Tomoyuki Asada, Eric R. Zhao, Adin M. Ehrlich, Adrian Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Sereen Halayqeh, Tarek Harhash, Olivia C. Tuma, Kasra Araghi, Todd J. Albert, James Farmer, Russel C. Huang, Harvinder Sandhu, Han Jo Kim, Francis C. Lovecchio, James E. Dowdell, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz A. Qureshi
Neurospine 2025;22(1):3-13. Published online March 31, 2025
Objective While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF.
Methods This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches.
Results Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001).
Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Multifidus Muscle Atrophy Predicts Spinal Cage Subsidence After Lumbar Fusion Cong Zhang, Chengming Li, Xiaotao Wu, Xiaozhi Sun Journal of Pain Research.2026; Volume 19: 1. CrossRef
Biomaterials and Noncoding RNA: The “Repair‐Alliance” Perspective in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration Chen Liu, Zhengguang Li, Yongbo Zhang, Tianyi Ji, Hua Sun, Gen Wei, Liang Zhang, Juqun Xi Advanced Healthcare Materials.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Modified Integrated Health State Suggests Lower Cumulative Neck Pain–Related Disability After Cervical Disk Replacement Compared With Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion Tomoyuki Asada, Adin M. Ehrlich, Sereen Halayqeh, Eric R. Zhao, Adrian T. H. Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Austin C. Kaidi, Kasra Araghi, Vishaal Nayagam, Roger Freeman, Olivia C. Tuma, Tarek Harhash, Harvinder S. Sandhu, Todd J. Albert, Han Jo Kim, James C. Farmer, Neurosurgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Efficacy of low-dose Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Tae Hoon Kang, Jeongwoon Han, Minjoon Cho, Jae Hyup Lee European Spine Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Objective To analyze the usage of floor-mounted robot in minimally invasive lumbar fusion.
Methods Patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology using floor-mounted robot (ExcelsiusGPS) were included. Pedicle screw accuracy, proximal level violation rate, pedicle screw size, screw-related complications, and robot abandonment rate were analyzed.
Results Two hundred twenty-nine patients were included. Most surgeries were primary single-level fusion. Sixty-five percent of surgeries had intraoperative computed tomography (CT) workflow, 35% had preoperative CT workflow. Sixty-six percent were transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 16% were lateral, 8% were anterior, and 10% were a combined approach. A total of 1,050 screws were placed with robotic assistance (85% in prone position, 15% in lateral position). Postoperative CT scan was available for 80 patients (419 screws). Overall pedicle screw accuracy rate was 96.4% (prone, 96.7%; lateral, 94.2%; primary, 96.7%; revision, 95.3%). Overall poor screw placement rate was 2.8% (prone, 2.7%; lateral, 3.8%; primary, 2.7%; revision, 3.5%). Overall proximal facet and endplate violation rates were 0.4% and 0.9%. Average diameter and length of pedicle screws were 7.1 mm and 47.7 mm. Screw revision had to be done for 1 screw (0.1%). Use of the robot had to be aborted in 2 cases (0.8%).
Conclusion Usage of floor-mounted robotics for the placement of lumbar pedicle screws leads to excellent accuracy, large screw size, and negligible screw-related complications. It does so for screw placement in prone/lateral position and primary/revision surgery alike with negligible robot abandonment rates.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Response to the letter to the editor: Beyond fixation: computational and motion-integrated perspectives on pinless robot-assisted spine surgery Abhishek Soni, Vidyadhara Srinivasa, Balamurugan Thirugnanam, Madhava Pai Kanhangad, Akhil Xavier Joseph Asian Spine Journal.2026; 20(1): 216. CrossRef
Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement in spinal surgery: an updated systematic umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis of comparisons against freehand and navigation-guided techniques Yan-Xin Du, Wen-Xi Sun, Luo-Qi Mai, Xin-Yuan Chen, Lu-Lu Li, Hong-Shen Wang, Yong-Peng Lin, Bo-Lai Chen EFORT Open Reviews.2026; 11(1): 57. CrossRef
