Determining the Effect of Intraoperative TXA on Postoperative Blood Loss in ACDF.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of intraoperative tranexamic acid (TXA) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) on postoperative blood loss. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TXA has been proven to be a safe and effective agent in reducing blood loss after cervical surgery; however, its efficacy when used intraoperatively for ACDF surgeries had yet to be researched. Currently, there are few studies examining the effects of intraoperative TXA in cervical spinal fusion, and none specifically examining TXA use in ACDF. METHODS: A tertiary medical center's prospectively collected spine registry was queried between 1/1/18 and 12/1/21 for all patients who underwent elective ACDF surgery and received a drain postoperatively. Patients were separated into 2 groups; those who had received intraoperative TXA and those who did not. Baseline demographic and operative variables were collected from the registry. The primary outcome was postoperative blood loss over a 24-hour period. Secondary outcomes included total drain output, intraoperative estimated blood loss, operative duration, drain duration, changes in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, and rate of transfusions, complications, revisions, and reoperations. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients were included. One hundred ninety patients underwent ACDF and did not receive intraoperative TXA, whereas 96 patients underwent ACDF and did receive TXA. There were no differences in any demographic or baseline variables. Multivariate analysis showed intraoperative TXA was associated with shorter drain duration (ß=-5.74, 95% CI: -10.9 to -0.53, P =0.031) and reduction in 24-hour drain output (ß=-12.2, 95% CI: -19.4 to -4.89, P =0.001) and total drain output (ß=-14.0, 95% CI: -22.9 to -5.05, P =0.002). CONCLUSIONS: TXA use during ACDF procedures leads to a decrease in perioperative blood loss and faster drain removal. TXA is an effective and safe agent for reducing perioperative blood loss in ACDF surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes, Complications, Readmissions, and Revisions in Posterior Lumbar Fusion With, Versus Without, an Interbody Device.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare posterior lumbar fusions with versus without an interbody in: (1) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 1 year and (2) postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Elective lumbar fusion is commonly used to treat various lumbar pathologies. Two common approaches for open posterior lumbar fusion include posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody and with an interbody through techniques, like transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Whether fusion with or without an interbody leads to better outcomes remains an area of active research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Lumbar Module of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for adults undergoing elective primary posterior lumbar fusion with or without an interbody. Covariates included demographic variables, comorbidities, primary spine diagnosis, operative variables, and baseline PROs, including Oswestry Disability Index, North American Spine Society satisfaction index, numeric rating scale-back/leg pain, and Euroqol 5-dimension. Outcomes included complications, reoperations, readmissions, return to work/activities, and PROs. Propensity score matching and linear regression modeling were used to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated to assess the impact of interbody use on patient outcomes. RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1044 patients with interbody and 215 patients undergoing PLF. The average treatment effect on the treated analysis showed that having an interbody or not had no significant impact on any outcome of interest, including 30-day complications and reoperations, 3-month readmissions, 12-month return to work, and 12-month PROs. CONCLUSION: There were no discernible differences in outcomes between patients undergoing PLF alone versus with an interbody in elective posterior lumbar fusion. These results add to the growing body of evidence that posterior lumbar fusions with and without an interbody seem to have similar outcomes up to 1 year postoperatively when treating degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

The importance of Hounsfield units in adult spinal deformity surgery: finding an optimal threshold to minimize the risk of mechanical complications.

