Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty Versus Fusion for Grade-I Degenerative Spondylolisthesis with Stenosis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty versus decompression plus instrumented lumbar spinal fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial, we assigned patients who had single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis to undergo decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty (arthroplasty group) or decompression plus fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a predetermined composite clinical success score. Secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Short Form (SF)-12, radiographic parameters, surgical variables, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 321 adult patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with 219 patients assigned to undergo facet arthroplasty and 102 patients assigned to undergo fusion. Of these, 113 patients (51.6%) in the arthroplasty group and 47 (46.1%) in the fusion group who had either reached 24 months of postoperative follow-up or were deemed early clinical failures were included in the primary outcome analysis. The arthroplasty group had a higher proportion of patients who achieved composite clinical success than did the fusion group (73.5% versus 25.5%; p < 0.001), equating to a between-group difference of 47.9% (95% confidence interval, 33.0% to 62.8%). The arthroplasty group outperformed the fusion group in most patient-reported outcome measures (including the ODI, VAS back pain, and all ZCQ component scores) at 24 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups in surgical variables or complications, except that the fusion group had a higher rate of developing symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis, lumbar facet arthroplasty was associated with a higher rate of composite clinical success than fusion was at 24 months postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Postoperative Adjacent Segment Disease in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Adjacent Laminectomy for Grade I-II Spondylolisthesis and Adjacent Spinal Stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies have demonstrated increased risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after open fusion with adjacent-level laminectomy, with rates ranging from 16%-47%, potentially related to disruption of the posterior ligamentous complex. Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches may offer a more durable result. We report institutional outcomes of simultaneous MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MISTLIF) and adjacent-level laminectomy for patients with low grade spondylolisthesis and ASD. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent MISTLIF with adjacent level laminectomy to treat grade I-II spondylolisthesis with adjacent stenosis at a single institution from 2007-2022. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients met criteria, with mean follow-up of 23.1 months. In total, 37 levels were fused and 45 laminectomies performed. In this group, 21 patients received a single level laminectomy and single-level MISTLIF, 10 patients received a 2-level laminectomy and single-level MISTLIF, 2 patients received a single-level laminectomy and 2-level MISTLIF, and 1 patient received a 2-level laminectomy and 2-level MISTLIF. Three (8.8%) patients experienced clinically significant postoperative ASD requiring reoperation. Three other patients required reoperation for other reasons. Multiple logistic regression did not reveal any association between development of ASD and surgical covariates. CONCLUSION: MISTLIF with adjacent-level laminectomy demonstrated a favorable safety profile with rates of postoperative ASD lower than published rates after open fusion and on par with the published rates of ASD from MISTLIF alone. Future prospective studies may better elucidate the durability of adjacent-level laminectomies when performed alongside MISTLIF, but retrospective data suggests it is safe and durable.

Effects of the 2016 CDC opioid prescription guidelines on opioid use and worker compensation case length in patients with back pain.

BACKGROUND: Narcotic consumption in the workers' compensation population contributes to prolonged case duration, worse clinical outcomes, and opioid dependence. In 2016, the CDC provided recommendations guiding clinicians on prescribing opioids to adult patients with chronic pain. The objective of our study was to evaluate a cause-and-effect relationship between narcotic consumption and worker compensation claim length before and following guideline revision. METHODS: An administration database was retrospectively queried to identify patients evaluated for spine-related workers' compensation claimants from 2011 to 2021. Data was recorded for age, sex, BMI, case length, narcotic usage, and injury location. Cases were grouped together by exam date before (2011-2016) and after (2017-2021) the 2016 CDC opioid guideline revision. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-five patients were evaluated. Males composed 58% of the study population. From 2011 to 2016, narcotic consumption was reported in 54% of subjects versus no narcotic consumption in 46% of subjects (135 cases). From 2017 to 2021, narcotic consumption decreased to 37% (P = 0.00298). Prior to the guideline revision, mean case length was 635 days. Following CDC guideline revision, there was a significant decline in mean case length duration to 438 days (31% reduction) (P = 0.000868). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that following revised opioid prescription recommendations by the CDC in 2016, there was a statistically significant decline in opioid consumption and workers' compensation case length duration. Opioid use may influence prolonged worker disability and delayed return to work.

