The Effect of Patient Resilience on Postoperative Scores After One and Two-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose is to investigate the association between resilience and outcomes of pain and neck-related disability after single- and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Patients who underwent single- or two-level ACDF were sent a survey between six months and two years following surgery. The survey included the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-2). Patients completed the VAS and NDI twice, once describing preoperative pain and disability and once describing current pain and disability. Respondents were classified as high resilience (HR), medium resilience (MR), or low resilience (LR). Demographics, PSEQ-2 scores, pre- and postoperative VAS and NDI scores, and change in VAS (ΔVAS) and NDI (ΔNDI) scores were compared between groups. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients comprised the HR group, 273 patients comprised the MR group, and 47 patients comprised the LR group. All groups demonstrated postoperative improvement in VAS and NDI scores that exceeded previously established MCID values. The HR group demonstrated greater improvement in pain compared to the LR group (ΔVAS: -5.8 for HR vs -4.4 for LR, p=0.05). Compared to the MR group, the LR group demonstrated greater postoperative pain (VAS: 3.2 for LR vs 2.5 for MR, p=0.02) and disability (NDI: 11.9 for LR vs 8.6 for MR, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients demonstrated improvement in pain and neck-related disability after single- and two-level ACDF, regardless of resilience score. Patients with greater resilience may be expected to demonstrate more improvement in pain after ACDF.

Which North American spine society disc herniation morphology descriptors are most associated with improvements in clinical outcomes after microdiscectomy?

Background: The North American Spine Society (NASS) assembled the first ever comprehensive naming system for describing lumbar disc disease, including lumbar disc herniation. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine which NASS descriptors are most predictive of independent patient-reported outcomes after microdiscectomy and (2) to identify the inter-rater reliability of each NASS descriptor. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years) who underwent a lumbar microdiscectomy from 2014-2021 were retrospectively identified. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected at preoperative, 3-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. Lumbar disc herniations were evaluated and classified on preoperative MRI using the NASS lumbar disc nomenclature specific to disc herniation. Results: About 213 microdiscectomy patients were included in the final analysis. Herniation descriptors exhibiting the greatest reliability included sequestration status (κ=0.83), axial disc herniation area (κ=0.83), and laterality (κ=0.83). The descriptor with the lowest inter-rater reliability was direction of migration (κ=0.53). At 3 months, a sequestered herniation was associated with lower odds of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI (p=.004) and MCS (p=.032). At 12 months, a similar trend was observed for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) MCID achievement (p=.001). At 3 months, a herniation with larger axial area was a predictor of MCID achievement in ODI (p=.004) and the mental component summary (MCS) (p=.009). Neither association persisted at 12 months; however, larger axial disc herniation area was able to predict MCID achievement in the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) leg (p=.031) at 12 months. Conclusions: The utility of the NASS nomenclature system in predicting postoperative outcomes after microdiscectomy has yet to be studied. We showed that sequestration status and disc area are both reliable and able to predict the odds of achieving MCID in certain clinical outcomes at 3 months and 12 months after surgery. Hence, preoperative imaging analysis of lumbar disc herniations may be useful in accurately setting patient expectations.

Construct length analysis of type B and C cervical and thoracolumbar fractures.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to identify if construct length affects the rate of surgical complications and instrumentation revision following surgical fixation of subaxial and thoracolumbar Type B and C fractures. This study evaluates the effect of ankylosing spondylitis/diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (AS/DISH) within this population on outcomes. Methods: Retrospective review of 91 cervical and 89 thoracolumbar Type B and C fractures. Groups were divided by construct length for analysis: short-segment (constructs spanning two or less segments adjacent to the fracture) and long-segment (constructs spanning more than two segments adjacent to the vertebral fracture). Results: For cervical fractures, construct length did not impact surgical complications (P = 0.641), surgical hardware revision (P = 0.167), or kyphotic change (P = 0.994). For thoracolumbar fractures, construct length did not impact surgical complications (P = 0.508), surgical hardware revision (P = 0.224), and kyphotic change (P = 0.278). Cervical Type B fractures were nonsignificantly more likely to have worsened kyphosis (P = 0.058) than Type C fractures. Assessing all regions of the spine, a diagnosis of AS/DISH was associated with an increase in kyphosis (P = 0.030) and a diagnosis of osteoporosis was associated with surgical hardware failure (P = 0.006). Conclusion: Patients with short-segment instrumentation have similar surgical outcomes and changes in kyphosis compared to those with long-segment instrumentation. A diagnosis of AS/DISH or osteoporosis was associated with worse surgical outcomes.

