High-Impact Chronic Pain Transition in Lumbar Surgery Recipients.

OBJECTIVE: High-impact chronic pain (HICP) is a term that characterizes the presence of a severe and troubling pain-related condition. To date, the prevalence of HICP in lumbar spine surgery recipients and their HICP transitions from before to after surgery are unexplored. The purpose was to define HICP prevalence, transition types, and outcomes in lumbar spine surgery recipients and to identify predictors of HICP outcomes. METHODS: In total, 43,536 lumbar surgery recipients were evaluated for HICP transition. Lumbar spine surgery recipients were categorized as having HICP preoperatively and at 3 months after surgery if they exhibited chronic and severe pain and at least one major activity limitation. Four HICP transition groups (Stable Low Pain, Transition from HICP, Transition to HICP, and Stable High Pain) were categorized and evaluated for outcomes. Multivariate multinomial modeling was used to predict HICP transition categorization. RESULTS: In this sample, 15.1% of individuals exhibited HICP preoperatively; this value declined to 5.1% at 3 months after surgery. Those with HICP at baseline and 3 months had more comorbidities and worse overall outcomes. Biological, psychological, and social factors predicted HICP transition or Stable High Pain; some of the strongest involved social factors of 2 or more to transition to HICP (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.21-1.68), and baseline report of pain/disability (OR = 3.84; 95% CI = 3.20-4.61) and psychological comorbidity (OR = 1.78; 95% CI = 1.48-2.12) to Stable Stable High Pain. CONCLUSION: The percentage of individuals with HICP preoperatively (15.1%) was low, which further diminished over a 3-month period (5.1%). Postoperative HICP groups had higher levels of comorbidities and worse baseline outcomes scores. Transition to and maintenance of HICP status was predicted by biological, psychological, and social factors.

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.

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.

Chief complaints and feedback from clinic satisfaction tool: Thematic analysis of a new outpatient communication tool.

OBJECTIVES: Up to half of all patients leave their outpatient clinic visit with an uncommunicated need. We designed the clinic satisfaction tool (CST) as a low-cost, highly utilised assessment of the spine clinic experience that improved communication in our multidisciplinary spine practice. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively analyse chief complaints and feedback from the CSTs to determine how spine clinic patients used the form, identify the most prevalent concerns and mark areas for improvement. METHODS: Institutional retrospective review of CSTs. Chief complaints and feedback were inductively coded to create a framework for patient complaints. RESULTS: 832 patients presented to clinic, and 100 sets of chief complaints coded before reaching thematic saturation. Patients used the chief complaint section of CST to canvas four themes: symptoms, questions about their disease, management and treatment. Twenty-nine patients left mostly positive feedback but also wrote additional concerns about care. CONCLUSION: Spine patients have a predictable pattern of chief complaints and with the CST were able to have all these complaints addressed. The CST efficiently collects practice-specific chief complaints that can be used to guide physician behaviour and design educational clinical tools that are useful for patients.

Initial experience with extreme angle cervical screw for treatment of trauma and cervical spondylosis.

In this study, we have described our initial experience and surgical technique of extreme angle screw placement in the cervical and upper thoracic spine of a cohort of patients undergoing posterior fusion. This extreme angle screw facilitates rod placement without need for any coronal contouring of the rod or offset connectors despite the varied entry site locations for posterior instrumentation and the different trajectories and pathways of these screws. From ruary 2011 to July 2011, extreme angle screws were placed in twenty consecutive adult patients who underwent posterior cervical, occipital-cervical or cervical-thoracic fusions. The primary diagnosis was cervical spondylotic myelopathy (13), trauma (4), and pseudoarthrosis with stenosis (3). Eight patients had gross instability. A total of 196 screws were placed; half of the cases involved instrumentation at or within the C3-7 segments (10) and the others included constructs extending to occipital bone, C2, T1, or T2 (10). Of all twenty cases, there were no perioperative hardware complications. At long-term follow-up, two patients required reoperation, one for hardware failure and the other for single level symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. We conclude that extreme angle screw use in the posterior cervical spine provides an evolution in posterior instrumentation that maximizes the biomechanical strength of a construct, allows for easy rod placement, and may improve the restoration of sagittal alignment. Overall, extreme angle screws facilitate rod placement even for screws offset from the natural plane of the rod, thereby avoiding the need for coronal contouring or placement of offset connectors.