Temporal Trends of Improvement After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Olivia Tuma, Sumedha Singh, Kasra Araghi, Tomoyuki Asada, Maximilian Korsun, Nishtha Singh, Chad Simon, Avani Vaishnav, Eric Mai, Joshua Zhang, Cole Kwas, Myles Allen, Eric Kim, Annika Heuer, Evan Sheha, James Dowdell, S Spine.2025; 50(2): 81. CrossRef
Robotic spine surgery: Technical note and descriptive analysis of the first 40 cases Víctor Rodríguez-Domínguez, Jorge Bedia Cadelo, Javier Giner García, María Luisa Gandía González, Catalina Vivancos Sánchez, Alberto Isla Guerrero Neurocirugía (English Edition).2025; 36(3): 169. CrossRef
Cirugía robótica de columna vertebral: nota técnica y análisis descriptivo de los primeros 40 casos Víctor Rodríguez-Domínguez, Jorge Bedia Cadelo, Javier Giner García, María Luisa Gandía González, Catalina Vivancos Sánchez, Alberto Isla Guerrero Neurocirugía.2025; 36(3): 169. CrossRef
Beyond Pedicle Screw Placement: Future Minimally Invasive Applications of Robotics in Spine Surgery Meghana Bhimreddy, Arjun K. Menta, Antony A. Fuleihan, A. Daniel Davidar, Patrick Kramer, Ritvik Jillala, Mustafa Najeed, Xihang Wang, Nicholas Theodore Neurosurgery.2025; 96(3S): S94. CrossRef
How Do Robotics and Navigation Facilitate Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery? A Case Series and Narrative Review Esteban Quiceno, Mohamed A. R. Soliman, Asham Khan, Jeffrey P. Mullin, John Pollina Neurosurgery.2025; 96(3S): S84. CrossRef
Class 2/3 obesity leads to worse outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Kasra Araghi, Maximilian K. Korsun, Sumedha Singh, Nishtha Singh, Olivia C. Tuma, Tomoyuki Asada, Annika Bay, Eric R. Zhao, Adin M. Ehrlich, Sereen Halayqeh, Tarek Harhash, Andrea Pezzi, Adrian Lui, Evan D. Sheha, James The Spine Journal.2025; 25(9): 1985. CrossRef
Current Trends and Future Directions in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Review of Emerging Techniques and Evolving Management Paradigms Gianluca Galieri, Vittorio Orlando, Roberto Altieri, Manlio Barbarisi, Alessandro Olivi, Giovanni Sabatino, Giuseppe La Rocca Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(10): 3390. CrossRef
Robot-assisted technique versus freehand technique for spine surgery: an umbrella review Ting Li, Jingxin Yan, Jin Li, Yuanting Shang, Xiaoyu Tang Annals of Medicine.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Superior facet joint violation after lumbar pedicle screw placement: a scoping review of prevalence, biomechanics, and implications for adjacent segment disease Conor McNamee, Jake Michael McDonnell, David Kelly, Harry Marland, Stacey Darwish, Joseph Simon Butler Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(6): 1032. CrossRef
Evaluating accuracy in robotic-assisted thoracolumbar pedicle screw placement: Insights from a single-center study of 410 patients Abhishek Soni, Vidyadhara Srinivasa, Akhil Xavier Joseph, Balamurugan Thirugnanam, Alia Vidyadhara Journal of Craniovertebral Junction and Spine.2025; 16(4): 408. CrossRef
Perception of Robotics and Navigation by Spine Fellows and Early Attendings: The Impact of These Technologies on Their Training and Practice Pratyush Shahi, Tejas Subramanian, Sumedha Singh, Evan Sheha, James Dowdell, Sheeraz A. Qureshi, Sravisht Iyer World Neurosurgery.2024; 181: e330. CrossRef
Level-specific comparison of 3D navigated and robotic arm-guided screw placement: an accuracy assessment of 1210 pedicle screws in lumbar surgery Tomoyuki Asada, Tejas Subramanian, Chad Z. Simon, Nishtha Singh, Takashi Hirase, Kasra Araghi, Amy Z. Lu, Eric Mai, Yeo Eun Kim, Olivia Tuma, Myles R J Allen, Eric Kim, Maximilian Korsun, Joshua Zhang, Cole Kwas, James Dowdell, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz A. Q The Spine Journal.2024; 24(10): 1872. CrossRef
Image-Guided Navigation in Spine Surgery: From Historical Developments to Future Perspectives John Preston Wilson, Lane Fontenot, Caleb Stewart, Deepak Kumbhare, Bharat Guthikonda, Stanley Hoang Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(7): 2036. CrossRef
Fostering International Knowledge Sharing and Clinical Excellence: A Partnership and Inaugural Academic Conference Klaus Mieth Alviar, Guillermo Bonilla, Mathias Bostrom, Alberto Carli, Matthew Cunningham, Claire D. Eliasberg, Adolfo Llinás, Jorge Rojas Liévano, Catherine Maclean, William M. Ricci, Laura Robbins HSS Journal®: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery.2024; 20(4): 616. CrossRef
