Sections

Spinal Instability and Spinal Fusion Surgery

Sections Spinal Instability and Spinal Fusion Surgery
Overview
Presentation
Workup
Treatment
Media Gallery
Tables
References

Overview

Practice Essentials

Improved understanding of spinal biomechanics, proliferation of sophisticated spinal instrumentation devices, advances in bone fusion techniques, refinement of anterior approaches to the spine, and development of microsurgical and minimally invasive methods have made it possible to stabilize every segment of the spine successfully, regardless of the offending pathology. Accordingly, use of spinal fusion and instrumentation has increased. The question facing the modern spine surgeon is not so much how to stabilize the spine but when to do so.

As defined by White and Panjabi,^[1] spinal stability is the ability of the spine under physiologic loads to limit patterns of displacement so as not to damage or irritate the spinal cord and nerve roots and, in addition, so as to prevent incapacitating deformity or pain due to structural changes; instability (acute or chronic) refers to excessive displacement of the spine that would result in neurologic deficit, deformity, or pain. (See Definition of Spinal Instability.)

Strictly defined, spinal fusion is an operation designed to treat spinal instability. In practice, however, this definition is not particularly useful, in that it fails to establish the indications for spinal fusion. The problem is threefold, as follows:

The current definitions of spinal instability are not uniformly accepted and applied
It is difficult to measure instability in individual clinical circumstances
Class I and II scientific evidence regarding spinal fusion is relatively scarce

In this setting, clinical practice is guided by an understanding of the principles of spinal biomechanics (see Pathophysiology) and knowledge of the generally accepted indications, contraindications, and controversies regarding fusion surgery (see Treatment).

It should be noted that whereas the term fusion, as used in this article and in spine literature to refer to the concept of internal stabilization of the spine, generally refers to fusion with instrumentation (instrumented fusion), such stabilization has also, albeit with decreasing frequency, been accomplished by means of bone grafting alone.^[2]

Degenerative spine disease without instability

A great deal of controversy remains regarding the application of fusion surgery in the treatment of degenerative spine disease without overt instability. In the future, these controversies will be addressed by a two-pronged approach. First, rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the efficacy of existing methods of fusion. Second, novel treatment strategies are needed to replace fusion surgery.

Disk arthroplasty and posterior dynamic stabilization devices are two strategies that are under investigation. Some brands of artificial disk (see the image below) for treatment of symptomatic lumbar degenerative disk disease have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Short-term studies revealed equivalent results for disk arthroplasty and lumbar fusion.^[3]

Artificial lumbar disk. Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.

View Media Gallery

A prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter study designed to show the "noninferiority" of cervical total disk replacement (TDR) revealed that this technology was at least equivalent to anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion with regard to outcome at 24 months.^[4] Although most primary outcome measures (eg, pain scores and neurologic success) were equivalent in the two groups, the disk replacement group showed a lower requirement for analgesics and lower reoperation rate than the fusion group at 24 months.

Although these results showed promise for TDR, it should be noted that this study was limited to patients with single-level disk disease with radiculopathy and and that the results therefore cannot be generalized to patients with multilevel disk herniations, spondylosis, spondylolisthesis, and degenerative disk disease. In addition, long-term follow-up studies are needed to determine whether these benefits last, whether motion preservation with artificial disks persists over the long term, and whether the frequency of transition-level syndrome is decreased.

A subsequent systematic review and meta-analysis found that for patients with single-level degenerative lumbar disk disease, TDR was capable of alleviating pain, improving lumbar function, enhancing quality of life, providing a high level of security, and yierlding health economics benefits.^[5]

Posterior dynamic stabilization devices come in several varieties. The most promising of these are pedicle screw-based systems, where the screws are linked by flexible members instead of rigid rods. The theoretical goal is to limit movement to a zone where neutral or near-neutral loading of spine occurs, or conversely prevent movement into a zone where abnormal loading occurs. Again, the clinical trials that have been conducted to date have produced clinical outcomes comparable to those of fusion.^[6]

The challenges facing artificial disks and posterior dynamic stabilization devices are twofold. First, they must improve upon lumbar fusion outcomes. Second, these mechanical devices must continue to function indefinitely, as opposed to current spine implants, which are shielded from biomechanical stress once bony fusion is achieved.

In the long-term future, biologic rather than mechanical treatment strategies directed at repairing and maintaining the degenerated spine elements are more likely to provide a satisfactory solution to the problem of degenerative spine disease.

Anatomy

Regional variations in vertebral anatomy affect the incidence and consequences of spinal instability in different parts of the spine and dictate the surgical means by which the spine can be stabilized.

Vertebral body size increases as one descends the spine, accompanied by a corresponding increase in vertebral axial load-bearing capacity. The greater cancellous-to-cortical bone ratio in the vertebral body as compared with the posterior vertebral elements makes the body more susceptible to neoplastic and infectious diseases, and its relation to the instantaneous axis of rotation (IAR) makes it more susceptible to compressive injuries. The relative preponderance of these disorders anterior to the spinal cord makes their surgical management more challenging, often necessitating an anterior surgical approach to the spine.

