Impact of Metabolic Syndrome on Early Postoperative Outcomes After Cervical Disk Replacement: A Propensity-matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following cervical disk replacement (CDR) among patients with and without metabolic syndrome (MetS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The prevalence of MetS-involving concurrent obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia-has increased in the United States over the last 2 decades. Little is known about the impact of MetS on early postoperative outcomes and complications following CDR. METHODS: The 2005-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients with and without MetS were divided into 2 cohorts. MetS was defined, according to other National Surgical Quality Improvement Program studies, as concurrent diabetes mellitus, hypertension requiring medication, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 . Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, complications, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition were compared using χ 2 and Fisher exact tests. One to 2 propensity-matching was performed, matching for demographics, comorbidities, and number of operative levels. RESULTS: A total of 5395 patients were included for unmatched analysis. Two hundred thirty-six had MetS, and 5159 did not. The MetS cohort had greater rates of 30-day readmission (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P =0.023), morbidity (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P =0.032), nonhome discharges (3% vs. 0.6%; P =0.002), and longer hospital stays (1.35±4.04 vs. 1±1.48 days; P =0.029). After propensity-matching, 699 patients were included. All differences reported above lost significance ( P >0.05) except for 30-day morbidity (superficial wound infections), which remained higher for the MetS cohort (2.5% vs. 0.4%, P =0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We identified MetS as an independent predictor of 30-day morbidity in the form of superficial wound infections following single-level CDR. Although MetS patients experienced greater rates of 30-day readmission, nonhome discharge, and longer lengths of stay, MetS did not independently predict these outcomes after controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Erector Spinae Plane Block Reduces Immediate Postoperative Pain and Opioid Demand After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Matched cohort comparison. OBJECTIVE: To determine perioperative outcomes of erector spinae plane (ESP) block for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a paucity of data on the impact of lumbar ESP block on perioperative outcomes and its safety in MI-TLIF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent 1-level MI-TLIF and received the ESP block (group E ) were included. An age and sex-matched control group was selected from a historical cohort that received the standard-of-care (group NE). The primary outcome of this study was 24-hour opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents. Secondary outcomes were pain severity measured by a numeric rating scale, opioid-related side effects, and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Ninety-eight and 55 patients were included in the E and NE groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in patient demographics. Group E had lower 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption ( P = 0.117, not significant), reduced opioid consumption on a postoperative day (POD) 0 ( P = 0.016), and lower first pain scores postsurgery ( P < 0.001). Group E had lower intraoperative opioid requirements ( P < 0.001), and significantly lower average numeric rating scale pain scores on POD 0 ( P = 0.034). Group E reported fewer opioid-related side effects as compared with group NE, although this was not statistically significant. The average highest postoperative pain score within 3 hours postprocedurally was 6.9 and 7.7 in the E and NE cohorts, respectively ( P = 0.029). The median length of stay was comparable between groups with the majority of patients in both groups being discharged on POD 1. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective matched cohort, ESP blocks resulted in reduced opioid consumption and decreased pain scores on POD 0 in patients undergoing MI-TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Severe Obesity Is an Independent Risk Factor of Early Readmission and Nonhome Discharge After Cervical Disc Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Despite growing interest in cervical disc replacement (CDR) for conditions such as cervical radiculopathy, limited data exists describing the impact of obesity on early postoperative outcomes and complications. These data are especially important as nearly half of the adult population in the United States is expected to become obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m2) by 2030. The goal of this study was to compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following CDR. METHODS: The 2005-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program datasets were queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: Nonobese (BMI: 18.5-29.9 kg/m2), Obese class-I (BMI: 30-34.9 kg/m2), Obese class-II/III (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2). Morbidity was defined as the presence of any complication within 30 days postoperatively. Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, morbidity, individual complications, length of stay, frequency of nonhome discharge disposition were collected. RESULTS: A total of 5,397 patients were included for analysis: 3,130 were nonobese, 1,348 were obese class I, and 919 were obese class II/III. There were more 2-level CDRs performed in the class II/III cohort compared to the nonobese group (25.7% vs. 21.5%, respectively; p < 0.05). Class-II/III had more nonhome discharges than class I and nonobese (2.1% vs. 0.5% vs. 0.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). Readmission rates differed as well (nonobese: 0.5%, class I: 1.1%, class II/III: 2.1%; p < 0.001) with pairwise significance between class II/II and nonobese. Class II/III obesity was an independent risk factor for both readmission (odds ratio [OR], 3.32; p = 0.002) and nonhome discharge (OR, 2.51; p = 0.02). Neither 30-day reoperation nor morbidity rates demonstrated significance. No mortalities were reported. CONCLUSION: Although obese class-II/III were risk factors for 30-day readmission and nonhome discharge, there was no significant difference in reoperation rates or morbidity. CDR procedures can continue to be safely preformed independent of obesity status.

Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference following cervical disc replacement.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: While cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been emerging as a reliable and efficacious treatment option for degenerative cervical spine pathology, not all patients undergoing CDR will achieve minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) postoperatively-risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in PROMs following CDR have not been established. PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in Neck Disability Index (NDI, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck and arm following primary 1- or 2-level CDRs in the early and late postoperative periods. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who had undergone primary 1- or 2-level CDR for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks between 2017 and 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes: Neck disability index (NDI), Visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm, MCID. METHODS: Minimal clinically important difference achievement rates for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm within early (within 3 months) and late (6 months to 2 years) postoperative periods were assessed based on previously established thresholds. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed for each PROM and evaluation period, with failure to achieve MCID assigned as the outcome variable, to establish models to identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID and predictors for achievement of MCID. Predictor variables included in the analyses featured demographics, comorbidities, diagnoses/symptoms, and perioperative characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients achieved MCID for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm for both early and late postoperative periods-79% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the early postoperative period, while 80% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the late postoperative period. Predominant neck pain was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for NDI in the early (OR: 3.13 [1.10-8.87], p-value: .032) and late (OR: 5.01 [1.31-19.12], p-value: .018) postoperative periods, and VAS-Arm for the late postoperative period (OR: 36.63 [3.78-354.56], p-value: .002). Myelopathy was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the early postoperative period (OR: 3.40 [1.08-10.66], p-value: .036). Anxiety was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the late postoperative period (OR: 6.51 [1.91-22.18], p-value: .003). CDR at levels C5C7 was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID in NDI for the late postoperative period (OR: 9.74 [1.43-66.34], p-value: .020). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in common PROMs following CDR including predominant neck pain, myelopathy, anxiety, and CDR at levels C5-C7. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on outcomes of CDR as the evidence suggests that those with the risk factors above may not improve as reliably after CDR.

A vertebral skeletal stem cell lineage driving metastasis.

Vertebral bone is subject to a distinct set of disease processes from long bones, including a much higher rate of solid tumour metastases1-4. The basis for this distinct biology of vertebral bone has so far remained unknown. Here we identify a vertebral skeletal stem cell (vSSC) that co-expresses ZIC1 and PAX1 together with additional cell surface markers. vSSCs display formal evidence of stemness, including self-renewal, label retention and sitting at the apex of their differentiation hierarchy. vSSCs are physiologic mediators of vertebral bone formation, as genetic blockade of the ability of vSSCs to generate osteoblasts results in defects in the vertebral neural arch and body. Human counterparts of vSSCs can be identified in vertebral endplate specimens and display a conserved differentiation hierarchy and stemness features. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that vSSCs contribute to the high rates of vertebral metastatic tropism observed in breast cancer, owing in part to increased secretion of the novel metastatic trophic factor MFGE8. Together, our results indicate that vSSCs are distinct from other skeletal stem cells and mediate the unique physiology and pathology of vertebrae, including contributing to the high rate of vertebral metastasis.

