Are Patients With Segmental Cervical Kyphosis Appropriate Candidates for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA)? A Clinical and Radiographic Analysis Compared to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF).

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in patients with preoperative segmental kyphosis. METHODS: Patients with segmental cervical kyphosis at the operative levels undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDF or CDA from 2017 to 2020 with 2 years of follow were identified. Patient demographics, perioperative data, complication rates, radiographic findings and reported outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in our study (ACDF: n = 24, CDA: n = 24). Patient demographic data between the 2 cohorts was similar expect for proportion of males (ACDF: 62.5% vs CDA: 33.3%, P = .043). There was no statistical significance in the change of segmental lordosis (ACDF: +8.09° vs CDA: +5.88°, P = .075) between the preoperative and final postoperative period. Additionally, the change in cervical lordosis was similar between groups (ACDF:+ 9.86° vs CDA: +7.60°, P = .226). VAS scores were similar between the 2 groups at every follow-up interval. NDI scores were significantly different at the 6-month, 12 month and the final follow-up. Mean improvements between preoperative and final postoperative periods were statistically superior in the CDA cohort compared to the ACDF cohort (ACDF: 22.8 vs CDA: 24.1, P = .0375). CONCLUSION: CDA was superior to ACDF in regards to NDI scores following index procedure in patients with preoperative segmental cervical kyphosis. Those in the CDA cohort had similar complication rates, revision rates and radiographic outcomes as those who underwent ACDF.

Comparing outcomes between anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) have emerged as two increasingly popular alternatives to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the management of cervical radiculopathy. Both techniques provide advantages of segmental motion preservation and lower rates of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) compared to ACDF. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing ACDR or MI-PCF for the treatment of unilateral cervical radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective Cohort Review. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 152 patients were included (86 ACDR and 66 MI-PCF). OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Patient demographics; (2) perioperative data; (3) rates of complications and revisions; (5) visual analogue scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. METHODS: A retrospective cohort review was performed to identify all patients at a single institution between 2012-2020 who underwent 1- or 2- level ACDR or MI-PCF from C3-C7 with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patient demographics, perioperative data, postoperative complications, and revisions were analyzed. Patient reported outcome measures including VAS and NDI scores were compared. RESULTS: The ACDR group had a significantly greater mean operative time (99.8 minutes vs 79.2 minutes, p<.001), but comparable estimated blood loss and length of stay following surgical intervention (p=.899). The overall complication rate was significantly greater in the ACDR group than the MI-PCF group (24.4% vs 6.2%; p=.003) but was largely driven by approach-related dysphagia in 20.9% of ACDR patients. The MI-PCF group had significantly greater revision rates (13.6% vs 1.2%; p=.002) with an average time to revision of 20.7 months in the MI-PCF group compared to 40.3 months in the ACDR group. The ACDR cohort had significantly greater improvements in NDI scores at the final follow-up (25.0 vs 21.3, p<.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that ACDR offer clinically relevant advantages over MI-PCF in terms of long-term revision rates despite an increased approach-related risk of transient postoperative dysphagia. Additionally, patients in the ACDR cohort achieved greater mean improvements in NDI scores but these results may have limited clinical significance due to inability to reach minimally clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds.

Safety and Efficacy of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Disk Replacement (ACDR) in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Hospital Setting: A 2-year Retrospective Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes of outpatient anterior cervical disk replacements (ACDR) performed in free-standing private ambulatory surgery centers versus tertiary hospital centers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ACDR is an increasingly popular technique for treating various degenerative pathologies of the cervical spine. There has been an increase in the utilization of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) for outpatient cervical procedures due to economic and convenience benefits; however, a paucity of literature exists in evaluating long-term safety and efficacy of ACDRs performed in ASCs versus outpatient hospital centers. METHODS: A retrospective cohort review of all patients undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDRs at 2 outpatient ASCs and 4 tertiary care medical centers from 2012 to 2020, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months, was performed. Approval by each patient's insurance and patient preference determined distribution into an ASC or non-ASC. Demographics, perioperative data, length of follow-up, complications, and revision rates were analyzed. Functional outcomes were assessed using VAS and NDI at follow-up visits. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen patients were included (65 non-ASC and 52 ASC). There were no significant differences in demographics or length of follow-up between the cohorts. ASC patients had significantly lower operative times (ASC: 89.5 minutes vs. non-ASC: 110.5 minutes, P<0.001) and mean blood loss (ASC: 17.5 mL vs. non-ASC: 25.3 mL, P<0.001). No significant differences were observed in rates of dysphagia (ASC: 21.2% vs. non-ASC: 15.6%, P<0.001), infection (ASC: 0.0% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P=0.202), ASD (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P=0.202), or revision (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 0.0%, P=0.262). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS and NDI scores (P<0.001), but no significant differences in the degree of improvement were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our 2-year results demonstrate that ACDRs performed in ASCs may offer the advantages of reduced operative time and blood loss without an increased risk of postoperative complications.