Comparison of Fusion versus Nonunion After 4-Level and 5-Level Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion With Anterior Plate Fixation.

BACKGROUND: Nonunion remains a concern in multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), yet there are limited data on nonunion after 4 to 5-level ACDF. In fact, the largest series on 4-level or 5-level ACDF focused specifically on the swallowing outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess nonunion after 4 to 5-level ACDF. METHODS: Forty-one patients treated with 4 to 5-level ACDF with minimum of 12-month radiographic follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Nonunion was found in 25 patients (61%) and 42 levels (25%) and complete fusion in 16 (39%) patients and 126 levels (75%). The 2 groups were further compared. RESULTS: One-level nonunion was by far the most common pattern compared with multilevel nonunion. Nonunion occurred more frequently at the caudal than the cranial or middle segments ( P < .0001). There were significantly more subsidence ( P < .0001) and screw fractures/pullouts ( P < .0001) in the nonunion compared with the fusion group. The symptomatic patients were significantly younger than the asymptomatic patients ( P = .044). The symptomatic levels were significantly more than asymptomatic levels ( P = .048). Equal proportion of patients implanted with allograft and polyetheretherketone had nonunion. However, there were markedly more nonunion than fused levels with allograft and more fused than nonunion levels with polyetheretherketone ( P = .023). The reoperation rate was 24.4% and mostly due to nonunion. There were no reoperations within 90 days of the primary surgery. CONCLUSION: The nonunion rate for 4-level and 5-level ACDF may be higher than previously reported. Symptomatic nonunion remains a major reason for reoperation after multilevel ACDF. Baseline characteristics that negatively affect fusion may be obviated by careful patient selection.

Cervical Alignment Analysis Comparing Two-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Anterior Plate Fixation.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses cervical alignments after 2-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with anterior plate fixation. METHODS: Eighty-two patients who underwent 2-level CDA or ACDF in 2014-2019 were identified. Cervical alignment parameters were compared between the 2 cohorts. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine factors that differentiate alignment outcomes between the 2 procedures. RESULTS: Although both cohorts achieved significant focal lordosis (FL) and overall cervical lordotic (CL) gains, CDA cohorts achieved significantly greater 12-month FL gain (P = 0.022). However, in a multivariate analysis controlling for preoperative variables, FL gain was no longer significant. Although the CDA cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) significantly improved at 3 (P = 0.030) and 12 (P = 0.007) months, these improvements were not superior to the ACDF cSVA. Male patients undergoing CDA achieved greater 12-month CL gain. Patients undergoing CDA with body mass index >25 kg/m2 achieved greater 12-month FL gain. Patients undergoing CDA with symptom duration >12 months achieved greater FL gain at 3 and 12 months. Patients undergoing CDA with high baseline T1 slope or cSVA achieved greater 12-month cSVA reduction. Clinical outcomes were comparable between the 2 cohorts. Unlike the ACDF group, CL gain in the CDA group was significantly correlated with the cSVA reduction, which was associated with significant improvement in the Neck Disability Index, arm pain, and 12-Item Short-Form Mental Component Scores. Heterotopic ossification was not found to significantly affect patient outcome and cervical alignment in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: ACDF and CDA are viable options for 2-level degenerative disc disease in carefully selected patients. Both approaches produced equivalent postoperative alignment changes in a 2-level operation.