On the other hand, the large surface area and volume of the vertebral body make it an excellent target for insertion of screw/plate systems, which can be used to stabilize every segment of the subaxial spine.

Facet joints have a transverse orientation in the cervical spine and gradually acquire a more sagittal orientation throughout the thoracic and upper lumbar spine. They then become more coronally oriented as one descends the lumbar spine. The transverse orientation of the facet joints and the loose facet capsules in the cervical spine allow relatively free movement of the neck in all three planes and do not protect the cervical spine against flexion injuries.

In the thoracolumbar junction, the sagittal orientation of the facet joints and the strong capsular ligaments permit greater movement in the sagittal plane than in other directions. This facet orientation and the transitional location of the thoracolumbar spine between the ribcage-stabilized thoracic spine and the more robust lumbar spine make the thoracolumbar junction more susceptible to flexion injuries.

The more coronal orientation of the L5-S1 facet joints as compared with the L4-5 facets accounts for the lower incidence of degenerative spondylolisthesis at L5-S1, in spite of the biomechanically disadvantaged angle of the lumbosacral junction. In contrast, isthmic spondylolisthesis, where the presence of spondylolysis bypasses the resistance of facet joints against translation, is more frequent at L5-S1.

The spinal canal is narrowest in the thoracic spine. On the other hand, the thoracic spine is stabilized by the ribcage, making it relatively immune to degenerative instability and increasing its resistance to traumatic instability. Consequently, if the force vector is great enough to overcome the stability of thoracic spine and produce a fracture-dislocation, the likelihood and severity of spinal cord injury would be greater in this area than elsewhere in the spine.

The pedicles in the cervical spine are quite narrow, short, acutely oriented, and juxtaposed to the transverse foramina (of the vertebral artery); accordingly, they are relatively undesirable for screw insertion. In contrast, the large size, strength, and favorable cylindrical anatomy of the pedicles in the lumbar spine makes them ideal for screw insertion. The pedicle screws at different segments are then linked by rods to stabilize the spine.

The pedicles acquire a relatively sagittal orientation in the thoracic and upper lumbar spine but then point inward again as one approaches the sacrum, a fact that must be taken into account when pedicle screws are to be inserted. In the thoracic spine, the pedicles have a narrow transverse diameter, exhibit a slight downward angle, and are located next to the narrow thoracic spinal canal.

Because of these anatomic considerations, wires and hooks have been used more frequently than screws to anchor rods against the thoracic spine, necessitating long instrumentation constructs to stabilize a short segment of instability ("rod long, fuse short"). Increasingly, screws are used in the thoracic spine to create shorter and stronger instrumentation constructs. In this setting, it is imperative to select screws of appropriate diameter on the basis of preoperative computed tomography (CT) and to avoid breach of the medial pedicle wall, erring toward the laterally located and protective costovertebral articulation, if necessary.

On the other hand, the relatively generous sagittal diameter of thoracic pedicles and the smaller size and lesser functional importance of thoracic nerve roots make screw misdirection in the sagittal plane less costly in the thoracic spine than it would be in the lumbar spine.

Cervical vertebrae have anatomic structures not found elsewhere in the spine: the lateral masses. Juxtaposed between the pedicles and the lamina and delimited by the articular surfaces of the adjacent facet joints, the paired lateral masses are satisfactory targets for screw insertion. Lateral mass screws at adjacent segments are linked by plates or rods to stabilize the cervical spine.

Laminae, spinous processes, and transverse processes can be used as anchor points for wires and hooks connected to rods to form three-point-bending instrumentation constructs. Alternatively, these structures can be wired to each other at different segments to produce tension band constructs. In general, these types of constructs provide less stiffness than screw/rod or screw/plate systems.

Comparison of vertebral anatomy in cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Note variation in anatomy and size of pedicles.

View Media Gallery

Pathophysiology

The pathophysiology of spinal instability is variable and dependent on the etiology of instability. However, an understanding of certain biomechanical principles can guide the surgeon in diagnosing spinal instability and selecting the appropriate treatment method.

The three-column concept of the spine, as defined by Denis, is widely used as the conceptual framework for diagnosing acute overt spinal instability.^[7]Although originally devised on the basis of a retrospective review of traumatic injuries to the thoracic and lumbar spine, it is now also applied to the subaxial (below C2) cervical spine and to nontraumatic instability. In this system, the columns are defined as follows:

The anterior column consists of the anterior vertebral body (usually the anterior two thirds), the anterior anulus, and the anterior longitudinal ligament
The middle column comprises the posterior wall of the vertebral body, the posterior anulus, and the posterior longitudinal ligament
The posterior column refers to the posterior ligamentous complex that connects adjacent neural arches, consisting of facet capsules, ligamentum flavum, interspinous ligament, and supraspinous ligament

Failure of two or more columns generally results in instability.

In this context, a simple compression wedge fracture occurs as a consequence of failure of the anterior column with preservation of the middle column (stable). On the other hand, a burst fracture is due to compression failure of both the anterior and the middle column (usually unstable), often resulting in bone retropulsion into spinal canal. A seatbelt-type injury is attributed to distraction failure of the posterior and middle columns with hinging of an intact anterior column (unstable). Fracture-dislocations involve failure of all three columns and are considered highly unstable.