Background: Low bone mineral density (BMD) is a well-established risk factor for mechanical complications following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Hounsfield units (HU) measured on computed tomography (CT) scans are a proxy of BMD. In ASD surgery, we sought to: (I) evaluate the association of HU with mechanical complications and reoperation, and (II) identify optimal HU threshold to predict the occurrence of mechanical complications. Methods: A single-institution retrospective cohort study was undertaken for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2013-2017. Inclusion criteria were: ≥5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. HU were measured on 3 axial slices of one vertebra, either at the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) itself or UIV ±4 from CT scans. Multivariable regression controlled for age, body mass index (BMI), postoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and postoperative pelvic-incidence lumbar-lordosis mismatch. Results: Of 145 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 121 (83.4%) had a preoperative CT from which HU were measured. Mean age was 64.4±10.7 years, mean total instrumented levels was 9.8±2.6, and mean HU was 153.5±52.8. Mean preoperative SVA and T1PA were 95.5±71.1 mm and 28.8°±12.8°, respectively. Postoperative SVA and T1PA significantly improved to 61.2±61.6 mm (P<0.001) and 23.0°±11.0° (P<0.001). Mechanical complications occurred in 74 (61.2%) patients, including 42 (34.7%) proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), 3 (2.5%) distal junctional kyphosis (DJK), 9 (7.4%) implant failure, 48 (39.7%) rod fracture/pseudarthrosis, and 61 (52.2%) reoperations within 2 years. Univariate logistic regression showed a significant association between low HU and PJK [odds ratio (OR) =0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-0.99; P=0.023], but not on multivariable analysis. No association was found regarding other mechanical complications, overall reoperations, and reoperations due to PJK. HU below 163 were associated with increased PJK on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis [area under the curve (AUC) =0.63; 95% CI: 0.53-0.73; P<0.001]. Conclusions: Though several factors contribute to PJK, it appears that 163 HU may serve as a preliminary threshold when planning ASD surgery to mitigate the risk of PJK.

Efficacy and Safety of the Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel in Lumbar Laminectomies.

Introduction: Despite recent advances in applied instruments and surgical techniques, the incidence of iatrogenic durotomies caused by traditional techniques remains significant. The ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) has been shown to improve speed and reduce complications in laminectomies in the cervical and thoracic spine when compared to traditional methods utilizing high-speed burr, punch forceps, or rongeurs. Thus, in this study, we aim to evaluate whether the use of the UBS in the lumbar spine would result in equivalent safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) improvement when compared to traditional methods of laminectomy. Methods: Data from a prospectively collected, single-institution registry was queried between January 1, 2019 and September 1, 2021 for patients with a primary diagnosis of lumbar stenosis who received a laminectomy (with or without fusion) using traditional methods or UBS method. Outcomes included 3-month and 12-month values for all PROs Measurement Information System (PROMIS) subdomains, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) percentage, Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score, operative complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Covariates selected for matching included age, operation type, and number of levels. A variety of statistical tests were utilized. Results: As per our findings, 2:1 propensity matching resulted in 64 "traditional group" patients and 32 "UBS group" patients. Post-match analysis found no differences between the traditional and UBS groups for demographic and baseline measures except for race and ethnicity. For the matched sample, no differences were noted in PROs, reoperations, or readmissions. There was a significant difference in rates of durotomies between the traditional and UBS groups (12.5% vs. 0.0%, p=0.049). Conclusions: Results showed the high-frequency oscillation technology implemented by the UBS helps to decrease the rate of injury to the dura, thus reducing the overall incidence of iatrogenic durotomies. We believe these data provide valuable information to surgeons and patients about the safety and efficacy of the UBS in performing lumbar laminectomies.

A clinical model to predict postoperative improvement in sub-domains of the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score for degenerative cervical myelopathy.

