Developing nonlinear k-nearest neighbors classification algorithms to identify patients at high risk of increased length of hospital stay following spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Spondylolisthesis is a common operative disease in the United States, but robust predictive models for patient outcomes remain limited. The development of models that accurately predict postoperative outcomes would be useful to help identify patients at risk of complicated postoperative courses and determine appropriate healthcare and resource utilization for patients. As such, the purpose of this study was to develop k-nearest neighbors (KNN) classification algorithms to identify patients at increased risk for extended hospital length of stay (LOS) following neurosurgical intervention for spondylolisthesis. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) spondylolisthesis data set was queried for patients receiving either decompression alone or decompression plus fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Preoperative and perioperative variables were queried, and Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed to identify which variables would be included in the machine learning models. Two KNN models were implemented (k = 25) with a standard training set of 60%, validation set of 20%, and testing set of 20%, one with arthrodesis status (model 1) and the other without (model 2). Feature scaling was implemented during the preprocessing stage to standardize the independent features. RESULTS: Of 608 enrolled patients, 544 met prespecified inclusion criteria. The mean age of all patients was 61.9 ± 12.1 years (± SD), and 309 (56.8%) patients were female. The model 1 KNN had an overall accuracy of 98.1%, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 84.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 97.9%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. Additionally, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for model 1, showing an overall area under the curve (AUC) of 0.998. Model 2 had an overall accuracy of 99.1%, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 92.3%, PPV of 99.0%, and NPV of 100%, with the same ROC AUC of 0.998. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings demonstrate that nonlinear KNN machine learning models have incredibly high predictive value for LOS. Important predictor variables include diabetes, osteoporosis, socioeconomic quartile, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss during surgery, patient educational status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, BMI, insurance status, smoking status, sex, and age. These models may be considered for external validation by spine surgeons to aid in patient selection and management, resource utilization, and preoperative surgical planning.

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis: 5-year follow-up from the prospective multicenter Quality Outcomes Database registry.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been used to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and is associated with expedited recovery, reduced operative blood loss, and shorter hospitalizations compared to those with traditional open TLIF. However, the impact of MI-TLIF on long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is less clear. Here, the authors compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF to those of traditional open TLIF for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 60 months postoperatively. METHODS: The authors utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who had undergone single-segment surgery via an MI or open TLIF method. PROs were compared 60 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes included the numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP), NRS for leg pain (NRS-LP), EQ-5D, North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction, and cumulative reoperation rate. Multivariable models were constructed to assess the impact of MI-TLIF on PROs, adjusting for variables reaching p < 0.20 on univariable analyses and respective baseline PRO values. RESULTS: The study included 297 patients, 72 (24.2%) of whom had undergone MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) of whom had undergone open TLIF. The 60-month follow-up rates were similar for the two cohorts (86.1% vs 75.6%, respectively; p = 0.06). Patients did not differ significantly at baseline for ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or EQ-5D (p > 0.05 for all). Perioperatively, MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 ml, p < 0.001) and longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 minutes, p < 0.001) but had similar lengths of hospitalizations (MI-TLIF 2.9 ± 1.8 vs open TLIF 3.3 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.08). Discharge disposition to home or home health was similar (MI-TLIF 93.1% vs open TLIF 91.1%, p = 0.60). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for the 60-month ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF, compared to open TLIF, was associated with similar 60-month ODI, ODI change, odds of reaching ODI minimum clinically important difference, NRS-BP, NRS-BP change, NRS-LP, NRS-LP change, EQ-5D, EQ-5D change, and NASS satisfaction (adjusted p > 0.05 for all). The 60-month reoperation rates did not differ significantly (MI-TLIF 5.6% vs open TLIF 11.6%, p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: For symptomatic, single-level grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with decreased blood loss perioperatively, but there was no difference in 60-month outcomes for disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, or satisfaction between MI and open TLIF. There was no difference in cumulative reoperation rates between the two procedures. These results suggest that in appropriately selected patients, either procedure may be employed depending on patient and surgeon preferences.

