St Marys Spine Center

San Francisco, CA, United States

St Marys Spine Center

San Francisco, CA, United States
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Yu E.M.,San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program | Yu E.M.,Ohio State University | Nosova E.V.,San Francisco Orthopaedic Residency Program | Nosova E.V.,University of California at San Francisco | And 5 more authors.
Global Spine Journal | Year: 2016

Study Design Retrospective reliability and validity study. Objective To validate a recently translated Russian language version of the Oswestry Disability Index (R-ODI) using standardized methods detailed from previous validations in other languages. Methods We included all subjects who were seen in our spine surgery clinic, over the age of 18, and fluent in the Russian language. R-ODI was translated by six bilingual people and combined into a consensus version. R-ODI and visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires for leg and back pain were distributed to subjects during both their initial and follow-up visits. Test validity, stability, and internal consistency were measured using standardized psychometric methods. Results Ninety-seven subjects participated in the study. No change in the meaning of the questions on R-ODI was noted with translation from English to Russian. There was a significant positive correlation between R-ODI and VAS scores for both the leg and back during both the initial and follow-up visits (p < 0.01 for all). The instrument was shown to have high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.82) and moderate test-retest stability (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.70). Conclusions The R-ODI is both valid and reliable for use among the Russian-speaking population in the United States. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.


Rhyne A.L.,OrthoCarolina Spine Center | Blumenthal S.L.,The Texas Institute | Frank E.H.,Oregon Health And Science University | Hsu K.Y.,St Marys Spine Center | And 10 more authors.
Spine | Year: 2012

Study Design.: Prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial. Objective.: To evaluate effectiveness of Oxiplex gel for reduction of pain and associated symptoms after lumbar discectomy. Summary of Background Data.: Oxiplex gel (carboxymethylcellulose, polyethylene oxide, and calcium) is used during discectomy to coat the surgical site for reduction of pain and symptoms after lumbar discectomy. Methods.: Patients undergoing single-level lumbar discectomy performed by laminectomy or laminotomy and randomized to receive either surgery plus Oxiplex gel (treatment group) or surgery alone (control group) were assessed 6 months after surgery using (1) a quality of life questionnaire (Lumbar Spine Outcomes Questionnaire [LSOQ]) and (2) clinical evaluations. Results.: There were no statistically significant differences in baseline demographics, surgical procedures, LSOQ scores, and clinical evaluations between treatment (N=177) and control (N=175) groups. More gel-treated patients were satisfied with outcome of their surgical treatment than control patients (P=0.05). The gel-treated group showed greater reductions in pain and symptoms from baseline compared with surgery-only controls. Additional benefits of gel were consistently shown in reduction of leg and back pain at 6 months in the patient population having substantial back pain at baseline (greater than or equal to the median LSOQ pain score of 63). In that population, there was a statistically significant reduction of leg pain and back pain (P < 0.01) in the treatment group compared with controls. Fewer patients in the treatment group had abnormal musculoskeletal physical examinations at 6 months compared with controls. There were no cases of cerebrospinal fluid leaks and no differences in laboratory values or vital signs. Patients in the treatment group had less hypoesthesia, paraesthesia, sensory loss, and fewer reoperations during the 6-month follow-up than controls (1 vs. 6). Conclusion.: These data demonstrate improvements in clinical outcomes resulting from the use of Oxiplex gel in discectomy procedures for treatment of lumbar disc herniation. © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.


Frank C.,Integrated Spine Care | Kondrashov D.,St Marys Spine Center | Craig Meyer S.,UNITED ORTHOPEDIC GROUP | Dix G.,Annapolis flyer cab | And 2 more authors.
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research | Year: 2016

Background: The evidence base supporting minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion (SIJF) surgery is increasing. The work relative value units (RVUs) associated with minimally invasive SIJF are seemingly low. To date, only one published study describes the relative work intensity associated with minimally invasive SIJF. No study has compared work intensity vs other commonly performed spine surgery procedures. Methods: Charts of 192 patients at five sites who underwent either minimally invasive SIJF (American Medical Association [AMA] CPT® code 27279) or lumbar microdiscectomy (AMA CPT® code 63030) were reviewed. Abstracted were preoperative times associated with diagnosis and patient care, intraoperative parameters including operating room (OR) in/out times and procedure start/stop times, and postoperative care requirements. Additionally, using a visual analog scale, surgeons estimated the intensity of intraoperative care, including mental, temporal, and physical demands and effort and frustration. Work was defined as operative time multiplied by task intensity. Results: Patients who underwent minimally invasive SIJF were more likely female. Mean procedure times were lower in SIJF by about 27.8 minutes (P<0.0001) and mean total OR times were lower by 27.9 minutes (P<0.0001), but there was substantial overlap across procedures. Mean preservice and post-service total labor times were longer in minimally invasive SIJF (preservice times longer by 63.5 minutes [P<0.0001] and post-service labor times longer by 20.2 minutes [P<0.0001]). The number of postoperative visits was higher in minimally invasive SIJF. Mean total service time (preoperative + OR time + postoperative) was higher in the minimally invasive SIJF group (261.5 vs 211.9 minutes, P<0.0001). Intraoperative intensity levels were higher for mental, physical, effort, and frustration domains (P<0.0001 each). After taking into account intensity, intraoperative workloads showed substantial overlap. Conclusion: Compared to a commonly performed lumbar spine surgical procedure, lumbar microdiscectomy, that currently has a higher work RVU, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative workload for minimally invasive SIJF is higher. The work RVU for minimally invasive SIJF should be adjusted upward as the relative amount of work is comparable. © 2016 Frank et al.