PURPOSE: The modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) score consists of six sub-domains and is used to quantify the severity of cervical myelopathy. The current study aimed to assess for predictors of postoperative mJOA sub-domains scores following elective surgical management for patients with cervical myelopathy and develop the first clinical prediction model for 12-month mJOA sub-domain scores.Please confirm if the author names are presented accurately and in the correct sequence (given name, middle name/initial, family name). Author 1 Given name: [Byron F.] Last name [Stephens], Author 2 Given name: [Lydia J.] Last name [McKeithan], Author 3 Given name: [W. Hunter] Last name [Waddell], Author 4 Given name: [Anthony M.] Last name [Steinle], Author 5 Given name: [Wilson E.] Last name [Vaughan], Author 6 Given name: [Jacquelyn S.] Last name [Pennings], Author 7 Given name: [Jacquelyn S.] Last name [Pennings], Author 8 Given name: [Scott L.] Last name [Zuckerman], Author 9 Given name: [Kristin R.] Last name [Archer], Author 10 Given name: [Amir M.] Last name [Abtahi] Also, kindly confirm the details in the metadata are correct.Last Author listed should be Kristin R. Archer METHODS: A multivariable proportional odds ordinal regression model was developed for patients with cervical myelopathy. The model included patient demographic, clinical, and surgery covariates along with baseline sub-domain scores. The model was internally validated using bootstrap resampling to estimate the likely performance on a new sample of patients. RESULTS: The model identified mJOA baseline sub-domains to be the strongest predictors of 12-month scores, with numbness in legs and ability to walk predicting five of the six mJOA items. Additional covariates predicting three or more items included age, preoperative anxiety/depression, gender, race, employment status, duration of symptoms, smoking status, and radiographic presence of listhesis. Surgical approach, presence of motor deficits, number of surgical levels involved, history of diabetes mellitus, workers' compensation claim, and patient insurance had no impact on 12-month mJOA scores. CONCLUSION: Our study developed and validated a clinical prediction model for improvement in mJOA scores at 12 months following surgery. The results highlight the importance of assessing preoperative numbness, walking ability, modifiable variables of anxiety/depression, and smoking status. This model has the potential to assist surgeons, patients, and families when considering surgery for cervical myelopathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion Alone in the Treatment of Grade 1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone are two operations performed to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. To date, it is unclear which operation leads to better outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare TLIF vs PLF alone regarding long-term reoperation rates, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with degenerative grade 1 spondylolisthesis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data between October 2010 and May 2021 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 years or older with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing elective, single-level, open posterior lumbar decompression and instrumented fusion with ≥1-year follow-up. The primary exposure was presence of TLIF vs PLF without interbody fusion. The primary outcome was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included complications, readmission, discharge disposition, return to work, and PROMs at 3 and 12 months postoperatively, including Numeric Rating Scale-Back/Leg and Oswestry Disability Index. Minimum clinically important difference of PROMs was set at 30% improvement from baseline. RESULTS: Of 546 patients, 373 (68.3%) underwent TLIF and 173 underwent (31.7%) PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (IQR = 3.6-9.0), with 339 (62.1%) >5-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression showed that patients undergoing TLIF had a lower odds of reoperation compared with PLF alone (odds ratio = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99, P = .048). Among patients with >5-year follow-up, the same trend was seen (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.95, P = .045). No differences were observed in 90-day complications ( P = .487) and readmission rates ( P = .230) or minimum clinically important difference PROMs. CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively maintained registry, patients with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing TLIF had significantly lower long-term reoperation rates than those undergoing PLF.

Which Approach Leads to More Reoperations in Single-Level, Open, Posterior Lumbar Fusion: Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Posterolateral Fusion Alone?

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) without an interbody device are two common approaches for single-level, open posterior fusion. Presently, it is unknown whether one of these operations leads to better outcomes. We sought to compare reoperation, complication, and readmission rates between TLIF and PLF for patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar fusion. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study utilizing prospectively collected data was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar decompression and fusion between October 2010 and April 2021 with at least 1-year follow-up. The two comparison groups were TLIF vs PLF alone without interbody. The primary outcome was need for reoperation at most recent follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 90-day complication and readmission rates. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients were included, 591 (69.5%) of whom underwent TLIF and 259 (30.5%) of whom underwent PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (interquartile range 3.7-8.9). No significant difference was found in overall reoperation rates (12.4% vs 13.9%, P = 0.534). When stratified by <5-year follow-up (n = 231 TLIF, n = 85 PLF; 37.2%) and ≥5-year follow-up (n = 360 TLIF, n = 174 PLF; 62.8%), no significant differences were seen in either cohort (<5 years: n = 24 TLIF vs n = 9 PLF, P = 0.959; 5+ years: n = 49 TLIF vs n = 27 PLF, P = 0.555). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the presence of interbody fusion was not associated with reoperation (OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.66-7.74, P = 0.194). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar fusion without isthmic spondylolisthesis, no differences were seen in reoperation rates at long-term follow-up. Similar 90-day complication and readmission rates were seen. These results suggest that in degenerative lumbar spine disease without isthmic spondylolisthesis, TLIF and PLF achieved similar outcomes.