The IAR is the axis about which a vertebral segment would rotate when exposed to an asymmetric application of force. Although in theory, there are three axes of rotation—corresponding to rotation in the sagittal plane (flexion/extension), coronal plane (lateral bending), and axial plane (twisting)—in practice, most references to the IAR involve axial forces applied in the sagittal plane. The IAR commonly (but not necessarily) falls within Denis' middle column.

Force vectors are simple mathematical constructs that define not only the magnitude of a force but also its direction. A force vector applied at a distance to the IAR results in rotation of that vertebral segment about the IAR. The distance between the point of application of the force vector and the IAR is called the moment arm. The longer the moment arm is, the less force is required to produce rotation.

When unrestricted rotation or displacement of an object is not possible in response to a force vector, deformation of its material (in this case, bone) occurs. For solid objects, elastic deformation occurs if the material can resume its shape when the stress (force divided by cross-sectional area) is removed. With increasing stress, a threshold is reached (elastic yield point) beyond which irreversible but smooth deformation (plastic deformation) occurs.

With further increases in stress, another threshold is reached (ultimate tensile point or failure point), at which point a fracture occurs and the stress is relieved. In the case of vertebral bone, the elastic yield point and failure point are fairly close, so the very little plastic deformation takes place before a fracture occurs.

On the basis of these concepts, traumatic spinal instability can be categorized according to the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms. When an axial force vector is applied anterior to the IAR, a compression fracture occurs as a result of isolated failure of the anterior column.

When the axial force vector is precisely directed over the IAR, no rotation occurs. In this situation, if the stress exceeds the ultimate tensile point of the vertebral bone, failure of both middle and anterior columns occurs, resulting in a burst fracture.

If the axial force vector is directed posterior to the IAR (hyperextension), fractures of laminae and facet joint may result. This is more common in the cervical spine because of its lordotic curvature.

Pure distraction forces are rarely applied to the spine. Distraction-flexion force vectors are composite vectors with components in the superior and anterior orientation in the sagittal plane, generally associated with seatbelt deceleration injuries of the thoracolumbar spine. The vertical (distractive) component of the vector is applied posterior to the IAR, whereas the flexion component is directed superior to the IAR, resulting in rupture of the posterior ligamentous complex and the middle column. The anterior column remains intact, acting as a hinge.

In this type of injury, if the orientation of the vector is such that the flexion component is stronger and is directly applied to the IAR, a true Chance fracture may occur, consisting of a horizontal shearing fracture across the pedicles, the vertebral endplates, or both. (See the image below.) With even larger flexion force vectors, a fracture-dislocation may occur, with failure of all three columns and bilateral jumped or fractured facets. If a rotational vector (twisting moment) is also present in the axial plane and the flexion vector is not overwhelming, a unilateral jumped facet may result.

$(A) Compression fracture; (B) burst fracture; (C)$ (A) Compression fracture; (B) burst fracture; (C) hyperextension injury to lamina and facets; (D) flexion-distraction (seatbelt) ligamentous injury and Chance fracture; (E) shear fracture-dislocations.

View Media Gallery

Although these biomechanical concepts are often discussed in the context of traumatic instability, they can be extended to other forms of instability as well. Furthermore, they are commonly applied in devising fusion and instrumentation constructs to treat specific instances of spinal instability.

For instance, interbody bone grafts and cages are best applied as distraction constructs applied in the region of IAR. Pedicle screw constructs can act as cantilever beams, shifting the IAR to the rod-screw interface. (See the image below.) Consideration of IAR is of crucial importance in three-point-bending constructs (eg, universal hook, wire, screw, rod systems used for thoracolumbar posterior instrumentation), where application of compressive and distractive forces can have significant effects on spine contour.

Example of application of biomechanical principles to spine surgery. Insertion of special pedicle screws (Schanz screws) pivoting on rod transfers instantaneous axis of rotation (IAR) to screw-rod interface. Compression of proximal end of screws produces distraction-reduction of vertebral burst fracture. If posterior longitudinal ligament is intact, retropulsion is corrected by ligament taxis. Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.

View Media Gallery

Biology of fusion

For fusion to succeed, osteoprogenitor cells must differentiate into osteoblasts, populate the fusion matrix, survive in the fusion environment, and deposit bone. Many local and systemic host factors and graft properties affect these processes. Graft material may have the following properties:

Osteoconduction
Osteoinduction
Osteogenesis

Osteoconduction refers to the capacity of the graft to serve as a matrix or scaffolding for infiltration of bone cells and supporting neovascular network. Allogeneic, autologous, and synthetic bone matrices made of hydroxyapatite or coral are osteoconductive.

Osteoinduction refers to the capacity of bone to direct differentiation, migration and attachment of osteoprogenitor cells. Many positive and negative osteoinductive influences exist. Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), a member of the transforming growth factor (TGF)-β family, induces differentiation of mesenchymal cells into osteoblasts.^[8]It is found naturally in the bone fusion environment and is available in recombinant form for clinical use.