Clinical study on freehand of bicortical sacral screw fixation with the assistance of torque measurement device Guozheng Jiang, Luchun Xu, Yukun Ma, Jianbin Guan, Ningning Feng, Ziye Qiu, Shibo Zhou, Wenhao Li, Yongdong Yang, Yi Qu, He Zhao, Zeyu Li, Xing Yu BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Fully automated determination of robotic pedicle screw accuracy and precision utilizing computer vision algorithms Benjamin N. Groisser, Ankush Thakur, Howard J. Hillstrom, Akshitha Adhiyaman, Colson Zucker, Jerry Du, Matthew Cunningham, M. Timothy Hresko, Ram Haddas, John Blanco, Hollis G. Potter, Douglas N. Mintz, Ryan E. Breighner, Jessica H. Heyer, Roger F. Widman Journal of Robotic Surgery.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Revised in-depth meta-analysis on the efficacy of robot-assisted versus traditional free-hand pedicle screw insertion Sorayouth Chumnanvej, Branesh M. Pillai, Jackrit Suthakorn, Siriluk Chumnanvej Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery.2024; 7(4): 155. CrossRef
Medicolegal implications of robotics in spine surgery Avani Vaishnav, Sheeraz Qureshi Seminars in Spine Surgery.2024; 36(3): 101120. CrossRef
Advancing the Adoption of Robot-Assisted Surgery as the Routine Minimally Invasive Approach in Spinal Procedures: Commentary on “Floor-Mounted Robotic Pedicle Screw Placement in Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Analysis of 1,050 Screws” Lu-Ping Zhou, Ren-Jie Zhang, Cai-Liang Shen Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 1088. CrossRef
Adult cervical spine deformity is associated with decreased health-related quality of life, disability, and myelopathy. A number of radiographic parameters help to characterize cervical deformity and aid in the diagnosis and treatment. There are several etiologies for cervical spine deformity, the most common being iatrogenic. Additionally, spine surgery can accelerate adjacent segment degeneration which may lead to deformity. It is therefore important for all spine surgeons to be aware of the potential to cause iatrogenic cervical deformity. The aim of this review is to highlight concepts and techniques to prevent cervical deformity after spine surgery.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Impact of T1 Slope as a Predictor of Loss of Cervical Lordosis and Health-Related Quality of Life after Laminoplasty in Patients with Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament : A Retrospective Cohort Study Ji-Ho Jung, Jong-Hoon Jeong, Jong-Hwan Hong, Moon-Soo Han, Jung-Kil Lee Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2026; 69(1): 124. CrossRef
Comparison of cervical alignment between electromagnetic and traction-based head positioning systems Jonathan N. Sembrano, Dustin J. Kress, Regan Carlson, Jason J. Haselhuhn, Jacqueline E. Wright, Paul Brian O. Soriano, Kari Odland World Neurosurgery: X.2026; 31: 100595. CrossRef
The Variability of the Cervicothoracic Inflection Point: A Cohort Analysis of the Multi-Ethnic Asymptomatic Normative Study (MEANS) Justin L. Reyes, Roy Miller, Matan Malka, Josephine Coury, Yong Shen, Natalia Czerwonka, Alexandra Dionne, Jean-Charles Le Huec, Stephane Bourret, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, Hee Kit Wong, Gabriel Liu, Hwee Weng Dennis Hey, Hend Riahi, Michael Kelly, Lawrence G. L Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(4): 2409. CrossRef
Commentary: Cervicothoracic Deformity in the Setting of Adhesive Arachnoiditis: An Operative Video Article Ranbir Ahluwalia, Harsh Jain, Scott L. Zuckerman Operative Neurosurgery.2025; 29(1): 158. CrossRef
Risk factors associated with distal junctional kyphosis and failure after surgical management of adult cervical deformity: a systematic review Davin C. Gong, Anthony N. Baumann, Zhaorui Wang, Omkar S. Anaspure, Muhammad Waheed, Evan J. Beck, Rakesh D. Patel, Ilyas S. Aleem European Spine Journal.2025; 34(8): 3430. CrossRef
Long-term loss of intervertebral disc height after posterior cervical surgery for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a retrospective study with more than 3 years of follow-up Siyuan Qin, Ruomu Qu, Weili Zhao, Ruixin Yan, Yongye Chen, Feifei Zhou, Ning Lang Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Objective To review the evidence for the use of electromyography (EMG), motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) strategies during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), as well as discuss the limitations associated with each technique.