In Single-Level, Open, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Posterolateral Fusion Lead to Better Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Two common approaches for open, one-level, posterior lumbar fusions include transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody. OBJECTIVE: To compare TLIF vs PLF alone in (1) discharge disposition, (2) return to work (RTW), and (3) patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was undertaken between October 2010 and May 2021, all with a 1-year follow-up and excluding patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. Minimum clinically important difference for each PRO was used, which included Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Logistic/linear regression controlled for age, body mass index, disc height, flexion-extension movement, amount of movement on flexion-extension, and spondylolisthesis grade. RESULTS: Of 850 patients undergoing open, 1-level, posterior lumbar fusion, 591 (69.5%) underwent a TLIF and 259 (30.5%) underwent a PLF alone. Patients undergoing TLIF were younger (59.0 ± 11.3 vs 63.3 ± 12.6, P < .001), had higher body mass index (31.3 ± 6.6 vs 30.2 ± 12.6, P = .019), and more often had private insurance (50.3% vs 39.0%, P < .001). Regarding discharge disposition, no significance was found in multivariate regression (odds ratio = 2.07, 95% CI = 0.39-10.82, P = .385) with similar RTW between TLIF and PLF alone (80.8% vs 80.4%, P = .645) (odds ratio = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.19-6.81, P = .873). Regarding PROs, patients undergoing a TLIF had higher preoperative (6.7 ± 2.3 vs 6.4 ± 2.5, P = .046) and 3-month NRS-back pain (3.4 ± 2.6 vs 2.9 ± 2.5, P = .036), with similar 12-month NRS-back pain. Regarding NRS-leg pain, no differences were observed preoperatively ( P = .532) and at 3 months ( P = .808). No other significant differences were observed in ODI. CONCLUSION: TLIF patients had slightly higher NRS-back pain at baseline and 3 months, but similar NRS-leg pain, despite the added risk of placing an interbody. No differences were seen in discharge disposition, RTW, and 12-month pain scores and ODI.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Presentation of Patients With Spinal Metastases.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine if preoperative spinal instability neoplastic scores (SINSs) and Tokuhashi prognostication scores differed in patients receiving surgical care before and during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused delays in scheduling nonemergent surgeries. Delay in presentation and/or surgical treatment for oncology patients with metastatic spinal disease could result in progression of the disease, which can complicate surgical care and worsen patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of electronic medical records between March 1, 2019 and March 1, 2021 at a tertiary medical center was performed to identify patients who underwent surgery for metastatic spine disease. Primary spinal tumors were excluded. Patients were separated into two groups base on their surgery date: before the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2019-February 29, 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020-March 1, 2021). Primary outcomes included SINS and Tokuhashi scores. A variety of statistical tests were performed to compare the groups. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients who underwent surgery before the COVID-19 pandemic were compared to 41 patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant difference between the before and during groups with respect to SINS (9.31±2.39 vs . 11.00±2.74, P =0.002) and Tokuhashi scores (9.27±2.35 vs . 7.88±2.85, P =0.012). Linear regression demonstrated time of surgery (before or during COVID-19 restrictions) was a significant predictor of SINS (ß=1.55, 95% CI: 0.42-2.62, P =0.005) and Tokuhashi scores (ß=-1.41, 95% CI: -2.49 to -0.34, P =0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic spinal disease who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic had higher SINS, lower Tokuhashi scores and similar Skeletal Oncology Research Group scores compared to patients who underwent surgery before the pandemic. This suggests the pandemic has impacted the instability of disease at presentation in patients with spinal metastases, but has not impacted surgical prognosis, as there were no differences in Skeletal Oncology Research Group scores and the difference in Tokuhashi scores is most likely not clinically significant.