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.

Is Upper Extremity or Lower Extremity Function More Important for Patient Satisfaction? An Analysis of 24-Month Outcomes from the QOD Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicenter registry. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether upper or lower limb mJOA improvement more strongly associates with patient satisfaction after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) is commonly used to assess functional status in patients with CSM. Patients present with upper and/or lower extremity dysfunction, and it is unclear whether improvement in one and/or both symptoms drives postoperative patient satisfaction. METHODS: This study utilizes the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM data set. Clinical outcomes included mJOA and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction. The upper limb mJOA score was defined as upper motor plus sensory mJOA, and the lower limb mJOA as lower motor plus sensory mJOA. Ordered logistic regression was used to determine whether upper or lower limb mJOA was more closely associated with NASS satisfaction, adjusting for other covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 1141 patients were enrolled in the QOD CSM cohort. In all, 780 had both preoperative and 24-month mJOA scores, met inclusion criteria, and were included for analysis. The baseline mJOA was 12.1±2.7, and postoperatively, 85.6% would undergo surgery again (NASS 1 or 2, satisfied). Patients exhibited mean improvement in both upper (baseline:3.9±1.4 vs. 24 mo:5.0±1.1, P<0.001) and lower limb mJOA (baseline:3.9±1.4 vs. 24 mon:4.5±1.5, P<0.001); however, the 24-month change in the upper limb mJOA was greater (upper:1.1±1.6 vs. lower:0.6±1.6, P<0.001). Across 24-month NASS satisfaction, the baseline upper and lower limb mJOA scores were similar (pupper=0.28, plower=0.092). However, as satisfaction decreased, the 24-month change in upper and lower limb mJOA decreased as well (pupper<0.001, plower<0.001). Patients with NASS scores of 4 (lowest satisfaction) did not demonstrate significant differences from baseline in upper or lower limb mJOA (P>0.05). In ordered logistic regression, NASS satisfaction was independently associated with upper limb mJOA improvement (OR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.97; P=0.019) but not lower limb mJOA improvement (OR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.70-1.0; P=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: As the magnitude of upper and lower mJOA improvement decreased postoperatively, so too did patient satisfaction with surgical intervention. Upper limb mJOA improvement was a significant independent predictor of patient satisfaction, whereas lower limb mJOA improvement was not. These findings may aid preoperative counseling, stratified by patients' upper and lower extremity treatment expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-III.

What factors influence surgical decision-making in anterior versus posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy? A QOD analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the preoperative patient characteristics that affect surgical decision-making when selecting an anterior or posterior operative approach in patients diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective study of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy module. Patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with primary CSM who underwent multilevel (≥ 2-level) elective surgery were included. Demographics and baseline clinical characteristics were collected. RESULTS: Of the 841 patients with CSM in the database, 492 (58.5%) underwent multilevel anterior surgery and 349 (41.5%) underwent multilevel posterior surgery. Surgeons more often performed a posterior surgical approach in older patients (mean 64.8 ± 10.6 vs 58.5 ± 11.1 years, p < 0.001) and those with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (class III or IV: 52.4% vs 46.3%, p = 0.003), a higher rate of motor deficit (67.0% vs 58.7%, p = 0.014), worse myelopathy (mean modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score 11.4 ± 3.1 vs 12.4 ± 2.6, p < 0.001), and more levels treated (4.3 ± 1.3 vs 2.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). On the other hand, surgeons more frequently performed an anterior surgical approach when patients were employed (47.2% vs 23.2%, p < 0.001) and had intervertebral disc herniation as an underlying pathology (30.7% vs 9.2%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The selection of approach for patients with CSM depends on patient demographics and symptomology. Posterior surgery was performed in patients who were older and had worse systemic disease, increased myelopathy, and greater levels of stenosis. Anterior surgery was more often performed in patients who were employed and had intervertebral disc herniation.