Clinical Outcomes After 4- and 5-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Treatment of Symptomatic Multilevel Cervical Spondylosis.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data on 4-level and 5-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The largest series to date solely focused on complications. This retrospective series evaluates PROMs after 4-level and 5-level ACDF. METHODS: Pertinent data from adult patients treated with a 4-level or 5-level ACDF in 2011-2019 were analyzed. PROMs and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) were assessed. Factors associated with favorable and unfavorable outcomes were identified. RESULTS: There were 34 patients (30 underwent 4-level and 4 underwent 5-level ACDFs) with a mean age of 59.6 years; 55.9% were women. At 3 months, there were significant improvements in PROMs except Short-Form 12-Item Survey (SF-12) mental component subscale, which showed modest improvement. At 12 months, there were significant improvements in PROMs except SF-12 physical component subscale (PCS), which showed moderate improvement. The proportions of patients who met the MCID cutoffs ranged from 35.3% (numeric rating scale [NRS]-neck) to 75% (Veteran RAND 12-Item Survey [VR-12] PCS) at 3 months and 38.2% (NRS-arm) to 65.5% (VR-12 mental component subscale) at 12 months. Shorter symptom duration was associated with significantly reduced postoperative pain and Neck Disability Index scores. Shorter length of stay was associated with significantly improved postoperative functional outcomes. patients undergoing 4-level compared with 5-level ACDF achieved better postoperative PROMs. Shorter procedure duration was associated with improved PROMs at 3 months. No patient returned to the operating room within 30 days. Patients who required reoperation achieved significantly inferior Neck Disability Index, NRS-neck, and SF-12 PCS scores at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed satisfactory PROMs up to 12 months after 4-level and 5-level ACDF despite the complication rate. With thorough preoperative planning and meticulous technique, performing this procedure in carefully selected patients may be associated with acceptable PROMs.

A retrospective comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes in single-level degenerative lumbar disease undergoing anterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) remains a significant cause of morbidity in adulthood. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are surgical techniques developed to treat this condition. With limited studies on intermediate term outcomes in a single cohort, we compare radiographic and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing ALIF and TLIF. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 164 patients (111 TLIF; 53 ALIF) over a 60-month period. X-ray radiographs obtained pre-operatively, prior to discharge, and at one year were utilized for radiographic assessment. Segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis and HRQOL scores were measured preoperatively and at one-year timepoints. RESULTS: Changes in lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis were significantly greater after ALIF (4.6° vs. -0.6°, P=0.05; 4.7° vs. -0.7°, P<0.05) at one year (mean time, 366±20 days). At one year or greater, there was a greater reduction in mean VAS-leg score in TLIF patients (3.4 vs. 0.6, P<0.05) and ODI score (16.2 vs. 5.4, P<0.05). Similar outcomes were seen for VAS-back, SF-12 Physical Health, and SRS-30 Function/Activity. SF-12 Mental Health scores were found to be lower in patients undergoing TLIF (-3.5 vs. 2.7, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ALIF demonstrated a superior method of increasing lumbar and segmental lordosis. TLIF was utilized more in patients with higher pre-operative VAS-leg pain scores and therefore, showed a greater magnitude of VAS-leg pain improvement. TLIF also demonstrated a greater improvement in ODI scores despite similar baseline scores, suggesting a possible enhanced functional outcome.

Multilevel Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: Clinical Efficacy and Durability to 2 Years.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy of single-level minimally invasive lumbar decompression and/or microdiscectomy is well established, with improved postoperative functional outcome and pain scores. However, there is a paucity of clinical data supporting the use of minimally invasive (MIS) techniques in a single operation to address pathology at multiple lumbar levels, and this study attempts to address this issue. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis and/or disc herniations who underwent multilevel minimally invasive decompression or microdiscectomy from November 2014 to February 2018 was conducted at a single academic medical center. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) and Mental Component Summary Score (MCS), and Scoliosis Research Society survey (SRS-30), were prospectively collected before surgery and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: During the study period, 92 patients received multilevel (≥2 level) MIS lumbar decompression and/or discectomy (69 two level, 21 three level, 2 four level). The mean age at surgery was 69.7 years, and 23 (25%) patients were women. Patient-reported outcomes were significantly improved both in the short and long term except for the SF-12 MCS. Average improvement from baseline was (at 3 months and 2 years, respectively): VAS back, -3.9 and -2.8; VAS leg, -3.6 and -2.6; ODI, -13 and -14.6; SF-12 MCS, 2.8 and -0.3; SF-12 PCS, 6.9 and 10.1; and SRS-30, 0.57 and 0.55. Minimal clinically important difference for the study population was reached for every PROM except SF-12 MCS. Surgical complications occurred in 16 patients (17.4%), and 8 patients (8.6%) required postoperative fusions within 2 years. CONCLUSION: The use of MIS techniques to perform lumbar decompression and/or discectomy at multiple levels was found to be both clinically effective and durable. Fusion rates remained low 2 years after the index surgery and were consistent with literature data for open procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

The modified frailty index and patient outcomes following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery for single-level degenerative spine disease.