Compressive forces applied to the bone graft also promote increased bone deposition, accounting for the greater success of interbody bone grafts versus onlay bone grafts. Application of a direct electrical current to bone also has an osteoinductive influence,^[9]a phenomenon that is put to use by implanting a bone stimulator in cases at high risk for pseudarthrosis.

Osteogenesis refers to the capacity of bone graft to initiate fusion by providing live osteoprogenitor cells. Only autologous bone graft has this property.

In addition to osteogenesis, autologous bone graft provides osteoinduction and osteoconduction and thus is the ideal graft material. A corticocancellous autograft (eg, a tricortical iliac crest autograft) is capable of providing structural support as an interbody implant in addition to the abovementioned favorable properties. The only drawback of using autograft material is the potential for donor-site complications associated with graft harvest.

Host factors that adversely affect fusion include the following:

Malnutrition
Corticosteroid use
Irradiation
Neoplastic disease
Diabetes
Local infection
Osteoporosis
Smoking

Of these, smoking is the most prevalent correctable risk factor. There is abundant experimental and clinical^[10]evidence documenting the adverse effects of smoking on bone healing and fusion.

Finally, immobilization of the target motion segment has been shown to significantly enhance the success of fusion.^[11]This is best accomplished by means of instrumentation. In absence of instrumentation, fusion should be supported by external bracing until it solidifies.

Etiology

Virtually every category of disease affecting the bones, disks, joints, or ligamentous support structures of the spine can produce spinal instability. These include the following:

Trauma
Tumors
Infections
Inflammatory diseases
Connective tissue disorders
Congenital disorders
Degenerative disorders
Iatrogenic (postoperative) etiologies

Epidemiology

Given that spinal instability is not a single disease but a pathologic consequence of a variety of different spine disorders (eg, traumatic fractures, metastatic tumors,^[12]and degenerative conditions), each with its own epidemiology, it is not possible or meaningful to determine the incidence and prevalence of spinal instability in the population. Furthermore, because of the disagreements on indications for spine fusion (at least for degenerative disease), the incidence of spinal instability does not correlate with the observed frequency of spine fusion surgery.

More than 400,000 spinal fusions are performed in the United States annually. The vast majority of these operations are performed for degenerative disease of the spine. Between 1998 and 2008, the annual number of spinal fusion discharges increased 137%, from 174,223 to 413,171, and the mean age for spinal fusion increased from 48.8 to 54.2 years.^[13]

Between 1996 and 2001, the number of spine fusions in the United States increased by 76%.^[14]Whereas in 1990 about 70% of cervical spine operations consisted of nonfused decompressions, by 2000 about 70% of cervical spine operations consisted of anterior cervical fusions.^[15] In New York, the number of subaxial spinal fusions increased by 114% between 1997 and 2012.^[16] Between 2004 and 2015, the number of elective lumbar fusions in the United States increased from 122,679 to 199,140.^[17]

An increase in the incidence of spinal instability certainly could not account for the increase in fusion surgery. Although the forces driving this trend may be debated, it is clear that the standard of care in the United States has been shifting toward greater use of fusion surgery.

Prognosis

Outcome after fusion surgery is measured in terms of the three cardinal clinical manifestations of spinal instability:

Neurologic function
Pain
Disabling deformity

With overt instability (eg, from trauma, tumor, or infection), neurologic function after surgery is directly related to preoperative neurologic status and cannot be used as a measure of success of fusion surgery. For instance, after a thoracolumbar fracture-dislocation with cord laceration and paraplegia, the success of fusion surgery should not be measured in terms of recovery of neurologic function, but in terms of addressing disabling deformity and pain.

In conditions with overt instability, deformity and pain outcome measures correlate closely with radiographic success of fusion. Modern fusion and instrumentation techniques ensure radiographic success in most of these cases; thus, the outcome of fusion surgery for treatment of overt instability is generally good, and the necessity of lumbar fusion for overt instability is not questioned.

The situation is entirely different in the case of covert instability as it applies to degenerative disease, where there is not a strong correlation between successful radiographic fusion and clinical improvement, and the former cannot be used as a surrogate marker for the latter. Consequently, there is now a great deal of interest in direct assessment of clinical outcome after fusion surgery for degenerative spine disease.

In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group provided useful class I scientific evidence.^[18] Of the 294 patients with disabling back pain due to one- or two-level degenerative disease without spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis (covert instability: dysfunctional motion segment), the lumbar fusion group did significantly better than the conservatively treated group in terms of pain relief, degree of disability, return to work status, and degree of satisfaction.

In contrast to this trial, a smaller Norwegian study of degenerative back pain^[19] failed to show a statistically significant difference between lumbar fusion and a very aggressive regimen of physical and cognitive treatment (25 hours of physical therapy weekly for 8 weeks, followed by a comprehensive home exercise program, individual counseling, lessons, group therapy sessions, and peer group discussions). Both groups experienced significant improvements over baseline, with a trend toward greater improvement in the surgical group.

This study was criticized not only for its small number of patients but also for the large confidence intervals in the data, which suggested that it lacked sufficient power to detect a statistical difference.^[20] Furthermore, it is unclear whether large-scale implementation of such a vigorous physical and cognitive program is realistic in the everyday clinical setting.