Three-level ACDF versus 3-level laminectomy and fusion: are there differences in outcomes? An analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database cervical spondylotic myelopathy cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to compare 3-level anterior with posterior fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: The authors analyzed prospective data from the 14 highest enrolling sites of the Quality Outcomes Database CSM module. They compared 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) surgical procedures, excluding surgical procedures crossing the cervicothoracic junction. Rates of reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared at 24 months postoperatively. Multivariable analyses adjusted for potential confounders elucidated in univariable analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 199 patients met the inclusion criteria: 123 ACDF (61.8%) and 76 PCF (38.2%) patients. The 24-month follow-up rates were similar (ACDF 90.2% vs PCF 92.1%, p = 0.67). Preoperatively, ACDF patients were younger (60.8 ± 10.2 vs 65.0 ± 10.3 years, p < 0.01), and greater proportions were privately insured (56.1% vs 36.8%, p = 0.02), actively employed (39.8% vs 22.8%, p = 0.04), and independently ambulatory (14.6% vs 31.6%, p < 0.01). Otherwise, the cohorts had equivalent baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS)-arm pain, NRS-neck pain, and EQ-5D scores (p > 0.05). ACDF patients had reduced hospitalization length (1.6 vs 3.9 days, p < 0.01) and a greater proportion had nonroutine discharge (7.3% vs 22.8%, p < 0.01), but they had a higher rate of postoperative dysphagia (13.5% vs 3.5%, p = 0.049). Compared with baseline values, both groups demonstrated improvements in all outcomes at 24 months (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, after controlling for age, insurance payor, employment status, ambulation status, and other potential clinically relevant confounders, ACDF was associated with a greater proportion of patients with maximum satisfaction on the North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index (NASS) (NASS score of 1) at 24 months (69.4% vs 53.7%, OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.17-5.09, adjusted p = 0.02). Otherwise, the cohorts shared similar 24-month outcomes in terms of reaching the MCID for mJOA, NDI, NRS-arm pain, NRS-neck pain, and EQ-5D score (adjusted p > 0.05). There were no differences in the 3-month readmission (ACDF 4.1% vs PCF 3.9%, p = 0.97) and 24-month reoperation (ACDF 13.5% vs PCF 18.6%, p = 0.36) rates. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort limited to 3-level fusion surgical procedures, ACDF was associated with reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization length, and higher routine home discharge rates; however, PCF resulted in lower rates of postoperative dysphagia. The procedures yielded comparably significant improvements in functional status (mJOA score), neck and arm pain, neck pain-related disability, and quality of life at 3, 12, and 24 months. ACDF patients had significantly higher odds of maximum satisfaction (NASS score 1). Given comparable outcomes, patients should be counseled on each approach's complication profile to aid in surgical decision-making.

Greater improvement in Neck Disability Index scores in women after surgery for cervical myelopathy: an analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: There is a high prevalence of cervical myelopathy that requires surgery; as such, it is important to identify how different groups benefit from surgery. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons launched the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospective longitudinal registry, that includes demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome data to measure the safety and quality of neurosurgical procedures. In this study, the authors assessed the impact of gender on patient-reported outcomes in patients who underwent surgery for cervical myelopathy. METHODS: The authors analyzed 1152 patients who underwent surgery for cervical myelopathy and were included in the QOD cervical module. Univariate comparison of baseline patient characteristics between males and females who underwent surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy was performed. Baseline characteristics that significantly differed between males and females were included in a multivariate generalized linear model comparing baseline and 1-year postoperative Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. RESULTS: This study included 546 females and 604 males. Females demonstrated significantly greater improvement in NDI score 1 year after surgery (p = 0.036). In addition to gender, the presence of axial neck pain and insurance status were also significantly predictive of improvement in NDI score after surgery (p = 0.0013 and p = 0.0058, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Females were more likely to benefit from surgery for cervical myelopathy compared with males. It is important to identify gender differences in postoperative outcomes after surgery in order to deliver more personalized and patient-centric care.