The Impact of the Preoperative Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) Score on Short-term Outcomes after Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to characterize the relationship between preoperative MCS and surgical outcomes after lumbar spine surgery including inpatient complications, length of stay, readmissions, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As the prevalence of mental health disorders in the United States increases, it is important to identify risks associated with poor mental health status in the surgical spine patient. The mental health component summary (MCS) of the Short Form-12 has been used extensively as an indication of a patient's mental health status and psychological well-being. METHODS: Adult patients older than or equal to 18 years who underwent primary one to three level lumbar fusion surgery at our academic medical institution from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Preoperative MCS score was used to analyze outcomes in patients based on a cutoff (<45.6). A score >45.6 indicated better preoperative mental health and a score <45.6 indicated worse preoperative mental health. RESULTS: Patients with lower preoperative MCS scores had longer hospital stays (3.86 + 2.16 vs. 3.55 + 1.42 days, P=0.010) and were more likely to have inpatient renal complications (3.09% vs. 7.19%, P=0.006). Patients with lower preoperative MCS scores also had lower Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) scores (17.1 + 2.85 vs. 17.6 + 2.49, P=0.030). Ninety-day surgical readmissions, medical readmissions, and reoperations were not significantly different between groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that patients with lower preoperative mental health scores (MCS < 45.6) were independently more likely to experience more renal complications and longer length of stay after primary lumbar fusion. Additionally, higher MCS scores may correlate with better postoperative mobility and daily activity scores. Nevertheless, long-term outcomes are not significantly different between patients of better or worse preoperative mental health.