Such discrepancies in the spine literature have generally been the norm, not the exception, and they have often arisen from studies of far less scientific rigor than those mentioned above.

In an effort to produce evidence-based treatment recommendations, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS)/Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves took up the monumental task of analyzing all of the available literature on lumbar fusion for degenerative disease. In 2005, they issued recommendations that were ranked according to the strength of the supporting evidence, as follows^[20]:

Standards - Highest level of clinical confidence; based on one or more well-designed comparative studies, or less well-designed randomized controlled trials (class I evidence)
Guidelines - Intermediate level of confidence; based on one or more well-designed comparative studies, or less well-designed randomized controlled studies (class II evidence)
Options - Lowest level of confidence; based on case series, comparative studies with historical controls, expert opinion, and flawed randomized controlled trials (class III evidence)

Most of the recommendations were considered to be based on class III evidence and thus were labeled as options. The following are some of the more salient 2005 recommendations from the AANS/CNS Joint Section^[20]:

Lumbar fusion is recommended as a treatment for carefully selected patients with disabling low back pain due to one- or two-level degenerative disease without stenosis or spondylolisthesis (standards)
Lumbar fusion is not recommended as routine treatment following primary or recurrent disk excision, unless there is evidence of preoperative lumbar deformity, instability, or chronic low back pain (options)
Posterolateral lumbar fusion is recommended for patients with lumbar stenosis and associated spondylolisthesis who require decompression (guidelines)
Posterolateral lumbar fusion is not recommended as a treatment option in patients with lumbar stenosis without preexisting spinal instability (spondylolisthesis) or likely iatrogenic instability (options)
In the context of single-level standalone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or ALIF with posterior instrumentation, addition of posterolateral fusion is not recommended, as it increases operating time and blood loss without influencing the likelihood of fusion or functional outcome (guidelines)
In the workup of diskogenic pain, the following are recommended: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be used as the initial diagnostic test instead of diskography; MRI-documented disk spaces that appear normal should not be fused; lumbar diskography should not be used as a stand-alone test for surgical decision-making; if diskography is performed, both a concordant pain response and morphologic abnormalities should be present before fusion is considered (guidelines)

In 2014, updates to the 2005 AANS/CNS recommendations were published.^[21] In an effort to enhance compatibility with other guidelines and recommendations, the standards/guidelines/options ranking system was replaced by a modified version of the North American Spine Society (NASS) strategy for evidence assessment and recommendation grading. Evidence was assigned to one of five levels (I-V), and recommendations were graded as follows:

Grade A (good evidence) - Two or more level I studies with consistent findings
Grade B (fair evidence) - Single level I study or multiple level II or III studies with consistent findings
Grade C (poor evidence) - Single level II study or multiple level IV or V studies
Grade I (insufficient evidence for recommendation) - Single level III, IV, or V study; studies of equivalent strength with conflicting findings or conclusions

For the most part, the evidence underlying the 2014 recommendations did not conflict with the recommendations provided in 2005. Additional detail is available in the 17 guideline articles published in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine.^{[21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37]}

