A Longitudinal Evaluation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Its Effects on Spinal Decompressions With or Without Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to (1) compare the safety of spine surgery before and after the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and (2) determine whether patients with a history of COVID-19 were at increased risk of adverse events. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on several health care services. In spine surgery, elective cases were canceled and patients received delayed care due to the uncertainty of disease transmission and surgical outcomes. As new coronavirus variants arise, health care systems require guidance on how to provide optimal patient care to all those in need of our services. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing spine surgery between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021 was performed. Patients were split into pre-COVID or post-COVID cohorts based on local government guidelines. Inpatient complications, 90-day readmission, and 90-day mortality were compared between groups. Secondary analysis included multiple logistic regression to determine independent predictors of each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 2976 patients were included for analysis with 1701 patients designated as pre-COVID and 1275 as post-COVID. The pre-COVID cohort had fewer patients undergoing revision surgery (16.8% vs 21.9%, P < 0.001) and a lower home discharge rate (84.5% vs 88.2%, P = 0.008). Inpatient complication (9.9% vs 9.2%, P = 0.562), inpatient mortality (0.1% vs 0.2%, P = 0.193), 90-day readmission (3.4% vs 3.2%, P = 0.828), and 90-day mortality rates (0.8% vs 0.8%, P = 0.902) were similar between groups. Patients with positive COVID-19 tests before surgery had similar complication rates (7.7% vs 6.1%, P = 1.000) as those without a positive test documented. CONCLUSIONS: After the emergence of COVID-19, patients undergoing spine surgery had a greater number of medical comorbidities, but similar rates of inpatient complications, readmission, and mortality. Prior COVID-19 infection was not associated with an increased risk of postsurgical complications or mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Are Clinical or Surgical Outcomes Different Based on Whether the Same Surgeon or Hospital System Performs the Spine Revision?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of discontinuity in care by changing surgeons, health systems, or increased time to revision surgery on revision spine fusion surgical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience worse outcomes than those undergoing primary lumbar surgery. Those requiring complex revisions are often transferred to tertiary or quaternary referral centers under the assumption that those institutions may be more accustomed at performing those procedures. However, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the impact of discontinuity of care in revision spinal fusions. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion 2011-2021 were grouped based on (1) revision performed by the index surgeon versus a different surgeon, (2) revision performed within the same versus different hospital system as the index procedure, and (3) length of time from index procedure. Multivariate regression for outcomes controlled for confounding differences. RESULTS: A total of 776 revision surgeries were included. An increased time interval between the index procedure and the revision surgery was predictive of a lower risk for subsequent revision procedure (odds ratio: 0.57, P =0.022). Revision surgeries performed by the same surgeon predicted a reduced length of hospital stay (ß: -0.14, P =0.001). Neither time to revision nor undergoing by the same surgeon or same practice predicted 90-day readmission rates. Patients are less likely to report meaningful improvement in Mental Component Score-12 or Physical Component Score-12 if revision surgery was performed at a different hospital system. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have revision lumbar fusions have similar clinical outcomes regardless of whether their surgeon performed the index procedure. However, continuity of care with the same surgeon may reduce hospital length of stay and associated health care costs. The length of time between primary and revision surgery does not significantly impact patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

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

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

Predictors of Blood Transfusion in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for perioperative blood transfusion after lumbar fusion surgery. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent lumbar fusion at a single, urban tertiary academic center was retrospectively retrieved. Our primary outcome, blood transfusion, was collected via chart query. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the regression model. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 3,842 patients, 282 (7.3%) required a blood transfusion. For patients undergoing posterolateral decompression and fusion, predictors of transfusion included age (P < 0.001) and more levels fused (P < 0.001). A higher preoperative hemoglobin level (P < 0.001) and revision surgery (P = 0.005) were protective of blood transfusion. For patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, greater Elixhauser comorbidity index (P < 0.001), longer operative time (P = 0.040), and more levels fused (P = 0.030) were independent predictors of the need for blood transfusion. Patients with a higher body mass index (P = 0.012) and preoperative hemoglobin level (P < 0.001) had a reduced likelihood of receiving a transfusion. For circumferential fusion, greater age (P = 0.006) and longer operative times (P = 0.015) were independent predictors of blood transfusion, while a higher preoperative hemoglobin level (P < 0.001) and male sex (P = 0.002) were protective. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis identified older age, lower body mass index, greater Elixhauser comorbidity index, longer operative duration, more levels fused, and lower preoperative hemoglobin levels as independent predictors of requiring a blood transfusion following lumbar spinal fusion. Different surgical approaches were not found to be associated with transfusion.