OBJECTIVE: The modified frailty index (mFI) is a simple tool that measures physiological reserve based on a thorough history and physical examination. Its use has been validated in several surgical specialties, including spinal deformity surgery. Prior research has suggested no significant differences in clinical outcomes between elderly and nonelderly patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion. The authors sought to investigate the use of the mFI in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and the relationship between frailty scores and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 198 patients who underwent a single-level TLIF over a 60-month period at a single institution. For all patients, an mFI score was computed incorporating a set of 11 clinical factors to assess preexisting comorbidities and functional status. Clinical follow-up and health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) scores were obtained at baseline and regular intervals of 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year following surgery. RESULTS: Patients were grouped according to their level of frailty: no frailty (mFI = 0), mild frailty (mFI = 0.09), moderate frailty (mFI = 0.18), and severe frailty (mFI ≥ 0.27). One-way ANOVA revealed increasing levels of frailty to be associated with an increased rate of complications, from 10.3% to 63.6%. In addition, increasing levels of frailty were associated with longer hospital length of stay (LOS), from 3.1 days to 6.5 days, and lower rates of disposition to home. At the 1-year follow-up, increased levels of frailty were associated with worse HRQOL measures. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing mFI score was associated with higher morbidity, longer inpatient LOS, and a lower probability of discharge to home in patients undergoing single-level TLIF. Consideration of the mFI may help surgeons improve decision-making across the spectrum of patients who are at risk from frailty.

Nonunion Rates After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Comparison of Polyetheretherketone vs Structural Allograft Implants.

BACKGROUND: Although advances in implant materials, such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK), have been developed aimed to improve outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), it is essential to confirm whether these changes translate into clinically important sustained benefits. OBJECTIVE: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing up to 3-level ACDF with PEEK vs structural allograft implants. METHODS: In this cohort study, radiographic and symptomatic nonunion rates were compared in consecutive patients who underwent 1 to 3 level ACDF with allograft or PEEK implant. Prospectively collected clinical data and patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were compared between the allograft and PEEK groups. Regression analysis was performed to determine the predictors of nonunion. RESULTS: In total, 194 of 404 patients met the inclusion criteria (79% allograft vs 21% PEEK). Preoperative demographic variables were comparable between the 2 groups except for age. The rate of radiographic nonunion was higher with PEEK implants (39% vs 27%, P = .0035). However, a higher proportion of nonunion in the allograft cohort required posterior instrumentation (14% vs 3%, P = .039). Patients with multilevel procedures and PEEK implants had up to 5.8 times the risk of radiographic nonunion, whereas younger patients, active smokers, and multilevel procedures were at higher risk of symptomatic nonunion. CONCLUSION: Along with implant material, factors such as younger age, active smoking status, and the number of operated levels were independent predictors of fusion failure. Given the impact of nonunion on PRO, perioperative optimization of modifiable factors and surgical planning are essential to ensure a successful outcome.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway for Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Decreases Length of Stay and Opioid Consumption.

BACKGROUND: Opioid requirements in the perioperative period in patients undergoing lumbar spine fusion surgery remain problematic. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have been developed, there still remain substantial challenges to reducing length of hospital stay (LOS) because of postoperative opioid requirements. OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway in patients undergoing a 1-level MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) at our institution. METHODS: We implemented an ERAS pathway in patients undergoing an elective single-level MIS TLIF for degenerative changes at a single institution. Consecutive patients were enrolled over a 20-mo period and compared with a pre-ERAS group prior to the implementation of the ERAS protocol. The primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcomes included reduction in morphine milligram equivalent units (MME), pain scores, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), and incidence of postoperative delirium. Patients were compared using the chi-square and Welch's 2-sample t-tests. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients were evaluated in this study: 87 in the ERAS group and 212 in the pre-ERAS group. In the ERAS group, there was a significant reduction in LOS (3.13 ± 1.53 vs 3.71 ± 2.07 d, P = .019), total admission MME (252.74 ± 317.38 vs 455.91 ± 498.78 MME, P = .001), and the number of patients with POUR (48.3% vs 65.6%, P = .008). There were no differences in pain scores. CONCLUSION: This is the largest ERAS MIS fusion cohort published to date evaluating a single cohort of patients in a generalizable manner. This ERAS pathway has shown a substantial decrease in LOS and opioid requirements in the immediate perioperative and postoperative period. There is further work to be done to evaluate patients undergoing other complex spine surgical interventions.