The postoperative course of mechanical complications in adult spinal deformity surgery.

PURPOSE: (a) Describe the time course of each mechanical complication, and (b) compare radiographic measurements and preoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) among each mechanical complication type. METHODS: A single-institution case-control study was undertaken of patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery from 2009-2017. Exposure variables included patient demographics, operative variables, radiographic measurements, and preoperative PROMs, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale Back/Leg-pain scores (NRS-Back/Leg), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). The primary outcomes were occurrence of a mechanical complication and time to complication. Due to overlapping occurrence, rod fracture and pseudarthrosis were grouped into one composite category. RESULTS: 145 patients underwent ASD surgery and were followed for at least 2 years. 30/47 (63.8%) patients with proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) required reoperation, whereas 27/31 (87.1%) patients with pseudarthrosis/rod fracture required reoperation (63.8% vs. 87.1%, Χ2 = -0.23, 95% CI -0.41, -0.05, p = 0.023). Cox regression showed no significant difference in time to reoperation between PJK and rod fracture/pseudarthrosis (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.85-1.11, p = 0.686). Distal junctional kyphosis (DJK) (N = 3; 2 reoperation) and implant failures (N = 4; 0 reoperations) were rare. Patients with PJK had significantly lower Hounsfield Units preoperatively compared to those with pseudarthrosis/rod fracture (138.2 ± 43.8 vs. 160.3 ± 41.0, mean difference (MD) = -22.1, 95% CI -41.8, -2.4, p = 0.028), more prior fusions (51.1% vs. 25.8%, Χ2 = 0.253, 95% CI 0.41, 0.46, p = 0.026), fewer instrumented vertebrae (9.2 ± 2.6 vs. 10.7 ± 2.5, MD = -1.5, 95% CI -2.7, -0.31, p = 0.013), and higher postoperative thoracic kyphosis (TK) (46.3 ± 12.7 vs. 34.9 ± 10.6, MD = 11.4, 95% CI 5.9, 16.9, p < 0.001). Higher postoperative C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) did not achieve a significant difference (80.7 ± 72.1 vs. 51.9 ± 57.3, MD = 28.8, 95% CI -1.9, 59.5, p = 0.066). No differences were seen in preoperative PROMs. CONCLUSION: Patients with pseudarthrosis/rod fracture had a higher reoperation rate compared to those with PJK with similar time to reoperation. Moreover, patients with PJK had higher postoperative TK, lower Hounsfield Units, more prior fusions, and fewer instrumented levels compared to those with pseudarthrosis/rod fracture. The results of this single-institution study suggest that even though mechanical complications are often analyzed as a single group, important differences may exist between them. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Tritanium Posterolateral Cage (vs. Propensity-Matched Cohort of PEEK Cage).

Introduction: Surgical management of degenerative lumbar spine disorders is effective at improving patient pain, disability, and quality of life; however, obtaining a durable posterolateral fusion after decompression remains a challenge. Interbody fusion technologies are viable means of improving fusion rates in the lumbar spine, specifically various graft materials including autograft, structural allograft, titanium, and polyether ether ketone. This study assesses the effectiveness of Tritanium posterolateral cage in the treatment of degenerative disk disease. Methods: Nearest-neighbor 1:1 matched control transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with PEEK vs. Tritanium posterior lumbar (PL) cage interbody fusion patients were identified using propensity scoring from patients that underwent elective surgery for degenerative disk diseases. Line graphs were generated to compare the trajectories of improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from baseline to 3 and 12 months postoperatively. The nominal data were compared via the χ2 test, while the continuous data were compared via Student's t-test. Results: The two groups had no difference regarding either the 3- or 12-month Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D), numeric rating scale (NRS) leg pain, and NRS back pain; however, the Tritanium interbody cage group had better Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores compared to the control group of the PEEK interbody cage at both 3 and 12 months (p=0.013 and 0.048). Conclusions: Our results indicate the Tritanium cage is an effective alternative to the previously used PEEK cage in terms of PROs, surgical safety, and radiological parameters of surgical success. The Tritanium cohort showed better ODI scores, higher fusion rates, lower subsidence, and lower indirect costs associated with surgical management, when compared to the propensity-matched PEEK cohort.