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Posterior Cervical Laminoplasty for Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes and surgical outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. BACKGROUND: Treatment options for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy include ACDF and cervical laminoplasty. Given that the literature has been mixed regarding the optimal approach, especially in patients without kyphosis, there is a need for additional studies investigating outcomes between ACDF and cervical laminoplasty. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of adult patients undergoing 3 or 4-level surgery. Patients with preoperative kyphosis based on C2-C7 Cobb angles were excluded. The electronic medical record and institutional databases were reviewed for baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients who underwent ACDF and 52 patients who underwent laminoplasty were included in the study. The laminoplasty cohort had a higher overall Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.10 ± 1.43 vs 2.39 ± 1.57, P = 0.011). Both groups had a comparable number of levels decompressed, C2-C7 lordosis, and diagnosis of myelopathy versus myeloradiculopathy. Patients who underwent laminoplasty had a longer length of stay (2.04 ± 1.15 vs 1.48 ± 0.70, P = 0.003) but readmission, complication, and revision rates were similar. Both groups had similar improvement in myelopathy scores (∆modified Japanese Orthopedic Association: 1.11 ± 3.09 vs 1.06 ± 3.37, P = 0.639). ACDF had greater improvement in Neck Disability Index (∆Neck Disability Index: -11.66 ± 19.2 vs -1.13 ± 11.2, P < 0.001), neck pain (∆Visual Analog Scale-neck: -2.69 ± 2.78 vs -0.83 ± 2.55, P = 0.003), and arm pain (∆Visual Analog Scale-arm: -2.47 ± 3.15 vs -0.48 ± 3.19, P = 0.010). These findings persisted in multivariate analysis except for Neck Disability Index. CONCLUSION: ACDF and cervical laminoplasty appear equally efficacious at halting myelopathic progression. However, patients who underwent ACDF had greater improvements in arm pain at 1 year postoperatively. Longitudinal studies evaluating the efficacy of laminoplasty to mitigate adjacent segment disease are indicated to establish a robust risk-benefit assessment for these 2 procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Postoperative opioid consumption patterns diverge between propensity matched patients undergoing traumatic and elective cervical spine fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prolonged opioid therapy following spine surgery is an ongoing postoperative concern. While prior studies have investigated postoperative opioid use patterns in the elective cervical surgery patient population, to our knowledge, opioid use patterns in patients undergoing surgery for traumatic cervical spine injuries have not been elucidated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare opioid use and prescription patterns in the postoperative pain management of patients undergoing traumatic and elective cervical spine fusion surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with traumatic cervical injuries who underwent primary anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) during their initial hospital admission. The propensity matched, control group consisted of adult elective cervical fusion patients who underwent primary ACDF or PCDF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic data, surgical characteristics, spinal disease diagnosis, location of cervical injury, procedure type, operative levels fused, and Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data. PDMP data included the number of opioid prescriptions filled, preoperative opioid use, postoperative opioid use, and use of perioperative benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or gabapentin. Opioid consumption data was collected in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and standardized per day. METHODS: A 1:1 propensity match was performed to match traumatic injury patients undergoing cervical fusion surgery with elective cervical fusion patients. Traumatic injury patients were matched based on age, sex, CCI, procedure type, and cervical levels fused. Pre- and postoperative opioid, benzodiazepine, muscle relaxant, and gabapentin use were assessed for the traumatic injury and elective patients. T- or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare continuous data and Chi-Squared or Fisher's Exact were used to compare categorical data. Multivariate stepwise regression using MME per day 0 - 30 days following surgery as the dependent outcome was performed to further evaluate associations with postoperative opioid use. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients underwent fusion surgery for a traumatic cervical spine injury and 48 elective cervical fusion with complete PDMP data were assessed. Elective patients were found to fill more prescriptions (3.19 vs. 0.65, p=.023) and take more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day (0.60 vs. 0.04, p=.014) within 1 year prior to surgery in comparison to traumatic patients. Elective patients were also more likely to use opioids (29.2% vs. 10.4%, p=.040) and take more MMEs per day (0.70 vs. 0.05, p=.004) within 30 days prior to surgery. Within 30 days postoperatively, elective patients used opioids more frequently (89.6% vs. 52.1%, p<.001) and took more MMEs per day (3.73 vs. 1.71, p<.001) than traumatic injury patients. Multivariate stepwise regression demonstrated preoperative opioid use (Estimate: 1.87, p=.013) to be correlated with higher postoperative MME per day within 30 days of surgery. Surgery after traumatic injury was correlated with lower postoperative MME use per day within 30 days of surgery (Estimate: -1.63 p=.022). CONCLUSION: Cervical fusion patients with a history of traumatic spine injury consume fewer opioids in the early postoperative period in comparison to elective cervical fusion patients, however both cohorts consumed a similar amount after the initial 30-day postoperative period. Preoperative opioid use was also a risk factor for higher consumption in the short-term postoperative period. These results may aid physicians in further understanding patients' postoperative care needs based on presenting injury characteristics and highlights the need for enhanced follow-up care for traumatic cervical spine injury patients after fusion surgery.

Preoperative Electrodiagnostic Study Findings Differ Between Patients With Double-crush Syndrome and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Propensity Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Double-crush syndrome (DCS) represents a condition that involves peripheral nerve compression in combination with spinal nerve root impingement. The purpose of this study was to compare electrodiagnostic study (EDS) results in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release (CTR) for carpal tunnel syndrome with those undergoing both CTR and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion for DCS. METHODS: Patients receiving an isolated CTR were compared with those undergoing CTR and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion within two years of CTR. The latter group was defined as our DCS cohort. Electrodiagnostic study results were collected which included sensory and motor nerve conduction data as well as electromyogram (EMG) findings. All electrodiagnostic studies were done before CTR in both sets of patients. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with DCS and 137 CTR-only patients were included. Patients with DCS were found to have decreased sensory onset latency (3.51 vs 4.01; P = 0.015) and peak latency (4.25 vs 5.17; P = 0.004) compared with the CTR-only patients. Patients with DCS had slower wrist motor velocity (30.5 vs 47.7; P = 0.012), decreased elbow motor latency (9.62 vs 10.6; P = 0.015), and faster elbow motor velocity (56.0 vs 49.4; P = 0.031). EMG results showed that patients with DCS were more likely to have positive findings in the biceps (31.9% vs 1.96%; P < 0.001) and triceps (24.4% vs 2.97%; P < 0.001), but not abductor pollicis brevis (APB) (45.7% vs 37.9%; P = 0.459). CONCLUSION: We identified changes on EDS between patients with and without DCS. In patients with DCS, sensory nerve studies showed shorter peak and onset latency than in CTR-only patients. Interestingly, DCS and CTR-only patients had different patterns of wrist and elbow motor nerve conduction. Providers observing positive EMG findings proximal to the APB should raise their suspicion for possible cervical radiculopathy and when present with carpal tunnel syndrome-like symptoms, should also consider DCS in their diagnostic differential.

