Safety of early discharge after elective lumbar spine surgery with subfascial drains and association with significant reduction in length of stay.

OBJECTIVE: After lumbar spine surgery, postoperative drain removal often delays discharge. Whether inpatient drain removal reduces the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) or hematoma remains controversial. Therefore, in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery, the authors sought to determine the impact of inpatient versus outpatient drain removal on the following variables: 1) length of hospital stay (LOS), and 2) postoperative complications. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study in which the authors used prospectively collected data of patients undergoing primary, elective, 1- or 2-level lumbar spine decompression and/or fusion was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. Patients with intraoperative or postoperative CSF leaks were excluded. The primary exposure variable was inpatient versus outpatient drain removal. The primary outcome was LOS, and secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, including 90-day postoperative SSI or hematoma. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed, controlling for age, body mass index, instrumentation, number of levels, antibiotics at discharge, and surgeons involved. RESULTS: Of 483 patients included, 325 (67.3%) had inpatient drain removal and 158 (32.7%) had outpatient drain removal. Patients with outpatient drain removal were significantly younger (58.6 ± 12.4 vs 61.2 ± 13.2 years, p = 0.040); more likely to have 1-level surgery (75.9% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001); and less likely to receive instrumentation (50.6% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, patients with outpatient drain removal had a shorter LOS (0.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 1.6 days, p < 0.001); were more likely to be discharged home (98.1% vs 92.3%, p = 0.015); were more likely to be discharged on antibiotics (76.6% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001); were less likely to be on opioids (32.3% vs 88.3%, p < 0.001); and were more likely to have Jackson-Pratt compared to Hemovac drains (96.2% vs 34.5%, p < 0.001). No difference was found in SSI (3.7% vs 3.8%, p > 0.999) or hematoma (0.9% vs 0.6%, p > 0.999), as well as reoperation or readmission due to SSI or hematoma. On multivariable regression, outpatient drain removal was significantly associated with shorter LOS (ß = -1.15, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.73, p < 0.001). No association was found with SSI/hematoma (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient drain removal after elective lumbar spine surgery was associated with a significantly decreased LOS without a significant increase in postoperative SSI or hematoma. Although the choice of drain removal and the LOS may be subject to surgeons' preference, these results may support the feasibility and safety of outpatient drain removal, and the potential cost savings resulting from shortened hospital stays. Drawbacks may exist regarding added burden to the patient and the surgeon's team to accommodate 1-week follow-up appointments for drain removal.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy With Fusion in Patients With Cervical Spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate preoperative differences in racial and socioeconomic factors in patients undergoing laminoplasty (LP) versus laminectomy and fusion (LF) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DCM is prevalent in the United States, requiring surgical intervention to prevent neurological degeneration. While LF is utilized more frequently, LP is an emerging alternative. Previous studies have demonstrated similar neurological outcomes for both procedures. However, treatment selection is primarily at the discretion of the surgeon and may be influenced by social determinants of health that impact surgical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Quality Outcome Database (QOD), a national spine registry, was queried for adult patients who underwent either LP or LF for the management of DCM. Covariates associated with socioeconomic status, pain and disability, and demographic and medical history were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess patient factors associated with undergoing LP versus LF. RESULTS: Of 1673 DCM patients, 157 (9.4%) underwent LP and 1516 (90.6%) underwent LF. A significantly greater proportion of LP patients had private insurance (P<0.001), a greater than high school level education (P<0.001), were employed (P<0.001), and underwent primary surgery (P<0.001). LP patients reported significantly lower baseline neck/arm pain and Neck Disability Index (P<0.001). In the multivariate regression model, lower baseline neck pain [odds ratio (OR)=0.915, P=0.001], identifying as non-Caucasian (OR=2.082, P<0.032), being employed (OR=1.592, P=0.023), and having a greater than high school level education (OR=1.845, P<0.001) were associated with undergoing LP rather than LF. CONCLUSIONS: In DCM patients undergoing surgery, factors associated with patients undergoing LP versus LF included lower baseline neck pain, non-Caucasian race, higher education, and employment. While symptomatology may influence the decision to choose LP over LF, there may also be socioeconomic factors at play. The trend of more educated and employed patients undergoing LP warrants further investigation.