Barbed Suture versus Interrupted Suture in Posterior Cervical Spine Surgery: Are They Equivalent?

Introduction: Posterior cervical spine approaches have been associated with increased rates of wound complications compared to anterior approaches. While barbed suture wound closure for lumbar spine surgery has been shown to be safe and efficacious, there is no literature regarding its use in posterior cervical spine surgery. In a cohort of patients undergoing elective posterior cervical spine surgery, we sought to compare postoperative complication rates between barbed and traditional interrupted suture closure. Methods: A retrospective review of demographics, past medical history, and operative and postoperative variables collected from a prospective registry between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2020 was undertaken. All patients 18 years old and above undergoing elective posterior cervical fusion were included. The primary outcome of interest was wound complications, including surgical site infection (SSI), dehiscence, or hematoma. In addition, numerical rating scale (NRS) neck pain (NP), NRS arm pain (AP), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and operative time were collected. A variety of statistical tests were used to compare the two suture groups. Results: Of 117 patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion, 89 (76%) were closed with interrupted suture and 28 (24%) with barbed suture. The interrupted cohort were more likely to have >1 comorbidity (p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (p=0.013), and coronary artery disease (p=0.002). No difference in postoperative wound complications between interrupted/barbed sutures was observed after univariate (OR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.27-4.25, p=0.927) and multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.15-4.00, p=0.756). Univariate logistic regression revealed no differences in achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) NRS-NP (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.28-1.88, p=0.508) or NRS-AP (OR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.25-1.90, p=0.464) at 3 months between suture groups. The interrupted suture group was less likely to achieve MCID NDI at 3 months (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.80, p=0.016). Conclusions: Barbed suture closure in posterior cervical spine surgery does not lead to higher rates of postoperative wound complications/SSI compared to traditional interrupted fascial closure.

Assessing the Insurance Deductible Effect on Outcomes After Elective Spinal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Private insurers use the calendar deductible system, placing pressure on patients and medical personnel to perform medical services before the end of the year to maximize patient savings. The impact of the deductible calendar on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after spine surgery is poorly understood. The objective of our study was to investigate if patients undergoing surgery in December had different PROs and demographics compared with all other months. METHODS: The Quality Outcome Database, a national spine registry, was queried for patients who underwent elective spine surgery between January 2012 and January 2021 for degenerative spine conditions. PROs and demographics were compared between the December and non-December groups using various statistical tests. RESULTS: A total of 978 patients (9.3%) underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in December versus 9548 (90.7%) in other months. There was a significantly higher percentage of patients in December who had private insurance and were employed. A total of 1104 patients (8.5%) underwent lumbar fusion in December versus 11,826 (91.5%) in other months. There was a significantly greater chance of undergoing surgery in December if patients had private insurance and were employed. Although some PROs were statistically significant for the lumbar and cervical cohorts between December and non-December patients, none were clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery in December were more likely to have private insurance and be employed. PROs for ACDF and lumbar fusions were not affected by surgical timing (December yes/no). Other spinal procedures directed at more chronic diseases might be more susceptible to external influence of insurance deductibles.