Clinical Presentation

White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1990. 30-342.
Hirase T, Ling JF, Haghshenas V, Weiner BK. Instrumented Versus Noninstrumented Spinal Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review. Clin Spine Surg. 2021 Oct 22. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Lin EL, Wang JC. Total disk arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006 Dec. 14 (13):705-14. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Murrey D, Janssen M, Delamarter R, Goldstein J, Zigler J, Tay B, et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J. 2009 Apr. 9 (4):275-86. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Bai DY, Liang L, Zhang BB, Zhu T, Zhang HJ, Yuan ZG, et al. Total disc replacement versus fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jul. 98 (29):e16460. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Schwarzenbach O, Berlemann U, Stoll TM, Dubois G. Posterior dynamic stabilization systems: DYNESYS. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005 Jul. 36 (3):363-72. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Denis F. Spinal instability as defined by the three-column spine concept in acute spinal trauma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984 Oct. (189):65-76. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Mohan S, Baylink DJ. Bone growth factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Feb. (263):30-48. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Kane WJ. Direct current electrical bone growth stimulation for spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1988 Mar. 13 (3):363-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Brown CW, Orme TJ, Richardson HD. The rate of pseudarthrosis (surgical nonunion) in patients who are smokers and patients who are nonsmokers: a comparison study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1986 Nov. 11 (9):942-3. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Bridwell KH, Sedgewick TA, O'Brien MF, Lenke LG, Baldus C. The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord. 1993 Dec. 6 (6):461-72. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Weber MH, Burch S, Buckley J, Schmidt MH, Fehlings MG, Vrionis FD, et al. Instability and impending instability of the thoracolumbar spine in patients with spinal metastases: a systematic review. Int J Oncol. 2011 Jan. 38 (1):5-12. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB. Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Jan 1. 37 (1):67-76. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Deyo RA, Nachemson A, Mirza SK. Spinal-fusion surgery - the case for restraint. N Engl J Med. 2004 Feb 12. 350 (7):722-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Patil PG, Turner DA, Pietrobon R. National trends in surgical procedures for degenerative cervical spine disease: 1990-2000. Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct. 57 (4):753-8; discussion 753-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Salzmann SN, Derman PB, Lampe LP, Kueper J, Pan TJ, Yang J, et al. Cervical Spinal Fusion: 16-Year Trends in Epidemiology, Indications, and In-Hospital Outcomes by Surgical Approach. World Neurosurg. 2018 May. 113:e280-e295. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Martin BI, Mirza SK, Spina N, Spiker WR, Lawrence B, Brodke DS. Trends in Lumbar Fusion Procedure Rates and Associated Hospital Costs for Degenerative Spinal Diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Mar 1. 44 (5):369-376. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Dec 1. 26 (23):2521-32; discussion 2532-4. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Brox JI, Sørensen R, Friis A, Nygaard Ø, Indahl A, Keller A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Sep 1. 28 (17):1913-21. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
[Guideline] Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 1: introduction and methodology. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Jun. 2 (6):637-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
[Guideline] Kaiser MG, Eck JC, Groff MW, Watters WC 3rd, Dailey AT, Resnick DK, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 1: introduction and methodology. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):2-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Choudhri TF, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 2: assessment of functional outcome following lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):7-13. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Ghogawala Z, Whitmore RG, Watters WC 3rd, Sharan A, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 3: assessment of economic outcome. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):14-22. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Choudhri TF, Mummaneni PV, Dhall SS, Eck JC, Groff MW, Ghogawala Z, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion status. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):23-30. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Dhall SS, Choudhri TF, Eck JC, Groff MW, Ghogawala Z, Watters WC 3rd, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 5: correlation between radiographic outcome and function. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):31-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Eck JC, Sharan A, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Ghogawala Z, Dailey AT, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 6: discography for patient selection. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):37-41. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Eck JC, Sharan A, Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Mummaneni PV, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: lumbar fusion for intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):42-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Wang JC, Dailey AT, Mummaneni PV, Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 8: lumbar fusion for disc herniation and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):48-53. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Sharan A, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Wang JC, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: lumbar fusion for stenosis with spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):54-61. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, Choudhri TF, Eck JC, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: lumbar fusion for stenosis without spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):62-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Mummaneni PV, Dhall SS, Eck JC, Groff MW, Ghogawala Z, Watters WC 3rd, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):67-74. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Groff MW, Dailey AT, Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, Mummaneni PV, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 12: pedicle screw fixation as an adjunct to posterolateral fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):75-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Watters WC 3rd, Resnick DK, Eck JC, Ghogawala Z, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 13: injection therapies, low-back pain, and lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):79-90. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Dailey AT, Ghogawala Z, Choudhri TF, Watters WC 3rd, Resnick DK, Sharan A, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 14: brace therapy as an adjunct to or substitute for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):91-101. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Sharan A, Groff MW, Dailey AT, Ghogawala Z, Resnick DK, Watters WC 3rd, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 15: electrophysiological monitoring and lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):102-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Kaiser MG, Groff MW, Watters WC 3rd, Ghogawala Z, Mummaneni PV, Dailey AT, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 16: bone graft extenders and substitutes as an adjunct for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):106-32. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Kaiser MG, Eck JC, Groff MW, Ghogawala Z, Watters WC 3rd, Dailey AT, et al. Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 17: bone growth stimulators as an adjunct for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014 Jul. 21 (1):133-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Benzel EC. Stability and instability of the spine. Biomechanics of Spine Stabilization. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme; 2015. Chap 3.
Ailon T, Smith JS, Shaffrey CI, Lenke LG, Brodke D, Harrop JS, et al. Degenerative Spinal Deformity. Neurosurgery. 2015 Oct. 77 Suppl 4:S75-91. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Schulte TL, Ringel F, Quante M, Eicker SO, Muche-Borowski C, Kothe R. Surgery for adult spondylolisthesis: a systematic review of the evidence. Eur Spine J. 2016 Aug. 25 (8):2359-67. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Debono B, Wainwright TW, Wang MY, Sigmundsson FG, Yang MMH, Smid-Nanninga H, et al. Consensus statement for perioperative care in lumbar spinal fusion: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Spine J. 2021 May. 21 (5):729-752. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Harrington PR. The history and development of Harrington instrumentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1973 Jun. (93):110-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Jacobsen MK, Andresen AK, Jespersen AB, Støttrup C, Carreon LY, Overgaard S, et al. Randomized double blind clinical trial of ABM/P-15 versus allograft in noninstrumented lumbar fusion surgery. Spine J. 2020 May. 20 (5):677-684. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Xie T, Wang C, Yang Z, Xiu P, Yang X, Wang X, et al. Minimally Invasive Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Anterolateral Screw Fixation for Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease. World Neurosurg. 2020 Mar. 135:e671-e678. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Zhang J, Jin MR, Zhao TX, Shao HY, Liu JW, Chen JP, et al. [Clinical application of percutaneous transforaminal endoscope-assisted lumbar interbody fusion]. Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2019 Dec 25. 32 (12):1138-1143. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Nagahama K, Ito M, Abe Y, Murota E, Hiratsuka S, Takahata M. Early Clinical Results of Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A New Modified Technique for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2019. 3 (4):327-334. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Chang M, Wang L, Yuan S, Tian Y, Zhao Y, Liu X. Percutaneous Endoscopic Robot-Assisted Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PE RA-TLIF) for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Technical Note and Two Years Clinical Results. Pain Physician. 2022 Jan. 25 (1):E73-E86. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Abbott AD, Tyni-Lenné R, Hedlund R. Early rehabilitation targeting cognition, behavior, and motor function after lumbar fusion: a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Apr 15. 35 (8):848-57. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Hu HM, Chen L, Frary CE, Chang CC, Hui H, Zhang HP, et al. The beneficial effect of Batroxobin on blood loss reduction in spinal fusion surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Apr. 135 (4):491-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Kushioka J, Yamashita T, Okuda S, Maeno T, Matsumoto T, Yamasaki R, et al. High-dose tranexamic acid reduces intraoperative and postoperative blood loss in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Mar. 26 (3):363-367. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Bai J, Zhang P, Liang Y, Wang J, Wang Y. Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid usage in patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019 Aug 31. 20 (1):390. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Antwi P, Grant R, Kuzmik G, Abbed K. "White Cord Syndrome" of Acute Hemiparesis After Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Chronic Cervical Stenosis. World Neurosurg. 2018 May. 113:33-36. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