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

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

Creation of a Risk Calculator for Predicting New-Onset Cardiac Arrhythmias in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: As an increasing number of lumbar fusion procedures are being conducted at specialty hospitals and surgery centers, appropriate patient selection and risk stratification is critical to minimizing patient transfers. Postoperative cardiac arrhythmia has been linked to worse patient outcomes and is a common cause of patient transfer. Therefore, we created a risk calculator to predict a patient's likelihood of developing a new-onset postoperative cardiac arrhythmia after lumbar spinal fusion, which may improve preoperative facility selection. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who undergoing lumbar fusion from 2017 to 2021 at a single academic center. Patients were excluded if they had any medical history of a cardiac arrhythmia. Multivariable regression was conducted to determine independent predictors of inpatient arrhythmias. The final regression was applied to a bootstrap to validate an arrhythmia prediction model. A risk calculator was created to determine a patient's risk of new-onset cardiac arrhythmia. RESULTS: A total of 1,622 patients were included, with 45 patients developing a new-onset postoperative arrhythmia. Age (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.09; P = 0.003), history of beta-blocker use (OR = 2.01; 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.72; P = 0.027), and levels fused (OR = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.00; P = 0.001) were all independent predictors of having a new-onset inpatient arrhythmia. This multivariable regression produced an area under the curve of 0.742. The final regression was applied to a bootstrap prediction modeling technique to create a risk calculator including the male sex, age, body mass index, beta-blocker use, and levels fused (OR = 1.04, [CI = 1.03 to 1.06]) that produced an area under the curve of 0.733. CONCLUSION: A patient's likelihood of developing postoperative cardiac arrhythmias may be predicted by comorbid conditions and demographic factors including age, sex, body mass index, and beta-blocker use. Knowledge of these risk factors may improve appropriate selection of an outpatient surgical center or orthopaedic specialty hospital versus an inpatient hospital for lumbar fusions.

Comparing Posterior Lumbar Decompression and Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis as Assessed by the CARDS Classification System.

OBJECTIVE: In a retrospective cohort study, we compared the outcomes among clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis (CARDS) subtypes for patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and evaluated the CARDS system as a tool to guide clinical decisions regarding the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). METHODS: Patients undergoing PLDF or TLIF for DS from 2010 to 2020 were identified. The patients were grouped by the preoperative CARDS classification. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the effects of the treatment approach on the 1-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 90-day surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1056 patients were included: 148 patients with type A DS, 323 with type B, 525 with type C, and 60 with type D. Patients with CARDS types A and C who underwent PLDF experienced a longer length of stay and were less likely to be discharged home. No differences were found in the incidence of revisions, complications, or readmissions between the surgical approaches. Patients with CARDS type A undergoing PLDF were less likely to achieve a minimal clinically important difference for back pain (36.8% vs. 76.7%; P = 0.013). No other significant differences were found in the PROMs among the CARDS subtypes. TLIF independently predicted for better leg pain improvement using the visual analog scale at 1 year of follow-up (ß = -2.92; P = 0.017) for patients with CARDS type A. Multivariable analysis demonstrated no significant differences in PROMs by surgical approach among the other CARDS subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with disc space collapse and endplate apposition (CARDS type A) appear to benefit from TLIF. However, patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis without disc space collapse or kyphotic angulation (CARDS types B and C) showed no benefit from additional interbody placement.