Which supervised machine learning algorithm can best predict achievement of minimum clinically important difference in neck pain after surgery in patients with cervical myelopathy? A QOD study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of different supervised machine learning algorithms to predict achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain after surgery in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database CSM cohort. The data set was divided into an 80% training and a 20% test set. Various supervised learning algorithms (including logistic regression, support vector machine, decision tree, random forest, extra trees, gaussian naïve Bayes, k-nearest neighbors, multilayer perceptron, and extreme gradient boosted trees) were evaluated on their performance to predict achievement of MCID in neck pain at 3 and 24 months after surgery, given a set of predicting baseline features. Model performance was assessed with accuracy, F1 score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, precision, recall/sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: In total, 535 patients (46.9%) achieved MCID for neck pain at 3 months and 569 patients (49.9%) achieved it at 24 months. In each follow-up cohort, 501 patients (93.6%) were satisfied at 3 months after surgery and 569 patients (100%) were satisfied at 24 months after surgery. Of the supervised machine learning algorithms tested, logistic regression demonstrated the best accuracy (3 months: 0.76 ± 0.031, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.044), followed by F1 score (3 months: 0.759 ± 0.019, 24 months: 0.777 ± 0.039) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (3 months: 0.762 ± 0.027, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.043) at predicting achievement of MCID for neck pain at both follow-up time points, with fair performance. The best precision was also demonstrated by logistic regression at 3 (0.724 ± 0.058) and 24 (0.780 ± 0.097) months. The best recall/sensitivity was demonstrated by multilayer perceptron at 3 months (0.841 ± 0.094) and by extra trees at 24 months (0.817 ± 0.115). Highest specificity was shown by support vector machine at 3 months (0.952 ± 0.013) and by logistic regression at 24 months (0.747 ± 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate selection of models for studies should be based on the strengths of each model and the aims of the studies. For maximally predicting true achievement of MCID in neck pain, of all the predictions in this balanced data set the appropriate metric for the authors' study was precision. For both short- and long-term follow-ups, logistic regression demonstrated the highest precision of all models tested. Logistic regression performed consistently the best of all models tested and remains a powerful model for clinical classification tasks.

Safety and efficacy of low-dose rhBMP-2 use for anterior cervical fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) in routine anterior cervical fusion (ACF) is controversial. Early reports described high complication rates. A variety of dosing regimens ranging from 0.6 to 2.1 mg per level fused have been reported. The authors hypothesized that the high amounts of rhBMP-2 used in these studies led to the high complication rates observed; therefore, they set out to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low-dose rhBMP-2 for use in ACFs. METHODS: Patient inclusion criteria were 1) age 18 to 70 years; 2) initial stand-alone ACF construct; 3) fusion augmentation with rhBMP-2; and 4) at least 1 year of radiographic follow-up. A successful fusion was defined by either 1) lateral flexion-extension radiographs with less than 1 mm of movement across the fused spinous processes, or 2) bone bridging at least half of the fusion area originally achieved by surgery on fine-cut CT. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Sixty-two patients (31%) were smokers. The median number of levels fused was 2 (IQR 1.25). The mean dose of rhBMP-2 was 0.50 ± 0.09 mg per level. Twenty-two (11%) patients experienced dysphagia. Eleven (6%) patients experienced cervical swelling. Two (1%) patients returned to the operating room (OR) for postoperative hematoma. One (0.5%) patient returned to the OR for seroma. Two (1%) patients experienced pseudarthrosis requiring a posterior fusion. Three (2%) patients experienced a new postoperative neurological deficit that had recovered by last the follow-up. Overall, 190 (96%) patients experienced solid arthrodesis over an average of 15 months of follow-up. There was no difference in fusion rates between patients who were either smokers or nonsmokers (p = 0.7073). CONCLUSIONS: The use of low-dose rhBMP-2 safely and effectively augmented anterior cervical arthrodesis. The low-dose protocol assessed in this study appeared to significantly reduce complications associated with rhBMP-2 use in ACF compared with the literature. The authors have determined that using low-dose rhBMP-2 in patients who are smokers, those with multilevel ACFs, or others at high risk of developing pseudarthrosis is recommended.

Quality Outcomes Database Spine Care Project 2012-2020: milestones achieved in a collaborative North American outcomes registry to advance value-based spine care and evolution to the American Spine Registry.

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N2QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: "1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated 'risk models' to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies." The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

