Practical Answers to Frequently Asked Questions in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery for Degenerative Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical counseling enables shared decision making and optimal outcomes by improving patients' understanding about their pathologies, surgical options, and expected outcomes. Here, we aimed to provide practical answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) from patients undergoing an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) for the treatment of degenerative conditions. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary one-level or two-level ACDF or CDR for the treatment of degenerative conditions with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Data were used to answer 10 FAQs that were generated from author's experience of commonly asked questions in clinic before ACDF or CDR. RESULTS: A total of 395 patients (181 ACDF, 214 CDR) were included. (1, 2, and 3) Will my neck/arm pain and physical function improve? Patients report notable improvement in all patient-reported outcome measures. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? 13% (ACDF) and 5% (CDR) reported worsening. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? Patients on average received a 3.7 (ACDF) and 5.5 mGy (CDR) dose during. (6) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one. (7) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 13% (8% minor and 5% major) experienced in-hospital complications (ACDF) and 5% (all minor) did (CDR). (8) Will I need another surgery? 2.2% (ACDF) and 2.3% (CDR) of patients required a revision surgery. (9 & 10) When will I be able to return to work/driving? Most patients return to working (median of 16 [ACDF] and 14 days [CDR]) and driving (median of 16 [ACDF] and 12 days [CDR]). CONCLUSIONS: The answers to the FAQs can assist surgeons in evidence-based patient counseling.

Temporal Trends of Improvement After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To analyze temporal trends in improvement after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although several studies have shown that patients improve significantly after MIS TLIF, evidence regarding the temporal trends in improvement is still largely lacking. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary single-level MIS TLIF for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine and had a minimum of 2-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were: 1) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale, VAS back and leg; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS); 2) global rating change (GRC); 3) minimal clinically important difference (MCID); and 4) return to activities. Timepoints analyzed were preoperative, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Trends across these timepoints were plotted on graphs. RESULTS: 236 patients were included. VAS back and VAS leg were found to have statistically significant improvement compared to the previous timepoint up to 3 months after surgery. ODI and SF-12 PCS were found to have statistically significant improvement compared to the previous timepoint up to 6 months after surgery. Beyond these timepoints, there was no significant improvement in PROMs. 80% of patients reported feeling better compared to preoperative by 3 months. >50% of patients achieved MCID in all PROMs by 3 months. Most patients returned to driving, returned to work, and discontinued narcotics at an average of 21, 20, and 10 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are expected to improve up to 6 months after MIS TLIF. Back pain and leg pain improve up to 3 months and disability and physical function improve up to 6 months. Beyond these timepoints, the trends in improvement tend to reach a plateau. 80% of patients feel better compared to preoperative by 3 months after surgery.

Morbidly Obese Patients Have Similar Clinical Outcomes and Recovery Kinetics After Minimally Invasive Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of class 2/3 obesity (body mass index, BMI >35) on outcomes following minimally invasive decompression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No previous study has analyzed the impact of class 2/3 obesity on outcomes following minimally invasive decompression. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive decompression were divided into 4 cohorts based on their BMI: normal (BMI 18.5 to <25), overweight (25 to <30), class 1 obesity (30 to <35), and class 2/3 obesity (BMI >35). Outcome measures were: 1) intraoperative variables: operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL); 2) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale, VAS back and leg; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS); 3) global rating change (GRC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) achievement rates; 4) return to activities; and 5) complication and reoperation rates. RESULTS: 838 patients were included (226 normal, 357 overweight, 179 class 1 obesity, 76 class 2/3 obesity). Class 1 and 2/3 obesity groups had significantly greater operative times compared to the other groups. Class 2/3 obesity group had worse ODI, VAS back and SF-12 PCS preoperatively, worse ODI, VAS back, VAS leg and SF-12 PCS at <6 months, and worse ODI and SF-12 PCS at >6 months. However, they had significant improvement in all PROMs at both postoperative timepoints and the magnitude of improvement was similar to other groups. No significant differences were found in MCID and PASS achievement rates, likelihood of betterment on the GRC scale, return to activities, and complication/reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Class 2/3 obese patients have worse PROMs pre- and post-operatively. However, they show similar improvement in PROMs, MCID and PASS achievement rates, likelihood of betterment, recovery kinetics, and complication/reoperation rates as other BMI groups following minimally invasive decompression.