Patient-specific Risk Factors Increase Episode of Care Costs After Lumbar Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine, which patient-specific risk factors increase total episode of care (EOC) costs in a population of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries undergoing lumbar decompression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar decompression is an effective option for the treatment of central canal stenosis or radiculopathy in patients unresponsive to nonoperative management. Given that elderly Americans are more likely to have one or more chronic medical conditions, there is a need to determine, which, if any, patient-specific risk factors increase health care costs after lumbar decompression. METHODS: Care episodes limited to lumbar decompression surgeries were retrospectively reviewed on a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service reimbursement database at our academic institution between 2014 and 2019. The 90-day total EOC reimbursement payments were collected. Patient electronic medical records were then matched to the selected care episodes for the collection of patient demographics, medical comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and clinical outcomes. A stepwise multivariate linear regression model was developed to predict patient-specific risk factors that increased total EOC costs after lumbar decompression. Significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients were included for analysis. Risk factors associated with increased total EOC cost included increased age (per year) (ß = $324.70, P < 0.001), comorbid depression (ß = $4368.30, P = 0.037), revision procedures (ß = $6538.43, P =0.012), increased hospital length of stay (per day) (ß = $2995.43, P < 0.001), discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (ß = $14,417.42, P = 0.001), incidence of a complication (ß = $8178.07, P < 0.001), and readmission (ß = $18,734.24, P < 0.001) within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Increased age, comorbid depression, revision decompression procedures, increased hospital length of stay, discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility, and incidence of a complication and readmission within 90 days were all associated with increased total episodes of care costs.

Do On-Table Radiographs Predict Postoperative Sagittal Alignment after Posterior Lumbar Fusion?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if intraoperative on-table lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis correlate with postoperative lordosis following single-level posterolateral decompression and fusion (PLDF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS: Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥18 years old who underwent PLDF or TLIF between 2012 and 2020. Lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis were compared between pre-, intra-, and postoperative radiographs using paired t tests. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients met inclusion criteria. No significant differences in preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative measurements were found between groups. Patients who underwent PLDF experienced less disc height loss over 1 year postoperatively (PLDF: 0.45 ± 0.9 mm vs. TLIF: 1.2 ± 1.4 mm, P < 0.001). Lumbar lordosis significantly decreased between intraoperative to postoperative radiographs at 2-6 weeks for PLDF (Δ: -4.0°, P < 0.001) and TLIF (Δ: -5.6°, P < 0.001), but no change was identified between the intraoperative and >6 month postoperative radiographs for PLDF (Δ: -0.3°, P = 0.634) or TLIF (Δ: -1.6°, P = 0.087). Segmental lordosis significantly increased from the preoperative to post-instrumentation intraoperative radiographs for PLDF (Δ: 2.7°, P < 0.001) and TLIF (Δ: 1.8°, P < 0.001), but it subsequently decreased at the final follow up for PLDF (Δ: -1.9°, P < 0.001) and TLIF (Δ: -2.3°, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Subtle decreases in lumbar lordosis may be noticed in early postoperative radiographs compared with intraoperative images on Jackson operative tables. However, these changes are not present at 1-year follow-up as lumbar lordosis increases to a similar level as intraoperative fixation.