Correlation of return to work with patient satisfaction after surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis: an analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: Return to work (RTW) and satisfaction are important outcome measures after surgery for degenerative spine disease. The authors queried the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) to determine if RTW correlated with patient satisfaction. METHODS: The QOD was queried for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The primary outcome of interest was correlation between RTW and patient satisfaction, as measured by the North American Spine Society patient satisfaction index (NASS). Secondarily, data on satisfied patients were analyzed to see what patient factors correlated with RTW. RESULTS: Of 608 total patients in the QOD spondylolisthesis data set, there were 292 patients for whom data were available on both satisfaction and RTW status. Of these, 249 (85.3%) were satisfied with surgery (NASS score 1-2), and 224 (76.7%) did RTW after surgery. Of the 68 patients who did not RTW after surgery, 49 (72.1%) were still satisfied with surgery. Of the 224 patients who did RTW, 24 (10.7%) were unsatisfied with surgery (NASS score 3-4). There were significantly more people who had an NASS score of 1 in the RTW group than in the non-RTW group (71.4% vs 42.6%, p < 0.05). Failure to RTW was associated with lower level of education, worse baseline back pain (measured with a numeric rating scale), and worse baseline disability (measured with the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]). CONCLUSIONS: There are a substantial number of patients who are satisfied with surgery even though they did not RTW. Patients who were satisfied with surgery and did not RTW typically had worse preoperative back pain and ODI and typically did not have a college education. While RTW remains an important measure after surgery, physicians should be mindful that patients who do not RTW may still be satisfied with their outcome.

Predictive model for long-term patient satisfaction after surgery for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: insights from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVESince the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, providers and hospitals have increasingly prioritized patient-centered outcomes such as patient satisfaction in an effort to adapt the "value"-based healthcare model. In the current study, the authors queried a prospectively maintained multiinstitutional spine registry to construct a predictive model for long-term patient satisfaction among patients undergoing surgery for Meyerding grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016. The primary outcome of interest for the current study was patient satisfaction as measured by the North American Spine Surgery patient satisfaction index, which is measured on a scale of 1-4, with 1 indicating most satisfied and 4 indicating least satisfied. In order to identify predictors of higher satisfaction, the authors fitted a multivariable proportional odds logistic regression model for ≥ 2 years of patient satisfaction after adjusting for an array of clinical and patient-specific factors. The absolute importance of each covariate in the model was computed using an importance metric defined as Wald chi-square penalized by the predictor degrees of freedom.RESULTSA total of 502 patients, out of a cohort of 608 patients (82.5%) with grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis, undergoing either 1- or 2-level decompression (22.5%, n = 113) or 1-level decompression and fusion (77.5%, n = 389), met the inclusion criteria; of these, 82.1% (n = 412) were satisfied after 2 years. On univariate analysis, satisfied patients were more likely to be employed and working (41.7%, n = 172, vs 24.4%, n = 22; overall p = 0.001), more likely to present with predominant leg pain (23.1%, n = 95, vs 11.1%, n = 10; overall p = 0.02) but more likely to present with lower Numeric Rating Scale score for leg pain (median and IQR score: 7 [5-9] vs 8 [6-9]; p = 0.05). Multivariable proportional odds logistic regression revealed that older age (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09-2.76; p = 0.009), preoperative active employment (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.27-3.67; p = 0.015), and fusion surgery (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.30-4.06; p = 0.002) were the most important predictors of achieving satisfaction with surgical outcome.CONCLUSIONSCurrent findings from a large multiinstitutional study indicate that most patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis achieved long-term satisfaction. Moreover, the authors found that older age, preoperative active employment, and fusion surgery are associated with higher odds of achieving satisfaction.