Media Gallery

Bilateral jumped facet syndrome is example of overt spinal instability due to trauma. Note grossly abnormal displacement of C5 relative to C6 with neck flexion.
Example of anticipated instability. (A) Large mass affecting right C3-4 facet joint and lateral masses in patient with severe right-side neck and shoulder pain; (B, C) complete resection of tumor and simultaneous C3-4 anterior fusion to circumvent anticipated iatrogenic stability produced by radical resection of facet and lateral masses.
Spinal stenosis with fixed degenerative spondylolisthesis in elderly patient is common example of covert instability. Acceptable surgical treatment options include decompression alone vs decompression with fusion.
(A) Compression fracture; (B) burst fracture; (C) hyperextension injury to lamina and facets; (D) flexion-distraction (seatbelt) ligamentous injury and Chance fracture; (E) shear fracture-dislocations.
Example of application of biomechanical principles to spine surgery. Insertion of special pedicle screws (Schanz screws) pivoting on rod transfers instantaneous axis of rotation (IAR) to screw-rod interface. Compression of proximal end of screws produces distraction-reduction of vertebral burst fracture. If posterior longitudinal ligament is intact, retropulsion is corrected by ligament taxis. Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.
Comparison of vertebral anatomy in cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Note variation in anatomy and size of pedicles.
Loosening of this infected pedicle screw is evidenced by radiolucent halo (arrows) surrounding screw.
In this patient with T7-8 diskitis, vertebral enhancement on MRI persisted 8 weeks after clinical and microbiologic cure.
Grade 1 spondylolisthesis in neutral position progresses to grade 2 with flexion, indicating overt instability in this case.
Grade I isthmic spondylolisthesis at L5-S1. Arrow depicts L5 pars fracture.
C1-2 fusion with cable fixation (Gallie technique). In this case, fusion is supplemented with transarticular screws.
C1-2 fusion and cable fixation (Brooks technique). Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.
C1-2 fusion with cable fixation (Sonntag technique): coronal (left) and sagittal (right) CT reconstructions.
C1-2 transarticular screw. Note proximity of vertebral artery to typical screw trajectory.
Anterior cervical plate, applied in this case after two-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.
Large central disk herniations (A, B) and cervical spondylotic myelopathy with kyphosis (C) are two common indications for anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion.
C5-6 bilateral jumped facets associated with disk herniation (left) was treated with C6 anterior cervical decompression and fusion (right).
Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion. (A) Disk removed and interspace prepared to receive graft; (B) iliac crest bone graft harvested; (C) bone graft; (D) graft inserted into disk space; (E) plate screwed to anterior surface of vertebral bodies.
Intraoperative fluoroscopy for pedicle screw insertion.
Pedicle screw fixation of lumbar spine. Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.
Combined interbody and posterolateral lumbar fusion with pedicle screws: coronal (left) and sagittal (right) CT reconstructions.
Anterolateral lumbar corpectomy followed by reconstruction with fixed-height cage and dynamic rod system that allows compression across cage. Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.
Modular posterior thoracolumbar instrumentation system, which is attached to spine by combination of screws and hooks, in turn attached to long rods. In this case, it is used for correction of scoliosis, using three-point bending biomechanical principles. Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.
Anterolateral thoracic corpectomy followed by reconstruction with expandable cage and fixed plate-screw system. Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.
Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of anterior thoracic corpectomy and reconstruction for pathologic fracture due to vertebral osteomyelitis.
Modern operating room setup for spine surgery with fluoroscopy unit, neurophysiologic monitoring equipment, operating microscope, and digital radiology monitors.
Transition level syndrome: C6-7 disc herniation developed 6 years after C4-5 and C5-6 anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion.
Artificial lumbar disk. Image courtesy of Synthes, Inc.

of 28

Table 1. Grading of Spondylolisthesis

Slip Distance/Anteroposterior Diameter of Vertebral Body	Grade
0-25%	1
25-50%	2
50-75%	3
75-100%	4
>100%	Spondyloptosis