Methods A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings relating to clinical studies investigating the efficacy of EMG, MEP, SSEP, or combined IONM strategies during LLIF.
Results The evidence for the use of EMG is mixed with some studies demonstrating the efficacy of EMG in preventing postoperative neurologic injuries and other studies demonstrating a high rate of postoperative neurologic deficits with EMG monitoring. Multimodal IONM strategies utilizing MEPs or saphenous SSEPs to monitor the lumbar plexus may be promising strategies based on results from a limited number of studies.
Conclusion The use of traditional EMG during LLIF remains without consensus. There is a growing body of evidence utilizing multimodal IONM with MEPs or saphenous SSEPs demonstrating a possible decrease in postoperative neurologic injuries after LLIF. Future prospective studies, with clear definitions of neurologic injury, that evaluate different multimodal IONM strategies are needed to better assess the efficacy of IONM during LLIF.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Update on Motor Deficits in 1000 Patients Across Two Decades Marco D. Burkhard, Charlotte Jones, Simon Ortiz, Torben Stepan, Bryce Demopoulos, Bruno Verna, Ali E. Guven, Anna-Maria Mielke, Jennifer Shue, Federico P. Girardi, Frank P. Cammisa, Andrew A. Sama, Alexander P. Hughes Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Utility of intraoperative neuromonitoring changes in predicting postoperative neurologic deficit in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis Prasuna Velur, Vibha Velur, Marvin Gong Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.2026; 151: 112039. CrossRef
A Global Survey on Intra-operative Neuromonitoring (IONM) Practices, Attitudes Towards Its Use, and Barriers Among Spine Surgeons Sameh Abolfotouh, Mason Alnouri, Stephen Lewis, Krishna Kumar, Mostafa A. Abolfotouh Global Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Anesthetic Considerations and Management of Spine Surgery Performed Under Neuraxial Anesthesia Marc A. Buren, Hemra Cil Current Anesthesiology Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Optimizing Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Exoscopic Technology: A Review of Key Innovations Christian Quinones, John Preston Wilson, Deepak Kumbhare, Bharat Guthikonda, Stanley Hoang Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(4): 1132. CrossRef
Safety and Feasibility of Transabdominal Muscle Action Potential Monitoring in Lateral Lumbar Surgery Kaveh Khajavi, Jim Youssef, Robert K. Eastlack, Jeffrey R. Balzer, Greg Niznik, William Smith World Neurosurgery.2025; 197: 123878. CrossRef
Advanced neuromonitoring in lateral surgery – The role of transabdominal muscle action potential Michael R. McDermott, Alfred-John Bayaton, Dane Wheeler, Ashish Patel Seminars in Spine Surgery.2025; : 101178. CrossRef
Complication avoidance in prone single-position lateral spine surgery: Strategies and best practice Bryan J. Heard, Scott Mallozzi, Michael H Weber, Isaac L. Moss, Hardeep Singh Seminars in Spine Surgery.2025; : 101180. CrossRef
The future of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in spinal surgery W. Bryan Wilent, Marcia-Ruth Ndege, Adam Doan North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2025; 24: 100777. CrossRef
Impact of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Alert Resolution on Motor Deficits and Short-Term Outcomes After Spine Fusion Jarod Olson, Jonathan F. Dalton, Brandon Martinazzi, Alec Giakas, Yulia Lee, Joshua Mathew, Rajkishen Narayanan, Omar Tarawneh, Robert J. Oris, Chloe Herczeg, Joydeep Baidya, Rachel Huang, Mitchell Ng, Gregorio Baek, William A. Green, Yasmine Eichbaum, Mo Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Single Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Current Literature Freddy P. Jacome, Justin J. Lee, David M. Hiltzik, Sia Cho, Manasa Pagadala, Wellington K. Hsu Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.2024; 17(9): 386. CrossRef