A comparison of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and decompression alone for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVEThe optimal minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approach for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis is not clearly elucidated. In this study, the authors compared the 24-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and MIS decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.METHODSA total of 608 patients from 12 high-enrolling sites participating in the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) lumbar spondylolisthesis module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis, of whom 143 underwent MIS (72 MIS TLIF [50.3%] and 71 MIS decompression [49.7%]). Surgeries were classified as MIS if there was utilization of percutaneous screw fixation and placement of a Wiltse plane MIS intervertebral body graft (MIS TLIF) or if there was a tubular decompression (MIS decompression). Parameters obtained at baseline through at least 24 months of follow-up were collected. PROs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain, NRS for leg pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction questionnaire. Multivariate models were constructed to adjust for patient characteristics, surgical variables, and baseline PRO values.RESULTSThe mean age of the MIS cohort was 67.1 ± 11.3 years (MIS TLIF 62.1 years vs MIS decompression 72.3 years) and consisted of 79 (55.2%) women (MIS TLIF 55.6% vs MIS decompression 54.9%). The proportion in each cohort reaching the 24-month follow-up did not differ significantly between the cohorts (MIS TLIF 83.3% and MIS decompression 84.5%, p = 0.85). MIS TLIF was associated with greater blood loss (mean 108.8 vs 33.0 ml, p < 0.001), longer operative time (mean 228.2 vs 101.8 minutes, p < 0.001), and longer length of hospitalization (mean 2.9 vs 0.7 days, p < 0.001). MIS TLIF was associated with a significantly lower reoperation rate (14.1% vs 1.4%, p = 0.004). Both cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, and EQ-5D at 24 months (p < 0.001, all comparisons relative to baseline). In multivariate analyses, MIS TLIF-as opposed to MIS decompression alone-was associated with superior ODI change (ß = -7.59, 95% CI -14.96 to -0.23; p = 0.04), NRS back pain change (ß = -1.54, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.30; p = 0.02), and NASS satisfaction (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12-0.82; p = 0.02).CONCLUSIONSFor symptomatic, single-level degenerative spondylolisthesis, MIS TLIF was associated with a lower reoperation rate and superior outcomes for disability, back pain, and patient satisfaction compared with posterior MIS decompression alone. This finding may aid surgical decision-making when considering MIS for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Women fare best following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparison of the most and least satisfied patients utilizing data from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE The American Association of Neurological Surgeons launched the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospective longitudinal registry that includes demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) data, to measure the safety and quality of neurosurgical procedures, including spinal surgery. Differing results from recent randomized controlled trials have established a need to clarify the groups that would most benefit from surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. In the present study, the authors compared patients who were the most and the least satisfied following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective, national longitudinal registry including patients who had undergone surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The most and least satisfied patients were identified based on an answer of "1" and "4," respectively, on the North American Spine Society (NASS) Satisfaction Questionnaire 12 months postoperatively. Baseline demographics, clinical variables, surgical parameters, and outcomes were collected. Patient-reported outcome measures, including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back pain, NRS for leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D (the EuroQol health survey), were administered at baseline and 3 and 12 months after treatment. RESULTS Four hundred seventy-seven patients underwent surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in the period from July 2014 through December 2015. Two hundred fifty-five patients (53.5%) were the most satisfied and 26 (5.5%) were the least satisfied. Compared with the most satisfied patients, the least satisfied ones more often had coronary artery disease (CAD; 26.9% vs 12.2%, p = 0.04) and had higher body mass indices (32.9 ± 6.5 vs 30.0 ± 6.0 kg/m2, p = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, female sex (OR 2.9, p = 0.02) was associated with the most satisfaction. Notably, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, smoking, psychiatric comorbidity, and employment status were not significantly associated with satisfaction. Although there were no significant differences at baseline, the most satisfied patients had significantly lower NRS back and leg pain and ODI scores and a greater EQ-5D score at 3 and 12 months postoperatively (p < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS This study revealed that some patient factors differ between those who report the most and those who report the least satisfaction after surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Patients reporting the least satisfaction tended to have CAD or were obese. Female sex was associated with the most satisfaction when adjusting for potential covariates. These findings highlight several key factors that could aid in setting expectations for outcomes following surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Defining the minimum clinically important difference for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: insights from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a pivotal role in defining the value of surgical interventions for spinal disease. The concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is considered the new standard for determining the effectiveness of a given treatment and describing patient satisfaction in response to that treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine the MCID associated with surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS The authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database registry from July 2014 through December 2015 for patients who underwent posterior lumbar surgery for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. Recorded PROs included scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, and numeric rating scale (NRS) for leg pain (NRS-LP) and back pain (NRS-BP). Anchor-based (using the North American Spine Society satisfaction scale) and distribution-based (half a standard deviation, small Cohen's effect size, standard error of measurement, and minimum detectable change [MDC]) methods were used to calculate the MCID for each PRO. RESULTS A total of 441 patients (80 who underwent laminectomies alone and 361 who underwent fusion procedures) from 11 participating sites were included in the analysis. The changes in functional outcome scores between baseline and the 1-year postoperative evaluation were as follows: 23.5 ± 17.4 points for ODI, 0.24 ± 0.23 for EQ-5D, 4.1 ± 3.5 for NRS-LP, and 3.7 ± 3.2 for NRS-BP. The different calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each PRO: 3.3-26.5 points for ODI, 0.04-0.3 points for EQ-5D, 0.6-4.5 points for NRS-LP, and 0.5-4.2 points for NRS-BP. The MDC approach appeared to be the most appropriate for calculating MCID because it provided a threshold greater than the measurement error and was closest to the average change difference between the satisfied and not-satisfied patients. On subgroup analysis, the MCID thresholds for laminectomy-alone patients were comparable to those for the patients who underwent arthrodesis as well as for the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS The MCID for PROs was highly variable depending on the calculation technique. The MDC seems to be a statistically and clinically sound method for defining the appropriate MCID value for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Based on this method, the MCID values are 14.3 points for ODI, 0.2 points for EQ-5D, 1.7 points for NRS-LP, and 1.6 points for NRS-BP.