Recovery Kinetics After Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multisurgeon registry. OBJECTIVE: To study recovery kinetics and associated factors after cervical spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have described return to activities cervical spine surgery. This is a big gap in the literature, as preoperative counseling and expectations before surgery are important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) were included. Data collected included preoperative patient-reported outcome measures, return to driving, return to working, and discontinuation of opioids data. A multivariable regression was conducted to identify the factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to working by 15 days, and discontinuing opioids by 30 days. RESULTS: Seventy ACDF patients and 70 CDR patients were included. Overall, 98.2% of ACDF patients and 98% of CDR patients returned to driving in 16 and 12 days, respectively; 85.7% of ACDF patients and 90.9% of CDR patients returned to work in 16 and 14 days; and 98.3% of ACDF patients and 98.3% of CDR patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and six days. Though not significant, minimal (odds ratio (OR)=1.65) and moderate (OR=1.79) disability was associated with greater odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Sedentary work (OR=0.8) and preoperative narcotics (OR=0.86) were associated with decreased odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Medium (OR=0.81) and heavy (OR=0.78) intensity occupations were associated with decreased odds of returning to work by 15 days. High school education (OR=0.75), sedentary work (OR=0.79), and retired/not working (OR=0.69) were all associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery kinetics for ACDF and CDR are comparable. Most patients return to all activities after ACDF and CDR within 16 days. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

Improvement in predominant back pain following minimally invasive decompression for spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of patients with predominant back pain (pBP) undergoing minimally invasive decompression surgery compared with patients with nonpredominant back pain (npBP). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presenting complaint: 1) pBP, defined as visual analog scale (VAS) back pain score > VAS leg pain score; and 2) npBP. Changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) postoperative time points. Outcomes measures were: 1) PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], VAS back and leg pain scores, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Score [SF-12 PCS], and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function [PROMIS PF]), and 2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rate and time. For the late MCID achievement point, a second analysis was conducted restricting VAS back and leg pain scores only to patients with preoperative scores ≥ 5. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety patients were included (126 with pBP and 264 with npBP). There were no differences in patient demographics and operated levels. There were no differences in preoperative ODI, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF scores. The pBP cohort had a significantly greater preoperative VAS back pain score than the npBP cohort, whereas the npBP cohort had a significantly greater preoperative VAS leg pain score than the pBP cohort. There were no differences in the absolute values or changes in ODI, VAS back pain, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF scores at any time point. There was a significant difference in the early VAS leg pain scores (greater in npBP) that disappeared by the late postoperative time point. There was no difference in the MCID achievement rate in the ODI, SF-12 PCS, or PROMIS PF scores. By the late postoperative time point, 51.2% and 55.3% achieved an MCID on the ODI, 58.1% and 62.7% on the SF-12 PCS, 60% and 67.6% on the PROMIS PF, 81.1% and 73.2% on VAS back pain scores for those with preoperative scores ≥ 5, and 72% and 83.6% on VAS leg pain scores for those with preoperative scores ≥ 5 for the pBP and npBP cohorts, respectively. Additionally, there were no differences in time to MCID achievement for any PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: The pBP and npBP cohorts showed similar improvement in PROMs and MCID achievement rates. This result shows that minimally invasive laminectomy is equally effective for patients presenting with pBP or npBP.

Floor-Mounted Robotic Pedicle Screw Placement in Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Analysis of 1,050 Screws.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the usage of floor-mounted robot in minimally invasive lumbar fusion. METHODS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology using floor-mounted robot (ExcelsiusGPS) were included. Pedicle screw accuracy, proximal level violation rate, pedicle screw size, screw-related complications, and robot abandonment rate were analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients were included. Most surgeries were primary single-level fusion. Sixty-five percent of surgeries had intraoperative computed tomography (CT) workflow, 35% had preoperative CT workflow. Sixty-six percent were transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 16% were lateral, 8% were anterior, and 10% were a combined approach. A total of 1,050 screws were placed with robotic assistance (85% in prone position, 15% in lateral position). Postoperative CT scan was available for 80 patients (419 screws). Overall pedicle screw accuracy rate was 96.4% (prone, 96.7%; lateral, 94.2%; primary, 96.7%; revision, 95.3%). Overall poor screw placement rate was 2.8% (prone, 2.7%; lateral, 3.8%; primary, 2.7%; revision, 3.5%). Overall proximal facet and endplate violation rates were 0.4% and 0.9%. Average diameter and length of pedicle screws were 7.1 mm and 47.7 mm. Screw revision had to be done for 1 screw (0.1%). Use of the robot had to be aborted in 2 cases (0.8%). CONCLUSION: Usage of floor-mounted robotics for the placement of lumbar pedicle screws leads to excellent accuracy, large screw size, and negligible screw-related complications. It does so for screw placement in prone/lateral position and primary/revision surgery alike with negligible robot abandonment rates.