The Role of L1PA in Patient Reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Single Level Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the L1 pelvic angle (L1PA) can be used to predict quality of life outcomes for adults one year after L4-L5 fusion to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: L1PA is beneficial in the evaluation of pre and postoperative quality of life outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for spinal deformity. No studies have examined its utility in surgical patients with degenerative spinal disease. METHODS: Patients undergoing L4-L5 posterolateral decompression and fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were grouped by preoperative and postoperative L1PA, and further stratified by cut offs of>7.2° and <7.2° based on previous literature. We also stratified patients by presence of an ideal calculated L1PA, defined as (0.5xPelvic Incidence)-21 +/- 5°, as proposed by prior literature. Preoperative, one year postoperative and Δ (postoperative minus preoperative) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic measurements were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were identified with preoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 132 with L1PAs>7.2°. Eighteen patients were identified with postoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 138 with L1PAs>7.2°. Sixty-five and fifty-seven patients were identified as having ideal calculated pre and postoperative L1PAs, respectively. When using absolute cutoffs, L1PA correlated with pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). When using calculated L1PAs, L1PA correlated with lumbar lordosis, PI-LL, pelvic tilt and sacral slope. With respect to PROMs, no statistically significant differences existed between cohorts both preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively on either univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: L1PA may be a helpful radiographic consideration that translates to clinically relevant outcomes in spinal deformity. However, it does not appear as predictive of patient outcomes after single level fusion for patients with L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Further studies are warranted to investigate the role of L1PA in degenerative spine patients.

The Relationship Between Disc Herniation Morphology and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Microdiscectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Determine if herniation morphology based on the Michigan State University Classification is associated with differences in (1) patient-reported outcome measures (or (2) surgical outcomes after a microdiscectomy. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing single-level microdiscectomy between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Demographics and surgical characteristics were collected through a query search and manual chart review. The Michigan State University classification, which assesses disc herniation laterality (zone A was central, zone B/C was lateral) and degree of extrusion into the central canal (grade 1 was up to 50% of the distance to the intra-facet line, grade >1 was beyond this line), was identified on preoperative MRIs. patient-reported outcome measures were collected at preoperative, 3-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. RESULTS: Of 233 patients, 84 had zone A versus 149 zone B/C herniations while 76 had grade 1 disc extrusion and 157 had >1 grade. There was no difference in surgical outcomes between groups (P > 0.05). Patients with extrusion grade >1 were found to have lower Physical Component Score at baseline. On bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis, extrusion grade >1 was a significant independent predictor of greater improvement in Physical Component Score at three months (estimate = 7.957; CI: 4.443-11.471, P < 0.001), but not at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Although all patients were found to improve after microdiscectomy, patients with disc herniations extending further posteriorly reported lower preoperative physical function but experienced significantly greater improvement three months after surgery. However, improvement in Visual Analog Scale Leg and back, ODI, and MCS at three and twelve months was unrelated to laterality or depth of disc herniation.

The impact of robotic assistance for lumbar fusion surgery on 90-day surgical outcomes and 1-year revisions.

Objectives: To evaluate the (1) 90-day surgical outcomes and (2) 1-year revision rate of robotic versus nonrobotic lumbar fusion surgery. Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary lumbar fusion surgery at our institution were identified and propensity-matched in a 1:1 fashion based on robotic assistance during surgery. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and surgical outcomes, including 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revisions, were collected. Multivariable regression analysis was performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05. Results: Four hundred and fifteen patients were identified as having robotic lumbar fusion and were matched to a control group. Bivariant analysis revealed no significant difference in total 90-day surgical complications (P = 0.193) or 1-year revisions (P = 0.178). The operative duration was longer in robotic surgery (287 + 123 vs. 205 + 88.3, P ≤ 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that robotic fusion was not a significant predictor of 90-day surgical complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76 [0.32-1.67], P = 0.499) or 1-year revisions (OR = 0.58 [0.28-1.18], P = 0.142). Other variables identified as the positive predictors of 1-year revisions included levels fused (OR = 1.26 [1.08-1.48], P = 0.004) and current smokers (OR = 3.51 [1.46-8.15], P = 0.004). Conclusion: Our study suggests that robotic-assisted and nonrobotic-assisted lumbar fusions are associated with a similar risk of 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revision rates; however, robotic surgery does increase time under anesthesia.

Radiology Reports Do Not Accurately Portray the Severity of Cervical Neural Foraminal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiology reports to a validated grading system for cervical foraminal stenosis (FS) and (2) to evaluate whether the severity of cervical neural FS on MRI correlates to motor weakness or patient-reported outcomes. BACKGROUND: Radiology reports of cervical spine MRI are often reviewed to assess the degree of neural FS. However, research looking at the association between these reports and objective MRI findings, as well as clinical symptoms, is lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all adult patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a single academic center for an indication of cervical radiculopathy. Preoperative MRI was assessed for neural FS severity using the grading system described by Kim and colleagues for each level of fusion, as well as adjacent levels. Neural FS severity was recorded from diagnostic radiologist MRI reports. Motor weakness was defined as an examination grade <4/5 on the final preoperative encounter. Regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the degree of FS by either classification was related to patient-reported outcome measure severity. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were included in the study, and 998 total levels were assessed. There were significant differences between the MRI grading system and the assessment by radio-logists (P< 0.001). In levels with moderate stenosis, 28.9% were classified as having no stenosis by radiology. In levels with severe stenosis, 29.7% were classified as having mild-moderate stenosis or less. Motor weakness was found similarly often in levels of moderate or severe stenosis (6.9% and 9.2%, respectively). On regression analysis, no associations were found between baseline patient-reported outcome measures and stenosis severity assessed by radiologists or MRI grading systems. CONCLUSION: Radiology reports on the severity of cervical neural FS are not consistent with a validated MRI grading system. These radiology reports underestimated the severity of neural foraminal compression and may be inappropriate when used for clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Early Diet Liberalization After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Improves Postoperative Recovery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of diet liberalization on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing anterior interbody lumbar fusion (ALIF). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for patients undergoing ALIF at our tertiary care center institution from 2010 to 2022. Electronic medical records were reviewed for demographics, surgical characteristics, and 90-day postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: We included 515 patients in this study with 102 patients receiving a full diet on the same day as their operation. All other patients had a delay of at least 1 day (average 1.6 days) until a full diet was provided. This group was found to have a higher rate of postoperative ileus (10.2% vs 2.9%) and urinary retention (16.0% vs 3.9%). The readmission rate and percent of patients presenting to the emergency department within 90 days postoperatively were similar. On multivariate regression analysis, same-day, full-diet patients had decreased odds of developing urinary retention (OR = .17) and a shorter length of hospital stay (Estimate: -.99). Immediate full diet had no impact on the development of ileus (OR: .33). CONCLUSIONS: An immediate postoperative full diet following an anterior approach to the lumbar spine was not found to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative ileus in patients deemed appropriate for early diet liberalization. Moreover, an early full diet was found to reduce length of hospitalization and risk of postoperative urinary retention. Reconsideration of postoperative diet protocols may help optimize patient outcomes and recovery.

Does physical therapy impact clinical outcomes after lumbar decompression surgery?