Patient expectations impact patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prior studies suggest that patient expectations impact postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). However, no consensus exists on an appropriate expectations tool. PURPOSE: To examine the impact of patient expectations using a modified version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction 1 year after lumbar fusion for degenerative pathologies. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adults undergoing 1 to 2 level lumbar fusion were identified from four tertiaty spine centers. OUTCOME MEASURES: ODI, EuroQol-5D, Numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. METHODS: Preoperatively, patients completed the ODI, as well as a modified ODI reflecting their expected improvement across the 10 ODI items. For example, item 1 in the ODI asks about Pain Intensity at the moment whereas the Expectations ODI asks "One year after surgery, I expect to have…" The difference between this modified ODI score and the baseline ODI score (Baseine ODI minus Expectations ODI) was defined as the Patient Expectation Score. Patients were stratified into tertiles based on their Expectations score into High (HE), Moderate (ME), and Low (LE) Expectations and compared. RESULTS: There were 30 patients in the HE, 35 in the ME, and 26 in the LE Group, with similar demographics and surgical parameters. Patients in the HE group had worse ODI scores preoperatively (54.96 vs 41.42, p<.001) and were expecting a greater improvement in ODI (43.8 vs 13.5, p<.001). There were fewer patients in the HE group (13, 43%) who reported that they were satisfied with the results compared to either the ME (20, 71%) or LE group (22, 85%, p=.041) despite having similar ODI scores and change in ODI scores 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSION: An expectations tool, linked to a disease-specific measure may provide the clinician with a practical method of assessing a patient's expectation of results after treatment and aid in the shared decision-making during the preoperative surgical process.

A comparison of dysphagia rates between long-segment anterior versus posterior cervical fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare rates of dysphagia and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following long-segment (≥ 3 levels) anterior cervical spinal fusion (ACF) and posterior cervical spinal fusion (PCF) at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. PROs were also compared for patients with dysphagia versus those without dysphagia. METHODS: A prospectively collected quality improvement database was used to identify patients who had a long-segment cervical spinal fusion. Cohorts were divided into ACF and PCF groups. Eating Assessment Tool-10 scores and PROs were obtained for all patients preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively to compare. Multivariate analysis was also performed to evaluate risk factors for dysphagia. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients met the inclusion criteria, 77 of whom had undergone ACF and 55 of whom had undergone PCF. Dysphagia rates between ACF and PCF cohorts were similar at baseline (13.0% vs 18.2%, p = 0.4). New-onset dysphagia rates were also comparable at 3-month follow-up (39.7% vs 23.1%, p = 0.08) and 12-month follow-up (32.6% vs 32.4%, p > 0.99). Patients who underwent PCF had worse Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores at 3 months than did patients with ACF (13.67 ± 9.49 vs 10.55 ± 6.24, respectively; p = 0.03). There were significantly higher NDI scores for patients with dysphagia at 3 months in both the ACF and PCF groups and at 12 months for those in the PCF group. Analogously, EuroQol-5 Dimensions scores were worse for patients with dysphagia; however, this was only significant for patients in the ACF group at 3 months. There were no significant risk factors for the development of dysphagia found on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Similar rates and severity of dysphagia were seen following ACF and PCF at 3- and 12-month follow-up. This suggests that long-term dysphagia following cervical fusion surgery may be due to structural changes from the fusion rather than the surgical approach. However, the ACF cohort was significantly younger, and this may have partially accounted for the findings. PROs were also compared for patients with and without dysphagia, demonstrating worsened outcomes in some domains for patients who presented with dysphagia at 3- and 12-month follow-up. This suggests that dysphagia may be associated with a decreased quality of life after cervical fusion.