Does diabetes affect outcome or reoperation rate after lumbar decompression or arthrodesis? A matched analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database data set.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a known risk factor for postsurgical and systemic complications after lumbar spinal surgery. Smaller studies have also demonstrated diminished improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), with increased reoperation and readmission rates after lumbar surgery in patients with DM. The authors aimed to examine longer-term PROs in patients with DM undergoing lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. Patients were grouped into DM and non-DM groups and optimally matched in a 1:1 ratio on 31 baseline variables, including the number of operated levels. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 and 90 days after surgery in addition to improvements in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain scores and quality-adjusted life-years at 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: The matched decompression cohort comprised 7836 patients (3236 [41.3] females) with a mean age of 63.5 ± 12.6 years, and the matched arthrodesis cohort comprised 7336 patients (3907 [53.3%] females) with a mean age of 64.8 ± 10.3 years. In patients undergoing lumbar decompression, no significant differences in nonroutine discharge, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, reoperations, and PROs were observed. In patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, nonroutine discharge (15.7% vs 13.4%, p < 0.01), LOS (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.0 ± 3.5 days, p < 0.01), 30-day (6.5% vs 4.4%, p < 0.01) and 90-day (9.1% vs 7.0%, p < 0.01) readmission rates, and the 90-day reoperation rate (4.3% vs 3.2%, p = 0.01) were all significantly higher in the DM group. For DM patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly higher risk of poor surgical outcomes with the open approach. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with and without DM undergoing lumbar spinal decompression alone have comparable readmission and reoperation rates, while those undergoing arthrodesis procedures have a higher risk of poor surgical outcomes up to 90 days after surgery. Surgeons should target optimal DM control preoperatively, particularly for patients undergoing elective lumbar arthrodesis.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy and driving abilities: defining the prevalence and long-term postoperative outcomes using the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) can cause significant difficulty with driving and a subsequent reduction in an individual's quality of life due to neurological deterioration. The positive impact of surgery on postoperative patient-reported driving capabilities has been seldom explored. METHODS: The CSM module of the Quality Outcomes Database was utilized. Patient-reported driving ability was assessed via the driving section of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) questionnaire. This is an ordinal scale in which 0 represents the absence of symptoms while driving and 5 represents a complete inability to drive due to symptoms. Patients were considered to have an impairment in their driving ability if they reported an NDI driving score of 3 or higher (signifying impairment in driving duration due to symptoms). Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate mediators of baseline impairment and improvement at 24 months after surgery, which was defined as an NDI driving score < 3. RESULTS: A total of 1128 patients who underwent surgical intervention for CSM were included, of whom 354 (31.4%) had baseline driving impairment due to CSM. Moderate (OR 2.3) and severe (OR 6.3) neck pain, severe arm pain (OR 1.6), mild-moderate (OR 2.1) and severe (OR 2.5) impairment in hand/arm dexterity, severe impairment in leg use/walking (OR 1.9), and severe impairment of urinary function (OR 1.8) were associated with impaired driving ability at baseline. Of the 291 patients with baseline impairment and available 24-month follow-up data, 209 (71.8%) reported postoperative improvement in their driving ability. This improvement seemed to be mediated particularly through the achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain and improvement in leg function/walking. Patients with improved driving at 24 months noted higher postoperative satisfaction (88.5% vs 62.2%, p < 0.01) and were more likely to achieve a clinically significant improvement in their quality of life (50.7% vs 37.8%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients with CSM report impaired driving ability at presentation. Seventy-two percent of these patients reported improvements in their driving ability within 24 months of surgery. Surgical management of CSM can significantly improve patients' driving abilities at 24 months and hence patients' quality of life.

Comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in radiculopathic patients: an analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between posterior foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients presenting with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had undergone ACDF or posterior foraminotomy for radiculopathy. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal individual matching was performed at a 5:1 ratio between the two groups on 29 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, underlying pathologies, and levels treated). Outcomes of interest were length of stay, reoperations, patient-reported satisfaction, increase in EQ-5D score, and decrease in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores for arm and neck pain as long as 1 year after surgery. Noninferiority analysis of achieving patient satisfaction and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in PROs was performed with an accepted risk difference of 5%. RESULTS: A total of 7805 eligible patients were identified: 216 of these underwent posterior foraminotomy and were matched to 1080 patients who underwent ACDF. The patients who underwent ACDF had more underlying pathologies, lower EQ-5D scores, and higher NDI and neck pain scores at baseline. Posterior foraminotomy was associated with shorter hospitalization (0.5 vs 0.9 days, p < 0.001). Reoperations within 12 months were significantly more common among the posterior foraminotomy group (4.2% vs 1.9%, p = 0.04). The two groups performed similarly in PROs, with posterior foraminotomy being noninferior to ACDF in achieving MCID in EQ-5D and neck pain scores but also having lower rates of maximal satisfaction at 12 months (North American Spine Society score of 1 achieved by 65.2% posterior foraminotomy patients vs 74.6% of ACDF patients, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The two procedures were found to be offered to different populations, with ACDF being selected for patients with more complicated pathologies and symptoms. After individual matching, posterior foraminotomy was associated with a higher reoperation risk within 1 year after surgery compared to ACDF (4.2% vs 1.9%). In terms of 12-month PROs, posterior foraminotomy was noninferior to ACDF in improving quality of life and neck pain. The two procedures also performed similarly in improving NDI scores and arm pain, but ACDF patients had higher maximal satisfaction rates.

Impact of Educational Background on Preoperative Disease Severity and Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. OBJECTIVE: Assess differences in preoperative status and postoperative outcomes among patients of different educational backgrounds undergoing surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patient education level (EL) has been suggested to correlate with health literacy, disease perception, socioeconomic status (SES), and access to health care. METHODS: The CSM data set of the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing surgical management of CSM. EL was grouped as high school or below, graduate-level, and postgraduate level. The association of EL with baseline disease severity (per patient-reported outcome measures), symptoms >3 or ≤3 months, and 24-month patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 1141 patients with CSM, 509 (44.6%) had an EL of high school or below, 471 (41.3%) had a graduate degree, and 161 (14.1%) had obtained postgraduate education. Lower EL was statistically significantly associated with symptom duration of >3 months (odds ratio=1.68), higher arm pain numeric rating scale (NRS) (coefficient=0.5), and higher neck pain NRS (coefficient=0.79). Patients with postgraduate education had statistically significantly lower Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores (coefficient=-7.17), lower arm pain scores (coefficient=-1), and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) scores (coefficient=0.06). Twenty-four months after surgery, patients of lower EL had higher NDI scores, higher pain NRS scores, and lower QALY scores ( P <0.05 in all analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing surgical management for CSM, those reporting a lower educational level tended to present with longer symptom duration, more disease-inflicted disability and pain, and lower QALY scores. As such, patients of a lower EL are a potentially vulnerable subpopulation, and their health literacy and access to care should be prioritized.