Management of Refractory Post-operative Osteomyelitis and Discitis: A Case Report Chase A DeLong, Malek Bashti, Long Di, Sumedh S Shah, Emade Jaman, Gregory W Basil Cureus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Feasibility of Saphenous Nerve Somatosensory-Evoked Potential Intraoperative Monitoring During Lumbar Spine Surgery Sydney Rucker, Nishtha Singh, Eric Mai, Tomoyuki Asada, Pratyush Shahi, Kristin Mercado, Dora Leung, Sravisht Iyer, Ronald Emerson, Sheeraz A. Qureshi Spine.2024; 49(13): 923. CrossRef
The Improvement of Intraoperative Motor Evoked Potential after Decompression in Cervical Compressive Myelopathy: Its Significance and Related Factors Jong Yun Kwon, Dong Hwan Kim, Kyoung Hyup Nam, Byung Kwan Choi, In Ho Han The Nerve.2024; 10(2): 80. CrossRef
Long-Term Motor versus Sensory Lumbar Plexopathy After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Single-Center Experience, Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Results, and Multivariate Analysis of Patient-Level Predictors Bryan Zheng, Owen P. Leary, Robert A. Beer, David D. Liu, Sarah Nuss, Adriel Barrios-Anderson, Spencer Darveau, Sohail Syed, Ziya L. Gokaslan, Albert E. Telfeian, Adetokunbo A. Oyelese, Jared S. Fridley World Neurosurgery.2023; 170: e568. CrossRef
The Prone Lateral Approach for Lumbar Fusion—A Review of the Literature and Case Series Gal Barkay, Ian Wellington, Scott Mallozzi, Hardeep Singh, Isaac L. Moss Medicina.2023; 59(2): 251. CrossRef
Imaging study of the effect of postural changes on the retroperitoneal oblique corridor in degenerative lumbar scoliosis Wei Yang, Zecheng Cai, Xiaoyin Liu, Wenqi Yuan, Rong Ma, Zhen Chen, Jianqun Zhang, Peng Wu, Zhaohui Ge European Spine Journal.2023; 32(10): 3659. CrossRef
Surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis by oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transpedicular screw fixation: Comparison between conventional double position versus navigation-assisted single lateral position Junghoon Han, Chang-Min Ha, Woon Tak Yuh, Young San Ko, Jun-Hoe Kim, Tae-Shin Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Sungjoon Lee, Sun-Ho Lee, Asfandyar Khan, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim, Mohamed El-Sayed Abdel-Wanis PLOS ONE.2023; 18(9): e0291114. CrossRef
Three-column reconstruction through the posterior approach alone for the treatment of a severe lumbar burst fracture: a case report Woo Seok Kim, Tae Seok Jeong, Woo Kyung Kim Journal of Trauma and Injury.2023; 36(3): 290. CrossRef
Female Sex and Supine Proximal Lumbar Lordosis Are Associated With the Size of the LLIF “Safe Zone” at L4-L5 Mitchell S. Fourman, Ram K. Alluri, J. Manuel Sarmiento, Keith W. Lyons, Francis C. Lovecchio, Kasra Araghi, Sidhant S. Dalal, Daniel J. Shinn, Junho Song, Pratyush Shahi, Dimitra Melissaridou, John A. Carrino, Evan D. Sheha, Sravisht Iyer, James E. Dowde Spine.2023; 48(22): 1606. CrossRef
Neuromonitoring in Lateral Approaches for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review James W. Nie, Timothy J. Hartman, Eileen Zheng, Keith R. MacGregor, Omolabake O. Oyetayo, Kern Singh World Neurosurgery.2022; 168: 268. CrossRef
Impact of preoperative symptom duration in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion James W. Nie, Timothy J. Hartman, Omolabake O. Oyetayo, Keith R. MacGregor, Eileen Zheng, Alexander W. Parsons, Dustin H. Massel, Arash J. Sarari, Kern Singh Acta Neurochirurgica.2022; 165(1): 89. CrossRef
Histological and Morphometric Changes in the Femoral Nerve During Lateral Interbody Fusion of the Lumbar Spine: Experimental Study Tatiana N. Varsegova, Olga V. Diuriagina, Nikolai I. Antonov, Sergey O. Ryabykh Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia.2021; 27(4): 82. CrossRef
Jung Kee Mok, Avani S. Vaishnav, Chirag Chaudhary, R. Kiran Alluri, Ryan Lee, Hikari Urakawa, Kosuke Sato, Darren A. Chen, Catherine Himo Gang, Russel Huang, Todd J. Albert, Sheeraz A. Qureshi
Neurospine 2020;17(3):588-602. Published online September 30, 2020
Objective To evaluate outcomes of cervical disc replacement (CDR) in patients with nonlordotic alignment.