Trends in Short Construct Lumbar Fusions Over the Past Decade at a Single Institution.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare the rates of fusion techniques over the last decade; (2) to identify whether surgeon experience affects a surgeon's preferred fusion technique; (3) to evaluate differences in complications, readmissions, mortality, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) based on fusion technique. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Database studies indicate the number of lumbar fusions have been steadily increasing over the last two decades; however, insufficient granularity exists to detect if surgeons' preferences are altered based on additive surgical experience. METHODS: A retrospective review of continuously collected patients undergoing lumbar fusion at a single urban academic center was performed. Rates of lumbar fusion technique: posterolateral decompression fusion (PLDF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion + PLDF (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion + PLDF (LLIF) were recorded. Inpatient complications, 90-day readmission, and inpatient mortality were compared with χ 2 test and Bonferroni correction. The Δ 1-year PROMs were compared with the analysis of variance. RESULTS: Of 3938 lumbar fusions, 1647 (41.8%) were PLDFs, 1356 (34.4%) were TLIFs, 885 (21.7%) were ALIFs, and 80 (2.0%) were lateral lumbar interbody fusions. Lumbar fusion rates increased but interbody fusion rates (2012: 57.3%; 2019: 57.6%) were stable across the study period. Surgeons with <10 years of experience performed more PLDFs and less ALIFs, whereas surgeons with >10 years' experience used ALIFs, TLIFs, and PLDFs at similar rates. Patients were more likely to be discharged home over the course of the decade (2012: 78.4%; 2019: 83.8%, P <0.001). No differences were observed between the techniques in regard to inpatient mortality ( P =0.441) or Δ (postoperative minus preoperative) PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Preferred lumbar fusion technique varies by surgeon preference, but typically remains stable over the course of a decade. The preferred fusion technique did not correlate with differences in PROMs, inpatient mortality, and patient complication rates. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: 3-treatment.

Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Indications for revision lumbar fusion are variable, but include recurrent stenosis (RS), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and pseudarthrosis. The efficacy of revision lumbar fusion has been well established, but their outcomes compared to primary procedures is not well documented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compares surgical and clinical outcomes between (1) revision and primary lumbar fusion, (2) revision lumbar fusion based on indication (ASD, pseudarthrosis, or RS), and (3) revision lumbar fusion based on whether the index procedure included an isolated decompression or decompression with fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective single-institution cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Four thousand six hundred seventy-one consecutive lumbar fusions from 2011 to 2021, of which 892 (23.6%) were revision procedures. The indication for revision procedures included 502 (56.3%) for ASD, 153 (17.2%) for pseudarthrosis, and 237 (26.6%) for RS. Of the 892 revision procedures, 694 (77.8%) underwent an index fusion while 198 (22.2%) underwent an index decompression without fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital readmissions, all-cause reoperation, need for subsequent revision and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline, 3-months postoperatively, and 1-year postoperatively, including the Mental Health Component score (MCS-12) and Physical Health Component score (PCS-12) of the Short Form 12 survey, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Back and Leg pain. METHODS: Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records. Twenty-eight percent of patients had preoperative and postoperative PROMs. A delta PROM score was calculated for the 3-month and 1-year postoperative timepoints, which was the change from the preoperative to postoperative value. Univariate comparisons were performed to compare revision fusions to primary fusions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for all-cause reoperation and subsequent revision surgery, while multivariate linear regression was performed for ∆PROMs at 3-months and 1-year. Revision procedures were then separately regrouped based on indication for revision fusion and whether they underwent a fusion for their index procedure. Univariate comparisons and multivariate linear regressions for ∆PROMs were then repeated based on the new groupings. RESULTS: There was no difference in hospital readmission rate (5.38% vs. 4.60%, p=.372) or length of stay (4.10 days vs. 3.94 days, p=.129) between revision and primary lumbar fusion, but revision fusions had a higher rate of all-cause reoperation (16.1% vs. 11.2%, p<.001) and subsequent revision (13.7% vs. 9.71%, p=.001), which was confirmed on multivariate logistic regression (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.001 and OR: 1.37, p=.007, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a revision procedure was an independent risk factor for worse improvement ∆ODI, ∆VAS Back, ∆VAS Leg, and ∆PCS-12 and 1-year postoperatively. Regardless of the indication for revision lumbar fusion, patients significantly improved in the 3-month and 1-year postoperative PCS-12, ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg, with the exception of the 3-month PCS-12 for pseudarthrosis (p=.620). Patients undergoing revision for ASD had significantly worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (32.3 vs. Pseudarthrosis: 35.6 and RS: 37.0, p=.026), but there were no differences in ∆PROMs. There was no difference in hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, or subsequent revision based on whether a patient had an index lumbar fusion or isolated decompression. Multivariate linear regression analysis found that a surgical indication of pseudarthrosis was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in 3-month ∆VAS Leg (ref: ASD, ß=2.26, p=.036), but having an index fusion did not significantly predict worse improvement in ∆PROMs when compared to isolated decompressions. CONCLUSIONS: Revision lumbar fusions had a higher rate of reoperation and subsequent revision surgery when compared to primary lumbar fusions, but there were no difference in hospital readmission rates. Patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion experience improvements in all patient reported outcome measures, but their baseline, postoperative, and magnitude of improvement are worse than primary procedures. Regardless of whether the lumbar fusion is a primary or revision procedure, all patients have significant improvements in pain, disability and physical function. Further, the indication for the revision procedure is not correlated with the expected magnitude of improvement in patient reported outcomes. Finally, no differences in baseline, postoperative, and ∆PROMs for revision fusions were identified when stratifying by whether the patient had an index decompression or fusion.