What predicts the best 24-month outcomes following surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A QOD prospective registry study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of the best 24-month improvements in patients undergoing surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). For this purpose, the authors leveraged a large prospective cohort of surgically treated patients with CSM to identify factors predicting the best outcomes for disability, quality of life, and functional status following surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM dataset (1141 patients) at 14 top enrolling sites was used. Baseline and surgical characteristics were compared for those reporting the top and bottom 20th percentile 24-month Neck Disability Index (NDI), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) change scores. A multivariable logistic model was constructed and included candidate variables reaching p ≤ 0.20 on univariate analyses. Least important variables were removed in a stepwise manner to determine the significant predictors of the best outcomes (top 20th percentile) for 24-month NDI, EQ-5D, and mJOA change. RESULTS: A total of 948 (83.1%) patients with 24-month follow-up were included in this study. For NDI, 204 (17.9%) had the best NDI outcome and 200 (17.5%) had the worst NDI outcome. Factors predicting the best NDI outcomes included symptom duration less than 12 months (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-1.9; p = 0.01); procedure other than posterior fusion (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.1; p = 0.03); higher preoperative visual analog scale neck pain score (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.3; p < 0.001); and higher baseline NDI (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05-1.07; p < 0.001). For EQ-5D, 163 (14.3%) had the best EQ-5D outcome and 169 (14.8%) had the worst EQ-5D outcome. Factors predicting the best EQ-5D outcomes included arm pain-only complaints (compared to neck pain) (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9; p = 0.002) and lower baseline EQ-5D (OR 167.7 per unit lower, 95% CI 85.0-339.4; p < 0.001). For mJOA, 222 (19.5%) had the best mJOA outcome and 238 (20.9%) had the worst mJOA outcome. Factors predicting the best mJOA outcomes included lower BMI (OR 1.03 per unit lower, 95% CI 1.004-1.05; p = 0.02; cutoff value of ≤ 29.5 kg/m2); arm pain-only complaints (compared to neck pain) (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.5; p = 0.02); and lower baseline mJOA (OR 1.6 per unit lower, 95% CI 1.5-1.7; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the worst outcomes for EQ-5D, the best outcomes were associated with patients with arm pain-only complaints. For mJOA, lower BMI and arm pain-only complaints portended the best outcomes. For NDI, those with the best outcomes had shorter symptom durations, higher preoperative neck pain scores, and less often underwent posterior spinal fusions. Given the positive impact of shorter symptom duration on outcomes, these data suggest that early surgery may be beneficial for patients with CSM.

Does the number of social factors affect long-term patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction in those with cervical myelopathy? A QOD study.

OBJECTIVE: It is not clear whether there is an additive effect of social factors in keeping patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) from achieving both a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in outcomes and satisfaction after surgery. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of multiple social factors on postoperative outcomes and satisfaction. METHODS: This was a multiinstitutional, retrospective study of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older who were diagnosed with primary CSM and underwent operative management. Social factors included race (White vs non-White), education (high school or below vs above), employment (employed vs not), and insurance (private vs nonprivate). Patients were considered to have improved from surgery if the following criteria were met: 1) they reported a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society index, and 2) they met the MCID in patient-reported outcomes (i.e., visual analog scale [VAS] neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index [NDI], and EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D]). RESULTS: Of the 1141 patients included in the study, 205 (18.0%) had 0, 347 (30.4%) had 1, 334 (29.3%) had 2, and 255 (22.3%) had 3 social factors. The 24-month follow-up rate was > 80% for all patient-reported outcomes. After adjusting for all relevant covariates (p < 0.02), patients with 1 or more social factors were less likely to improve from surgery in all measured outcomes including VAS neck pain (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.99) and arm pain (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96); NDI (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.98); and EQ-5D (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97) (all p < 0.05) compared to those without any social factors. Patients with 2 social factors (outcomes: neck pain OR 0.86, arm pain OR 0.81, NDI OR 0.84, EQ-5D OR 0.81; all p < 0.05) or 3 social factors (outcomes: neck pain OR 0.84, arm pain OR 0.84, NDI OR 0.84, EQ-5D OR 0.84; all p < 0.05) were more likely to fare worse in all outcomes compared to those with only 1 social factor. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to those without any social factors, patients who had at least 1 social factor were less likely to achieve MCID and feel satisfied after surgery. The effect of social factors is additive in that patients with a higher number of factors are less likely to improve compared to those with only 1 social factor.

Outcomes and complications following spinous process fixation: a single-center analysis of 192 cases.

