Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleSpecial Issue (Invited)

Personalized Approaches to Spine Surgery

Arati Patel, Abraham Dada, Satvir Saggi, Hunter Yamada, Vardhaan S. Ambati, Eliana Goldstein, Edward Hsiao and V. Praveen Mummaneni
International Journal of Spine Surgery August 2024, 8644; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8644
Arati Patel
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: arati.patel@ucsf.edu
Abraham Dada
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Satvir Saggi
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hunter Yamada
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vardhaan S. Ambati
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eliana Goldstein
2 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Neuroradiology Division, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
MD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edward Hsiao
3 Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, The UCSF Metabolic Bone Clinic, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
MD, PʜD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
V. Praveen Mummaneni
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
MD, MBA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    An 80-year-old man undergoing preoperative spinal imaging. (A) Lumbar dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan. (B) Hounsfield unit (HU) bone mineral density at a given level is calculated as the average HU of the superior endplate, middle of the vertebral body, and the inferior endplate. (C) Vertebral bone quality is calculated by dividing the median signal intensity of the medullary portions of L1–L4 vertebral bodies by the average signal intensity of the cerebrospinal fluid at L3.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Algorithm for optimization of preoperative bone mineral density. *Evidence for bisphosphonates (eg, alendronate) is inconclusive and, at this time, not recommended for use 6 mo pre- or postoperatively.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    A 78-year-old man with a history of prior lumbar laminectomy underwent a 2-stage lumbosacral fusion: L3–L5 anterior lumbar interbody fusion and L2-pelvic minimally invasive fixation for severe back pain, right leg pain, and chronic right foot weakness. (A) Preoperative anteroposterior and (B) lateral full spinal imaging generated from an EOS scan, revealing severe degenerative changes, spinal stenosis worst at L2–L3 and L3–L4, and scoliosis with a significant mismatch between lumbar lordosis and pelvic incidence. (C) Postoperative coronal and (D) sagittal full spinal imaging generated from EOS showing instrumentation.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Fifty-two-year old man who underwent a T7 corpectomy with en bloc resection of a grade 2 chondrosarcoma and T5–T9 posterior fusion. This is an example of a case in which a custom implant would have been advantageous given the irregular margins of the tumor resection cavity. (A) Preoperative T1-post gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging revealed a 1.4 cm bony destructive mass within the T7 vertebral body and left pedicle with expansile component to the left paravertebral space and also left epidural component abutting the thoracic cord without cord compression (inset). (B) Postoperative computed tomography scan demonstrating an expandable titanium cage flush to the endplates of T6 and T8. (C) and (D) Postoperative stitched standing scoliosis films demonstrating anterior and posterior instrumentation.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    Sixty-eight-year-old man who underwent posterior C2–T6 fusions extension into prior fusion construct and C2–T2 laminectomy for progressive cervical myelopathy status post prior T7 corpectomy and T4–T9 fusion following T6–T7 pathologic fracture secondary to osteomyelitis. (A) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging demonstrating severe stenosis from C2 to T2. (B) Preoperative anteroposterior (AP) and (C) lateral EOS scans demonstrating prior posterior hardware. (D) Postoperative AP and (E) lateral stitched scoliosis films highlighting a titanium rod construct spanning C2–T9.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Summary of implant materials and their applications and characteristics.

    MaterialYoung’s Modulus66 ApplicationsProsCons
    Ti6A14V110
    • Rods

    • Cages

    • Plates

    • Screws

    • Lightweight

    • Flexible

    • Alloys available

    • Relatively expensive

    • Imaging artifacts

    Ti50.2
    Co-Cr53.15
    • Rods

    • High corrective force for scoliosis

    • Risk of plastic deformation

    • Risk of PJK

    • High imaging artifacts

    Stainless steel51.07
    • Rods

    • Inexpensive

    • High imaging artifacts

    • Corrosion

    CFR PEEK17.94
    • Rods

    • Cages

    • Reduced imaging artifacts

    • Low Young’s modulus

    Cancellous bone3.87
    • Abbreviations: CFR, carbon fiber reinforced; Co-Cr, cobalt chromium; PEEK, polyethylethylketone; PJK, proximal junctional kyphosis; Ti, titanium.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Overview of pain-associated genes that can be used as screening targets in the context of spine surgery.

    GeneFunctionExample Polymorphism(s) Associated With Pain
    Catechol-O-methyltransferaseMetabolism of catecholamines (dopamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine)rs4680 GG (Ernst et al, 2024)99
    Val158Met (Rakvåg et al, 2008100; Diatchenko et al, 2006101)
    Neuropeptide YNeuropeptide implicated in pain modulationrs16147 TT (Ernst et al, 2024)99
    Guanosine triphosphate cyclohydrolase 1Rate-limiting enzyme in the synthesis of tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4)rs998259 (minor allele T) (Kim et al, 2010)102
    Opioid Receptor Mu 1Encodes for the mu opioid receptorAsn118Asp (Lötsch et al, 2004)103
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Personalized Approaches to Spine Surgery
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Personalized Approaches to Spine Surgery
Arati Patel, Abraham Dada, Satvir Saggi, Hunter Yamada, Vardhaan S. Ambati, Eliana Goldstein, Edward Hsiao, V. Praveen Mummaneni
International Journal of Spine Surgery Aug 2024, 8644; DOI: 10.14444/8644

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Personalized Approaches to Spine Surgery
Arati Patel, Abraham Dada, Satvir Saggi, Hunter Yamada, Vardhaan S. Ambati, Eliana Goldstein, Edward Hsiao, V. Praveen Mummaneni
International Journal of Spine Surgery Aug 2024, 8644; DOI: 10.14444/8644
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Preoperative
    • Intraoperative Setting
    • Postoperative Setting
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Patient-Specific Rods in Adolescent and Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Narrative Review
  • Advanced Visualization in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: The Ergonomics, Economics, and Evolution of Camera-Based Tubes and Retractors
Show more Special Issue (Invited)

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • personalized medicine
  • spine surgery
  • biologics
  • bone mineral density
  • robotics
  • surgical planning
  • spine implants
  • outcomes
  • pain
  • artificial intelligence

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire