Knowledge of radiation exposure associated with common trauma imaging modalities among orthopaedic surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, and general surgeons in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Few contemporary studies have assessed physicians' knowledge of radiation exposure associated with common imaging studies, especially in trauma care. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge of physicians involved in caring for trauma patients regarding the effective radiation doses of musculoskeletal (MSK) imaging studies routinely utilized in the trauma setting. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to United States orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, and emergency medicine (EM) residency programs. Participants were asked to estimate the radiation dose for common imaging modalities of the pelvis, lumbar spine, and lower extremity, in terms of chest X-ray (CXR) equivalents. Physician estimates were compared to the true effective radiation doses. Additionally, participants were asked to report the frequency of discussing radiation risk with patients. RESULTS: A total of 218 physicians completed the survey; 102 (46.8%) were EM physicians, 88 (40.4%) were orthopaedic surgeons, and 28 (12.8%) were general surgeons. Physicians underestimated the effective radiation doses of nearly all imaging modalities, most notably for pelvic computed tomaography (CT) (median 50 CXR estimation vs. 162 CXR actual) and lumbar CT (median 50 CXR estimation vs. 638 CXR actual). There was no difference between physician specialties regarding estimation accuracy (P=0.133). Physicians who regularly discussed radiation risks with patients more accurately estimated radiation exposure (P=0.007). CONCLUSION: The knowledge among orthopaedic and general surgeons and EM physicians regarding the radiation exposure associated with common MSK trauma imaging is lacking. Further investigation with larger scale studies is warranted, and additional education in this area may improve care.

Automating Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Hand Surgery.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the overall response rate of patients receiving electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) following hand surgery and to determine the patient characteristics associated with responding. METHODS: A Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, web-based system was developed to automatically distribute ePROMs to patients undergoing hand surgery at five institutions with 22 surgeons. Patients who were at least 18 years old were eligible. The PROMs used were the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH). After surgery, ePROMs along with a satisfaction questionnaire were electronically sent three, six, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 6458 patients were eligible. Of these, 80% were enrolled voluntarily. Among these, 70% completed ePROMs for at least one postoperative time point, whereas 30% did not complete any. Among responders, 28% completed all five time points, whereas 72% completed four or fewer time points. Incomplete responders were more likely to be insured by workers' compensation when compared to complete responders. Incomplete responders exhibited higher baseline QuickDASH scores and similar baseline VAS compared to complete responders. During the follow-up, incomplete responders demonstrated worse VAS and QuickDASH scores at all time points. Finally, in comparison with complete responders, incomplete responders were less likely to be satisfied with their surgery at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that automated email-based ePROM systems may be an effective method for survey distribution. Particularly for simple, outpatient surgeries, this study illustrates the potential for clinical use of the data obtained from these systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patient-reported outcome measures continue to have an expanding role in health care with the rise of valued-based systems. Electronic PROMs are a relatively unexplored medium that may offer a viable alternative to more effectively collecting these valuable patient metrics.

Accuracy of self-reported opioid use in orthopaedic trauma patients.

PURPOSE: Opioids have long been a mainstay of treatment for pain in patients with orthopaedic injuries, but little is known about the accuracy of self-reported narcotic usage in orthopaedic trauma. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of self-reported opioid usage in orthopaedic trauma patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of all new patients presenting to the orthopaedic trauma clinic of a level 1 trauma centre with a chief complaint of recent orthopaedic-related injury over a 2-year time frame was conducted. Participants were administered a survey inquiring about narcotic usage within the prior 3 months. Responses were cross-referenced against a query of a statewide prescription drug monitoring program system. RESULTS: The study comprised 241 participants; 206 (85.5%) were accurate reporters, while 35 (14.5%) were inaccurate reporters. Significantly increased accuracy was associated with hospital admission prior to clinic visit (ß = - 1.33; χ2 = 10.68, P < 0.01; OR: 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.62). Decreased accuracy was associated with higher pre-visit total morphine equivalent dose (MED) (ß = 0.002; χ2 = 11.30, P < 0.01), with accurate reporters having significantly lower pre-index visit MED levels compared to underreporters (89.2 ± 208.7 mg vs. 249.6 ± 509.3 mg; P = 0.04). An Emergency Department (ED) visit prior to the index visit significantly predicted underreporting (ß = 0.424; χ2 = 4.28, P = 0.04; OR: 2.34, 95% CI 1.01-5.38). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that most new patients presenting to an orthopaedic trauma clinic with acute injury will accurately report their narcotic usage within the preceding 3 months. Prior hospital admissions increased the likelihood of accurate reporting while higher MEDs or an ED visit prior to the initial visit increased the likelihood of underreporting.

A Survey Analysis of Patient Understanding and Preferences for Podiatrists Versus Foot and Ankle Orthopaedic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest poorer outcomes and higher costs associated with patients treated by podiatrists, yet no studies have evaluated patient perception and preference for foot and ankle providers. This study aims to determine patient perception of training for podiatrists compared to orthopaedic surgeons and patient preference for type of provider seen. METHODS: A 20-question survey was administered to new patients seeing either a podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeon. Questions pertained to demographics, patient knowledge of their provider, perception of training requirements, number of years in professional training, and differences in surgical volume during training. Patients were asked their preference for a particular type of foot and ankle provider, and whether they perceived a difference in surgical skillset or a provider's ability to manage different pathology. RESULTS: In all, 147 podiatry and 115 orthopaedic patients were included in the study. Demographics were similar between groups. Both groups believed orthopedists required more years of education and surgical training. In all, 61.5% of orthopaedic patients believed that orthopedists performed more foot and ankle surgeries and were more skilled as compared to podiatrists, while only about a third of podiatry patients believed this to be true (68.7% vs 38.6%; P < .001). Most patients believed orthopedists were more skilled in treating fractures. In all, 48.7% of orthopaedic patients preferred seeing an orthopedist compared to only 3.5% of podiatry patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that patients are knowledgeable about the type of foot and ankle provider they are seeing. Most patients believe orthopaedic surgeons require more years of education and surgical training compared to podiatrists and believe they are more skilled in fracture-related surgery. Fewer podiatry patients expressed a preference for an orthopaedic surgeon. Providers must play an active role in discussing their training background prior to treating foot and ankle patients, especially in the setting of fracture-related pathology. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that most patients seeking care from a podiatrist or foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeon are relatively knowledgeable about the type of provider they are seeing; however, there are some differences. Most patients understand that orthopaedic surgeons require more years of education and surgical training and also believe orthopaedic surgeons are more skilled in fracture work and taking care of arthritic conditions. In general, podiatry patients have less preference for seeing an orthopaedic surgeon; however, many of these patients are seeking care for wounds and infections. With expanding roles and scope of practice among podiatry providers, it is important that providers become more active in explaining their training background and qualifications when treating foot and ankle conditions. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level II: Prospective.

Reduction in Operating Room Airborne Particle Burden and Time-Dependent Contamination of Sterile Instrument Trays With the Use of a Novel Air Filtration System.

Introduction Postoperative infections represent a substantial burden to patients and healthcare systems. To improve patient care and reduce healthcare expenditures, interventions to reduce surgical infections must be employed. The crystalline C-band ultraviolet (UV-C) air filtration technology (Aerobiotix Inc., Miamisburg, OH, USA) has been designed to reduce airborne bioburden through high-quality filtration and germicidal irradiation. The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of a novel UV-C air filtration device to reduce airborne particle counts and contamination of surgical instrument trays in an operating room (OR) setting. Materials and methods Thirty sterile instrument trays were opened in a positive-air-flow OR. The trays were randomly assigned to one of two groups (UV-C or control, n=15 per group). In the UV-C group, the UV-C filtration device was used and in the control, it was not. All trays were opened with the use of a sterile technique and left exposed in the OR for four hours. Air was sampled by a particle counter to measure the numbers of 5µm and 10µm particles. Culture specimens were obtained from the trays to assess for bacterial contamination. Outcome data were collected at 30-minute intervals for the duration of the four-hour study period. Results Use of the UV-C device resulted in statistically significant reductions in the numbers of 5µm (average of 64.9% reduction when compared with the control, p<0.001) and 10µm (average of 65.7% reduction when compared with the control, p<0.001)-sized particles detectable in the OR. There was no significant difference in the overall rates of contamination (33.3% in the control group vs. 26.7% in the UV-C group, p=1.0) or the time to contamination (mean survival of 114 minutes in the control group vs. 105 minutes in the UV-C group, p=0.72) of surgical instrument trays with the use of the UV-C device. Conclusions The results demonstrate that the UV-C filtration device can successfully reduce airborne bioburden in standard ORs, suggesting that it may have the potential to reduce the risk for wound and hardware infections. Further clinical trials are necessary to better determine the effect of this air filtration system on postoperative infection rates.

How to start an awake spine program: Protocol and illustrative cases.

Surgical techniques and technology are steadily improving, thereby expanding the pool of patients amenable for spine surgery. The growing and aging population in the United States further contributes to the increase in spine surgery cases. Traditionally, spine surgery is performed under general anesthesia. However, awake spinal surgery has recently gained traction due to evidence of decreased perioperative risks, postoperative opioid consumption, and costs, specifically in lumbar spine procedures. Despite the potential for improving outcomes, awake spine surgery has received resistance and has yet to become adopted at many healthcare systems. We aim to provide the fundamental steps in facilitating the initiation of awake spine surgery programs. We also present case reports of two patients who underwent awake spine surgery and reported improved clinical outcomes.

Primary Hemiarthroplasty for the Treatment of Basicervical Femoral Neck Fractures.

Purpose Basicervical femoral neck fractures are uncommon injuries that occur at the extracapsular base of the femoral neck at its transition with the intertrochanteric line. Controversy remains in the orthopedic literature as to the optimal method of treatment for this fracture type given the inherent instability and greater rate of implant failure with traditional fixation constructs. The purpose of this study is to quantify the incidence and preferred treatment methods of basicervical hip fractures at a single, regional, Level 1 trauma center and to identify differences in postoperative complications between treatment options. Methods The present study is a retrospective case series from a single regional health network, including 316 patients with hip fractures. Basicervical femoral neck fractures were identified. Reoperation rates within 90 days, implant failures or nonunions, postoperative ambulation distances and range of motion, and discharge dispositions were compared across patients grouped by surgical treatment with either cephalomedullary nail, sliding hip screw, or hemiarthroplasty (HA). Results Basicervical femoral neck fractures represented 6.6% of this study population. The cephalomedullary nail group demonstrated rates of implant failure and return to the operating room within 90 days of 40% (4/10) and 20% (2/10), respectively. No patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty experienced a failure of fixation or return to the operating room. Conclusions This study suggests a much lower rate of fixation failure or need for reoperation with hemiarthroplasty treatment compared to cephalomedullary nail construct for basicervical femoral neck fractures and may be an underutilized treatment method for this fracture type. The promising results seen with this case series should encourage further investigation into HA as a primary treatment for these uncommon, yet challenging, fractures.

The popularity of outcome measures used in shoulder arthroplasty literature.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently utilized within orthopaedics to determine the extent of patient disease and the efficacy of surgical treatments. Shoulder arthroplasty is a common treatment option for a range of pathologies; however, substantial variety exists regarding the instruments used within the published literature, limiting their quality and generalizability. The purpose of the present systematic review is to evaluate the overall number and frequency of outcome measures used in all clinical studies evaluating outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: This systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies that assessed patient reported outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and shoulder hemiarthroplasty were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. For each manuscript, the journal, authors, region of origin, level of evidence, and subject/pathology were recorded. The frequency of each reported outcome measure and category. Associations between study characteristics and measure categories were tested using Poisson regression with robust error variance. RESULTS: A total of 682 articles were included in the analysis, reporting 42 different PROs. The most popular tools were the Constant-Murley score (49.7%), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Evaluation Form (37.7%), and the Visual Analog Scale (34.3%). A generic outcome tool was used in 287 studies (42.1%), while 645 (94.6%) utilized a shoulder-specific measure and 49 (7.2%) used a disease-specific measure. The use of generic (p<0.001) and disease specific (p<0.001) measures were associated with higher level of evidence. CONCLUSION: Studies assessing patient outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty employ a large range of PRO measuring tools, many of which are non-validated. Furthermore, only a small percentage of studies utilize a combination of tools from different categories despite current recommendations. Consensus on validated and clinically-meaningful tools from multiple categories is necessary to increase the generalizability and applicability of published studies in shoulder arthroplasty literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Improvements in Back and Leg Pain Following a Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Improvement in patient-reported outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is poorly defined. As such, the purpose of this study was to quantify improvements in Visual Analogue Scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form-12 (SF-12) Mental and Physical Composite scores following MIS-TLIF. METHODS: A surgical registry of patients who underwent primary 1-level MIS-TLIF during 2014-2015 was reviewed. Comparisons of Visual Analogue Scale back and leg pain, ODI, and Short Form-12 Mental and Physical Composite scores were performed using paired t tests from preoperative to each postoperative time point. Analysis of variance was used to estimate the degree of improvement in back and leg pain over the first postoperative year. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients presenting with predominant back (pBP) or leg (pLP) pain. Multivariate linear regression was performed to compare patient-reported outcome scores by subgroup. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were identified. Visual Analogue Scale back and leg scores, and ODI improved from preoperative scores at all postoperative time points (P < .05 for each). Patients with pBP (n = 68) and patients with pLP (n = 38) reported reductions in both back and leg pain over the first postoperative year (P < .05 for each). In the pBP cohort, patients experienced significant reductions in ODI after the first 6 postoperative weeks (P < .05 for each). In the pLP cohort, patients experienced significant reductions in ODI throughout the first postoperative year (P < .05 for each). Patients with pLP and pBP experienced similar reductions in back pain, whereas patients with pLP experienced significantly greater reductions in leg pain at all postoperative time points (P < .05 for each). CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests patients experience significant improvements in back and leg pain following MIS-TLIF regardless of predominant symptom. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results can assist surgeons when counseling their patients on the magnitude of symptom improvement they may experience following MIS-TLIF.

Risk Factors for Medical and Surgical Complications after 1-2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) have a significant impact on clinical outcomes and health care resource use. Identifying predictive factors for complications after ACDF may allow for the modification of care protocols to mitigate complication risk. The purpose of this study is to determine risk factors for the incidence of medical and surgical complications up to 2 years postoperatively after ACDF procedures. METHODS: A prospectively maintained surgical registry of patients who underwent primary, 1-2-level ACDF was retrospectively reviewed. The incidence of medical and surgical complications up to 2 years postoperatively was determined. Patients were classified according to demographic, comorbidity, and procedural characteristics. Bivariate Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to determine if an association existed between the incidence of medical or surgical complications and patient characteristics. A final multivariate model including all patient and procedural characteristics as controls was created using backwards, stepwise regression until only those variables with P < .05 remained. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were included. Upon bivariate analysis, age >50 years was identified as a risk factor for medical complications after ACDF procedures. Additionally, bivariate analysis identified ageless Charlson comorbidity index ≥2, operative duration >60 minutes, and 2-level procedures as risk factors for surgical complications after ACDF. Upon multivariate analysis, age >50 years was identified as an independent risk factor for medical complications (relative risk [RR] = 3.6, P = .005), while operative time >60 minutes was identified as an independent risk factor for surgical complications after ACDF (RR = 4.5, P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that older age and longer operative time were independent risk factors for medical and surgical complications, respectively, following ACDF. Patients with these risk factors should be counseled regarding their increased risk of postoperative complications and should undergo more vigilant monitoring to aid in complication avoidance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgeons should consider the elevated risk of postoperative complications in >50 years old patients and >60 min procedures.

A Review of Vitamin D in Spinal Surgery: Deficiency Screening, Treatment, and Outcomes.

In this review, we discuss the demonstrated value of vitamin D in bone maintenance, fracture resistance, spinal health, and spine surgery outcomes. Despite this, the effect of vitamin D levels in spine surgery has not been well described. Through this review of literature, several conclusions were drawn. First, despite the fact that a high number of spine surgery patients are vitamin D deficient, screening is not commonly performed. Second, adequate vitamin D levels will not be achieved in a majority of these patients without supplementation. Last, inadequate vitamin D levels may increase the risk of pseudarthrosis. Given these findings, we suggest that many patients undergoing spinal surgery could be treated with vitamin D supplementation prior to surgery without the need for confirmatory testing for vitamin D deficiency. This is a more cost-effective method than screening all patients. However, future randomized trials and cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to determine the ultimate effects of vitamin D supplementation on clinical morbidity and surgical outcomes.

Effects of the Ohio Opioid Prescribing Guidelines on Total Joint Arthroplasty Postsurgical Prescribing and Refilling Behavior of Surgeons and Patients.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic has been declared a public health crisis, with thousands of Americans dying from overdoses each year. In 2017, Ohio passed the Opioid Prescribing Guidelines (OPG) limiting narcotic prescriptions for acute pain. The present study sought to evaluate the effects of OPG on the prescribing behavior of orthopedists following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: An institutional database was queried to compare morphine equivalent dose (MED) prescribed at discharge, acute follow-up (<90 days), and chronic follow-up (>90 days) pre-OPG and post-OPG. Cases were identified over a 2-year period starting 1 year before OPG implementation. RESULTS: Nine orthopedic surgeons performed 1160 TKAs (692 pre-OPG, 468 post-OPG) and 834 THAs (530 pre-OPG, 304 post-OPG). Total MED for TKA and THA dropped post-OPG (1602.6 ± 54.3 vs 1145.8 ± 66.1, P < .01; 1302.3 ± 47.0 vs 878.3 ± 62.2, P < .01). Much of the total MED decrease was accounted for by the decrease in discharge MED, which was the largest in magnitude (904.8 ± 16.4 vs 606.2 ± 20.0, P < .01; 948.4 ± 19.6 vs 630.6 ± 25.9, P < .01). Seven of the 9 surgeons statistically reduced mean MED prescribed at discharge following OPG. The percentage of patients receiving new narcotic scripts at acute follow-up increased post-OPG for both TKA (41.5% vs 47.2%, P = .05) and THA (18.3% vs 25.7%, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Orthopedists reduced total MED prescribed after TKA and THA following the onset of OPG. The majority of this decrease is explained by decreased MED at discharge. Conversely, the post-OPG period saw slightly more new narcotic scripts written during acute follow-up.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Grade I Versus Grade II Isthmic Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is often used to treat low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS). No studies have compared surgical outcomes for grade I and II IS following MIS-TLIF. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to compare outcomes between patients with grade I and II IS following MIS-TLIF. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent a primary 1-level MIS-TLIF for treatment of IS between 2007 and 2015. Grade I patients underwent a unilateral tubular approach with a single interbody cage and bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation. Grade II patients underwent a bilateral tubular approach with bilateral interbody cage and pedicle screw placement. Baseline patient demographics and characteristics were compared using Student t test and χ2 analysis. Differences in peri- and postoperative outcomes were assessed using Poisson regression with robust error variance or linear regression adjusted for perioperative variables. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients with IS underwent MIS-TLIF; 21 (36.2%) were grade I and 37 (63.8%) were grade II. The grade I cohort was younger (42.2 versus 50.6 years, P = .029); no other differences in preoperative variables were observed. No significant differences in operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, postoperative visual analogue scale scores, or complication and revision rates were demonstrated between cohorts. Arthrodesis rate was lower in the grade I cohort, though not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the grade I cohort being younger with less-severe diagnoses, the grade II cohort experienced similar outcomes. This finding may be due to the grade II cohort receiving bilateral cages, potentially providing a better fusion environment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results suggest that MIS-TLIF provides sufficient stabilization and fusion for treatment of grade II IS despite increased vertebral body displacement. In addition, MIS-TLIF with bilateral approach and interbody cage placement should be examined for treatment of high-grade IS cases.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Isthmic Versus Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) is a common surgical procedure for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) but remains controversial for treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS). Few studies have compared IS and DS outcomes after MIS TLIF. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to compare outcomes of patients with IS and DS after MIS TLIF. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent a primary, 1-level MIS TLIF for grade I or II IS or DS. Grade I and II DS and grade I IS patients were treated with MIS TLIF via a unilateral tubular approach, whereas the grade II IS patients were treated via a bilateral tubular approach. Differences in patient demographics and preoperative characteristics were assessed using independent sample t tests and χ2 tests. The type of spondylolisthesis and its effect on postoperative outcomes was analyzed using Poisson regression with robust error variance (binary outcomes) or linear regression (continuous outcomes) adjusted for preoperative characteristics. Subgroup analysis comparing grade I IS versus DS and grade II IS versus DS was performed. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients were included (IS: 62 [27.8%]; DS: 161 [72.2%]). IS patients were younger (P < .001), had a lower comorbidity burden (P < .001), and a greater incidence of grade II spondylolisthesis (P < .001) at L5-S1 (P < .001) than the DS cohort. Patients with IS experienced longer operative times (P < .001) and lower, but not statistically significant, arthrodesis rates compared to the DS cohort. No differences were observed in the remaining preoperative patient characteristics, perioperative or postoperative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being younger and having a lower comorbidity burden than the DS cohort, similar outcomes were observed after MIS TLIF for IS patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results suggest MIS TLIF is an appropriate treatment option for IS patients despite the increased instability inherent with IS.

Preoperative Mental Health May Not Be Predictive of Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes Following a Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Prior literature has associated poor preoperative mental health with inferior patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after spinal procedures. Therefore, the objective of this study was to test for association of preoperative Short Form 12 (SF-12) mental health composite score (MCS) with improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and back and leg visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores after a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). METHODS: A surgical database of patients who underwent a primary, 1 level MIS TLIF was reviewed. Preoperative SF-12 MCS was tested for association with preoperative ODI, back VAS, and leg VAS. Preoperative MCS was then tested for association with changes in ODI, back VAS, and leg VAS from preoperative to postoperative visits. These tests were conducted using multivariate regression controlling for baseline characteristics and the preoperative score of the PRO being assessed. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, higher preoperative MCS was associated with lower preoperative ODI (coefficient: -0.58, P < .001), lower preoperative back VAS (-0.05, P = .003), and lower preoperative leg VAS (-0.06, P = .003). However, there was no association between preoperative MCS and improvement in PROs at any postoperative timepoint (P > .05). The percent of patients achieving a minimum clinically important difference in PROs at 6 months did not differ between the bottom and top MCS halves (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that better preoperative mental health is associated with lower perceived preoperative disability and decreased severity of back and leg pain. In contrast to other studies, the present study was unable to demonstrate that preoperative mental health is predictive of improvement in PROs at any postoperative timepoint after MIS TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results suggest that surgeons should exercise care in assuming that patients with poorer preoperative mental health are inferior surgical candidates.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Score is Not Predictive of Complication Incidence After Minimally Invasive Posterior Lumbar Spine Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Complications occurring after spinal procedures are associated with recurrent symptomatology, new-onset symptomatology, and increased health care costs. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score is a commonly cited risk factor for complication incidence. Few investigations have been performed analyzing the relationship between ASA score and complication rate following spinal minimally invasive surgery (MIS) decompressions or fusions. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether an association exists between preoperative ASA score and the incidence of postoperative complications among patients undergoing MIS posterior lumbar decompression or fusion. METHODS: A surgical registry of patients undergoing single-level MIS posterior lumbar decompressions or fusions between 2007 and 2016 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified by preoperative ASA score (≤2, >2). The ASA score was tested for an association with preoperative demographic, comorbidity, and perioperative characteristics using the Student t test or χ2 analysis. Multivariate Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to test for an association between ASA score and the incidence of complications up to 6 months postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 772 patients were analyzed. Of those, 86.7% had an ASA score ≤2, whereas 13.3% had an ASA score >2. An ASA score >2 was associated with older age (P < .001), higher comorbidity burden (P < .001), and higher rates of obesity (P < .001). An ASA score >2 was also associated with significantly longer operative time (P = .001) and longer length of hospital stay (P < .001). Upon multivariate analysis, ASA score category was not associated with the incidence of any complication (P = .248), medical complications (P = .227), or surgical complications (P = .816). CONCLUSIONS: The ASA score was not a predictive factor for complication incidence up to 6 months postoperatively. Thus, a higher ASA score should not preclude patients from being surgical candidates for MIS posterior lumbar decompressions or fusions. Further investigation is required to identify other predictive factors for complication incidence after minimally invasive spine surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Predictors of Citation Rate in the Spine Literature.

The number of citations a publication receives has been regarded as one measure of its importance and clinical impact. However, studies have yet to investigate which characteristics are predictors of citation rates within the spine subspecialty literature. To explore this topic, all articles published in 2010 in Spine and from 2010 to 2011 in The Spine Journal and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine were reviewed. The Web of Science search engine was used to determine the number of times each article was cited in the 5 years following its publication. Sample characteristics were collected and were compared with a χ test for differences Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine if collected study characteristics were associated with achievement of citation frequency higher than the median for the entire study sample. Among the 927 articles analyzed, the 5-year citation number ranged from 0 to 125, with a median of 8 (interquartile range: 4-16). Upon multivariate analysis, the following were identified as predictors of citation number higher than the median: North American origin (P=0.014), sample size >30 (P<0.001), study topic (P<0.050), and publication in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (P<0.001). Practitioners and research personnel can use these findings to help elucidate which factors might affect the potential impact and overall reach of their work in the spine literature.

The Popularity of Outcome Measures Used in the Foot and Ankle Literature.

Background. Outcome measures are frequently employed in clinical studies to determine the efficacy of orthopaedic surgical procedures. However, substantial variability exists among the outcome instruments utilized in foot and ankle (F&A) literature. The purpose of this study is to determine the number of outcome measures reported in F&A literature recently published in major orthopaedic journals and the association between study characteristics and the use of particular outcome measurement categories. Methods. All manuscripts published in 6 major orthopaedic journals between 2013-2017 reporting at least one clinical outcome measure were collected. For each manuscript, the journal, title, authors, country/region of origin, level of evidence, topic, and anatomic location were recorded. Outcome measures were characterized as generic, F&A specific, and disease specific. Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to test for association between study characteristics and outcome measure categories. Results. A total of 541 F&A articles were included with fifty-two different outcome measures reported. The most popular tool was the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) (56.9%). Generic outcome measures were used in 331 (61.1%) studies, while 440 (81.3%) studies used F&A specific measures and 64 (11.8%) used disease-specific measures. The use of generic and disease-specific outcome measures was associated with a higher level of evidence (p < 0.001). Conclusion. AA substantial variety of outcome measures are employed among recent published studies, with many studies utilizing non-validated measures. Reporting a combination of validated and focused outcome measures is necessary to improve the quality and generalizability of published studies in foot and ankle literature. Levels of Evidence: Level II: Systematic review.

Risk Factors Associated With Failure to Reach Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

BACKGROUND: The minimum clinically importance difference (MCID) represents a threshold for improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that patients deem important. No previous study has comprehensively examined risk factors for failure to achieve MCID after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures for radiculopathic symptomatology. The purpose of this study is to determine risk factors for failure to reach MCID for Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck pain, and VAS arm pain in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDF procedures. METHODS: A surgical registry of patients who underwent primary, 1- or 2-level ACDF from 2014 to 2016 was reviewed. Rates of MCID achievement for NDI, VAS neck pain, and VAS arm pain at final follow-up were calculated based on published MCID values. Patients were then categorized into demographic and procedural categories. Bivariate regression was used to test for association of demographic and procedural characteristics with failure to reach MCID for each PRO. The final multivariate model including all demographic and procedural categories as controls was created using backward stepwise regression. RESULTS: Eighty-three, 84, and 77 patients were included in the analysis for VAS neck, VAS arm, and NDI, respectively. Rates of MCID achievement for VAS neck, VAS arm, and NDI were 55.4%, 36.9%, and 76.6%, respectively. On bivariate analysis, patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 2 were less likely to achieve MCID for NDI than patients with CCI < 2 (P = .025). On multivariate analysis, CCI ≥ 2 (P = .025) was further associated with failure to reach MCID for NDI. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the majority of patients do not reach MCID for arm pain. Additionally, higher comorbidity burden as evidenced by higher CCI scores is a negative predictive factor for the achievement of MCID in neck disability following ACDF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Does the Day of the Week Affect Length of Stay and Hospital Charges Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?

BACKGROUND: To reduce the economic impact of excessive costs, risk factors for increased length of stay (LOS) must be identified. Previous literature has demonstrated that surgeries later in the week can affect the LOS and costs following joint arthroplasty. However, few investigations regarding the day of surgery have been performed in the spine literature. The present study attempts to identify the association between day of surgery on LOS and hospital charges following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) procedures. METHODS: A prospectively maintained surgical database of primary, level 1-2 ACDF patients between 2008 and 2015 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified by surgery day: early week (Tuesday) or late week (Friday) ACDF. Differences in patient demographics and preoperative characteristics were compared between cohorts using chi-square analysis or Student t test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Direct hospital costs were obtained using hospital charges for each procedure and subsequent care prior to discharge. Associations between date of surgery and costs were assessed using multivariate linear regression controlled for. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-five patients were included in the analysis. One hundred and fifty-three patients underwent early week ACDF, and 142 underwent late week ACDF. Surgery day cohorts reported similar baseline characteristics. There were no differences in operative characteristics or hospital LOS between cohorts. Additionally, no differences in total or subcategorical hospital costs were identified between surgery day cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing ACDF later in the week exhibit similar LOS and hospital costs compared to those undergoing ACDF early in the week. These results suggest that outpatient procedures with short postoperative stays are likely not affected by the changes in hospital work efficiency that occur during the transition to the weekend. As such, hospitals should not restrict outpatient procedures to specific days of the week. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.