Hybrid decompression and reconstruction technique for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: case series and review of the literature.

The primary treatment of choice for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is surgical decompression. The benefit of operative intervention has been well established but, the surgeons' decision of operative approach remains nuanced based on patient-specific variables and surgeon preference. Decompression can involve a cervical corpectomy or a discectomy. A hybrid construct is when both a cervical corpectomy and a discectomy are done in the same patient. The purpose of this study was to review the evidence on the clinical and biomechanical outcomes of hybrid decompression and reconstruction techniques in patients with multilevel CSM. A retrospective study was performed on consecutive patients who received hybrid anterior decompression and reconstruction at Rush University between 2013-2018. Preoperative clinical and radiographic variables were analyzed to characterize specific factors leading to the decision of the surgical approach. In addition, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess superiority in terms of operative time, blood loss, cervical lordosis, patient-reported outcomes (PRO), fusion rates, and complications. Hybrid surgery (HS) was utilized in cases where multilevel CSM was present in conjunction with stenosis posterior to the vertebral body or acute kyphotic deformity. Our meta-analysis highlighted comparable PRO, complications, and rate of success fusion between 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and hybrid technique. Furthermore, hybrid fusion led to increased postoperative cervical lordosis, higher fusion rate, lower total complication rate, lower implant failure/mesh subsidence rate, and lower blood loss than 2-level corpectomy. The cervical hybrid technique that combines cervical corpectomy and discectomy represents a balanced option with the benefits of two commonly utilized cervical spine procedures in patients with multilevel CSM. The literature on hybrid technique suggests in cases where multilevel ACDF is not feasible, combining discectomy and corpectomy is superior to two-level corpectomy with lower complication rates, improved clinical outcome, spinal alignment correction, and stronger biomechanical properties.

Five-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial for Lumbar Artificial Discs in Single-level Degenerative Disc Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, investigational device exemption (IDE) noninferiority trial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year safety and effectiveness of the activL Artificial Disc with Control Total Disc Replacement (TDR) systems (ProDisc-L or Charité) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The activL Artificial Disc received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015 based on 2-year follow-up data. METHODS: Eligible patients presented with symptomatic, single-level, lumbar DDD who failed ≥6 months of nonsurgical management. At entry, 324 patients were randomly allocated (2 : 1) to treatment with activL (n = 218) or Control (n = 106, including n = 65 ProDisc-L and n = 41 Charité) TDR. At 5-year follow up, a total of 261 patients (176 activL patients and 85 Control patients) were available for analysis. RESULTS: The primary composite endpoint at 5 years for activL patients was noninferior to Control TDR. Relative to baseline, reductions in back pain severity and improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were maintained for both the activL and Control TDR groups through 5 years. The activL group showed significantly better range of motion for flexion-extension rotation, flexion-extension translation, and disc angle, compared with Control TDR. Freedom from a serious adverse event through 5 years was 64% in activL patients, 47% in Control patients (log-rank P = 0.0068). Freedom from index-level and adjacent-level reoperation was high for TDR patients, ranging between 94% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Long-term evidence supports lumbar total disc replacement as safe. The next-generation activL Artificial Disc is more effective at preserving range of motion than first-generation lumbar TDRs (ProDisc-L and Charité) and offers a higher safety profile. Other primary and secondary outcomes are similar between disc designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Fusion rate following three- and four-level ACDF using allograft and segmental instrumentation: A radiographic study.