Readmission and Resource Utilization in Patients From Socioeconomically Distressed Communities Following Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether: (1) patients from communities of socioeconomic distress have higher readmission rates or postoperative healthcare resource utilization and (2) there are differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on socioeconomic distress. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Socioeconomic disparities affect health outcomes, but little evidence exists demonstrating the impact of socioeconomic distress on postoperative resource utilization or PROMs. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent lumbar fusion at a single tertiary academic center from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2021. Patients were classified according to the distressed communities index. Hospital readmission, postoperative prescriptions, patient telephone calls, follow-up office visits, and PROMs were recorded. Multivariate analysis with logistic, negative binomial regression or Poisson regression were used to investigate the effects of distressed communities index on postoperative resource utilization. Alpha was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 4472 patients were included for analysis. Readmission risk was higher in distressed communities (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.87; P =0.028). Patients from distressed communities (odds ratio, 3.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-9.72; P =0.003) were also more likely to be readmitted for medical, but not surgical causes ( P =0.514), and distressed patients had worse preoperative (visual analog-scale Back, P <0.001) and postoperative (Oswestry disability index, P =0.048; visual analog-scale Leg, P =0.013) PROMs, while maintaining similar magnitudes of clinical improvement. Patients from distressed communities were more likely to be discharged to a nursing facility and inpatient rehabilitation unit (25.5%, P =0.032). The race was not independently associated with readmissions ( P =0.228). CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic distress is associated with increased postoperative health resource utilization. Patients from distressed communities have worse preoperative PROMs, but the overall magnitude of improvement is similar across all classes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Impact of Heart Disease History on Safety of Telemedicine Cardiac Clearance Appointments.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare complication, readmission, mortality, and cancellation rates between patients who had either an in-person or telemedicine preoperative cardiac clearance visit before spine surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent a spine procedure at a single tertiary academic center from February 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. Cancellations, inpatient complications, 90-day readmissions, and inpatient and 90-day mortality rates were compared between in-person and telemedicine cardiac clearance visits. Secondary analysis included multiple logistic regression to determine independent predictors of case cancellations and complications. Alpha was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1,331 consecutive patients were included, with 775 patients (58.2%) having an in-person cardiac clearance visit and 556 (41.8%) having telemedicine clearance. Overall, the telemedicine cohort did not have more cancellations, complications, or readmissions. Regardless of the type of clearance, patients with a history of cardiac disease had more inpatient complications (15.8% versus 6.9%, P < 0.001) and higher 90-day mortality rates (2.3% versus 0.4%, P = 0.005). Subgroup analysis of patients with a history of cardiac disease showed that patients who had telemedicine visits had more cancellations (4.6% versus 10.9%, P = 0.036) and higher 90-day mortality rates (1.4% versus 4.4%, P = 0.045). On regression analysis, telemedicine visits were not independent predictors of preoperative cancellation rates (P = 0.173) but did predict greater preoperative cancellations among patients with cardiac history (odds ratio 2.73, P = 0.036). DISCUSSION: Patients with cardiac disease who undergo preoperative telemedicine visits have greater preoperative surgical cancellation rates and postoperative 90-day mortality rates. Although preoperative telemedicine visits may be appropriate for most patients, a history of cardiac disease should be a contraindication.

