D.; March, L.; Brooks, P.; Blyth, F.; Woolf, A.; Bain, C.; Williams, G.; Smith, E.; Vos, T.; Barendregt, J.; et al. The global burden of low back pain: Estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2014, 73, 968–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Bess, S.; Line, B.; Fu, K.M.; McCarthy, I.; Lafage, V.; Schwab, F.; Shaffrey, C.; Ames, C.; Akbarnia, B.; Jo, H.; et al. The Health Impact of Symptomatic Adult Spinal Deformity: Comparison of Deformity Types to United States Population Norms and Chronic Diseases. Spine 2016, 41, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rothrock, R.J.; Barzilai, O.; Reiner, A.S.; Lis, E.; Schmitt, A.M.; Higginson, D.S.; Yamada, Y.; Bilsky, M.H.; Laufer, I. Survival Trends after Surgery for Spinal Metastatic Tumors: 20-Year Cancer Center Experience. Neurosurgery 2021, 88, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Furlan, J.C.; Chan, K.K.; Sandoval, G.A.; Lam, K.C.; Klinger, C.A.; Patchell, R.A.; Laporte, A.; Fehlings, M.G. The combined use of surgery and radiotherapy to treat patients with epidural cord compression due to metastatic disease: A cost-utility analysis. Neuro Oncol. 2012, 14, 631–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Arima, H.; Hasegawa, T.; Yamato, Y.; Kato, M.; Yoshida, G.; Banno, T.; Oe, S.; Mihara, Y.; Ushirozako, H.; Yamada, T.; et al. Cost-effectiveness of Corrective Fusion Surgeries for Adult Spinal Deformities: A Comparison by Operative Method. Spine 2021, 46, 1249–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Luksanapruksa, P.; Buchowski, J.M.; Zebala, L.P.; Kepler, C.K.; Singhatanadgige, W.; Bumpass, D.B. Perioperative Complications of Spinal Metastases Surgery. Clin. Spine Surg. 2017, 30, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sciubba, D.M.; Yurter, A.; Smith, J.S.; Kelly, M.P.; Scheer, J.K.; Goodwin, C.R.; Lafage, V.; Hart, R.A.; Bess, S.; Kebaish, K.; et al. A Comprehensive Review of Complication Rates after Surgery for Adult Deformity: A Reference for Informed Consent. Spine Deform. 2015, 3, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Friedman, G.N.; Benton, J.A.; Echt, M.; De la Garza Ramos, R.; Shin, J.H.; Coumans, J.C.E.; Gitkind, A.I.; Yassari, R.; Leveque, J.C.; Sethi, R.K.; et al. Multidisciplinary approaches to complication reduction in complex spine surgery: A systematic review. Spine J. 2020, 20, 1248–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Huynh, M.A.; Roldan, C.; Nunes, P.; Kelly, A.; Taylor, A.; Richards, C.; Fareed, M.M.; Gorman, D.; Groff, M.; Ferrone, M.; et al. Characteristics of Patients and Treatment Recommendations from a Multidisciplinary Spinal Tumor Program. Palliat. Med. Rep. 2020, 1, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Naidu, I.; Ryvlin, J.; Videlefsky, D.; Qin, J.; Mowrey, W.B.; Choi, J.H.; Citron, C.; Gary, J.; Benton, J.A.; Weiss, B.T.; et al. The Effect of a Multidisciplinary Spine Clinic on Time to Care in Patients with Chronic Back and/or Leg Pain: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Nguyen, M.H.; Patel, K.; West, J.; Scharschmidt, T.; Chetta, M.; Schulz, S.; Mendel, E.; Valerio, I.L. A multidisciplinary approach to complex oncological spine coverage in high-risk patients. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2020, 34, 277–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Anand, N.; Alayan, A.; Kong, C.; Kahwaty, S.; Khandehroo, B.; Gendelberg, D.; Chung, A. Management of severe adult spinal deformity with circumferential minimally invasive surgical strategies without posterior column osteotomies: A 13-year experience. Spine Deform. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Helal, A.; Yolcu, Y.U.; Kamath, A.; Wahood, W.; Bydon, M. Minimally invasive versus open surgery for patients undergoing intradural extramedullary spinal cord tumor resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 2022, 214, 107176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Echt, M.; Stock, A.; De la Garza Ramos, R.; Der, E.; Hamad, M.; Holland, R.; Cezayirli, P.; Nasser, R.; Yanamadala, V.; Yassari, R. Separation surgery for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression: Comparison of a minimally invasive versus open approach. Neurosurg. Focus 2021, 50, E10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Rudisill, S.S.; Hornung, A.L.; Barajas, J.N.; Bridge, J.J.; Mallow, G.M.; Lopez, W.; Sayari, A.J.; Louie, P.K.; Harada, G.K.; Tao, Y.; et al. Artificial intelligence in predicting early-onset adjacent segment degeneration following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur. Spine J. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hornung, A.L.; Hornung, C.M.; Mallow, G.M.; Barajas, J.N.; Rush, A., 3rd; Sayari, A.J.; Galbusera, F.; Wilke, H.J.; Colman, M.; Phillips, F.M.; et al. Artificial intelligence in spine care: Current applications and future utility. Eur. Spine J. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Massaad, E.; Williams, N.; Hadzipasic, M.; Patel, S.S.; Fourman, M.S.; Kiapour, A.; Schoenfeld, A.J.; Shankar, G.M.; Shin, J.H. Performance assessment of the metastatic spinal tumor frailty index using machine learning algorithms: Limitations and future directions. Neurosurg. Focus 2021, 50, E5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Shah, A.A.; Karhade, A.V.; Park, H.Y.; Sheppard, W.L.; Macyszyn, L.J.; Everson, R.G.; Shamie, A.N.; Park, D.Y.; Schwab, J.H.; Hornicek, F.J. Updated external validation of the SORG machine learning algorithms for prediction of ninety-day and one-year mortality after surgery for spinal metastasis. Spine J. 2021, 21, 1679–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

De la Garza Ramos, R. Can We Make Spine Surgery Safer and Better? J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3400. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123400

AMA Style

De la Garza Ramos R. Can We Make Spine Surgery Safer and Better? Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(12):3400. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123400

Chicago/Turabian Style

De la Garza Ramos, Rafael. 2022. "Can We Make Spine Surgery Safer and Better?" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 12: 3400. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123400

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop