The Role of Family-wise Error Rate in Determining Statistical Significance.

The threshold for statistical significance is determined by the maximum allowable probability of Type I error (α). For studies that test multiple hypotheses or make multiple comparisons, the probability of at least 1 Type I error (family-wise error rate; FWER) increases as the number of hypotheses/comparisons increase. It is generally best practice to set the acceptable threshold for FWER to be less than or equal to α. Bonferroni correction and Tukey honestly significant difference test are 2 of the more common methods to control for FWER. When doing exploratory analysis or evaluating secondary outcomes of a study, it may not be necessary or desirable to control for FWER, which reduces the power of the study. However, deciding to control for FWER should be decided during the design of the study.

Patient Factors Impacting Baseline Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) in Patients Undergoing Cervical Spine Surgery for Myelopathy or Radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of 2532 adults who underwent elective surgery for cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy with intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) with motor evoked potentials (MEPs) between 2017 and 2019. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate attainability of monitorable MEPs across demographic, health history, and patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM) factors. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: When baseline IONM responses cannot be obtained, the value of IONM on mitigating the risk of postoperative deficits is marginalized and a clinical decision to proceed must be made based, in part, on the differential diagnosis of the unmonitorable MEPs. Despite known associations with baseline MEPs and anesthetic regimen or preoperative motor strength, little is known regarding associations with other patient factors. METHODS: Demographics, health history, and PROM data were collected preoperatively. MEP baseline responses were reported as monitorable or unmonitorable at incision. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the odds of having at least one unmonitorable MEP from demographic and health history factors. RESULTS: Age [odds ratio (OR)=1.031, P <0.001], sex (male OR=1.572, P =0.007), a primary diagnosis of myelopathy (OR=1.493, P =0.021), peripheral vascular disease (OR=2.830, P =0.009), type II diabetes (OR=1.658, P =0.005), and hypertension (OR=1.406, P =0.040) were each associated with increased odds of unmonitorable MEPs from one or more muscles; a history of thyroid disorder was inversely related (OR=0.583, P =0.027). P atients with unmonitorable MEPs reported less neck-associated disability and pain ( P <0.036), but worse SF-12 physical health and lower extremity (LE) and upper extremity function ( P <0.016). Compared with radiculopathy, unmonitorable MEPs in myelopathy patients more often involved LE muscles. Cord function was monitorable in 99.1% of myelopathic patients with no reported LE dysfunction and no history of hypertension or diabetes. CONCLUSION: Myelopathy, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and/or symptomatic LE dysfunction increased the odds of having unmonitorable baseline MEPs. Unmonitorable baseline MEPs was uncommon in patients without significant LE weakness, even in the presence of myelopathy.

How Do Patients With Predominant Neck Pain Improve After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Radiculopathy?

BACKGROUND: The presence of predominant pain in the arm vs the neck as a predictor of postoperative outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been seldom reported; therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with predominant neck pain improve after surgery compared to patients with predominant arm pain or those with mixed symptoms in patients undergoing ACDF for radiculopathy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent ACDF at a single center from 2016 to 2018. Patients were split into groups based on preoperative neck and arm pain scores: neck (N) pain dominant group (visual analog scale [VAS] neck ≥ VAS arm by 1.0 point); neutral group (VAS neck < VAS arm by 1.0 point); or arm (A) pain dominant group (VAS arm ≥ VAS neck by 1.0 point), using a threshold difference of 1.0 point. Subsequently, individuals were substratified into 2 groups based on the arm to neck pain ratio (ANR): non-arm pain dominant defined as ANR ≤1.0 and arm pain dominant (APD) defined as ANR >1.0. Patient-reported outcome measurements including Neck Disability Index (NDI), Physical Component Score-12, and Mental Component Score (MCS-12) were compared between groups. RESULTS: No significant differences between groups when stratifying patients using a threshold difference of 1.0 point. When stratifying patients using the ANR, those in the APD group had significantly higher postoperative MCS-12 (P = 0.008) and NDI (P = 0.011) scores. In addition, the APD group showed a greater magnitude of improvement for MCS-12 and NDI scores (P = 0.043 and P = 0.038, respectively). Multiple linear regression showed that the A and the APD groups were both independent predictors of improvement in NDI. CONCLUSION: Patients with dominant arm pain showed significantly greater improvement in terms of MCS-12 and NDI scores compared to patients with dominant neck pain. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To compare the impact of ACDF on arm and neck pain in the context of cervical radiculopathy using patient-reported outcome measures as an objective measurement.

The Impact of Upper Cervical Spine Alignment on Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which the upper cervical spine compensates for malalignment in the subaxial cervical spine, and how changes in upper cervical spine sagittal alignment affect patient-reported outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous research has investigated the relationship between clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters in the subaxial cervical spine following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, limited research exists regarding the upper cervical spine (occiput to C2), which accounts for up to 40% of neck movement and has been hypothesized to compensate for subaxial dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing ACDF for cervical radiculopathy and/or myelopathy at a single center with minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Radiographic parameters including cervical sagittal vertical axis, C0 angle, C1 inclination angle, C2 slope, Occiput-C1 angle (Oc-C1 degrees), Oc-C2 degrees, Oc-C7 degrees, C1-C2 degrees, C1-C7 degrees, and C2-C7 degrees cervical lordosis (CL) were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. Delta (Δ) values were calculated by subtracting preoperative values from postoperative values. Correlation analysis as well as multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine relationships between radiographic and clinical outcomes. Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were included (mean follow-up 20 mo). C2 slope significantly decreased for patients after surgery (Δ=-0.8, P =0.02), as did parameters of regional cervical lordosis (Oc-C7 degrees, C1-C7 degrees, and C2-C7 degrees; P <0.001, <0.001, and 0.01, respectively). Weak to moderate associations were observed between postoperative CL and C1 inclination ( r =-0.24, P <0.001), Oc-C1 degrees ( r =0.59, P <0.001), and C1-C2 degrees ( r =-0.23, P <0.001). Increased preoperative C1-C2 degrees and Oc-C2 degrees inversely correlated with preoperative SF-12 Mental Composite Score (MCS-12) scores ( r =-0.16, P =0.01 and r =-0.13, P =0.04). Cervical sagittal vertical axis was found to have weak but significant associations with Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Composite Score (PCS-12) ( r =-0.13, P =0.03) and MCS-12 ( r =0.12, P =0.05). CONCLUSION: No clinically significant relationship between upper cervical and subaxial cervical alignment was detected for patients undergoing ACDF for neurological symptoms. Upper cervical spine alignment was not found to be a significant predictor of patient-reported outcomes after ACDF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Power Analysis for Null Hypothesis Significance Testing.

Before conducting a scientific study, a power analysis is performed to determine the sample size required to test an effect within allowable probabilities of Type I error (α) or Type II error (ß). The power of a study is related to Type II error by 1-ß. Most scientific studies set α=0.05 and power=0.80 as minimums. More conservative study designs will decrease α or increase power, which will require a larger sample size. The third and final parameter required for a power analysis is the effect size (ES). ES is a measure of the strength of the observation in the outcome of interest (ie, the dependent variable). ES must be estimated from pilot studies or published values. A small ES will require a larger sample size than a large ES. It is possible to detect statistically significant findings even for very small ES, if the sample size is sufficiently large. Therefore, it is also essential to evaluate whether ES is sufficiently large to be clinically meaningful.

The Effect of State Legislation on Opioid Prescriptions Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

New Jersey State Law, P.L. 2017 Chapter 28 22, C.24:21-15.2, passed in February 2017, is the most restrictive opioid legislation passed thus far in the United States. This study evaluated the effects of this legislation on the postoperative opioid prescriptions of patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). Opioid prescriptions were compared following arthroscopic RCR before and after implementation of the new law using the New Jersey Prescription Monitoring Program Aware Drug Database. A consecutive cohort of patients who underwent RCR during a 6-month period prior to the legislation was compared with a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent RCR during a 6-month period after the law went into effect. The primary outcome measure was prescribed postoperative milligram morphine equivalents (MME) and number of pills prescribed. There were 265 patients in the pre-law cohort and 198 patients in the post-law cohort. In the pre-law cohort, there was a median of 1250 MME (interquartile range [IQR], 900-1800 MME) and a median of 100 pills (IQR, 60-175 pills) prescribed postoperatively. In the post-law cohort, a median of 900 MME (IQR, 550-1050 MME) and a median of 60 pills (IQR, 60-90 pills) were prescribed postoperatively. A comparison of pre-law and post-law data for MME and number of pills prescribed was statistically significant (P<.001). The median opioid consumption MME and number of pills prescribed following RCR decreased significantly following the implementation of the New Jersey state law. Findings of this study indicate state regulations may play a role in reducing narcotic consumption following RCR. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(1):e80-e84.].

High Prevalence of Degenerative Changes at the Metatarsal Head Sesamoid Articulation Found During Hallux Valgus Correction Surgery.

Background. Despite the absence of complications and a restoration of normal hallux alignment, some patients have suboptimal outcomes from hallux valgus correction surgery. One risk factor for persistent pain may be the presence of arthritic changes at the metatarsal head articulation with the sesamoids, an area not easily assessed with standard radiographs unless dedicated sesamoid views are obtained. In this study, we prospectively evaluated the metatarsal head for degenerative changes during hallux valgus correction surgery and identified preoperative risk factors associated with these changes. Methods. We prospectively evaluated 200 feet in 196 patients who underwent hallux valgus surgery intraoperatively for the pattern and severity of arthritic changes at the metatarsal head. Mann-Whitney U testing was implemented to compare differences in arthritic scores between preoperative deformity groups. The Spearman correlation test was used to determine the association between age and preoperative deformity with the severity of degenerative changes. Results. More than half of all feet assessed had severe arthritic changes at the plantar medial aspect of the metatarsal head and 40% of feet at the plantar lateral aspect. Age and intermetatarsal angle were found to be positively correlated with arthritis in this area. Conclusion. Our prospective study has demonstrated the high prevalence of arthritic changes at the metatarsal head sesamoid articulation and the positive influence of age and severity of deformity on metatarsal head arthritic changes seen during hallux valgus correction surgery. Furthermore, these arthritic changes were found to have no significant influence on preoperative functional and pain levels.Levels of Evidence: Level IV: Case series.

How Does Smoking Influence Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients After Lumbar Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the effect of smoking on patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) after lumbar fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although smoking is known to decrease fusion rates after lumbar fusion, there is less evidence regarding the influence of smoking on PROMs after surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing between 1 and 3 levels of lumbar fusion were divided into 3 groups on the basis of preoperative smoking status: never smokers (NS); current smokers (CS); and former smokers (FS). PROMs collected for analysis include the Physical Component Score (PCS-12), Mental Component Score (MCS-12), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analogue Scale back (VAS back) and leg (VAS leg) pain scores. Preoperative and postoperative PROMs were compared between groups. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to determine whether preoperative smoking status was a predictor of change in PROM scores. RESULTS: A total of 220 (60.1%) NS, 52 (14.2%) CS, and 94 (25.7%) FS patients were included. Patients in most groups improved within each of the PROMs analyzed (P<0.05). VAS leg pain (P=0.001) was found to significantly differ between groups, with NS and FS having less disability than CS (3.6 vs. 2.0, P=0.010; and 3.6 vs. 2.4, P=0.022; respectively). Being a CS significantly predicted less improvement in ODI (P=0.035), VAS back (P=0.034), and VAS leg (P<0.001) compared with NS. In addition, NS had a significantly lower 30-day readmission rate than CS or FS (3.2% vs. 5.8% and 10.6%, respectively, P=0.029). CONCLUSION: CS exhibited worse postoperative VAS leg pain and a lower recovery ratio than never smokers. In addition, being in the CS group was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in ODI, VAS back, and VAS leg scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Processing and Handling Cost of Single-use Versus Traditional Instrumentation for 1 Level Lumbar Fusions.

STUDY DESIGN: A single center, observational prospective clinical study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the instrumentation-related cost and efficiency of single-use instrumentation versus traditional reusable instrument trays. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Single-use instrumentation provides the opportunity to reduce costs associated with cleaning and sterilizing instrumentation after surgery. Although previous studies have shown single-use instrumentation is effective in other orthopedic specialties, it is unclear if single-use instrumentation could provide economic advantages in spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 (20 reusable instrumentation and 20 single-use instrumentation) lumbar decompression (1-3 level) and fusion (1 level) spine surgeries were collected. Instrument handling, opening, setup, re-stocking, cleaning, sterilization, inspection, packaging, and storage were recorded by direct observation for both reusable and single-use instrumentation. The rate of infection was noted for each group. RESULTS: Mean time of handling instruments by the scrub nurse was 11.6 (±3.9) minutes for reusable instrumentation and 2.1 (±0.5) minutes for single-use instrumentation. Mean cost of handling reusable instruments was estimated to be $8.52 (±$2.96) per case, and the average cost to reprocess a single tray by Sterilization Processing Department (SPD) was $58. Thus, the median cost for sterilizing 2 reusable trays per case was $116, resulting in an average total Costresuable of $124.52 (±$2.96). Mean cost of handling single-use instrumentation was estimated to be $1.57 ($0.38) per case. CONCLUSION: Single-use instrumentation provided greater cost savings and reduced time from the opening of instrumentation to use in surgery when compared with reusable instrumentation.

Do Patients with Back Pain-Dominant Symptoms Improve After Lumbar Surgery for Radiculopathy or Claudication?

BACKGROUND: Currently, few studies have examined whether patients with back or leg pain-predominant symptoms fare better clinically after lumbar spine surgery; therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with back pain-dominant symptoms improved to a similar degree as patients with mixed or leg pain-dominant symptoms after lumbar surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic center, in which patients were stratified into three groups: (1) back pain-dominant group (B) (visual analog score [VAS] back - VAS leg ≥ 1.0 point), (2) neutral group (N) (VAS back - VAS leg < 1.0 point), or (3) leg pain-dominant group (L) (VAS leg - VAS back ≥ 1.0 point), using a VAS threshold difference of 1.0 point. As a secondary analysis, the VAS leg-to-back pain (LBR) ratio was used to further stratify patients: (1) nonleg pain-dominant (NLPD) group (LBR ≤ 1.0) or (2) leg pain-dominant (LPD) group (LBR > 1.0). Patient outcomes, including physical component score of the short form-12 survey (PCS-12), mental component score of the short form-12 survey (MCS-12), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), were identified and compared between groups using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative, or delta scores for PCS-12 or ODI scores between groups. In patients undergoing decompression surgery, those with back pain-dominant or mixed symptoms (B, N, or NLPD groups) did not improve with respect to MCS-12 scores after surgery (P > .05), and those with leg pain-dominant symptoms (LPD group) had greater delta MCS-12 scores (P = .046) and greater recovery rates (P = .035). Multiple linear regression did not find LPD to be an independent predictor of PCS-12 or ODI scores. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery and leg pain-dominant symptoms noted a greater improvement in MCS-12 scores; however, there were no differences in PCS-12 or ODI scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery demonstrate no major clinically significant differences when split up by pain-dominance groups.

Does Cervical Spondylolisthesis Influence Patient-Reported Outcomes After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery?

BACKGROUND: No prior work has explored whether the presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis impacts patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) after an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF); therefore, the goal of the current study was to determine whether the presence of a spondylolisthesis affects PROMs after an ACDF. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients over the age of 18 who underwent a 1- or 2-level ACDF. All patients received preoperative standing lateral x-rays and were placed into 1 of 2 groups based on the presence of cervical spondylolisthesis from C2-T1: (1) no spondylolisthesis (NS) group or (2) spondylolisthesis (S) group. Preoperative, postoperative, and delta (postoperative minus preoperative) were recorded and compared between groups via univariate and multivariate analysis. Outcomes reported were the Physical Component Scores of the Short Form-12 (PCS-12), the Mental Component Scores of the Short Form-12 (MCS-12), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and visual analog scale (VAS) Arm/Neck. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were included in the final analysis with 154 in the NS group and 48 in the S group. Both patient cohorts reported significant postoperative improvement in PCS-12, NDI, and VAS Arm/Neck. When comparing outcome scores between groups, only MCS-12 delta scores were different between groups, with the S group exhibiting a greater mean delta score (8.3 vs 1.3, P = 0.024) than the NS group after ACDF. Multiple linear regression analysis indicated having spondylolisthesis at baseline was a significant predictor of greater change in MCS-12 than the NS group (ß = 4.841; 95% CI, 0.876, 8.805; P = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in PCS-12, NDI, or VAS Neck/Arm pain scores with no significant differences between groups. Patients with spondylolisthesis were found to have significantly greater improvement scores in MCS-12 scoring than those without spondylolisthesis after ACDF surgery.

Combined Depression and Anxiety Influence Patient-Reported Outcomes after Lumbar Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no studies have assessed what effect the presence of both anxiety and depression may have on patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) compared to patients with a single or no mental health diagnosis. METHODS: Patients undergoing 1- to 3-level lumbar fusion at a single academic hospital were retrospectively queried. Anyone with depression and/or anxiety was identified using an existing clinical diagnosis in the medical chart. Patients were separated into 3 groups: no depression or anxiety (NDA), depression or anxiety alone (DOA), and combined depression and anxiety (DAA). Absolute PROMs, recovery ratios, and the percentage of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (% MCID) between groups were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of the 391 patients included in the cohort, 323 (82.6%) were in the NDA group, 37 (9.5%) in the DOA group, and 31 (7.9%) in the DAA group. Patients in the DAA group had significantly worse outcome scores before and after surgery with respect to Short Form-12 mental component score (MCS-12) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (P <.001); however, the change in PROMs, recovery ratio, % MCID were not found to be significantly different between groups. Using multivariate analysis, the DAA group was found to be an independent predictor of worse improvement in MCS-12 and ODI scores (P = .026 and P = .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with combined anxiety and depression fared worse with respect to disability before and after surgery compared to patients with a single diagnosis or no mental health diagnosis; however, there were no significant differences in recovery ratio or % MCID. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Combined anxiety and depression may predict less improvement in MCS-12 and ODI after lumbar arthrodesis compared with single or no mental health diagnosis.

How do C2 tilt and C2 slope correlate with patient reported outcomes in patients after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT: C2 tilt and C2 slope are quick and easy measurements to obtain on lateral radiographs and may be used to determine overall cervical sagittal alignment; however, the influence of these measurements on patient outcomes has not been well established in literature. PURPOSE: To determine if C2 tilt and/or C2 slope predict patient outcomes better compared with conventional radiographic measures after an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 249 patients who underwent 1 to 3 level ACDF to address radiculopathy and/or myelopathy at a single academic institution between 2011 and 2015 were identified. Patients with less than 1 year of follow-up were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient Reported Outcomes: Neck Disability Index (NDI), Physical Component Score-12 (PCS-12), and Mental Component Score (MCS-12), Visual Analog Score (VAS) Neck and Arm scores Cervical radiographic measurements: C2 tilt, C2 slope, C2-C7 lordosis, cervical SVA, T1 slope, T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL), and C2-C7 ROM METHODS: Pearson correlation tests were performed to assess for significant associations between radiographic measurements and patient outcomes. Multiple linear regression models were developed adjusting for demographics and radiographic parameters to determine which factors were predictive of patient outcomes. RESULTS: C2 tilt and TS-CL correlated with all postoperative physical outcome scores (NDI, PCS-12, VAS Neck and ARM; p<.05), however no association was seen between C2 slope and postoperative outcomes. After accounting for the presence of subaxial deformity, C2 tilt and TS-CL remained strongly correlated to patient outcome scores. With multiple linear regression, C2 tilt was a significant predictor for NDI, whereas TS-CL was a significant predictor for PCS-12, VAS Neck and VAS Arm. CONCLUSIONS: C2 tilt significantly correlated with well-described conventional cervical parameters as well as postoperative physical outcomes measures, especially NDI, on multivariate analysis. C2 tilt may provide an easy and practical tool for predicting physical outcomes after ACDF.

Does Smoking Status Influence Health-Related Quality of Life Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing ACDF?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: Whereas smoking has been shown to affect the fusion rates for patients undergoing an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), the relationship between smoking and health-related quality of life outcome measurements after an ACDF is less clear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether smoking negatively affects patient outcomes after an ACDF for cervical degenerative pathology. METHODS: Patients with tumor, trauma, infection, and previous cervical spine surgery and those with less than a year of follow-up were excluded. Smoking status was assessed by self-reported smoking history. Patient outcomes, including Neck Disability Index, Short Form 12 Mental Component Score, Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (PCS-12), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) arm pain, VAS neck pain, and pseudarthrosis rates were evaluated. Outcomes were compared between smoking groups using multiple linear and logistic regression, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI), among other factors. A P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 19.8 months, age of 53.1 years, and BMI of 29.6 kg/m2. There were 43 current, 69 former, and 152 nonsmokers in the cohort. At baseline, nonsmokers had higher PCS-12 scores than current smokers (P = .010), lower VAS neck pain than current (P = .035) and former (P = .014) smokers, as well as lower VAS arm pain than former smokers (P = .006). Postoperatively, nonsmokers had higher PCS-12 scores than both current (P = .030) and former smokers (P = .035). Smoking status was not a significant predictor of change in patient outcome in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas nonsmokers had higher function and lower pain than former or current smokers preoperatively, smoking status overall was not found to be an independent predictor of outcome scores after ACDF. This supports the notion that smoking status alone should not deter patients from undergoing ACDF for cervical degenerative pathology.

The Role of Machine Learning in Spine Surgery: The Future Is Now.

The recent influx of machine learning centered investigations in the spine surgery literature has led to increased enthusiasm as to the prospect of using artificial intelligence to create clinical decision support tools, optimize postoperative outcomes, and improve technologies used in the operating room. However, the methodology underlying machine learning in spine research is often overlooked as the subject matter is quite novel and may be foreign to practicing spine surgeons. Improper application of machine learning is a significant bioethics challenge, given the potential consequences of over- or underestimating the results of such studies for clinical decision-making processes. Proper peer review of these publications requires a baseline familiarity of the language associated with machine learning, and how it differs from classical statistical analyses. This narrative review first introduces the overall field of machine learning and its role in artificial intelligence, and defines basic terminology. In addition, common modalities for applying machine learning, including classification and regression decision trees, support vector machines, and artificial neural networks are examined in the context of examples gathered from the spine literature. Lastly, the ethical challenges associated with adapting machine learning for research related to patient care, as well as future perspectives on the potential use of machine learning in spine surgery, are discussed specifically.

Propensity Score Matching: A Statistical Method.

Propensity score matching (PSM) is a commonly used statistical method in orthopedic surgery research that accomplishes the removal of confounding bias from observational cohorts where the benefit of randomization is not possible. An alternative to multiple regression analysis, PSM attempts to reduce the effects of confounders by matching already treated subjects with control subjects who exhibit a similar propensity for treatment based on preexisting covariates that influence treatment selection. It, therefore, establishes a new control group by discarding outlier control subjects. This new control group reduces the unwanted influences of covariates, allowing for proper measurement of the intended variable. An example from orthopedic spine literature is discussed to illustrate how PSM may be applied in practice. PSM is uniquely valuable in its utility and simplicity, but it is limited in that it requires the removal of data and works primarily on binary treatments. In addition to matching, the propensity score can be used for stratification, covariate adjustments, and inverse probability of treatment weighting, but these topics are outside the scope of this paper. Personnel in the orthopedic field would benefit from learning about the function and application of this method given its common use in the orthopedic literature.

Wearable Technology in Spine Surgery.

Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide valuable insight into the effectiveness of spine surgery, there still remain limitations on measuring outcomes in this manner. Among other deficiencies, PROMs do not always correlate with more objective measures of surgery success. Wearable technology, such as pedometers, tri-axis accelerometer, or wearable cameras, may allow physicians to track patient progress following spine surgery more objectively. Recently, there has been an emphasis on using wearable devices to measure physical activity and limb and spine function. Wearable devices could play an important role as a supplement to PROMs, although they might have to be substantiated through adequate controlled studies to identify normative data for patients presenting with common spine disorders. This review will detail the current state of wearable technology applications in spine surgery and its direction as its utilization expands.

Development of a Telemedicine Neurological Examination for Spine Surgery: A Pilot Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to design and test a novel spine neurological examination adapted for telemedicine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Telemedicine is a rapidly evolving technology associated with numerous potential benefits for health care, especially in the modern era of value-based care. To date, no studies have assessed whether. METHODS: Twenty-one healthy controls and 20 patients with cervical or lumbar spinal disease (D) were prospectively enrolled. Each patient underwent a telemedicine neurological examination as well as a traditional in-person neurological examination administered by a fellowship trained spine surgeon and a physiatrist. Both the telemedicine and in-person tests consisted of motor, sensory, and special test components. Scores were compared via univariate analysis and secondary qualitative outcomes, including responses from a satisfaction survey, were obtained upon completion of the trial. RESULTS: Of the 20 patients in the D group, 9 patients had cervical disease and 11 patients had lumbar disease. Comparing healthy control with the D group, there were no significant differences with respect to all motor scores, most sensory scores, and all special tests. There was a high rate of satisfaction among the cohort with 92.7% of participants feeling "very satisfied" with the overall experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the development of a viable neurological spine examination adapted for telemedicine. The findings in this study suggest that patients have comparable motor, sensory, and special test scores with telemedicine as with a traditional in-person examination administered by an experienced clinician, as well as reporting a high rate of satisfaction among participants. To our knowledge, this is the first telemedicine neurological examination for spine surgery. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings.

Are Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Influenced by Presurgical Depression Symptoms on the Mental Component Score of the Short Form-12 Survey?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether preoperative depressive symptoms, measured by mental component score of the Short Form-12 survey (MCS-12), influence patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) following an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery for cervical degeneration. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a paucity of literature regarding preoperative depression and PROMs following ACDF surgery for cervical degenerative disease. METHODS: Patients who underwent an ACDF for degenerative cervical pathology were identified. A score of 45.6 on the MCS-12 was used as the threshold for depression symptoms, and patients were divided into two groups based on this value: depression (MCS-12 ≤45.6) and nondepression (MCS-12 >45.6) groups. Outcomes including Neck Disability Index (NDI), physical component score of the Short Form-12 survey (PCS-12), and Visual Analogue Scale Neck (VAS Neck), and Arm (VAS Arm) pain scores were evaluated using independent sample t test, recovery ratios, percentage of patients reaching the minimum clinically important difference, and multiple linear regression - controlling for factors such as age, sex, and BMI. RESULTS: The depression group was found to have significantly worse baseline pain and disability than the nondepression group in NDI (P < 0.001), VAS Neck pain (P < 0.001), and VAS Arm pain (P < 0.001) scores. Postoperatively, both groups improved to a similar amount with surgery based on the recovery ratio analysis. The depression group continued to have worse scores than the nondepression group in NDI (P = 0.010), PCS-12 (P = 0.026), and VAS Arm pain (P = 0.001) scores. Depression was not a significant predictor of change in any PROMs based on regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Patients who presented with preoperative depression reported more pain and disability symptoms preoperatively and postoperatively; however, both groups achieved similar degrees of improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Use Affects Pseudarthrosis Rates and Influences Patient-Reported Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort review. OBJECTIVES: Cervical pseudarthrosis is a frequent cause of need for revision anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and may lead to worse patient-reported outcomes. The effect of proton pump inhibitors on cervical fusion rates are unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine if patients taking PPIs have higher rates of nonunion after ACDF. METHODS: A retrospective cohort review was performed to compare patients who were taking PPIs preoperatively with those not taking PPIs prior to ACDF. Patients younger than 18 years of age, those with less than 1-year follow-up, and those undergoing surgery for trauma, tumor, infection, or revision were excluded. The rates of clinically diagnosed pseudarthrosis and radiographic pseudarthrosis were compared between PPI groups. Patient outcomes, pseudarthrosis rates, and revision rates were compared between PPI groups using either multiple linear or logistic regression analysis, controlling for demographic and operative variables. RESULTS: Out of 264 patients, 58 patients were in the PPI group and 206 were in the non-PPI group. A total of 23 (8.71%) patients were clinically diagnosed with pseudarthrosis with a significant difference between PPI and non-PPI groups (P = .009). Using multiple linear regression, PPI use was not found to significantly affect any patient-reported outcome measure. However, based on logistic regression, PPI use was found to increase the odds of clinically diagnosed pseudarthrosis (odds ratio 3.552, P = .014). Additionally, clinically diagnosed pseudarthrosis negatively influenced improvement in PCS-12 scores (P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: PPI use was found to be a significant predictor of clinically diagnosed pseudarthrosis following ACDF surgery. Furthermore, clinically diagnosed pseudarthrosis negatively influenced improvement in PCS-12 scores.