Table 2. Treatment of Traumatic Instability of Cervical Spine

Fracture/Dislocation

(Mechanism)

Type/Issue

Treatment

C1 Jefferson fracture

(axial loading)

1. Isolated -->

2. With transverse ligament rupture -->

3. Widely diastatic -->

4. With odontoid fracture -->

1. Hard collar

2. Halo

3. Consider occiput-C2 fusion

4. Treat according to odontoid fracture

C1-2 Rotatory subluxation

(twisting moment)

1. Children, URI -->

2. Adults, tumor, trauma, infection -->

1. Bedrest, analgesics, halter traction, soft collar

2. Traction, hard collar, halo, or C1-2 fusion depending on cause and duration

Odontoid fracture

(flexion in young, extension in old)

1. Type 1 -->

2. Type 2, < 6 mm displaced -->

3. Type 2, >6 mm displaced or chronic or type 2A -->

4. Type 3 -->

1. If no atlanto-occipital instability, collar × 3 mo

2. Halo × 3-6 mo

3. C1-2 fusion or odontoid screw

4. Halo × 6 mo

C2 Hangman fracture

(extension)

1. Pars approximated->

2. Pars separated, reducible -->

3. Pars separated, not reducible -->

1. Hard collar × 3 mo

2. Reduce in extension, then halo × 3 mo

3. C2-3 fusion

Unilateral jumped facet

(flexion + rotation)

1. Reducible -->

2. Not reducible -->

3. With facet fracture -->

4. With disk herniation -->

1. Reduce and halo × 3 mo

2. Open reduction and posterior fusion

3. Open reduction and posterior fusion

4. Anterior decompression, open reduction, and anterior fusion

Bilateral jumped facet

(flexion)

1. Reducible, without disk herniation -->

2. Not reducible, without disk herniation -->

3. With disk herniation -->

1. Closed reduction, then posterior fusion

2. Open anterior or posterior reduction and fusion

3. Anterior diskectomy, reduction and fusion

Subaxial spine axial loading injuries

(axial ± flexion)

1. Simple compression fracture -->

2. Burst fracture ± teardrop fracture -->

3. Burst + posterior column fracture -->

1. Hard collar

2. Anterior corpectomy and fusion

3. Anterior corpectomy and fusion

(± posterior fusion)

Clay shoveler fracture

(flexion)

Always stable

Soft collar and analgesics

Anterior avulsion fracture

(extension)

Always stable

Soft collar and analgesics

Table 3. Treatment of Traumatic Instability of Thoracic and Lumbar Spine

Fracture	Denis Columns Involved	Treatment
Compression fracture	Anterior column	Bracing (note that >50% vertebral body height loss or Cobb angle >30º predicts worsening of kyphosis)
Compression fracture with splaying of spinous processes	Anterior and posterior columns	Posterior instrumented fusion
Stable burst fracture (preserved posterior longitudinal ligament)	Anterior column and part of middle column	If no neural compromise, treat with TLSO brace If canal stenosis present, retropulsed fragment may be reduced by ligamentous taxis in distraction with posterior instrumented fusion
Unstable burst fracture	Anterior and middle columns with significant retropulsion, or all three columns	Anterior decompression and instrumented fusion
Flexion-distraction seat belt injury (ligamentous)	Middle and posterior columns	Posterior reduction and instrumented fusion
Chance fracture (osseous)	Two or three columns but with good bone contact	TLSO brace
Shear fracture dislocation	Three columns	Instrumented fusion, anterior, posterior, or both

Table 4. Odontoid Fracture Classification

Type	Fracture Anatomy
1	Fracture through odontoid tip (rare)
2	Fracture across base of odontoid process (most common)
2A	As in type 2, except with comminution of fracture line, reducing possibility of healing of fracture in halo or with odontoid screw
3	Fracture extension into C2 vertebral body; because of larger bone contact area, fracture usually heals well in halo

Back to List

Author

Peyman Pakzaban, MD Consulting Neurosurgeon, Houston MicroNeurosurgery; Chairman, Department of Surgery, Bayshore Medical Center

Peyman Pakzaban, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American Medical Association, Texas Medical Association, American Stroke Association, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Harris County Medical Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Chief Editor

Brian H Kopell, MD Associate Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Director, Center for Neuromodulation, Co-Director, The Bonnie and Tom Strauss Movement Disorders Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Mount Sinai Health System

Brian H Kopell, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, Congress of Neurological Surgeons, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, North American Neuromodulation Society

Disclosure: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Medtronic; Abbott Neuromodulation; Turing Medical.

Additional Contributors

Paul L Penar, MD, FACS Professor, Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, Director, Functional Neurosurgery and Radiosurgery Programs, University of Vermont College of Medicine

Paul L Penar, MD, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, World Society for Stereotactic and Functional Neurosurgery, Congress of Neurological Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

Images 5, 12, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 28 are protected by copyright under Synthes, Inc. or its affiliates; West Chester, Pennsylvania. The efforts of Mr. Jamison Wolocko and Ms. Cynthia Ryen in securing and providing these illustrations for this article are gratefully acknowledged.