Methods Patients who underwent CDR were retrospectively reviewed and divided into 3 cohorts: (1) neutral/lordotic segmental and C2–7 Cobb angle (L), (2) nonlordotic segmental Cobb angle, lordotic C2–7 Cobb angle (NL-S), and (3) nonlordotic segmental and C2–7 Cobb angle (NL-SC). Radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared.
Results One-hundred five patients were included (L: 37, NL-S: 30, NL-SC: 38). A significant gain in segmental lordosis was seen in all cohorts at < 6 months (L: -1.90° [p = 0.007]; NL-S: -5.16° [p < 0.0001]; NL-SC: -6.00° [p < 0.0001]) and ≥ 6 months (L: -2.07° [p = 0.031; NL-S: -6.04° [p < 0.0001]; NL-SC: -6.74° [p < 0.0001]), with greater lordosis generated in preoperatively nonlordotic cohorts (p < 0.0001). C2–7 lordosis improved in the preoperatively nonlordotic cohort (NL-SC: 8.04°) at follow-up of < 6 months (-4.15°, p = 0.003) and ≥ 6 months (-6.40°, p = 0.003), but not enough to create lordotic alignment (< 6 months: 3.89°; ≥ 6 months: 4.06°). All cohorts showed improvement in Neck Disability Index, visual analogue scale (VAS) neck, and VAS arm, without significant difference among groups in the amount of improvement ( ≥ 6-month PROMs follow-up = 69%).
Conclusion In patients without major kyphotic deformity, CDR has the potential to generate and maintain lordosis and improve PROMs in the short-term, and can be an effective treatment option for patients with nonlordotic alignment.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Discrepancy Between Global-Specific and Disease-Specific Outcome Measures Following Cervical Spine Surgery Cole Kwas, Avani S. Vaishnav, Jung K. Mok, Kasra Araghi, Nishtha Singh, Olivia Tuma, Maximilian Korsun, Chad Simon, Tomoyuki Asada, Eric Mai, Joshua Zhang, Myles Allen, Eric Kim, Annika Heuer, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz Qureshi Clinical Spine Surgery.2026; 39(6): E255. CrossRef
Factors Associated With Postoperative Kyphosis and Loss of Range of Motion After Cervical Disc Replacement Abel De Varona-Cocero, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Juan Rodriguez-Rivera, Fares Ani, Camryn Myers, Constance Maglaras, Tina Raman, Themistocles Protopsaltis Clinical Spine Surgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Association of Craniocervical Sagittal Alignment With the Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement Yi-Wei Shen, Yi Yang, Ying Hong, Chen Ding, Xin Rong, Yang Meng, Bei-Yu Wang, Ting-Kui Wu, Hao Liu Global Spine Journal.2024; 14(3): 846. CrossRef
An in Vivo, Three-Dimensional (3D), Functional Centers of Rotation of the Healthy Cervical Spine Zizhen Zhang, Kai Cao, Yanlong Zhong, Jie Yang, Shaofeng Chen, Guoan Li, Shaobai Wang, Zongmiao Wan World Neurosurgery.2024; 184: e203. CrossRef
Cervical kinematic change after posterior full-endoscopic cervical foraminotomy for disc herniation or foraminal stenosis Seungyoon Paik, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Young Il Won, Sung Bae Park, Seung Heon Yang, Chang-Hyun Lee, John Min Rhee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chi Heon Kim, Thamer Hamdan PLOS ONE.2023; 18(2): e0281926. CrossRef
Cervical sagittal balance after consecutive three-level hybrid surgery versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: radiological results from a single-center experience Shihao Chen, Yuxiao Deng, Hao Liu, Tingkui Wu, Kangkang Huang, Junbo He, Beiyu Wang Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Overview and Prevention of Complications During Full-Endoscopic Cervical Spine Surgery Young-Rak Kim, Jun-Hoe Kim, Tae-Hwan Park, Hangeul Park, Sum Kim, Chang-Hyun Lee, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chun Kee Chung, Chi Heon Kim Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2023; 8(2): 153. CrossRef
Clinical Effectiveness of Artificial Disc Replacement in Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Patients With Cervical Myelopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Jung Hwan Lee, Youn Joo Lee, Min Cheol Chang, Jun Ho Lee Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 1047. CrossRef
Cervical Disc Replacement for Radiculopathy Versus Myeloradiculopathy Ram K. Alluri, Avani S. Vaishnav, Ahilan Sivaganesan, Todd J. Albert, Russel C. Huang, Sheeraz A. Qureshi Clinical Spine Surgery.2022; 35(4): 170. CrossRef
Commentary on “Impact of Nonlordotic Sagittal Alignment on Short-term Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement” Kerui Zhang, Hao Liu, Tingkui Wu Neurospine.2021; 18(2): 413. CrossRef
Andre M. Samuel, Harold G. Moore, Avani S. Vaishnav, Steven McAnany, Todd Albert, Sravisht Iyer, Yoshihiro Katsuura, Catherine Himo Gang, Sheeraz A. Qureshi
Neurospine 2019;16(3):563-573. Published online September 30, 2019
Objective Cervical disc replacement (CDR) is an effective long-term treatment for both cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, there may be unique differences in the early postoperative clinical improvement for patients with and without myelopathy. In addition, previous studies using CDR to treat cervical myelopathy were underpowered to determine risk factors for relatively postoperative medical complications.