Cervical spine degenerative pathologies remain one of the most common spinal conditions treated by spine surgeons worldwide. Surgery is recommended in all patients with symptomatic cervical spinal stenosis with either moderate to severe myelopathy, degeneration, or refractory radiculopathy. As the number of levels increases the potential for complications associated with anterior surgery can be significant, especially dysphagia and pseudarthrosis. The objective of this study was to analyze the fusion rate following three- or more level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). A retrospective review was performed analyzing patients who underwent three or more level ACDF. Fusion was evaluated using post-operative dynamic upright radiographs Relevant post-operative complications especially dysphagia requiring dietary modifications or placement of feeding tube was also noted. A total of 72 patients were included in the study. Of the 232 levels fused, pseudarthrosis occurred at 47 (14%) levels. Overall 45.8% of patients (33/72) had a pseudarthrosis. The incidence of pseudarthrosis was higher in patients with 4 level ACDF as compared to those with 3 level ACDF [56% (9/16) versus 42% (24/56)]. At last follow up, the number of patients that were symptomatic from their pseudarthrosis and required posterior spinal instrumentation was 8/72 (11.1%). Fusion rates in a large cohort of patients with three- and four-level ACDF performed utilizing allograft and segmental instrumentation is reported. The study demonstrates that 3-4 level, stand-alone anterior cervical arthrodeses result in at least one level of pseudarthrosis in almost half of patients, especially at the caudal level of the construct.

Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Fixation for Extension of Fusion in Cases of Failed Lumbosacral Fusion.

Sacroiliac fusion and instrumentation extension for correction of failed lumbosacral fusions traditionally requires a long revision surgery. Reopening of the prior surgical incision to expose the prior instrumentation requires a large incision with increased blood loss, increased operative time, increased risk of infection, and longer hospitalization times. We describe the first case series using a minimally invasive surgical sacroiliac screw technique for extension of a prior fusion to the pelvis. Using two small 3-cm paramedian incisions on each side, we were able to obtain autologous iliac crest bone graft, place the sacroiliac screw minimally invasive, perform an arthrodesis, and connect the prior surgical hardware to the sacroiliac screw safely. A detailed review of surgical technique, clinical cases, and brief review of the literature is discussed.

Floseal only versus in combination in spine surgery: a comparative, retrospective hospital database evaluation of clinical and healthcare resource outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Flowable agents such as Floseal® (F) are often reserved as adjuncts to non-flowable agents (i.e. gelatin (G) sponges and thrombin (T)) when bleeding is not sufficiently controlled. Based on their perceived positive impact, it is postulated that flowable agents alone may result in better clinical and resource utilization outcomes. Clinical and health-care utilization outcomes were compared in this retrospective analysis of spine surgery cases with charges for Floseal only (FO) and F + G/T. METHODS: The United States Premier Hospital Database was searched for adult spine surgeries performed between October 2010 and September 2015 with FO or F and G/T charges. To obtain an unbiased treatment estimate, 1:1 propensity-score matching was used to identify FO and F + G/T cohorts. The cohorts were compared for rates of intraoperative, perioperative, postoperative and transfusion; blood loss-related, serious and other complications; hospital length-of-stay (LOS), surgical time, and volume of hemostat charged. RESULTS: Among 40,335 spine surgeries, 15,105 FO and F + G/T matched pairs were compared. Significantly (p < 0.0001) lower percentages of FO than F + G/T cases received intraoperative (1.4% vs. 2.5%), perioperative (1.6% vs. 2.8%), postoperative (1.6% vs 3.0%), and any transfusion (2.3% vs. 4.3%). FO cases had significantly less blood loss complications than F + G/T cases (0.5% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.0022) and significantly (p < 0.0001) shorter hospital LOS (-0.45 days), surgical time (-39.0 min), and used less hemostat (-12.5 mL). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this observational hospital database analyses indicate that FO use in spine surgery is associated with lower blood transfusion use and blood loss complications compared to its use with adjunct non-flowable hemostatic agents. The shorter hospital stay, reduced surgical time, and less hemostat volume health-care utilization outcomes that favored FO versus combination use may translate to health system cost savings. Further validation of these findings using controlled clinical trials and cost-consequence studies is warranted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of flowable hemostatic agents alone may result in better clinical and possibly economic outcomes in spine surgery.