A Sodium Oxychlorosene-Based Infection Prevention Protocol Safely Decreases Postoperative Wound Infections in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to determine the efficacy of a complex multi-institutional sodium oxychlorosene-based infection protocol for decreasing the rate of surgical site infection after instrumented spinal surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Infection prevention protocols have not been previously studied in ASD patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent posterior instrumented spinal fusion of the thoracic or lumbar spine for deformity correction between January 1, 2011, and May 31, 2019. The efficacy of a multi-modal infection prevention protocol was examined. The infection prevention bundle consisted of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus testing, chlorhexidine gluconate bathing preoperatively, sodium oxychlorosene rinse, vancomycin powder placement, and surgical drain placement at the time of surgery. RESULTS: About 254 patients fit the inclusion criteria. Among these patients, nine (3.5%) experienced post-surgical deep-wound infection. Demographics and surgical characteristics amongst infected and non-infected cohorts were similar, although diabetes trended towards being more prevalent in patients who developed a postoperative wound infection (p=0.07). Among 222 patients (87.4%) who achieved a minimum of two years of follow-ups, 184 patients (82.9%) experienced successful fusion, comparing favorably with pseudarthrosis rates in the ASD literature. Rates of pseudarthrosis and proximal junction kyphosis were similar amongst infected and non-infected patients. CONCLUSION: An intraoperative comprehensive sodium oxychlorosene-based infection prevention protocol helped to provide a low rate of infection after major deformity correction without negatively impacting other postoperative procedure-related metrics.

Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty Versus Fusion for Grade-I Degenerative Spondylolisthesis with Stenosis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty versus decompression plus instrumented lumbar spinal fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial, we assigned patients who had single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis to undergo decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty (arthroplasty group) or decompression plus fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a predetermined composite clinical success score. Secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Short Form (SF)-12, radiographic parameters, surgical variables, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 321 adult patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with 219 patients assigned to undergo facet arthroplasty and 102 patients assigned to undergo fusion. Of these, 113 patients (51.6%) in the arthroplasty group and 47 (46.1%) in the fusion group who had either reached 24 months of postoperative follow-up or were deemed early clinical failures were included in the primary outcome analysis. The arthroplasty group had a higher proportion of patients who achieved composite clinical success than did the fusion group (73.5% versus 25.5%; p < 0.001), equating to a between-group difference of 47.9% (95% confidence interval, 33.0% to 62.8%). The arthroplasty group outperformed the fusion group in most patient-reported outcome measures (including the ODI, VAS back pain, and all ZCQ component scores) at 24 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups in surgical variables or complications, except that the fusion group had a higher rate of developing symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis, lumbar facet arthroplasty was associated with a higher rate of composite clinical success than fusion was at 24 months postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Predictors of Delayed Clinical Benefit Following Surgical Treatment for Low Grade Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To investigate what factors predict delayed improvement after surgical treatment of low grade spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar surgery leads to clinical improvement in the majority of patients with low grade spondylolisthesis. Most patients improve rapidly after surgery, but some patients demonstrate a delayed clinical course. METHODS: The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for grade 1 spondylolisthesis patients who underwent surgery who had patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-months, including back and leg pain numeric rating scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Patients were stratified as "Early responders" reaching MCID at 3 months and maintaining improvement through 12 months and "Delayed responders" not reaching MCID at 3 months but ultimately reaching MCID at 12 months. These two groups were compared with respect to factors which predicted delayed improvement. RESULTS: Of 608 patients enrolled, 436 (72%) met inclusion criteria for this study. Overall, 317 patients (72.7%) reached MCID for ODI at 12 months following surgery. Of these patients, 249 (78.5%) exhibited a rapid clinical improvement trajectory and had achieved ODI MCID threshold by the 3-month postop follow-up. 68 patients (21.4%) showed a delayed trajectory, and had not achieved ODI MCID threshold at 3 months, but did ultimately reach MCID at 12-month follow-up. Factors associated with delayed improvement included impaired preoperative ambulatory status, better baseline back and leg pain scores, and worse 3-month leg pain scores (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing surgery for low grade spondylolisthesis reach ODI MCID threshold rapidly, within the first three months after surgery. Factors associated with a delayed clinical course include impaired preoperative ambulation status, relatively better preoperative back and leg pain, and persistent leg pain at 3 months.