Methods Two different cohorts were studied. A local cohort of patients undergoing CDR by a single surgeon was utilized to study the early postoperative course of clinical improvement. In addition, a national cohort of patients undergoing CDR in the 2015 and 2016 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was utilized to study differences in postoperative medical complications after CDR. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy were identified in both cohorts, and perioperative outcomes and complications were compared to patients without myelopathy.
Results A total of 43 patients undergoing CDR were included in the institutional cohort, of those 16 patients (37% of cohort) had a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. A total of 3,023 patients undergoing CDR were included in the national cohort, of those 411 (13% of cohort) had a preoperative diagnosis of cervical myelopathy. In the institutional cohort, the nonmyelopathy group had a lower initial Neck Disability Index (NDI) and saw a faster improvement in NDI by 2 weeks postoperative. However, at 24 weeks there was no significant difference between groups in terms of NDI. Interestingly, only the nonmyelopathy cohort had a significant improvement in modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score by 6 weeks (p<0.05). In the national cohort, myelopathy was associated with longer operative time and length of stay (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in perioperative complications (p>0.05) between myelopathy and nonmyelopathy patients.
Conclusion Significant improvements in NDI, visual analogue scale (VAS)-arm pain, and VAS-neck pain are seen in both myelopathy and nonmyelopathy populations undergoing CDR by 6 weeks postoperatively. However, nonmyelopathy populations improve faster by 2 weeks postoperatively. In the national cohort analysis, medical complications were similarly low in both myelopathy and nonmyelopathy groups.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Contemporary decision-making factors leading to cervical disc replacement versus fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy: survey opinions from members of the society of minimally invasive spine surgeon an Karim A. Shafi, Adrian T.H. Lui, Christopher Mikhail, Kyle Morse, Joshua Zhang, Cole Kwas, Hyun Bae, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz Qureshi The Spine Journal.2026; 26(3): 504. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence and machine learning based predictive analytics in cervical myelopathy – a scoping review Sathish Muthu, Siddeshwar Siddamanickam, Balasubramaniyan Palani European Spine Journal.2026; 35(3): 1068. CrossRef
Temporal Trends of Recovery in Patients With Radiculopathy-Only Versus Myelopathy Following Single- and Multilevel ACDF Eric R. Zhao, Pratyush Shahi, Jung Kee Mok, Austin C. Kaidi, Tomoyuki Asada, Troy B. Amen, Farah Musharbash, Stephane Owusu-Sarpong, Luis F. Colon, Quante Singleton, Adrian T.H. Lui, Andrea Pezzi, Atahan Durbas, Sereen Halayqeh, Adin M. Ehrlich, Tarek Har Clinical Spine Surgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Discrepancy Between Global-Specific and Disease-Specific Outcome Measures Following Cervical Spine Surgery Cole Kwas, Avani S. Vaishnav, Jung K. Mok, Kasra Araghi, Nishtha Singh, Olivia Tuma, Maximilian Korsun, Chad Simon, Tomoyuki Asada, Eric Mai, Joshua Zhang, Myles Allen, Eric Kim, Annika Heuer, Sravisht Iyer, Sheeraz Qureshi Clinical Spine Surgery.2026; 39(6): E255. CrossRef
Cervical Cord Compressive Myelopathy in a Patient With Shoulder Pain Joshua Prall, Thomas MacDonald, Michael Ross JOSPT Cases.2025; 5(1): 50. CrossRef