Objectives: The objectives of our study were to (1) determine if physical therapy (PT) impacts patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after lumbar decompression surgery and (2) determine if PT impacts postsurgical readmissions or reoperations after lumbar decompression surgery. Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary one- or two-level lumbar decompression at our institution were identified. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, surgical outcomes (all-cause 90 days readmissions and 90 days surgical readmissions), and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared between the groups. Multivariate linear regression was utilized to determine the individual predictors of 90 days readmissions and PROMs at the 1-year postoperative point. Alpha was set at P < 0.05. Results: Of the 1003 patients included, 421 attended PT postoperatively. On univariate analysis, PT attendance did not significantly impact 90-day surgical reoperations (P = 0.225). Although bivariate analysis suggests that attendance of PT is associated with worse improvement in physical function (P = 0.041), increased preoperative Visual Analogue Scale leg pain (0 = 0.004), and disability (P = 0.006), as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index, our multivariate analysis, which accounts for confounding variables found there was no difference in PROM improvement and PT was not an independent predictor of 90-day all-cause readmissions (P = 0.06). Instead, Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 0.025) and discharge to a skilled nursing facility (P = 0.013) independently predicted greater 90-day all-cause readmissions. Conclusions: Postoperative lumbar decompression PT attendance does not significantly affect clinical improvement, as measured by PROMs or surgical outcomes including all-cause 90 days readmissions and 90-day surgical readmissions.

Effect of Preoperative Marijuana on Patient Outcomes and Opioid Use after Lumbar Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to analyze the effect of preoperative marijuana use on outcomes and postoperative opioid use in patients who have undergone lumbar decompression without fusion. METHODS: All patients >18 years of age who underwent lumbar decompression from 2017-2022 with documented preoperative marijuana use at our academic institution were retrospectively identified. A 3:1 propensity match incorporating demographics, procedure type, and levels decompressed was performed to compare preoperative marijuana users and non-users. 1-year preoperative and postoperative opioid consumption in milligrams of morphine equivalents and postoperative outcomes including readmissions, reoperations, and complications, were obtained. A multivariate regression model was performed to measure the effect of marijuana use on the likelihood of a spine reoperation. RESULTS: Of the 340 included patients, 85 were preoperative marijuana users. There were no significant differences in medical complications, 90-day readmissions, or opioid consumption preoperatively or postoperatively (P > .05). We identified a trend towards patients who used marijuana having more reoperations for any cause (20.0% vs 11.37%, P = .067). Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that preoperative marijuana use was a significant predictor of all-spine reoperations (OR = 2.06, P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: In lumbar decompression patients, preoperative marijuana use does not impact opioid consumption, readmissions, or medical complications, but is a significant predictor of future postoperative reoperations. Additional research is necessary to further explore the role of marijuana use in spine surgery.

Reasons for transfer and subsequent outcomes among patients undergoing elective spine surgery at an orthopedic specialty hospital.

Objective: To evaluate the reasons for transfer as well as the 90-day outcomes of patients who were transferred from a high-volume orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) following elective spine surgery. Materials and Methods: All patients admitted to a single OSH for elective spine surgery from 2014 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Ninety-day complications, readmissions, revisions, and mortality events were collected and a 3:1 propensity match was conducted. Results: Thirty-five (1.5%) of 2351 spine patients were transferred, most commonly for arrhythmia (n = 7; 20%). Thirty-three transferred patients were matched to 99 who were not transferred, and groups had similar rates of complications (18.2% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.228), readmissions (3.0% vs. 4.0%; P = 1.000), and mortality (6.1% vs. 0%; P = 0.061). Conclusion: Overall, this study demonstrates a low transfer rate following spine surgery. Risk factors should continue to be optimized in order to decrease patient risks in the postoperative period at an OSH.