NDI <21 Denotes Patient Acceptable Symptom State After Degenerative Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the Neck Disability Index (NDI) cut-off for achieving patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) at six months following degenerative cervical spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An absolute score denoting PASS might be a better marker to assess clinical outcomes than a change score denoting minimal clinically important difference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent primary anterior cervical decompression and fusion, cervical disk replacement, or laminectomy were included. The outcome measure was NDI. The anchor used to assess PASS achievement at six months was the response on the Global Rating Change: "Compared with preoperative, you feel (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) same, (4) slightly worse, or (5) much worse." It was converted to a dichotomous outcome variable (acceptable=response of 1 or 2, unacceptable=response of 3, 4, or 5) for analyses. The overall cohort and subgroups based on age (65 yr and below, above 65 yr), sex, myelopathy, and preoperative NDI (≤40, >40) were analyzed for the proportion of patients achieving PASS and the NDI cut-off using receiver operator curve. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (42 anterior cervical decompression and fusion, 23 cervical disc replacement, 10 laminectomy) were included. 79% of patients achieved PASS. Males, patients with age 65 years and below, preoperative NDI ≤40, and absence of myelopathy were more likely to achieve PASS. The receiver operator curve analysis revealed an Oswestry Disability Index cut-off of 21 to achieve PASS (area under the curve, AUC: 0.829, sensitivity: 81%, specificity: 80%). The subgroup analyses based on age, sex, myelopathy, and preoperative NDI revealed AUCs >0.7 and NDI threshold values consistent between 17 and 23. CONCLUSIONS: With an AUC of 0.829, NDI showed an excellent discriminative ability. Patients with NDI ≤21 are expected to achieve PASS following degenerative cervical spine surgery.

Predictors of Subsidence and its Clinical Impact After Expandable Cage Insertion in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected multisurgeon data. OBJECTIVE: Examine the rate, clinical impact, and predictors of subsidence after expandable minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) cage. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Expandable cage technology has been adopted in MI-TLIF to reduce the risks and optimize outcomes. Although subsidence is of particular concern when using expandable technology as the force required to expand the cage can weaken the endplates, its rates, predictors, and outcomes lack evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level MI-TLIF using expandable cages for degenerative lumbar conditions and had a follow-up of >1 year were included. Preoperative and immediate, early, and late postoperative radiographs were reviewed. Subsidence was determined if the average anterior/posterior disc height decreased by >25% compared with the immediate postoperative value. Patient-reported outcomes were collected and analyzed for differences at the early (<6 mo) and late (>6 mo) time points. Fusion was assessed by 1-year postoperative computed tomography. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight patients were included (mean age, 61 yr, 86% 1-level, 14% 2-level). Twenty-two (14.9%) demonstrated subsidence. Although statistically not significant, patients with subsidence were older, had lower bone mineral density, and had higher body mass index and comorbidity burden. Operative time was significantly higher ( P = 0.02) and implant width was lower ( P < 0.01) for subsided patients. Visual analog scale-leg was significantly lower for subsided patients compared with nonsubsided patients at a >6 months time point. Long-term (>6 mo) patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rate was lower for subsided patients (53% vs . 77%), although statistically not significant ( P = 0.065). No differences existed in complication, reoperation, or fusion rates. CONCLUSIONS: Of the patients, 14.9% experienced subsidence predicted by narrower implants. Although subsidence did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported outcome measures and complication, reoperation, or fusion rates, patients had lower visual analog scale-leg and patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rates at the >6-month time point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Discovery of a Vertebral Skeletal Stem Cell Driving Spinal Metastases.