PubMed | Neurospine Solutions, Integrated Spine Care, Si Bone Inc., Columbia Orthopedic Group and 2 more.
Type: | Journal: ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR | Year: 2016

The evidence base supporting minimally invasive sacroiliac (SI) joint fusion (SIJF) surgery is increasing. The work relative value units (RVUs) associated with minimally invasive SIJF are seemingly low. To date, only one published study describes the relative work intensity associated with minimally invasive SIJF. No study has compared work intensity vs other commonly performed spine surgery procedures.Charts of 192 patients at five sites who underwent either minimally invasive SIJF (American Medical Association [AMA] CPT code 27279) or lumbar microdiscectomy (AMA CPT code 63030) were reviewed. Abstracted were preoperative times associated with diagnosis and patient care, intraoperative parameters including operating room (OR) in/out times and procedure start/stop times, and postoperative care requirements. Additionally, using a visual analog scale, surgeons estimated the intensity of intraoperative care, including mental, temporal, and physical demands and effort and frustration. Work was defined as operative time multiplied by task intensity.Patients who underwent minimally invasive SIJF were more likely female. Mean procedure times were lower in SIJF by about 27.8 minutes (P<0.0001) and mean total OR times were lower by 27.9 minutes (P<0.0001), but there was substantial overlap across procedures. Mean preservice and post-service total labor times were longer in minimally invasive SIJF (preservice times longer by 63.5 minutes [P<0.0001] and post-service labor times longer by 20.2 minutes [P<0.0001]). The number of postoperative visits was higher in minimally invasive SIJF. Mean total service time (preoperative + OR time + postoperative) was higher in the minimally invasive SIJF group (261.5 vs 211.9 minutes, P<0.0001). Intraoperative intensity levels were higher for mental, physical, effort, and frustration domains (P<0.0001 each). After taking into account intensity, intraoperative workloads showed substantial overlap.Compared to a commonly performed lumbar spine surgical procedure, lumbar microdiscectomy, that currently has a higher work RVU, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative workload for minimally invasive SIJF is higher. The work RVU for minimally invasive SIJF should be adjusted upward as the relative amount of work is comparable.


Kuo C.C.,Kaiser Permanente | Martin A.,Taylor Collaboration | Teiles C.,Sierra Pacific Orthopedics | Leasure J.,Taylor Collaboration | And 4 more authors.
Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine | Year: 2016

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate the forces placed on posterior fusion instrumentation by 3 commonly used intraoperative techniques to restore lumbar lordosis: 1) cantilever bending; 2) in situ bending; and 3) compression and/or distraction of screws along posterior fusion rods. METHODS: Five cadaveric torsos were instrumented with pedicle screws at the L1-5 levels. Specimens underwent each of the 3 lordosis restoration procedures. The pedicle screw pullout force was monitored in real time via strain gauges that were mounted unilaterally at each level. The degree of correction was noted through fluoroscopic imaging. The peak loads experienced on the screws during surgery, total demand on instrumentation, and resting loads after corrective maneuvers were measured. RESULTS: A mean overall lordotic correction of 10.9 ± 4.7° was achieved. No statistically significant difference in lordotic correction was observed between restoration procedures. In situ bending imparted the largest loads intraoperatively with an average of 1060 ± 599.9 N, followed by compression/distraction (971 ± 534.1 N) and cantilever bending (705 ± 413.0 N). In situ bending produced the largest total demand and postoperative loads at L-1 (1879 ± 1064.1 and 487 ± 118.8 N, respectively), which were statistically higher than cantilever bending and compression/distraction (786 ± 272.1 and 138 ± 99.2 N, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In situ bending resulted in the highest mechanical demand on posterior lumbar instrumentation, as well as the largest postoperative loads at L-1. These results suggest that the forces generated with in situ bending indicate a greater chance of intraoperative instrumentation failure and postoperative proximal pedicle screw pullout when compared with cantilever bending and/or compression/distraction options. The results are aimed at optimizing correction and fusion strategies in lordosis restoration cases. © AANS, 2016.