Spinous process fixation (SPF) is presented as less invasive than pedicle screws. There has been little quantitative data to support this assertion, and "minimally invasive" has not been well defined in spine surgery. Length of stay (LOS) and blood loss (BL) were chosen as surrogate measures of "minimally invasive." A chart review was conducted on 192 lumbar fusion patients (374 levels). A backward-selection multiple-linear-regression was performed to determine what variables contribute to LOS and estimated blood loss (EBL). A logistic regression controlling for age and number of levels on complication rates was also performed. Number of levels with supplementary screw fixation (SSF) was significantly associated with LOS (p = 0.003). Controlling for number of surgical levels, LOS increased by 0.30 days (95% CI: 0.02-0.58) for each level with SSF. For each additional level including SSF, BL increases by 25.31 cc (95% CI: 3.50-47.12, p = 0.023). Interbody fusion increases blood loss by 68.16 cc (95% CI: 17.18-119.13, p = .009). For each additional level with SSF, odds of perioperative complications increase by OR = 2.34 (95% CI: 1.35-4.05). Long-term complications were not affected by instrumentation. LOS and BL are increased in patients with SSF vs. SPF only. Odds of perioperative complications are increased in patients with SSF relative to those treated with SPF alone.

Measuring Outcomes in Spinal Deformity Surgery.

Outcome assessment in adult spinal deformity has evolved from radiographic analysis of curve correction to patient-centered perception of health-related quality-of-life. Oswestry Disability Index and the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire are the predominantly used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements for deformity surgery. Correction of sagittal alignment correlates with improved PRO. Functional outcomes and accelerometer measurements represent newer methods of measuring outcomes but have not yet been widely adopted or validated. Further adoption of a minimum set of core outcome domains will help facilitate international comparisons and benchmarking, and ultimately enhance value-based healthcare.

Osteoimmunology: Interactions With the Immune System in Spinal Fusion.

Spinal fusion is important for the clinical success of patients undergoing surgery, and the immune system plays an increasingly recognized role. Osteoimmunology is the study of the interactions between the immune system and bone. Inflammation impacts the osteogenic, osteoconductive, and osteoinductive properties of bone grafts and substitutes and ultimately influences the success of spinal fusion. Macrophages have emerged as important cells for coordinating the immune response following spinal fusion surgery, and macrophage-derived cytokines impact each phase of bone graft healing. This review explores the cellular and molecular immune processes that regulate bone homeostasis and healing during spinal fusion.

Awake spinal anesthesia facilitates spine surgery in poor surgical candidates: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Annually, hundreds of thousands of patients undergo surgery for degenerative spine disease (DSD). This represents only a fraction of patients that present for surgical consideration. Procedures are often avoided due to comorbidities that make patients poor candidates for general anesthesia (GA) and its associated risks. With increasing interest in awake surgery under spinal anesthesia (SA), the authors have observed that SA may facilitate spine surgery in patients with relative contraindications to GA. With this in mind, the authors set out to summarize the outcomes of a series of highly comorbid patients who received surgery under SA. METHODS: Case logs of a single surgeon were reviewed, and patients undergoing spine surgery under SA were identified. Within this group, patients were identified with relative contraindications to GA, such as advanced age and medical comorbidities. For these patients, for whom surgery was facilitated by SA, the medical records were consulted to report demographic information and patient outcomes. RESULTS: Ten highly comorbid patients were identified who received lumbar spine surgery for DSD under SA. Comorbidities included octogenarian status, obesity, and chronic health conditions such as heart disease. The cohort had a mean age of 75.5 and a mean American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) score of 3.1. The patients were predicted to have a 2.74-fold increase of serious complications compared to the average patient. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSION: For patients with symptomatic, refractory DSD and relative contraindications to GA, SA may facilitate safe surgical intervention with excellent outcomes.

Development of new postoperative neck pain at 12 and 24 months after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a Quality Outcomes Database study.