Impact of occupational characteristics on return to work for employed patients after elective cervical spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In a cohort of employed patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery with an uncomplicated postoperative course, the authors sought to determine the demographic, functional, and occupational characteristics associated with return to work (RTW) following surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was undertaken of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the Quality Outcomes Database. Study inclusion criteria were: 1) employed prior to surgery and planned to RTW, 2) no unplanned readmissions, 3) achieved 30% improvement on the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and 4) were satisfied with the surgical outcome at 3 or 12 months postoperatively. A multivariable Cox regression model was built using demographic, functional, operative, and occupational characteristic to predict time to RTW. RESULTS: Of 5110 included patients, 4788 (93.7%) returned to work within 12 months, with a median time of 35 (IQR 19-60) days. Patients who did RTW were significantly younger (51.3 ± 9.4 vs 55.8 ± 9.6 years, p < 0.001), more often underwent an anterior approach (85.8% vs 80.7%, p = 0.009), were significantly more privately insured (82.1% vs 64.0%, p < 0.001), and were less likely to have workers' disability insurance (6.7% vs 14.6%, p < 0.001) compared with patients who did not RTW. On multivariable Cox regression, demographic factors associated with a longer RTW were older age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p < 0.001) and Black race (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.81, p < 0.001). Male sex was associated with a shorter RTW time (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.26, p < 0.001). Regarding baseline functional status, worse preoperative NDI (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, p < 0.001) was associated with a longer RTW, whereas the absence of myelopathy was associated with a shorter RTW (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25, p < 0.001). Having a sedentary (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.65-1.99, p < 0.001), light-intensity (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.45-1.76, p < 0.001), and medium-intensity (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, p = 0.037) occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation at any time point. Heavy-intensity occupations were independently the strongest predictor of longer RTW. Similar predictors of shorter RTW were found in a subanalysis of occupation intensity and among operative approaches used. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective degenerative cervical spine surgery who had favorable surgical outcomes and planned to RTW before surgery, 94% had a successful RTW. Age was the strongest predictor of lower odds of RTW. Regarding time to RTW, having a sedentary, light-intensity, or medium-intensity occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation. These findings highlight the importance of considering the demographic and occupational characteristics when predicting postoperative RTW in patients with satisfactory surgical outcomes.

Impact of Unplanned Readmission on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Cervical Spine Surgery: A National Study of 13 355 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although risk factors for unplanned readmission after cervical spine surgery have been widely reported, less is known about how readmission itself affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Using the Quality Outcomes Database registry of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the impact of unplanned readmission on PROMs and (2) compare the effect of specific readmission reasons on PROMs. METHODS: An observational study was performed using a multi-institution, retrospective registry for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. The occurrence of 90-day unplanned readmission classified into medical, surgical, pain only, and no readmissions was the exposure variable. Outcome variables included 12-month PROMs of Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-neck/arm pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and patient dissatisfaction. Multivariable models predicting each PROM were built using readmission reasons controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and preoperative PROMs. RESULTS: Data from 13 355 patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery (82% anterior approach and 18% posterior approach) were analyzed. Unplanned readmission within 90 days of surgery occurred in 3.8% patients, including medical (1.6%), surgical (1.8%), and pain (0.3%). Besides medical reasons, wound infection/dehiscence was the most common reason for unplanned readmission for the total cohort (0.5%), dysphagia in the anterior approach (0.6%), and wound infection/dehiscence in the posterior approach (1.5%). Based on multivariable regression, surgical readmission was significantly associated with worse 12-month NDI, NRS-neck pain, NRS-arm pain, EQ-5D, and higher odds of dissatisfaction. Pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month NDI and NRS-neck pain scores, and worse dissatisfaction. For specific readmission reasons, pain, surgical site infection/wound dehiscence, hematoma/seroma, revision surgery, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were significantly associated with worsened 12-month PROMs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, 90-day unplanned surgical and pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month PROMs compared with patients with medical readmissions and no readmissions.

Impact of unplanned readmissions on lumbar surgery outcomes: a national study of 33,447 patients.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Unplanned readmissions following lumbar spine surgery have immense clinical and financial implications. However, little is known regarding the impact of unplanned readmissions on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following lumbar spine surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of unplanned readmissions, including specific readmission reasons, on patient reported outcomes 12 months after lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was conducted using patients included in the lumbar module of the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter spine registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 33,447 patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative diseases were included. Mean age was 59.8 (SD=14.04), 53.6% were male, 89.5% were white, 45.9% were employed, and 47.5% had private insurance. OUTCOME MEASURES: Unplanned 90-day readmissions and 12-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores, and North American Spine Society (NASS) patient-satisfaction scores. METHODS: The lumbar module of the QOD was queried for adults undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease. Unplanned 90-day readmissions were classified into 4 groups: medical, surgical, pain-only, and no readmissions. Medical and surgical readmissions were further categorized into primary reason for readmission. 12-month PROs assessing patient back and leg pain (NRS), disability (ODI), quality of life (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction were collected. Multivariable models predicting 12-month PROs were built controlling for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 31,430 patients (94%) had no unplanned readmission while 2,017 patients (6%) had an unplanned readmission within 90 days following lumbar surgery. Patients with readmissions had significantly worse 12-month PROs compared with those with no unplanned readmissions in covariate-adjusted models. Using Wald-df as a measure of predictor importance, surgical readmissions were associated with the worst 12-month outcomes, followed by pain-only, then medical readmissions. In separate covariate adjusted models, we found that readmissions for pain, SSI/wound dehiscence, and revisions were among the most important predictors of worse outcomes at 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned 90-day readmissions were associated with worse pain, disability, quality of life, and greater dissatisfaction at 12-months, with surgical readmissions having the greatest impact, followed by pain-only readmissions, then medical readmissions. Readmissions for pain, SSI/wound dehiscence, and revisions were the most important predictors of worse outcomes. These results may help providers better understand the factors that impact outcomes following lumbar spine surgery and promote improved patient counseling and perioperative management.