The 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) predicts adverse outcomes after elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a reliable procedure commonly performed in older patients with degenerative diseases of the cervical spine. Over 130,000 procedures are performed every year with an annual increase of 5%, and overall morbidity rates can reach as high as 19.3%, indicating a need for surgeons to gauge their patients' risk for adverse outcomes. Frailty is an age-associated decline in functioning of multiple organ systems and has been shown to predict adverse outcomes following various spine procedures. There have been several proposed frailty indices of various factors including the 11-factor modified frailty index (mFI-11), which has been shown to be an effective tool for predicting complications in patients undergoing ACDF. However, there is a paucity of literature assessing the utility of the 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) as a risk stratification tool for patients undergoing ACDF. The purpose of this study was to analyze the predictive capability of the mFI-5 score for 30-day postoperative adverse events following elective ACDF. Methods: A retrospective review was performed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2010 through 2019. Patients older than 50 years of age who underwent elective ACDF were identified using Current Procedural Terminology ([CPT] codes 22554, 22551, 22552, and 63075). Exclusion criteria removed patients under the age of 51, as well as those with fractures, sepsis, disseminated cancer, a prior operation in the last 30 days, ascites, wound infection, or an emergency surgery. Patients were grouped using mFI scores of 1, 2, and 3+. Univariate analysis, using chi-squared and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, was conducted to compare demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications across the varying cohorts based on mFI-5 scores. Multivariate logistic regression, including patient demographics and preoperative comorbidities as covariates, was performed to evaluate if mFI-5 scores were independent predictors of 30-day postoperative adverse events. Covariates including race, BMI, sex, ASA, and comorbidities were included in regression models. Results: The 45,991 patients were identified and allocated in cohorts based on mFI-5 score. Rates for superficial surgical site infection (SSI), organ/deep space SSI, pneumonia, progressive renal insufficiency, acute renal failure (ARF), urinary tract infection (UTI), stroke/cardiovascular accident (CVA), cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusions, deep vein thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, sepsis, septic shock, readmissions, reoperation, and mortality incrementally increased with mFI-5 scores from 0 to 3+. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that mFI-5 scores 1 to 3+ increased the odds, in a stepwise manner, of total complications, cardiac arrest requiring CPR, pneumonia and mortality. MFI-5 scores of 2 and 3+ were independent predictors of readmission (2: OR=1.5, p<.001; 3+: OR=2.0, p<.001) and myocardial infarction (2: OR=3.4, p=.001; 3+: OR=6.9, p<.001). A score of 3+ increased the odds of ARF (OR=9.7, p=.022), septic shock (OR=3.6, p=.036), UTI (OR=2.1, p=.007), bleeding requiring transfusions (OR=2.1, p=.016), and reoperations (OR=1.7, p=.004). Conclusion: mFI-5 score is a quick and viable option for surgeons to use as an assessment tool to stratify high risk patients undergoing elective ACDF, as increasing mFI-5 scores showed significantly higher rates of all adverse outcomes accounted for in this study, except for deep incisional SSI, wound disruption, and PE. Additionally, moderate to severe mFI-5 scores of 2 or 3+ were independent predictors for 30-day postoperative ARF, UTI, MI, bleeding requiring transfusions, septic shock, reoperation, and readmissions following elective ACDF surgery in adults over 50 years old.

Intercostal Nerve Transfer for Biceps Reinnervation in Obstetrical Brachial Plexus Palsy: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Individual Patient Data Systematic Review using Individualized Fusion and Comparison to Supraclavicular Exploration and Nerve Grafting.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to search existing literature on nerve reconstruction surgery in patients with obstetric brachial plexus palsy to determine whether treatment with supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting produced better elbow flexion outcomes compared to intercostal nerve transfer. Methods: This study was a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Individual Patient Data guidelines. A systematic search was conducted using multiple databases. An ordinal regression model was used to analyze the effect of using supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting or intercostal nerve on elbow flexion with the two scores measured: elbow flexion Medical Research Council scores and Toronto active movements scale scores for elbow flexion. Results: A final patient database from 6 published articles consisted of 83 supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting patients (73 patients with Medical Research Council and 10 patients with Toronto score) and 7 published articles which consisted of 131 intercostal nerve patients (84 patients with Medical Research Council and 47 patients with Toronto scores). Patients who underwent supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting presented with an average Medical Research Council score of 3.9 ± 0.72 and an average Toronto score of 6.2 ± 2.2. Patients who underwent intercostal nerve transfer presented with an average Medical Research Council score of 3.9 ± 0.71 and an average Toronto score of 6.4 ± 1.2. There was no statistical difference between supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting and intercostal nerve transfer when utilizing Medical Research Council elbow flexion scores (ordinal regression: 0.3821, standard error: 0.4590, p = 0.2551) or Toronto Active Movement Scale score for elbow flexion (ordinal regression: 0.7154, standard error: 0.8487, p = 0.2188). Conclusion: Regardless of surgical intervention utilized (supraclavicular exploration and nerve grafting or intercostal nerve transfers), patients had excellent outcomes for elbow flexion following obstetric brachial plexus palsy when utilizing Medical Research Council or Toronto scores for elbow flexion. The difference between these scores was not statistically significant. Type of study/Level of evidence: Therapeutic Study: Investigating the Result of Treatment/level III.