Presentation and management of infection in total disc replacement: A review Hannah Spece, Armen Khachatryan, Frank M. Phillips, Todd H. Lanman, Gunnar B.J. Andersson, Grant E. Garrigues, Hyun Bae, Joshua J. Jacobs, Steven M. Kurtz North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2024; 18: 100320. CrossRef
Beyond the Label: Extended Indications for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Annika Bay, Eric R. Zhao, Cole T. Kwas, Chad Z. Simon, Tomoyuki Asada, Sheeraz A. Qureshi Contemporary Spine Surgery.2024; 25(12): 1. CrossRef
Cervical arthroplasty for myelopathy—A systematic review Bruce Hsi-Hsien Lin, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim, K. Daniel Riew Seminars in Spine Surgery.2023; 35(1): 101012. CrossRef
Impact of Preoperative 12-item Short Form Mental Composite Scores on Clinical Outcomes in Cervical Disc Replacement James W. Nie, Timothy J. Hartman, Eileen Zheng, Keith R. MacGregor, Omolabake O. Oyetayo, Kern Singh Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(6): E263. CrossRef
Clinical Effectiveness of Artificial Disc Replacement in Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Patients With Cervical Myelopathy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Jung Hwan Lee, Youn Joo Lee, Min Cheol Chang, Jun Ho Lee Neurospine.2023; 20(3): 1047. CrossRef
Is Cervical Disk Arthroplasty a Suitable Alternative to Treat Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy? Alexander J. Schupper, Arianne J. Boylan, John K. Houten Clinical Spine Surgery.2023; 36(9): 356. CrossRef
Radiological Changes in Adjacent and Index Levels after Cervical Disc Arthroplasty Jun Jae Shin, Kwang-Ryeol Kim, Dong Wuk Son, Dong Ah Shin, Seong Yi, Keung-Nyun Kim, Do-Heum Yoon, Yoon Ha Yonsei Medical Journal.2022; 63(1): 72. CrossRef
Cervical Disc Replacement for Radiculopathy Versus Myeloradiculopathy Ram K. Alluri, Avani S. Vaishnav, Ahilan Sivaganesan, Todd J. Albert, Russel C. Huang, Sheeraz A. Qureshi Clinical Spine Surgery.2022; 35(4): 170. CrossRef
Level-specific Perioperative and Clinical Outcome Comparison: Cervical Disk Replacement Versus Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion at C5-C6 in Patients With Myeloradiculopathy Kevin C. Jacob, Madhav R. Patel, Alexander W. Parsons, Michael C. Prabhu, Max A. Ribot, Hanna Pawlowski, Nisheka N. Vanjani, Kern Singh Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.2022; 30(17): e1137. CrossRef
Cervical Disc Herniations, Radiculopathy, and Myelopathy Robert G. Watkins, Robert G. Watkins Clinics in Sports Medicine.2021; 40(3): 513. CrossRef
Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Clinical Presentation, Assessment, and Natural History Melissa Lannon, Edward Kachur Journal of Clinical Medicine.2021; 10(16): 3626. CrossRef
Cervical disc arthroplasty: What we know in 2020 and a literature review Jun Jae Shin, Kwang-Ryeol Kim, Dong Wuk Son, Dong Ah Shin, Seong Yi, Keung-Nyun Kim, Do-Heum Yoon, Yoon Ha, K Daniel Riew Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Acute Paraplegia Due to Nucleus Herniation of a Mobi-C Implant without Trauma: Case Report of a Rare Complication Sung Kyu Song, Jong-Myung Jung, Woo Kyung Kim, Sang Gu Lee, Yong Ahn, Seong Son, Byung Rhae Yoo The Nerve.2021; 7(2): 99. CrossRef
Impact of Nonlordotic Sagittal Alignment on Short-term Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement Jung Kee Mok, Avani S. Vaishnav, Chirag Chaudhary, R. Kiran Alluri, Ryan Lee, Hikari Urakawa, Kosuke Sato, Darren A. Chen, Catherine Himo Gang, Russel Huang, Todd J. Albert, Sheeraz A. Qureshi Neurospine.2020; 17(3): 588. CrossRef
Bandscheiben-Prothese bei zervikaler Myelopathie Christoph Mehren, Bastian Storzer Die Wirbelsäule.2020; 04(04): 261. CrossRef
First
Prev