Perioperative Dexamethasone Does Not Reduce Postoperative Opioid Use Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if dexamethasone administration reduced narcotic consumption during hospitalization and to evaluate if patients who received dexamethasone refilled fewer opioid prescriptions postoperatively. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent primary elective 1- to 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a single center were retrospectively identified. Prescription opioid use was collected from governmental online prescription drug monitoring programs, and in-hospital opioid use was collected from each patient's medication administration record and recorded as morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Patients were categorized by whether or not intravenous dexamethasone was administered perioperatively. Dexamethasone protocols were considered high dose if weight-based dosing was >0.20 mg/kg and low dose if <0.20 mg/kg. Multivariable linear regression was conducted to assess the relationship between dexamethasone administration and MMEs prescribed at each time point while accounting for confounders. RESULTS: Of 249 included patients, 167 (67%) were administered dexamethasone. Patients in both groups used a similar quantity of opioids while hospitalized (no dexamethasone: 56.7 MMEs/day vs. dexamethasone: 39.4 MMEs/day, P = 0.350). Patients in both groups refilled a similar quantity of opioids in all postoperative time periods: 0-3 weeks (3.38 vs. 4.07 MMEs/day, P = 0.528), 3-6 weeks (0.36 vs. 0.75 MMEs/day, P = 0.198), 6-12 weeks (0.53 vs. 0.75 MMEs/day, P = 0.900), and 3 months to 1 year (0.28 vs. 0.43 MMEs/day, P = 0.531). On multivariable linear regression, dexamethasone was not associated with a reduction in opioid volume at any time point (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of perioperative dexamethasone does not reduce in-hospital or home opioid usage regardless of weight-based dose. Analgesia should not be the primary driver of dexamethasone administration for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Preoperative Opioid Prescribers and Lumbar Fusion: Their Effect on Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Opioid Usage.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of multiple preoperative opioid prescribers on postoperative patient opioid usage and patient-reported outcome measures after single-level lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior literature has identified opioid prescriptions from multiple postoperative providers increase opioid usage rates. However, there is limited evidence on how multiple preoperative opioid prescribers affect postoperative opioid usage or clinical outcomes after a single-level lumbar fusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or posterolateral lumbar fusions between September 2017 and February 2020 at a single academic institution was performed. Patients were excluded if they were not identifiable in our state's prescription drug-monitoring program. Univariate comparisons and regression analyses identified factors associated with postoperative clinical outcomes and opioid usage. RESULTS: Of 239 patients, 160 (66.9%) had one or fewer preoperative prescribers and 79 (33.1%) had >1 prescribers. On regression analysis, the presence of multiple preoperative prescribers was an independent predictor of increased improvement in Visual Analog Scale (∆VAS) Back (ß=-1.61, P =0.012) and the involvement of a nonoperative spine provider was an independent predictor of increased improvement in ∆VAS Leg (ß = -1.53, P = 0.034). Multiple preoperative opioid prescribers correlated with an increase in opioid prescriptions postoperatively (ß = 0.26, P = 0.014), but it did not significantly affect the amount of morphine milligram equivalents prescribed (ß = -48.79, P = 0.146). A greater number of preoperative opioid prescriptions predicted worse improvements in VAS Back, VAS Leg, and Oswestry Disability Index and predicted increased postoperative opioid prescriptions, prescribers, and morphine milligram equivalents. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple preoperative opioid prescribers predicted increased improvement in postoperative back pain, whereas preoperative involvement of a nonoperative spine provider predicted improvements in leg pain after surgery. The number of preoperative opioid prescriptions was a better metric for predicting poor postoperative outcomes and increased opioid consumption compared with the number of preoperative opioid prescribers.

The Effect of Preoperative Exposure to Benzodiazepines on Opioid Consumption After One and Two-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: Investigate the relationship between preoperative benzodiazepine exposure and postoperative opioid use in patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of preoperative benzodiazepine exposure on postoperative opioid use in spine surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level ACDF at a single institution from February 2020 to November 2021 were identified through electronic medical records. The prescription drug monitoring program was utilized to record the name, dosage, and quantity of preoperative benzodiazepines/opioids filled within 60 days before surgery and postoperative opioids 6 months after surgery. Patients were classified as benzodiazepine naïve or exposed according to preoperative usage, and postoperative opioid dose and duration were compared between groups. Regression analysis was performed for outcomes that demonstrated statistical significance, adjusting for preoperative opioid use, age, sex, and body mass index. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients comprised the benzodiazepine-exposed group whereas 90 comprised the benzodiazepine-naïve group. There was no significant difference in average daily morphine milligram equivalents between groups (median: 96.0 vs 65.0, P = 0.11). The benzodiazepine-exposed group received postoperative opioids for a longer duration (median: 32.0 d vs 12.0 d, P = 0.004) with more prescriptions (median: 2.0 vs 1.0, P = 0.004) and a greater number of pills (median: 110.0 vs 59.0, P = 0.007). On regression analysis, preoperative benzodiazepine use was not significantly associated with postoperative opioid duration [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.93, P = 0.74], number of prescriptions (IRR: 1.21, P = 0.16), or number of pills (IRR: 0.89, P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: While preoperative benzodiazepine users undergoing primary 1 or 2-level ACDF received postoperative opioids for a longer duration compared with a benzodiazepine naïve cohort, preoperative benzodiazepine use did not independently contribute to this observation. These findings provide insight into the relationship between preoperative benzodiazepine use and postoperative opioid consumption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