Demographics and Medical Comorbidities as Risk Factors for Increased Episode of Care Costs Following Lumbar Fusion in Medicare Patients.

The objective was to evaluate medical comorbidities and surgical variables as independent risk factors for increased health care costs in Medicare patients undergoing lumbar fusion. Care episodes limited to lumbar fusions were retrospectively reviewed on the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) reimbursement database at a single academic institution. Total episode of care cost was also collected. A multivariable linear regression model was developed to identify independent risk factors for increased total episode of care cost, and logistic models for surgical complications and readmission. A total of 500 Medicare patients were included. Risk factors associated with increased total episode of care cost included transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) (ß = $5,399, P < 0.001) and ALIF+PLF (AP) fusions (ß = $24,488, P < 0.001), levels fused (ß = $3,989, P < 0.001), congestive heart failure (ß = $6,161, P = 0.022), hypertension with end-organ damage (ß = $10,138, P < 0.001), liver disease (ß = $16,682, P < 0.001), inpatient complications (ß = $4,548, P = 0.001), 90-day complications (ß = $10,012, P = 0.001), and 90-day readmissions (ß = $15,677, P < 0.001). The most common surgical complication was postoperative anemia, which was associated with significantly increased costs (ß = $18,478, P < 0.001). Female sex (OR = 2.27, P = 0.001), AP fusion (OR = 2.59, P = 0.002), levels fused (OR = 1.45, P = 0.005), cerebrovascular disease (OR = 4.19, P = 0.003), cardiac arrhythmias (OR = 2.32, P = 0.002), and fluid electrolyte disorders (OR = 4.24, P = 0.002) were independent predictors of surgical complications. Body mass index (OR = 1.07, P = 0.029) and AP fusions (OR = 2.87, P = 0.049) were independent predictors of surgical readmission. Among medical comorbidities, congestive heart failure, hypertension with end-organ damage, and liver disease were independently associated with a significant increase in total episode of care cost. Interbody devices were associated with increased admission cost.

Patients From Socioeconomically Distressed Communities Experience Similar Clinical Improvements Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when categorizing patients based on socioeconomic status. Secondarily, we sought to compare PROMs based on race. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Social determinants of health are believed to affect outcomes following spine surgery, but there is limited literature on how combined socioeconomic status metrics affect PROMs following ACDF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors identified patients who underwent primary elective one-level to four-level ACDF from 2014 to 2020. Patients were grouped based on their distressed community index (DCI) quintile (Distressed, At-Risk, Mid-tier, Comfortable, and Prosperous) and then race (White or Black). Multivariate regression for ∆PROMs was performed based on DCI group and race while controlling for baseline demographics and surgical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 1204 patients included in the study, all DCI groups improved across all PROMs, except mental health component score (MCS-12) for the Mid-tier group ( P =0.091). Patients in the Distressed/At-Risk group had worse baseline MCS-12, visual analog scale (VAS) Neck, and neck disability index (NDI). There were no differences in magnitude of improvement between DCI groups. Black patients had significantly worse baseline VAS Neck ( P =0.002) and Arm ( P =0.012) as well as worse postoperative MCS-12 ( P =0.016), PCS-12 ( P =0.03), VAS Neck ( P <0.001), VAS Arm ( P =0.004), and NDI ( P <0.001). Multivariable regression analysis did not identify any of the DCI groupings to be significant independent predictors of ∆PROMs, but being White was an independent predictor of greater improvement in ∆PCS-12 (ß=3.09, P =0.036) and ∆NDI (ß=-7.32, P =0.003). CONCLUSIONS: All patients experienced clinical improvements regardless of DCI or race despite patients in Distressed communities and Black patients having worse preoperative PROMs. Being from a distressed community was not an independent predictor of worse improvement in any PROMs, but Black patients had worse improvement in NDI compared with White patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Effect of Online Prescription Drug Monitoring on Opioid Prescription Habits After Elective Single-level Lumbar Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: The United States opioid epidemic is a well-documented crisis stemming from increased prescriptions of narcotics. Online prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are a potential resource to mitigate narcotic misuse by tracking controlled substance prescriptions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate opioid prescription trends after implementation of an online PDMP in patients who underwent single-level lumbar fusion. METHODS: Patients who underwent a single-level lumbar fusion between August 27, 2017, and August 31, 2020, were identified and placed categorically into one of two cohorts: an "early adoption" cohort, September 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018, and a "late adoption" cohort, September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. This allowed for a 1-year washout period after Pennsylvania PDMP implementation on August 26, 2016. Opioid use data were obtained by searching for each patient in the state government's online PDMP and recording data from the year before and the year after the patient's procedure. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in preoperative opioid prescriptions between the early and late adoption cohorts. The late adoption group independently predicted decreased postoperative opioid prescriptions (ß, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.93; P = 0.007), opioid prescribers (ß, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.90; P < 0.001), pharmacies used (ß, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.97; P = 0.006), opioid pills (ß, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74; P < 0.001), days of opioid prescription (ß, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72; P < 0.001), and morphine milligram equivalents prescribed (ß, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.66; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PDMP implementation was associated with decreased postoperative opioid prescription patterns but not preoperative opioid prescribing behaviors. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Trends in Single-Level Lumbar Fusions Over the Past Decade Using a National Database.

OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of different fusion techniques using a nationwide database over the last decade and identify differences in complications and readmissions based on fusion technique. METHODS: All elective, single-level lumbar fusions performed by orthopaedic surgeons from 2011 to 2020 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Rates of lumbar fusion technique posterolateral decompression and fusion [PLDF], combined transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and PLDF, anterior lumbar or lateral lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF/LLIF], and combined ALIF/LLIF and PLDF were recorded, and 30-day complications and readmissions were compared. Secondary analysis included multiple logistic regression to determine independent predictors of each outcome. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 28,413 fusions: 8749 (30.8%) PLDFs, 11,973 (42.1%) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions, 4769 (16.8%) ALIF/LLIFs, and 2922 (10.3%) combined ALIF/LLIF and PLDFs. The number of fusions increased over time with 1227 fusions performed in 2011 and 3958 fusions performed in 2019. Interbody fusions also increased over time with a subsequent decrease in PLDFs (39.0% in 2011, 25.2% in 2020). Patients were more likely to be discharged home over the course of the decade (85.4% in 2011, 95.0% in 2020). No difference was observed between the techniques regarding complications or readmissions. The modified 5-item frailty index was predictive of complications (odds ratio, 2.05; P = 0.001) and readmissions (odds ratio, 2.61; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar fusions have continued to increase over the last decade with an increasing proportion of interbody fusions. Complications and readmissions appear to be driven by patient comorbidity and not fusion technique.

The Effect of Preoperative Marijuana Use on Surgical Outcomes, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Opioid Consumption Following Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: To (1) investigate the effect of marijuana use on surgical outcomes following lumbar fusion, (2) determine how marijuana use affects patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), and (3) determine if marijuana use impacts the quantity of opioids prescribed. METHODS: Patients > 18 years of age who underwent primary one- or two-level lumbar fusion with preoperative marijuana use at our institution were identified. A 3:1 propensity match incorporating patient demographics and procedure type was conducted to compare preoperative marijuana users to non-marijuana users. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, surgical outcomes (90-day all-cause and 90-day surgical readmissions, reoperations, and revision surgeries), pre- and postoperative narcotic usage, and PROMs were compared between groups. Multivariate regression models were created to determine the effect of marijuana on surgical reoperations patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) 1-year postoperatively. RESULTS: Of the 259 included patients, 65 used marijuana preoperatively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that marijuana use (OR = 2.28, P = .041) significantly increased the likelihood of having a spine reoperation. No other surgical outcome was found to be significantly different between groups. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that marijuana use was not significantly associated with changes in 1-year postoperative PROMs (all, P > .05). The quantity of pre- and postoperative opioids prescriptions was not significantly different between groups (all, P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative marijuana use increased the likelihood of a spine reoperation for any indication following lumbar fusion, but it was not associated with 90-day all cause readmission, surgical readmission, the magnitude of improvement in PROMs, or differences in opioid consumption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

