Initial clinical experience with a novel vertebral augmentation system for treatment of symptomatic vertebral compression fractures: A case series of 26 consecutive patients

Abstract Background Minimally invasive vertebral augmentation procedures are widely used to treat vertebral compression fractures although procedural polymethylmethacrylate cement leakage remains common. We report herein our initial experience with a novel vertebral augmentation technique designed to treat symptomatic vertebral osteoporotic fractures and osteolytic metastases with minimal cement extravasation. Methods Forty-two vertebral fractures were identified in 26 consecutive patients (mean age 74 ± 9 years). All patients were treated with a novel percutaneous vertebral augmentation device (Kiva® VCF Treatment System, Benvenue Medical, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Indications for surgery included recent (≤ 3 months) symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral fracture (n = 34) and pathologic vertebral fractures (e.g. metabolic bone disease, myeloma, metastasis) (n = 8) located between T10 and S1. Patient outcomes were evaluated pre-treatment and at 2- and 6-month follow-up visits. Postoperative cement extravasation was assessed with computed tomography. Patient-reported back pain was quantified using an 11-point numeric scale. Back-specific functional disability was self-reported with the Oswestry Disability Index on a 0 to 100% scale. Results No cases of intraoperative hypotension, respiratory disturbance, neurological deterioration, infection, or death were observed. There were 2 (4.8%) levels where anterior cement leakage was visible radiographically in patients with osteolyses. No intracanal leakage was observed. Back pain scores improved 71% (p &lt; 0.001) from pre-treatment to the 6-month follow-up. Back function improved 56% from baseline to 6 months (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions The initial clinical experience with the Kiva® System demonstrated significant improvements in back pain and function with minimal and clinically insignificant procedural cement leakage. </jats:sec

Are Better Workers Also Better Humans? On Pharmacological Cognitive Enhancement in the Workplace and Conflicting Societal Domains

The article investigates the sociocultural implications of the changing modern workplace and of pharmacological cognitive enhancement (PCE) as a potential adaptive tool from the viewpoint of social niche construction. We will attempt to elucidate some of the sociocultural and technological trends that drive and influence the characteristics of this specific niche, and especially to identify the kind of capabilities and adaptations that are being promoted, and to ascertain the capabilities and potentialities that might become diminished as a result. In this context, we will examine what PCE is, and how and why it might be desirable as a tool for adaptation within the workplace. As human beings are, or at least should be allowed to be, more than merely productive, able-bodied and able-minded workers, we will further examine how adaptation to the workplace niche could result in problems in other domains of modern societal life that require the same or other cognitive capabilities. In this context we will also focus on the concept of responsibility and how it pertains to PCE and the modern workplace niche. This will shed some light on the kind of trends related to workplace niche construction, PCE and capability promotion that we can expect in the future, and on the contexts in which this might be either beneficial or detrimental to the individual as a well-rounded human being, and to other members of society

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (&lt; 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and &gt; 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (&lt; 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (&lt; 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with &gt; 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (&lt; 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs &gt; 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system