Does comorbid depression and anxiety portend poor long-term outcomes following surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis? Five-year analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: Depression and anxiety are associated with poor outcomes following spine surgery. However, the influence of these conditions on achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following lumbar spine surgery, as well as the potential compounding effects of comorbid depression and anxiety, is not well understood. This study explores the impact of comorbid depression and anxiety on long-term clinical outcomes following surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of the multicenter, prospectively collected Quality Outcomes Database (QOD). Patients with surgically treated grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis from 12 centers were included. Preoperative baseline characteristics and comorbidities were recorded, including self-reported depression and/or anxiety. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded: the numeric rating scale (NRS) score for back pain (NRS-BP), NRS score for leg pain (NRS-LP), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. Patients were grouped into 3 cohorts: no self-reported depression or anxiety (non-SRD/A), self-reported depression or anxiety (SRD/A), or presence of both comorbidities (SRD+A). Changes in PROs over time, satisfaction rates, and rates of MCID were compared. A multivariable regression analysis was performed to establish independent associations. RESULTS: Of the 608 patients, there were 452 (74.3%) with non-SRD/A, 81 (13.3%) with SRD/A, and 75 (12.3%) with SRD+A. Overall, 91.8% and 80.4% of patients had ≥ 24 and ≥ 60 months of follow-up, respectively. Baseline PROs were universally inferior for the SRD+A cohort. However, at 60-month follow-up, changes in all PROs were greatest for the SRD+A cohort, resulting in nonsignificant differences in absolute NRS-BP, NRS-LP, ODI, and EQ-5D across the 3 groups. MCID was achieved for the SRD+A cohort at similar rates to the non-SRD/A cohort. All groups achieved > 80% satisfaction rates with surgery without significant differences across the cohorts (p = 0.79). On multivariable regression, comorbid depression and anxiety were associated with worse baseline PROs, but they had no impact on 60-month PROs or 60-month achievement of MCIDs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite lower baseline PROs, patients with comorbid depression and anxiety achieved comparable rates of MCID and satisfaction after surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis to those without either condition. This quality-of-life benefit was durable at 5-year follow-up. These data suggest that patients with self-reported comorbid depression and anxiety should not be excluded from consideration of surgical intervention and often substantially benefit from surgery.

Impact of educational background on preoperative disease severity and postoperative outcomes among patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis: a Quality Outcomes Database study.

OBJECTIVE: Deficiency in patient education has been correlated with increased disease-related morbidity and decreased access to care. However, the associations between educational level, preoperative disease severity, and postoperative outcomes in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis have yet to be explored. METHODS: The spondylolisthesis dataset of the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD)-a cohort with prospectively collected data by the SpineCORe study team of the 12 highest enrolling sites with an 81% follow-up at 5 years -was utilized and stratified for educational level. Patients were classified into three categories (high school or less, graduate, or postgraduate). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) documented at baseline and follow-up included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, EQ-5D in quality-adjusted life years, and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain. Disease severity was measured with PROMs. Postoperatively, patients also completed the North American Spine Society assessment to measure their satisfaction with surgery. Multivariable regression analysis was used to compare education level with disease severity and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent analysis, with 260 individuals (42.8%) at an educational level of high school or less. On univariate analysis, baseline disease severity was worse among patients with lower levels of education. On multivariable regression analysis, patients with postgraduate level of education had significantly lower ODI scores (ß = -3.75, 95% CI -7.31 to -0.2, p = 0.039) compared to graduates, while the other PROMs were not associated with significant differences at baseline. Five years postoperatively, patients from various educational backgrounds exhibited similar rates of minimal clinically important differences in PROMs. Nevertheless, patients with the lowest educational level had higher ODI scores (27.1, p < 0.01), lower EQ-5D scores (0.701, p < 0.01), and higher NRS leg pain (3.0, p < 0.01) and back pain (4.0, p < 0.01) scores compared to those with graduate or postgraduate levels of education. The odds for postoperative satisfaction were also comparable between cohorts at 5 years (reference, graduate level; high school or less, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46-1.64, p = 0.659; postgraduate, OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.7-3.65, p = 0.262). CONCLUSIONS: Lower patient education level was associated with a greater baseline disease severity in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Surgery demonstrated similar benefits irrespective of educational background; however, individuals with lower educational level reported lower outcomes overall. This emphasizes the need for enhanced health literacy to mitigate disparities for reported outcomes.