Vertebral bone is subject to a distinct set of disease processes from those of long bones, notably including a much higher rate of solid tumor metastases that cannot be explained by passive blood flow distribution alone. The basis for this distinct biology of vertebral bone has remained elusive. Here we identify a vertebral skeletal stem cell (vSSC), co-expressing the transcription factors ZIC1 and PAX1 together with additional cell surface markers, whose expression profile and function are markedly distinct from those of long bone skeletal stem cells (lbSSCs). vSSCs display formal evidence of stemness, including self-renewal, label retention and sitting at the apex of their differentiation hierarchy. Lineage tracing of vSSCs confirms that they make a persistent contribution to multiple mature cell lineages in the native vertebrae. vSSCs are physiologic mediators of spine mineralization, as genetic blockade of the ability of vSSCs to generate osteoblasts results in defects in the vertebral neural arch and body. Human counterparts of vSSCs can be identified in vertebral endplate specimens and display a conserved differentiation hierarchy and stemness. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that vSSCs contribute to the high rates of vertebral metastatic tropism observed clinically in breast cancer. Specifically, when an organoid system is used to place both vSSCs and lbSSCs in an identical anatomic context, vSSC-lineage cells are more efficient than lbSSC-lineage cells at recruiting metastases, a phenotype that is due in part to increased secretion of the novel metastatic trophic factor MFGE8. Similarly, genetically targeting loss-of-function to the vSSC lineage results in reduced metastasis rates in the native vertebral environment. Taken together, vSSCs are distinct from other skeletal stem cells and mediate the unique physiology and pathology of vertebrae, including contributing to the high rate of metastatic seeding of the vertebrae.

Female Sex and Supine Proximal Lumbar Lordosis Are Associated With the Size of the LLIF "Safe Zone" at L4-L5.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. OBJECTIVE: Identify demographic and sagittal alignment parameters that are independently associated with femoral nerve position at the L4-L5 disk space. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Iatrogenic femoral nerve or lumbar plexus injury during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) can result in neurological complications. The LLIF "safe zone" is the anterior half to two third of the disk space. However, femoral nerve position varies and is inconsistently identifiable on magnetic resonance imaging. The safe zone is also narrowest at L4-L5. METHODS: An analysis of patients with symptomatic lumbar spine pathology and magnetic resonance imaging with a visibly identifiable femoral nerve evaluated at a single large academic spine center from January 1, 2017, to January 8, 2020, was performed. Exclusion criteria were transitional anatomy, severe hip osteoarthritis, coronal deformity with cobb >10 degrees, > grade 1 spondylolisthesis at L4-L5 and anterior migration of the psoas.Standing and supine lumbar lordosis (LL) and its proximal (L1-L4) and distal (L4-S1) components were measured. Femoral nerve position on sagittal imaging was then measured as a percentage of the L4 inferior endplate. A stepwise multivariate linear regression of sagittal alignment and LL parameters was then performed. Data are written as estimate, 95% CI. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 58.2±14.7 years, 25 (34.2%) were female and 26 (35.6%) had a grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Mean femoral nerve position was 26.6±10.3% from the posterior border of L4. Female sex (-6.6, -11.1 to -2.1) and supine proximal lumbar lordosis (0.4, 0.1-0.7) were independently associated with femoral nerve position. CONCLUSIONS: Patient sex and proximal LL can serve as early indicators of the size of the femoral nerve safe zone during a transpsoas LLIF approach at L4-L5.

Improvement following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients aged 70 years or older compared with younger age groups.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in patients ≥ 70 years old and compare them to younger age groups. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of data that were collected prospectively. Patients who underwent primary single-level MI-TLIF were included and divided into 3 groups: age < 60, 60-69, and ≥ 70 years. The outcome measures were as follows: 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (i.e., visual analog scale [VAS] for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary [SF-12 PCS]); 2) minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement; 3) return to activities; 4) opioid discontinuation; 5) fusion rates; and 6) complications/reoperations. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients (age < 60 years, 62; 60-69 years, 47; ≥ 70 years, 38) were included. All the groups showed significant improvements in all PROMs at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) time points and there was no significant difference between the groups. Although MCID achievement rates for VAS leg and ODI were similar, they were lower in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and SF-12 PCS. Although the time to MCID achievement for ODI and SF-12 PCS was similar, it was greater in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and leg. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of return to activities, opioid discontinuation, fusion rates, and complication/reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients > 70 years of age may be less likely and/or take longer to achieve MCID compared to their younger counterparts, they show an overall significant improvement in PROMs, a similar likelihood of returning to activities and discontinuing opioids, and comparable fusion and complication/reoperation rates following MI-TLIF.

