Background: In vitro studies using nucleus pulposus (NP) cells are commonly used to investigate disc cell biology and pathogenesis, or to aid in the development of new therapies. However, lab-to-lab variability jeopardizes the much-needed progress in the field. Here, an international group of spine scientists collaborated to standardize extraction and expansion techniques for NP cells to reduce variability, improve comparability between labs and improve utilization of funding and resources. Methods: The most commonly applied methods for NP cell extraction, expansion, and re-differentiation were identified using a questionnaire to research groups worldwide. NP cell extraction methods from rat, rabbit, pig, dog, cow, and human NP tissue were experimentally assessed. Expansion and re-differentiation media and techniques were also investigated. Results: Recommended protocols are provided for extraction, expansion, and re-differentiation of NP cells from common species utilized for NP cell culture. Conclusions: This international, multilab and multispecies study identified cell extraction methods for greater cell yield and fewer gene expression changes by applying species-specific pronase usage, 60–100 U/ml collagenase for shorter durations. Recommendations for NP cell expansion, passage number, and many factors driving successful cell culture in different species are also addressed to support harmonization, rigor, and cross-lab comparisons on NP cells worldwide.

Study design: Systematic review. Objectives: To systematically review, critically appraise and synthesize evidence on use of autologous stem cells sources for fusion in the lumbar spine. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 20, 2020 was conducted comparing autologous cell grafts to other biologics for lumbar spine fusion. The focus was on studies comparing distinct patient groups. Results: From 343 potentially relevant citations, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria set a priori. Seven studies compared distinct patient groups, with BMA being used in combination with allograft or autograft not as a standalone material. No economic evaluations were identified. Most observational studies were at moderately high risk of bias. When used for primary lumbar fusion, no statistical differences in outcomes or complications were seen between BMA+autograft/or +allograft compared to autograft/allograft alone. Compared with allograft, data from a RCT suggested statistically better fusion and lower complication rates with concentrated BMA+allograft. When used in revisions, no differences in outcomes were seen between BMA+allograft and either autograft or rh-BMP-2 but fusion rates were lower with BMA+allograft, leading to additional revision surgery. Conclusions: There was substantial heterogeneity across studies in patient populations, sample size, biologic combinations, and surgical characteristics making direct comparisons difficult. The overall quality of evidence for fusion rates and the safety of BMA in lumbar fusion procedures was considered very low, with studies being at moderately high or high risk of bias.

Purpose: Various surgical methods have been reported for Kummell’s disease with neurologic deficits. The aim of this study was to introduce long-segmental posterior fusion (LPF) combined with vertebroplasty (VP) and wiring as an alternative surgical technique. Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 10 patients undergoing posterior decompression and LPF combined with VP and wiring for Kummell’s disease with neurologic deficits from January 2011 to December 2014. The radiologic outcomes included the local kyphotic angle (LKA) and segmental kyphotic angle (SKA). Clinical outcomes, including the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Frankel grade were assessed. Surgery-related complications were also evaluated. Results: The mean age of the included patients was 77 ± 8 years with a mean follow-up period of 31.4 ± 4.9 months and a mean bone mineral density of −3.5 ± 0.7 (T-score). The mean operation time was 220 ± 32.3 minutes with a mean blood loss of 555 ± 125.7 mL. The preoperative LKA and SKA were significantly corrected postoperatively (37.9 ± 8.7° vs. 15.3 ± 5.3°, p = 0.005 for LKA; 21.3 ± 5.1° vs. 7.6 ± 2.8°, p = 0.005 for SKA) without a loss of correction at the last follow-up. The VAS and ODI were also significantly improved (7.7 ± 1.1 vs. 3.0 ± 1.6, p = 0.007 for VAS; 90.3 ± 8.9 vs. 49.6 ± 22.7, p = 0.007 for ODI). The Frankel grade of all patients was improved by at least 1 or 2 grades at the last follow-up. Surgery-related complications such as intraoperative cement leakage and implant loosening during the follow-up were not observed. Conclusions: LPF combined with VP and wiring might be an effective surgical option for Kummell’s disease with neurologic deficits, especially for the elderly patients with morbidities. Level of Evidence: level IV.

Study Design: Retrospective comparative study. Purpose: To assess differences in computed tomography (CT) imaging parameters between patients with cervical myelopathy and controls. Overview of Literature: There is a lack of information regarding the best predictor of symptomatic stenosis based on osseous canal dimensions. We postulate that smaller osseous canal dimensions increase the risk of symptomatic central stenosis. Methods: CT images and medical records of patients with cervical myelopathy (19 patients, 8 males; average age, 64.4±13.4 years) and controls (18 patients, 14 males; average age, 60.4±11.0 years) were collected. A new measure called the laminar roof pitch angle (=angle between the lamina) was conducted along with linear measures, ratios and surrogates of canal perimeter and area at each level C2-C7 (222 levels). Receiver-operator curves were used to assess the diagnostic value of each. Rater reliability was assessed for the measures. Results: The medial-lateral (ML) diameter (at mid-pedicle level) and calculated canal area (=anterior-posterior.×ML diameters) were the most accurate and highly reliable. ML diameter below 23.5 mm and calculated canal area below 300 mm2 generated 82% to 84% sensitivity and 67% to 68% sensitivity. No significant correlations were identified between age, height, weight, body mass in dex and gender for each of the CT measures. Conclusions: CT measures including ML dimensions were most predictive. This study is the first to identify an important role for the ML dimension in cases of slowly progressive compressive myelopathy. A ML reserve may be protective when the canal is progressively compromised in the anterior-posterior dimension.