Clark A.J.,University of California at San Francisco | Tang J.A.,University of California at San Francisco | Leasure J.M.,Taylor Collaboration Laboratories | Ivan M.E.,University of California at San Francisco | And 6 more authors.
Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine | Year: 2014

Object. Reconstruction after total sacrectomy is a critical component of malignant sacral tumor resection, permitting early mobilization and maintenance of spinal pelvic alignment. However, implant loosening, graft migration, and instrumentation breakage remain major problems. Traditional techniques have used interiliac femoral allograft, but more modern methods have used fibular or cage struts from the ilium to the L-5 endplate or sacral body replacement with transiliac bars anchored to cages to the L-5 endplate. This study compares the biomechanical stability under gait-simulating fatigue loading of the 3 current methods. Methods. Total sacrectomy was performed and reconstruction was completed using 3 different constructs in conjunction with posterior spinal screw rod instrumentation from L-3 to pelvis: interiliac femur strut allograft (FSA); L5-iliac cage struts (CSs); and S-1 body replacement expandable cage (EC). Intact lumbar specimens (L3-sacrum) were tested for flexion-extension range of motion (FE-ROM), axial rotation ROM (AX-ROM), and lateral bending ROM (LB-ROM). Each instrumented specimen was compared with its matched intact specimen to generate an ROM ratio. Fatigue testing in compression and flexion was performed using a custom-designed long fusion gait model. Results. Compared with intact specimen, the FSA FE-ROM ratio was 1.22 ± 0.60, the CS FE-ROM ratio was significantly lower (0.37 ± 0.12, p < 0.001), and EC was lower still (0.29 ± 0.14, p < 0.001; values are expressed as the mean ± SD). The difference between CS and EC in FE-ROM ratio was not significant (p = 0.83). There were no differences in AX-ROM or LB-ROM ratios (p = 0.77 and 0.44, respectively). No failures were noted on fatigue testing of any EC construct (250,000 cycles). This was significantly improved compared with FSA (856 cycles, p < 0.001) and CS (794 cycles, p < 0.001). Conclusions. The CS and EC appear to be significantly more stable constructs compared with FSA with FE-ROM. The 3 constructs appear to be equal with AX-ROM and LB-ROM. Most importantly, EC appears to be significantly more resistant to fatigue compared with FSA and CS. Reconstruction of the load transfer mechanism to the pelvis via the L-5 endplate appears to be important in maintenance of alignment after total sacrectomy reconstruction. ©AANS, 2014.


Rolfe K.W.,University of California at Los Angeles | Zucherman J.F.,St Marys Spine Center | Kondrashov D.G.,St Marys Spine Center | Hsu K.Y.,St Marys Spine Center | Nosova E.,St Marys Spine Center
Spine Journal | Year: 2010

Background context: The X-STOP interspinous decompression device, as a treatment for neurogenic intermittent claudication (NIC) because of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), has been shown to be superior to nonoperative control treatment. Current Food and Drug Administration labeling limits X-STOP use to NIC patients with a maximum of 25° concomitant lumbar scoliosis. This value was arrived at arbitrarily by the device developers and is untested. Purpose: To determine X-STOP utility for NIC in patients with concomitant lumbar scoliosis. Study design: A prospective, single institution, clinical outcome study comparing patients with scoliosis with patients without scoliosis who underwent X-STOP interspinous decompression for NIC because of LSS. Patient sample: A cohort of 179 consecutive patients, 63 with scoliosis (Cobb angle 11°or more) and 116 without scoliosis, with symptoms attributable to NIC treated between January 2006 and May 2007, were included in the study. Outcome measures: All patients completed self-reported preoperative and minimum 1-year postoperative outcome forms. Functional measures included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and maximum walking and standing times in minutes. Three questions measured patient satisfaction: How satisfied were you with the procedure (very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied); Would you have the procedure again? (yes or no); Would you recommend the procedure to a friend? (yes or no). Methods: Before analysis, the 179 consecutive X-STOP patients were divided into three groups: Group 1 (controls without scoliosis, n=116); Group 2 (low scoliosis: 11-25°, n=41), and Group 3 (high scoliosis: 26° or more, n=22). The three groups were not statistically different for any preoperative functional scores. Groups were analyzed for pre- to postoperative functional change and level of satisfaction. Segmental scoliosis at the treated level was also analyzed. Results: Fifty-six percent of Group 1 and Group 2 patients, but only 18% of Group 3 patients, achieved the success criterion of an ODI improvement of 15 or more points (Group 3 the outlier, p=.004). The satisfaction rate was Group 1, 76%; Group 2, 78%; Group 3, 59% (Group 3 the outlier, p=.0001). On average, all three groups improved for each outcome: Group 1 (ODI 17.3, VAS 2.0, standing time 39 minutes, and walking time 43 minutes), Group 2 (ODI 20.0, VAS 1.9, standing time 65 minutes, and walking time 64 minutes), Group 3 (ODI 7.2, VAS 0.9, standing time 18 minutes, and walking time 16 minutes). There was no statistical relationship between any outcome and segmental scoliosis. Conclusions: The outcome success rate for the X-STOP procedure to treat NIC is lower in patients with overall lumbar scoliosis more than 25° but is unaltered by segmental scoliosis at the affected level. Although patients and surgeons must be aware that the presence of more than 25° of scoliosis portends less favorable results with X-STOP implantation for NIC because of LSS, success in these patients is not precluded, and selection of treatment must be put into the context of individual patient risk and other treatment options. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Loading St Marys Spine Center collaborators
Loading St Marys Spine Center collaborators