Supine and Dynamic Extension Radiographs as the Strongest Predictors of Post-operative Alignment in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Failure to achieve alignment goals may result in accelerated adjacent segment degeneration and poorer outcomes. In "open" spine surgery, intraoperative tools can fine tune alignment; minimally invasive spine surgery techniques may not allow for this type of intraoperative adjustment. The aim of this study was to identify pre-operative radiographic parameters that accurately predict post-operative alignment after minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. We hypothesized that pre-operative supine and extension sagittal alignment would predict post-operative standing alignment. METHODS: 50 consecutive patients underwent lateral or anterior lumbar interbody fusion with or without percutaneous posterior instrumentation by a single-surgeon. Sagittal alignment parameters were evaluated on pre-operative standing scoliosis radiographs, dynamic radiographs, supine CT scout, and 6-week post-operative standing radiographs. Demographic and perioperative data were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age was 67.8 years. The mean BMI was 29.7. On average, 3 levels were instrumented (range, 2-6). Surgical time was 4.5 ± 1.8 hours. Following surgery, global lordosis increased from 44.7 ± 17° to 48.6 ± 16° (P = .001). However, there was no significant difference between the pre-operative supine (48.5 ± 15°), pre-operative extension (49.2 ± 18°), or 6-week post-operative standing radiographs (48.6 ± 16°). There were strong correlations between post-operative alignment and pre-operative supine (r = .825) and extension (r = .851) alignment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that pre-operative supine and extension radiographs could be a gold standard for minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery alignment correction as they predict post-operative alignment. The extension alignment was the strongest predictor of post-operative alignment.

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding. PURPOSE: To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy). CONCLUSIONS: These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