Symptomatic synovial lumbar facet cysts are a relatively rare cause of radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. This case and brief review of the literature, details a patient who presented with acutely symptomatic bilateral spontaneously infected synovial facet (L4/5) cysts. This report highlights diagnostic clues for identifying infection of a facet cyst.

Background: The study design was a retrospective cohort study. The objective was to identify preoperative (preop) radiographic features that are associated with increased lordosis correction after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a single surgeon series of TLIF performed at L4-5 since 2010. The surgical technique involved unilateral facetectomy and insertion of a banana-type cage. A total of 107 cases were available with plain radiographs, and 62 with a preop computed tomography (CT) scan. We compared segmental lordosis correction between the preop and 6-week postoperative radiographs. Patients were divided into groups of those with or without more than 58 lordosis correction. Radiographic features were then compared, and a multivariate analysis was performed. Results: The mean lordosis correction of the entire cohort was 2.58 (range ¼-98 to 168). The percentage of patients with a vacuum disc on the preop CT (40% vs 10%, P ¼ 0.01) was higher in the group with greater than 58 lordosis correction, whereas the mean preop segmental lordosis (14.38 vs 18.68) and the preop segmental disc angle (6.48 vs 8.48) were both lower (P, 0.05 for each). The percentage of patients with a Meyerding grade of 2 or higher (28% vs 16%) trended higher but was not significant (P ¼ 0.1). There was no significant difference in the mean body mass index, patient age, preop lumbar lordosis, or disc space height. Conclusions: Patients with a preop vacuum disc sign on CT scan or those with a more kyphotic disc space on preop radiographs were more likely to achieve lordosis correction. This information may be useful in preop planning.

Study Design: Systematic literature review. Objective: Our primary objective was to compare reported fusion rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody devices in patients with cervical spine degeneration. Our secondary objectives were to compare differences in rates of subsidence and reoperation and in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups. Methods: Through a systematic review of the English-language literature using various databases, we identified 4702 articles. After we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 articles (7 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective studies, and 3 retrospective studies) reporting fusion rates of structural allograft or PEEK interbody devices were eligible for our analysis. No randomized controlled trials compared outcomes of structural allograft versus PEEK interbody devices. Extracted data included authors, study years, study designs, sample sizes, patient ages, duration of follow-up, types of interbody devices used, fusion rates, definition of fusion, reoperation rates, subsidence rates, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Fusion rates were 82% to 100% for allograft and 88% to 98% for PEEK interbody devices. The reported data were insufficient to perform meta-analysis. Structural allograft had the highest reported rate of reoperation (14%), and PEEK interbody devices had the highest reported subsidence rate (18%). Patient-reported outcomes improved in both groups. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to compare the associations of various PEEK modifications with fusion rates. Conclusion: Fusion rates were similar between structural allograft and PEEK interbody devices when used for ACDF for cervical spine degeneration. Currently, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess associations of PEEK modifications with fusion rates. Level of Evidence: II.

Degenerative disc disease (DDD) continues to be a prevalent condition that afflicts populations on a global scale. The economic impact and decreased quality of life primarily stem from back pain and neurological deficits associated with intervertebral disc degeneration. Although much effort has been invested into understanding the etiology of DDD and its relationship to the onset of back pain, this endeavor is a work in progress. The purpose of this review is to provide focused discussion on several areas in which recent advances have been made. Specifically, we have categorized these advances into early, middle, and late phases of age-related or degenerative changes in the disc and into promising minimally invasive treatments, which aim to restore mechanical and biological functions to the disc.

Background: LPP induces synthesis of aggrecan and collagen II; however, the mechanism is unknown. Results: LPP up-regulated expression of aggrecan, collagen II, and SOX9 through binding to BMP-RII, initiating a complex Smad/BMP feedforward circuit. Conclusion: LPP could promote disc matrix production directly or boost the activity of exogenous BMPs. Significance: LPP may have value in the treatment of degenerated discs.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: To review, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence on use of cell therapy for intervertebral disc repair. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted for literature published through October 31, 2018 and EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through April 13, 2018 comparing allogenic or autologous cell therapy for intervertebral disc (IVD) repair in the lumbar or cervical spine. In the absence of comparative studies, case series of ≥10 patients were considered. Results: From 1039 potentially relevant citations, 8 studies across 10 publications on IVD cell therapies in the lumbar spine met the inclusion criteria. All studies were small and primarily case series. For allogenic cell sources, no difference in function or pain between mesenchymal cell treatment and sham were reported in 1 small randomized controlled trial; 1 small case series reported improved function and pain relative to baseline but it was unclear if the change was clinically significant. Similarly for autologous cell sources, limited data across case series suggest pain and function may be improved relative to baseline; whether the changes were clinically significant was not clear. Safety data was sparse and poorly reported. The need for subsequent surgery was reported in 3 case-series studies ranging from 6% to 80%. Conclusions: The overall strength of evidence for efficacy and safety of cell therapy for lumbar IVD repair was very low primarily due to substantial risk of bias, small sample sizes and lack of a comparator intervention. Methodologically sound studies comparing cell therapies to other treatments are needed.