Impact of Preoperative Symptom Duration on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cervical Disc Replacement for Cervical Radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of preoperative symptom duration on postoperative functional outcomes following cervical disc replacement (CDR) for radiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDR has emerged as a reliable and efficacious treatment option for degenerative cervical spine pathologies. The relationship between preoperative symptom duration and outcomes following CDR is not well established. METHODS: Patients with radiculopathy without myelopathy who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDRs were included and divided into shorter (<6 mo) and prolonged (≥6 mo) cohorts based on preoperative symptom duration. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Neck and Arm. Change in PROM scores and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) rates were calculated. Analyses were conducted on the early (within 3 mo) and late (6 mo-2 y) postoperative periods. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients (43.6±8.7 y, 33.3% female) were included. In both early and late postoperative periods, the shorter preoperative symptom duration cohort experienced significantly greater change from preoperative PROM scores compared to the prolonged symptom duration cohort for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm. The shorter symptom duration cohort achieved MCID in the early postoperative period at a significantly higher rate for NDI (78.9% vs. 54.9%, P=0.001), VAS-Neck (87.0% vs. 56.0%, P<0.001), and VAS-Arm (90.5% vs. 70.7%, P=0.002). Prolonged preoperative symptom duration (≥6 mo) was identified as an independent risk factor for failure to achieve MCID at the latest timepoint for NDI (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-6.9, P=0.016), VAS-Neck (OR: 9.8, 95% CI: 3.7-26.0, P<0.001), and VAS-Arm (OR: 7.5, 95% CI: 2.5-22.5, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates improved patient-reported outcomes for those with shorter preoperative symptom duration undergoing CDR for radiculopathy, suggesting delayed surgical intervention may result in poorer outcomes and greater postoperative disability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Predictors for Failure to Respond to Erector Spinae Plane Block Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk factors associated with failure to respond to erector spinae plane (ESP) block following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ESP block is an emerging opioid-sparing regional anesthetic that has been shown to reduce immediate postoperative pain and opioid demand following MI-TLIF-however, not all patients who receive ESP blocks perioperatively experience a reduction in immediate postoperative pain. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing 1-level MI-TLIF who received ESP blocks by a single anesthesiologist perioperatively at a single institution. ESP blocks were administered in the OR following induction. Failure to respond to ESP block was defined as patients with a first numerical rating scale (NRS) score post-surgery of >5.7 (mean immediate postoperative NRS score of control cohort undergoing MI TLIF without ESP block). Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify predictors for failure to respond to ESP block. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were included (mean age 60.6 years, 43.3% females). The median and interquartile range (IQR) first pain score post-surgery was 2.5 (0.0-7.5). Forty-nine (36.6%) of patients failed to respond to ESP block. In the multivariable regression analysis, several independent predictors for failure to respond to ESP block following MI TLIF were identified: female sex (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.04-5.98, P=0.040), preoperative opioid use (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.03- 7.30, P=0.043), anxiety requiring medication (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.27-11.49, P=0.017), and hyperlipidemia (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.31-7.55, P=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several predictors for failure to respond to ESP block following MI TLIF including female sex, preoperative opioid pain medication use, anxiety, and hyperlipidemia. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on perioperative outcomes and pain expectations following MI-TLIF with ESP block. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Limited Improvement with Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Alone for Degenerative Scoliosis with Cobb Angle over 20 Degrees: The Impact of Decompression Location.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected multi-surgeon registry. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive (MI) decompression in patients with severe degenerative scoliosis (DS) and identify factors associated with poorer outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND CONTEXT: MI decompression has gained widespread acceptance as a treatment option for patients with lumbar canal stenosis and DS. However, there is a lack of research regarding the clinical outcomes and the impact of MI decompression location in patients with severe DS exhibiting a Cobb angle exceeding 20 degrees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent MI decompression alone were included and categorized into the DS or control groups based on Cobb angle (>20 degrees). Decompression location was labeled as "scoliosis-related" when the decompression levels were across or between end vertebrae, and "outside" when the operative levels did not include the end vertebrae. The outcomes including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were compared between the propensity score-matched groups for improvement and minimal clinical importance difference (MCID) achievement at ≥1 year postoperatively. Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to identify factors contributing to the non-achievement of MCID in ODI of the DS group at the ≥1 year timepoint. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients (41 DS) were included in the study. Following matching for age, gender, osteoporosis status, psoas muscle area, and preoperative ODI, the DS groups exhibited a significantly lower rate of MCID achievement in ODI (DS: 45.5% vs. control 69.0%, P=0.047). The "scoliosis-related" decompression (Odds ratio: 9.9, P=0.028) was an independent factor of non-achievement of MCID in ODI within the DS group. CONCLUSION: In patients with a Cobb angle>20 degrees, lumbar decompression surgery, even in the MI approach, may result in limited improvement of disability and physical function. Caution should be exercised when determining a surgical plan, especially when decompression involves the level between or across the end vertebrae. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Impact of Posterior Intervertebral Osteophytes on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After L5-S1 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: (1) To develop a reliable grading system to assess the severity of posterior intervertebral osteophytes and (2) to investigate the impact of posterior intervertebral osteophytes on clinical outcomes after L5-S1 decompression and fusion through anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and minimally-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence regarding the clinical implications of posterior lumbar vertebral body osteophytes for ALIF and MIS-TLIF surgeries and there are no established grading systems that define the severity of these posterior lumbar intervertebral osteophytes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing L5-S1 ALIF or MIS-TLIF was performed. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and leg Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 2-week, 6-week, 12-week, and 6-month follow-up time points were assessed. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI of 14.9 and VAS leg of 2.8 were utilized. Osteophyte grade was based on the ratio of osteophyte length to foraminal width. "High-grade" osteophytes were defined as a maximal osteophyte length >50% of the total foraminal width. RESULTS: A total of 70 consecutive patients (32 ALIF and 38 MIS-TLIF) were included in the study. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in patient-reported outcome measures or achievement of MCID for Leg VAS or ODI preoperatively or at any follow-ups. On multivariate analysis, neither the surgical approach nor the presence of high-grade foraminal osteophytes was associated with leg VAS or ODI scores at any follow-up time point. In addition, neither the surgical approach nor the presence of high-grade foraminal osteophytes was associated with the achievement of MCID for leg VAS or ODI at 6 months. CONCLUSION: ALIF and MIS-TLIF are both valid options for treating degenerative spine conditions and lumbar radiculopathy, even in the presence of high-grade osteophytes that significantly occupy the intervertebral foramen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Age-dependent acquisition of pathogenicity by SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5.

Pathology studies of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants of concern (VOC) are challenged by the lack of pathogenic animal models. While Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 replicate in K18-hACE2 transgenic mice, they cause minimal to negligible morbidity and mortality, and less is known about more recent Omicron VOC. Here, we show that in contrast to Omicron BA.1, BA.5-infected mice exhibited high levels of morbidity and mortality, correlating with higher early viral loads. Neither Omicron BA.1 nor BA.5 replicated in brains, unlike most prior VOC. Only Omicron BA.5-infected mice exhibited substantial weight loss, high pathology scores in lungs, and high levels of inflammatory cells and cytokines in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and 5- to 8-month-old mice exhibited 100% fatality. These results identify a rodent model for pathogenesis or antiviral countermeasure studies for circulating SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5. Further, differences in morbidity and mortality between Omicron BA.1 and BA.5 provide a model for understanding viral determinants of pathogenicity.