Variation in Spine Surgeon Selection Criteria Between Neurosurgery and Orthopedic Surgery Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine if there are any differences in spine surgeon selection criteria between neurosurgery patients and orthopedic patients. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The evolution of the health care delivery system has allowed for increased patient autonomy in provider selection. However, the process and criteria by which patients choose particular spine surgeons is not well understood. Furthermore, differences in physician selection criteria used by patients who present either to a neurosurgery or orthopedic spine surgeon has not been previously established. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire consisting of 26 questions was administered to 644 patients seeking treatment from either a single neurosurgery-trained or orthopedics-trained spine surgeon at an urban institution. Four questions pertained to demographic variables. Sixteen questions asked patients to rate specific spine surgeon selection criteria in terms of importance (scale, 1-10). Six questions were multiple choice, asking patients to select their preferences towards aspects of a spine surgeon. Patient responses were compared using χ analysis or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: The 3 most important factors for selecting a spine surgeon were the same for neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery patients: board certification (neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery) (9.07±2.35, 9.22±1.79), in-network provider status (8.01±3.15, 8.09±3.03), and surgeon bedside manner (7.88±2.52, 8.07±2.29). When listing their preference regarding surgeon specialty training, 82.74% of neurosurgery patients and 48.81% of orthopedic surgery patients preferred a surgeon who was trained in neurosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: The growth in patient autonomy within the current health care system has emphasized the importance of identifying patient preferences in the physician selection process.Board certification, in-network insurance status, and bedside manner may be the most influential factors for patients in spine surgeon selection irrespective of surgical subspecialty. Patients may also be more likely to seek spine surgeons with neurosurgery training over orthopedic surgery training. The present study provides spine surgeons a framework to improve both patient recruitment and patient satisfaction.

The role of minimally invasive spine surgery in the management of pyogenic spinal discitis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic yields for spondylodiscitis from CT guided biopsy is low. In the recent years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has shown to have a low morbidity and faster recovery. For spinal infections, MIS surgery may offer an opportunity for early pain control while obtaining a higher diagnostic yield than CT-guided biopsies. The aim of this study was to review our patients who underwent MIS surgery for spinal infection and report outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of seven patients who underwent MIS decompression and/or discectomy in the setting of discitis, osteomyelitis, spondylodiscitis, and/or an epidural abscess was identified. Patient data including symptoms, visual analog score (VAS), surgical approach, antibiotic regimen, and postoperative outcomes were obtained. RESULTS: Of the 7 patients, 5 patients had lumbar infections and two had thoracic infections. All seven patients improved in VAS immediately after surgery and at discharge. The average VAS improved by 4.4 ± 1.9 points. An organism was obtained in 6 of the 7 (85%) patients by the operative cultures. All patients made an excellent clinical recovery without the need for further spine surgery. All patients who received postoperative imaging on follow-up showed complete resolution or dramatically improved magnetic resonance imaging changes. The follow-up ranged from 2 to 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: MIS surgery provides an opportunity for early pain relief in patients with discitis, osteomyelitis, spondylodiscitis, and/or epidural abscess by directly addressing the primary cause of pain. MIS surgery for discitis provides a higher diagnostic yield to direct antibiotic treatment. MIS surgery results in good long-term recovery.

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion: indications, techniques, surgical outcomes and complications.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established technique to achieve lumbar spine fusion with various indications including degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, recurrent disk herniation, adjacent level disease, pseudoarthrosis, as well as being used as part of the overall strategy to restore sagittal balance. ALIF can be an extremely useful tool in any spine surgeon's armamentarium. However, like any surgical procedure, proper patient selection is key to success. A solid understanding of the biomechanics, careful surgical planning, along with clear knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of stand-alone ALIF will ensure optimal clinical outcome. Stand-alone ALIF may be a suitable surgical option in carefully selected patients that can provide good clinical results and adequate fusion rates without the need for posterior instrumentation. Areas covered: A brief overview of the indications, techniques, biomechanics, surgical outcome and complications of stand-alone ALIF is provided in this article with a review of the pertinent literature. Expert commentary: In this review we discuss the clinical evidence of using a stand-alone ALIF compared to other fusion techniques of the lumbar spine. The development of interbody cages with integrated screws has increased the arthrodesis rate and improved clinical outcomes while decreasing morbidity and operative time.