Complications, Readmissions, Revisions, and Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients With Parkinson Disease Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery: A Propensity-matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of elective spine surgery in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). BACKGROUND CONTEXT: PD has become increasingly prevalent in an aging population. While surgical treatment for degenerative spine pathology is often required in this population, previous literature has provided mixed results regarding its effectiveness. METHODS: Data from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried between April 2013 and January 2019. Three surgical groups were identified: (1) elective lumbar surgery, (2) elective cervical surgery for myelopathy, (3) elective cervical surgery for radiculopathy. Patients without PD were propensity matched against patients with PD in a 5:1 ratio without replacement based on American Society of Anesthesiology grade, arthrodesis, surgical approach, number of operated levels, age, and baseline Oswestry Disability Index, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) extremity pain, NRS back pain, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D). The mean difference was calculated for continuous outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, NRS leg pain, NRS back pain, and EQ-5D at 3 and 12 mo after surgery) and the risk difference was calculated for binary outcomes (patient satisfaction, complications, readmission, reoperation, and mortality). RESULTS: For the lumbar analysis, PD patients had a higher rate of reoperation at 12 months (risk difference=0.057, P =0.015) and lower mean EQ-5D score at 12 months (mean difference=-0.053, P =0.005) when compared with patients without PD. For the cervical myelopathy cohort, PD patients had lower NRS neck pain scores at 3 months (mean difference=-0.829, P =0.005) and lower patient satisfaction at 3 months (risk difference=-0.262, P =0.041) compared with patients without PD. For the cervical radiculopathy cohort, PD patients demonstrated a lower readmission rate at 3 months (risk difference=-0.045, P =0.014) compared with patients without PD. CONCLUSION: For the matched analysis, in general, patients with and without PD had similar patient-reported outcomes and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates. These results demonstrate that a diagnosis of PD alone should not represent a major contraindication to elective spine surgery.

Complications, readmissions, reoperations and patient-reported outcomes in patients with multiple sclerosis undergoing elective spine surgery - a propensity matched analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, neurodegenerative disease that can lead to significant functional disability. Improving treatment regimens have extended life expectancy and led to an increase in the number of elective spine surgeries for degenerative conditions in the MS population. Recent literature has reported mixed results regarding the efficacy of elective spine surgery for patients with MS. There is also a paucity of literature comparing postoperative patient reported outcomes (PROs) and reoperation rates between patients with and without MS. PURPOSE: To determine if patients with MS have worse PROs and higher complication, readmission and reoperation rates after elective spine surgery compared with patients without neurodegenerative conditions when adjusting for baseline covariates through propensity matching. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, longitudinal, multicenter spine outcomes registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: For the lumbar cohort, 312 patients with MS and 46,738 patients without MS were included. The cervical myelopathy cohort included 91 patients with MS and 6,426 patients without MS. The cervical radiculopathy cohort consisted of 103 patients with MS and 13,751 patients without MS. OUTCOME MEASURES: 1) complication rates, 2) readmission rates, 3) reoperation rates, and 4) PROs at 3- and 12-months including ODI/NDI, NRS back/neck/arm/leg pain, mJOA scores and patient satisfaction ratings. METHODS: Data from the QOD was queried for patients with surgeries occurring between 04/2013-01/2019. Three surgical groups were included: 1) Elective lumbar surgery, 2) Elective cervical surgery for myelopathy, 3) Elective cervical surgery for radiculopathy. Patients with any neurodegenerative condition other than MS were excluded. Patients without MS were propensity matched against patients with MS in a 5 to 1 ratio without replacement based on ASA grade, arthrodesis, surgical approach, number of operated levels, age, and baseline ODI/NDI, NRS leg/arm pain, NRS back/neck pain, and EQ-5D. Multivariable regressions with cluster-robust standard errors were used to estimate average effect of how the outcome would change if the MS patient didn't have the disease. The mean difference was used for continuous outcomes and the risk difference was used for binary outcomes. RESULTS: For the lumbar cohort, no differences were found between the 2 groups at 3 or 12 months in any of the outcome measures. For the myelopathy cohort, patients with MS patients had a lower rate of reoperation at 12 months (risk difference=-0.036, p=.007) and worse 3-month mJOA scores (mean difference=-1.044, p=.004) compared with patients without MS. For the radiculopathy cohort, patients with MS had a lower rate of reoperation at 3 months (risk difference=-0.019, p=.018) and 12 months (risk difference=-0.029, p=.007) compared with those without MS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MS had similar PROs compared with patients without MS when adjusting for baseline covariates through propensity matching, except for 3-month mJOA scores in the myelopathy cohort. Reoperation rates were found to be lower in patients with MS undergoing elective cervical surgery for both myelopathy and radiculopathy. These results suggest that when analyzed independently, a diagnosis of MS does not significantly impact complication, readmission and reoperation rates or PROs, and therefore should not represent a major contraindication to elective spine surgery. Surgical decisions in this patient population should be made based on careful consideration of patient factors including other comorbidities as well as baseline patient functional status.