Which Bone Mineral Density Measure Offers a More Reliable Prediction of Mechanical Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Hounsfield Units or DEXA Scan?

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, we sought to: (1) determine the relationship between dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-measured bone mineral density (BMD), T-scores, and Hounsfield units (HU), and (2) compare the ability of DEXA-measured BMD, T-scores, and HU to predict mechanical complications and reoperations. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective cohort study was undertaken for cases from 2013 to 2017. INCLUSION CRITERIA: ≥5-level-fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. Multivariable regression controlled for age, body mass index, receiving anabolic medications, and postoperative sagittal vertical axis and pelvic-incidence lumbar-lordosis mismatch. A subanalysis was performed for osteopenic patients (-1 < T-score < -2). RESULTS: Of 145 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 72 (49.6%) had both preoperative DEXA and computed tomography scans. Mean DEXA-measured BMD was 0.91 ± 0.52 g/cm2, mean T-score was -1.61 ± 1.03, and mean HU was 153.5 ± 52.8. While no correlation was found between DEXA-measured BMD and HU (r = 0.17, P = 0.144), T-score and HU had a weakly positive correlation (r = 0.31, P = 0.007). Mechanical complications occurred in 48 (66.7%) patients, including 27 (37.5%) proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), 1 (1.4%) distal junctional kyphosis, 5 (6.9%) implant failure, 30 (41.7%) rod fracture/pseudarthrosis, 42 (58.3%) reoperations, and 16 (22.2%) reoperations due to PJK. No association was found between DEXA-measured BMD or T-scores with mechanical complications or reoperations. While univariate regression showed a significant association between lower HU and PJK (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.97-0.99, P = 0.011), the significance was lost after multivariable analysis. When considering osteopenic patients (n = 37), only DEXA-measured BMD was an independent risk factor for PJK (OR 0.01, 95%CI 0.00-0.09, P = 0.017), with a threshold of 0.82 g/cm2 (AUC 0.70, 95%CI 0.53-0.84, P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Poor correlation was found between the 3 BMD modalities. DEXA-measured BMD may be superior to T-scores and HU in predicting PJK among patients with osteopenia with a threshold of BMD <0.82 g/cm2.

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.

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.

Endoscopic transforaminal treatment of a thoracic perineural cyst: a case report.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: To describe the first case of a thoracic perineural cyst successfully treated using a direct thoracic transforaminal endoscopic approach. METHODS: Case report. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: A 66-year-old male presented with right-sided radicular pain in a T4 distribution. MRI of the thoracic spine revealed a right T4 perineural cyst caudally displacing the root in the T4-5 foramen. He had failed attempts at nonoperative management. The patient underwent an all endoscopic transforaminal perineural cyst decompression and resection as a same-day surgical procedure. Postoperatively, the patient noted near complete resolution of the preoperative radicular pain. A thoracic MRI with and without contrast was performed 3 months after surgery and showed no evidence of the preoperative perineural cyst and no symptom recurrence was noted by the patient. CONCLUSION: This case report presents the first safe and successful report of an all endoscopic transforaminal decompression and resection of a perineural cyst in the thoracic spine.

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.

Reoperation rates and patient-reported outcomes of single and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to identify the 2 year rate of reoperation and determine patient-reported outcomes after elective one- and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with structural allograft and anterior plating using indications similar to cervical disc arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 116 consecutive one- and two-level primary ACDF for adult degenerative disease with structural allograft and anterior plating in one surgeon's practice. Patient-reported visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and radiographs, collected prospectively on all operative patients preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were reviewed. Patient demographics and reoperation rates were obtained from the chart. RESULTS: One hundred and four patients were identified with a final reoperation rate of 2.9% at a mean final follow-up 2 years (95% CI 17.2-29.0). No reoperations occurred within 90 days. After 1 year, three patients required reoperation. The mean patient-reported outcomes improved (VAS, 6.6 preoperatively to 3.0 at final follow-up and ODI, 24.3 preoperatively to 12.3 at final follow-up). These improvements were statistically significant (p < 0.01). No significant patient risk factors for reoperation were found. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of reoperation for one- and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at follow-up was found to be lower than those previously published in the literature quoted for CDA. Arthrodesis continues to demonstrate improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

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, 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.

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.