ODI <25 Denotes Patient Acceptable Symptom State After Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) cutoff for achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at one year following minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An absolute score denoting PASS, rather than a change score denoting minimal clinically important difference (MCID), might be a better metric to assess clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or decompression were included. The outcome measure was ODI. The anchor question was the Global Rating Change: "Compared with preoperative, you feel (1) much better, (2) slightly better, (3) same, (4) slightly worse, or (5) much worse." For analysis, it was collapsed to a dichotomous outcome variable (acceptable=response of 1 or 2, unacceptable=response of 3, 4, or 5). Proportion of patients achieving PASS and the ODI cutoff using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were assessed for the overall cohort as well as subgroups based on age, sex, type of surgery, and preoperative ODI. Differences between the PASS and MCID metrics were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were included. In all, 87% of patients achieved PASS. Patients less than or equal to 65 years and those undergoing fusion were more likely to achieve PASS. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed an ODI cutoff of 25.2 to achieve PASS (area under the curve: 0.872, sensitivity: 82%, specificity: 83%). The subgroup analyses based on age, sex, and preoperative ODI revealed area under the curve >0.8 and ODI threshold values consistent between 25.2 and 25.5 (except 28.4 in patients with preoperative ODI >40). PASS was found to have significantly higher sensitivity compared with MCID (82% vs. 69%, P =0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ODI <25 are expected to achieve PASS, irrespective of age, sex, and preoperative disability. PASS was found to have significantly higher sensitivity than MCID. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Telemedicine Visits Can Generate Highly Accurate Diagnoses and Surgical Plans for Spine Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: A Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To (1) assess whether diagnoses and surgical plans established during a new patient telemedicine visit changed following an in-person evaluation and (2) determine any differences in perioperative outcomes between patients who only had a telemedicine visit before surgery versus those who had a telemedicine visit followed by an in-person evaluation before surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Data on capability of telemedicine to deliver high-quality preoperative assessment without a traditional in-person interaction and physical examination is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of patients who had a new patient telemedicine visit and indicated for surgery with documented specific diagnosis as well as surgical plans from a spine department at an urban tertiary center from April 2020 to April 2021 were reviewed. For a subset of patients that had a follow-up in-person evaluation before surgery, these diagnoses and plans were compared. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who only had a telemedicine visit before surgery versus those who had a telemedicine visit followed by an in-person evaluation before surgery. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients were included. Of these, 101 patients (61%) only had a new patient telemedicine visit before surgery while 65 (39%) had a telemedicine visit followed by an in-person evaluation. There were no differences in the rate of case cancellations before surgery and patient-reported outcome measures between these two groups ( P >0.05). Of 65 patients who had both a telemedicine followed by an in-person visit, the diagnosis was unchanged for 61 patients (94%) and the surgical plan did not change for 52 patients (80%). The main reason for surgical plan change was due to updated findings on new imaging, 10 patients, (77%). CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that telemedicine evaluations can provide an effective means of preoperative assessment for spine patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Factors Causing Delay in Discharge in Patients Eligible for Ambulatory Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the postoperative factors that led delayed discharge in patients who would have been eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion (ALF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Assessing postoperative inefficiencies is vital to increase the feasibility of ALF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and would have met the eligibility criteria for ALF were included. Length of stay (LOS); time in postanesthesia recovery unit (PACU); alertness and neurological examination, and pain scores at three and six hours; type of analgesia; time to physical therapy (PT) visit; reasons for PT nonclearance; time to per-oral (PO) intake; time to voiding; time to readiness for discharge were assessed. Time taken to meet each discharge criterion was calculated. Multiple regression analyses were performed to study the effect of variables on postoperative parameters influencing discharge. RESULTS: Of 71 patients, 4% were discharged on the same day and 69% on postoperative day 1. PT clearance was the last-met discharge criterion in 93%. Sixty-six percent did not get PT evaluation on the day of surgery. Seventy-six percent required intravenous opioids and <60% had adequate pain control. Twenty-six percent had orthostatic intolerance. The median postoperative LOS was 26.9 hours, time in PACU was 4.2 hours, time to PO intake was 6.5 hours, time to first void was 6.3 hours, time to first PT visit was 17.7 hours, time to PT clearance was 21.8 hours, and time to discharge readiness was 21.9 hours. Regression analysis showed that time to PT clearance, time to PO intake, time to voiding, time in PACU, and pain score at three hours had a significant effect on LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Unavailability of PT, surgery after 1  pm , orthostatic intolerance, inadequate pain control, prolonged PACU stay, and long feeding and voiding times were identified as modifiable factors preventing same-day discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Robotics Reduces Radiation Exposure in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Compared With Navigation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare robotics and navigation for minimally invasive elective lumbar fusion in terms of radiation exposure and time demand. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although various studies have been conducted to demonstrate the benefits of both navigation and robotics over fluoroscopy in terms of radiation exposure, literature is lacking in studies comparing robotics versus navigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent elective one-level or two-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by a single surgeon using navigation (Stryker SpineMask) or robotics (ExcelsiusGPS) were included (navigation 2017-2019, robotics 2019-2021, resulting in prospective cohorts of consecutive patients for each modality). All surgeries had the intraoperative computed tomography workflow. The two cohorts were compared for radiation exposure [fluoroscopy time and radiation dose: image capture, surgical procedure, and overall) and time demand (time for setup and image capture, operative time, and total operating room (OR) time]. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients (robotics 111, navigation 133) were included. The two cohorts were similar in terms of baseline demographics, primary/revision surgeries, and fusion levels. For one-level TLIF, total fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, and % of radiation for surgical procedure were significantly less with robotics compared with navigation (20 vs. 25 s, P <0.001; 38 vs. 42 mGy, P =0.05; 58% vs. 65%, P =0.021). Although time for setup and image capture was significantly less with robotics (22 vs. 25 min, P <0.001) and operative time was significantly greater with robotics (103 vs. 93 min, P <0.001), there was no significant difference in the total OR time (145 vs. 141 min, P =0.25). Similar findings were seen for two-level TLIF as well. CONCLUSION: Robotics for minimally invasive TLIF, compared with navigation, leads to a significant reduction in radiation exposure both to the surgeon and patient, with no significant difference in the total OR time.