Spinal Instrumentation

Spinal instrumentation basically means the implantation of more or less rigid metallic or non-metallic devices which are attached to the spine. These devices function to provide spinal stability and thus facilitate bone healing leading to spinal fusion (spondylodesis). Fundamental biomechanical knowledge and its application serves to improve the performance of the individual spine surgeon with respect to the rate of bony fusion, implant failure or degree of deformity correction. However, biomechanics is inherently linked with (mechano-)biology. And there is still an incomplete understanding of spinal biomechanics and even more so of the underlying biology. Moreover, apparently advantageous biomechanical concepts do not necessarily lead to a better patient outcome.

How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango

The generic approach of the Spine Tango documentation system, which uses web-based technologies, is a necessity for reaching a maximum number of participants. This, in turn, reduces the potential for customising the Tango according to the individual needs of each user. However, a number of possibilities still exist for tailoring the data collection processes to the user's own hospital workflow. One can choose between a purely paper-based set-up (with in-house scanning, data punching or mailing of forms to the data centre at the University of Bern) and completely paper-free online data entry. Many users work in a hybrid mode with online entry of surgical data and paper-based recording of the patients' perspectives using the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) questionnaires. Preoperatively, patients can complete their questionnaires in the outpatient clinic at the time of taking the decision about surgery or simply at the time of hospitalisation. Postoperative administration of patient data can involve questionnaire completion in the outpatient clinic, the handing over the forms at the time of discharge for their mailing back to the hospital later, sending out of questionnaires by post with a stamped addressed envelope for their return or, in exceptional circumstances, conducting telephone interviews. Eurospine encourages documentation of patient-based information before the hospitalisation period and surgeon-based information both before and during hospitalisation; both patient and surgeon data should be acquired for at least one follow-up, at a minimum of three to six months after surgery. In addition, all complications that occur after discharge, and their consequences should be recorded.

Benchmarking with Spine Tango: potentials and pitfalls

The newly released online statistics function of Spine Tango allows comparison of own data against the aggregated results of the data pool that all other participants generate. This comparison can be considered a very simple way of benchmarking, which means that the quality of what one organization does is compared with other similar organizations. The goal is to make changes towards better practice if benchmarking shows inferior results compared with the pool. There are, however, pitfalls in this simplified way of comparing data that can result in confounding. This means that important influential factors can make results appear better or worse than they are in reality and these factors can only be identified and neutralized in a multiple regression analysis performed by a statistical expert. Comparing input variables, confounding is less of a problem than comparing outcome variables. Therefore, the potentials and limitations of automated online comparisons need to be considered when interpreting the results of the benchmarking procedure.

Biomechanical analysis of torsion and shear forces in lumbar and lumbosacral spine segments of nonchondrodystrophic dogs

OBJECTIVE: To determine stiffness and load-displacement curves as a biomechanical response to applied torsion and shear forces in cadaveric canine lumbar and lumbosacral specimens. STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical study. ANIMALS: Caudal lumbar and lumbosacral functional spine units (FSU) of nonchondrodystrophic large-breed dogs (n=31) with radiographically normal spines. METHODS: FSU from dogs without musculoskeletal disease were tested in torsion in a custom-built spine loading simulator with 6 degrees of freedom, which uses orthogonally mounted electric motors to apply pure axial rotation. For shear tests, specimens were mounted to a custom-made shear-testing device, driven by a servo hydraulic testing machine. Load-displacement curves were recorded for torsion and shear. RESULTS: Left and right torsion stiffness was not different within each FSU level; however, torsional stiffness of L7-S1 was significantly smaller compared with lumbar FSU (L4-5-L6-7). Ventral/dorsal stiffness was significantly different from lateral stiffness within an individual FSU level for L5-6, L6-7, and L7-S1 but not for L4-5. When the data from 4 tested shear directions from the same specimen were pooled, level L5-6 was significantly stiffer than L7-S1. CONCLUSIONS: Increased range of motion of the lumbosacral joint is reflected by an overall decreased shear and rotational stiffness at the lumbosacral FSU. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Data from dogs with disc degeneration have to be collected, analyzed, and compared with results from our chondrodystrophic large-breed dogs with radiographically normal spines.