Outcomes Following Direct Versus Indirect Decompression Techniques for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare outcomes at 3 and 12 months for patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis treated with direct decompression (DD) versus indirect decompression (ID) techniques. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Debate persists regarding the optimal surgical strategy to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis. Novel techniques relying on ID have shown superior radiographic outcomes compared to DD, however, doubt remains regarding their effectiveness in achieving adequate decompression. Currently, there is a paucity of data comparing the clinical efficacy of DD to ID. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter prospective spine registry, was queried for patients who underwent DD and ID between April 2013 and January 2019. Propensity scores for each treatment were estimated using logistic regression dependent on baseline covariates potentially associated with outcomes. The propensity scores were used to exclude nonsimilar patients. Multivariable regression analysis was performed with the treatment and covariate as independent variables and outcomes as dependent variables. RESULTS: A total of 4163 patients were included in the DD group and 86 in the ID group. The ID group had significantly lower odds of having a longer hospital stay and for achieving 30% improvement in back and leg pain at 3 months. These trends were not statistically significant at 12 months. There were no differences in ED5D scores or Oswestry disability index 30% improvement scores at 3 or 12 months. ID patient had a significantly higher rate of undergoing a repeat operation at 3 months (4.9% vs. 1.5%, P =0.015). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that both DD and ID for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis result in similar clinical outcomes, with the exception that those treated with ID experienced a lower reduction in back and leg pain at 3 months and a higher 3-month reoperation rate. This data can provide surgeons with additional information when counseling patients on the pros and cons of ID versus DD surgery.

Predicting Mortality in Elderly Spine Trauma Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to construct a clinical prediction model for 90-day mortality in elderly patients with traumatic spine injuries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine trauma in the elderly population is increasing. Comparing elderly spine trauma patients to younger patients with similar injuries proves challenging due to the extensive comorbidities and frailty found in the elderly. There is a paucity of evidence to predict survival of elderly patients following traumatic spinal injuries. METHODS: All patients 65+ with spine trauma presenting to a level I trauma center from 2010 to 2019 were reviewed from a prospectively maintained trauma registry. Retrospective chart review was performed to record injury, frailty scores, comorbidities, presence of spinal cord injury, imaging evidence of sarcopenia and osteopenia, mortality, and complications. We preselected 13 variables for our multivariable logistic regression model: hypotension on admission, gender, marital status, age, max Abbreviated Injury Scale, Modified Frailty Index, surgical treatment, hematocrit, white blood count, spinal cord injury, closed head injury, injury level and presence of high energy mechanism. The performance of the prediction model was evaluated using a concordance index and calibration plot. The model was internally validated via bootstrap approach. RESULTS: Over the 9-year period, 1746 patients met inclusion criteria; 359 (20.6%) patients died within 90 days after presenting with spine trauma. The most important predictors for 90-day mortality were age, hypotension, closed head injury, max Abbreviated Injury Scale and hematocrit. There was an optimism-corrected C-index of 0.77. A calculator was created to predict a personalized mortality risk. CONCLUSION: The incidence of spine trauma in elderly patients continues to increase. Previous publications described preexisting conditions that imply increased mortality, but ours is the first to develop a predictive calculator. Prospective research is planned to externally validate this model to better determine its predictive value and utility in the clinical setting.