OBJECTIVE: Patients who undergo surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) will occasionally develop postoperative neck pain that was not present preoperatively, yet the incidence of this phenomenon is unclear. The authors aimed to elucidate patient and surgical factors associated with new-onset sustained pain after CSM surgery. METHODS: The authors reviewed data from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM module. The presence of neck pain was defined using the neck pain numeric rating scale (NRS). Patients with no neck pain at baseline (neck NRS score ≤ 1) were then stratified based on the presence of new postoperative pain development (neck NRS score ≥ 2) at 12 and 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Of 1141 patients in the CSM QOD, 224 (19.6%) reported no neck pain at baseline. Among 170 patients with no baseline neck pain and available 12-month follow-up, 46 (27.1%) reported new postoperative pain. Among 184 patients with no baseline neck pain and available 24-month follow-up, 53 (28.8%) reported new postoperative pain. The mean differences in neck NRS scores were 4.3 for those with new postoperative pain compared with those without at 12 months (4.4 ± 2.2 vs 0.1 ± 0.3, p < 0.001) and 3.9 at 24 months (4.1 ± 2.4 vs 0.2 ± 0.4, p < 0.001). The majority of patients reporting new-onset neck pain reported being satisfied with surgery, but their satisfaction was significantly lower compared with patients without pain at the 12-month (66.7% vs 94.3%, p < 0.001) and 24-month (65.4% vs 90.8%, p < 0.001) follow-ups. The baseline Neck Disability Index (NDI) was an independent predictor of new postoperative neck pain at both the 12-month and 24-month time points (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.06; p = 0.002; and aOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05; p = 0.026, respectively). The total number of levels treated was associated with new-onset neck pain at 12 months (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.64; p = 0.005), and duration of symptoms more than 3 months was a predictor of 24-month neck pain (aOR 3.22, 95% CI 1.01-10.22; p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Increased NDI at baseline, number of levels treated surgically, and duration of symptoms longer than 3 months preoperatively correlate positively with the risk of new-onset neck pain following CSM surgery. The majority of patients with new-onset neck pain still report satisfaction from surgery, suggesting that the risk of new-onset neck pain should not hinder indicated operations from being performed.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy with severe axial neck pain: is anterior or posterior approach better?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) is superior for patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and high preoperative neck pain. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively collected data using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM module. Patients who received a subaxial fusion of 3 or 4 segments and had a visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain score of 7 or greater at baseline were included. The 3-, 12-, and 24-month outcomes were compared for patients undergoing ACDF with those undergoing PCLF. RESULTS: Overall, 1141 patients with CSM were included in the database. Of these, 495 (43.4%) presented with severe neck pain (VAS score > 6). After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we compared 65 patients (54.6%) undergoing 3- and 4-level ACDF and 54 patients (45.4%) undergoing 3- and 4-level PCLF. Patients undergoing ACDF had worse Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (52.5 ± 15.9 vs 45.9 ± 16.8, p = 0.03) but similar neck pain (p > 0.05). Otherwise, the groups were well matched for the remaining baseline patient-reported outcomes. The rates of 24-month follow-up for ACDF and PCLF were similar (86.2% and 83.3%, respectively). At the 24-month follow-up, both groups demonstrated mean improvements in all outcomes, including neck pain (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, there was no significant difference in the degree of neck pain change, rate of neck pain improvement, rate of pain-free achievement, and rate of reaching minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain between the two groups (adjusted p > 0.05). However, ACDF was associated with a higher 24-month modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA) score (ß = 1.5 [95% CI 0.5-2.6], adjusted p = 0.01), higher EQ-5D score (ß = 0.1 [95% CI 0.01-0.2], adjusted p = 0.04), and higher likelihood for return to baseline activities (OR 1.2 [95% CI 1.1-1.4], adjusted p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Severe neck pain is prevalent among patients undergoing surgery for CSM, affecting more than 40% of patients. Both ACDF and PCLF achieved comparable postoperative neck pain improvement 3, 12, and 24 months following 3- or 4-segment surgery for patients with CSM and severe neck pain. However, multilevel ACDF was associated with superior functional status, quality of life, and return to baseline activities at 24 months in multivariable adjusted analyses.