A Comparison of Radiographic Alignment between Bilateral and Unilateral Interbody Cages in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To compare radiographic outcomes between unilateral and bilateral cage placement in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF) and to determine if the rate of fusion at the 1-year postoperative point was different in patients who received bilateral versus unilateral cages. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There is no clear evidence to dictate whether bilateral or unilateral cages promote superior radiographic or surgical outcomes in TLIF. METHODS: Patients >18 years old who underwent primary one- or two-level TLIFs at our institution were identified and propensitymatched in a 3:1 fashion (unilateral:bilateral). Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and radiographic outcomes, including vertebral endplate obliquity, segmental lordosis, subsidence, and fusion status, were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 184 patients included, 46 received bilateral cages. Bilateral cage placement was associated with greater subsidence (1.06±1.25 mm vs. 0.59±1.16 mm, p=0.028) and enhanced restoration of segmental lordosis (5.74°±14.1° vs. -1.57°±10.9°, p=0.002) at the 1-year postoperative point, while unilateral cage placement was associated with an increased correction of endplate obliquity (-2.02°±4.42° vs. 0.24°±2.81°, p<0.001). Bilateral cage placement was significantly associated with radiographic fusion on bivariate analysis (89.1% vs. 70.3%, p=0.018) and significantly predicted radiographic fusion on multivariable regression analysis (estimate, 1.35; odds ratio, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-12.05; p=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral interbody cage placement in TLIF procedures was associated with restoration of lumbar lordosis and increased fusion rates. However, endplate obliquity correction was significantly greater for patients who received a unilateral cage.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Incidental Durotomy during Lumbar Spine Decompression with or without Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for incidental durotomies during lumbar decompression surgeries. In addition, we aimed to determine the changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on incidental durotomy status. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There is limited literature investigating the affect of incidental durotomy on patient reported outcome measures. While the majority of research does not suggest differences in complications, readmission, or revision rates, many studies rely on public databases, and their sensitivity and specificity for identifying incidental durotomies is unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with or without fusion at a single tertiary care center were grouped based on the presence of a durotomy. Multivariate analysis was performed for length of stay (LOS), hospital readmissions, and changes in PROMs. To identify surgical risk factors for durotomy, 3:1 propensity matching was performed using stepwise logistic regression. The sensitivity and specificity of the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes (G96.11 and G97.41) were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 3,684 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar decompressions, 533 (14.5%) had durotomies, and a complete set of PROMs (preoperative and 1-year postoperative) were available for 737 patients (20.0%). Incidental durotomy was an independent predictor of increased LOS but not hospital readmission or worse PROMs. The durotomy repair method was not associated with hospital readmission or LOS. However, repair with collagen graft and suture predicted reduced improvement in Visual Analog Scale back (ß =2.56, p=0.004). Independent risk factors for incidental durotomies included revisions (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; p<0.001), levels decompressed (OR, 1.11; p=0.005), and preoperative diagnosis of spondylolisthesis or thoracolumbar kyphosis. The sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 codes were 5.4% and 99.9%, respectively, for identifying durotomies. CONCLUSIONS: The durotomy rate for lumbar decompressions was 14.5%. No differences in outcomes were detected except for increased LOS. Database studies relying on ICD codes should be interpreted with caution due to the limited sensitivity in identifying incidental durotomies.