A Short-Term Assessment of Lumbar Sagittal Alignment Parameters in Patients Undergoing Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine if intraoperative on-table lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL) coincide with perioperative change in lordosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Improvements in sagittal alignment are believed to correlate with improvements in clinical outcomes. Thus, it is important to establish whether intraoperative radiographs predict postoperative improvements in LL or SL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥18 years old who underwent single-level and two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation between 2016 and 2020. LL, SL, and the lordosis distribution index were compared between preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative radiographs using paired t tests. A linear regression determined the effect of subsidence on SL and LL. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those, 75 patients had one-level fusions and 43 had a two-level fusion. LL significantly increased following on-table positioning [delta (Δ): 5.7°, P <0.001]. However, LL significantly decreased between the intraoperative to postoperative radiographs at two to six weeks (Δ: -3.4°, P =0.001), while no change was identified between the intraoperative and more than three-month postoperative radiographs (Δ: -1.6°, P =0.143). SL was found to significantly increase from the preoperative to intraoperative radiographs (Δ: 10.9°, P <0.001), but it subsequently decreased at the two to six weeks follow up (Δ: -2.7, P <0.001) and at the final follow up (Δ: -4.1, P <0.001). On linear regression, cage subsidence/allograft resorption was predictive of the Δ SL (ß=0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.94; P =0.006), but not LL (ß=0.10; 95% confidence interval: -0.44 to 0.65; P =0.708). CONCLUSION: Early postoperative radiographs may not accurately reflect the improvement in LL seen on intraoperative radiographic imaging, but they are predictive of long-term lumbar sagittal alignment. Each millimeter of cage subsidence or allograft resorption reduces SL by 0.55°, but subsidence does not significantly affect LL. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Cefazolin prophylaxis in spine surgery: patients are frequently underdosed and at increased risk for infection.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Perioperative antibiotics are critical in reducing the risk of postoperative spine infections. However, the efficacy and optimal weight-based prophylactic cefazolin dosing is unclear. PURPOSE: To determine (1) if inadequate weight-based prophylactic dosing of cefazolin affects infection rates after spinal fusions, and (2) identify the optimal dosing of cefazolin. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single center retrospective cohort PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing posterior cervical or lumbar spinal fusion between January 2000 and October 2020 OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative surgical site infection status METHODS: Patients were grouped based on our institutionally derived dosing adequacy standards, 1 g for <60 kg, 2 g for 60 to 120 kg, and 3 g for >120 kg. Univariate comparisons and multivariate regressions identified the effect of inadequate dosing on infection rate. Patients were subsequently regrouped into cefazolin dose (grams) administered and logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were compiled to determine the probability of infection based on cefazolin dose and patient weight. Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 2,643 patients met inclusion criteria and 95 infections (3.6%) were identified. The infection rate was higher in the inadequate dosing group (5.86% vs. 2.58%, p<.001). Adequate dosing was a predictor of decreased infections after lumbar fusion (OR: 0.43, p<.001), but not posterior cervical fusions (OR: 0.47, p=.065). Patients were subsequently regrouped into 1 g or 2 g of cefazolin administered resulting in a 5.01% and 2.77% infection rate, respectively (p=.005). The area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval for one (0.850 [0.777-0.924]) and two (0.575 [0.493-0.657]) g of cefazolin demonstrated lower infection rates for patients given 2 g cefazolin. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving an inadequate weight-based dose of preoperative cefazolin had an increased risk of infection following spinal fusion surgery. Two grams prophylactic cefazolin significantly reduces the likelihood of infection.