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.

Discharge Disposition and Clinical Outcomes After Spine Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal decompression with or without fusion is one of the most commonly performed procedures in spine surgery. However, there is limited evidence on the effect of discharge environment on outcomes after surgery. The purpose of this study is to identify the effects of discharge disposition setting on clinical outcomes after spine surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent lumbar decompression, lumbar decompression and fusion, or posterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery were retrospectively identified. All clinical and demographic data were obtained from electronic health records. Surgical outcomes included wound complications, revision surgery, "30-day" readmission (0-30 d), and "90-day" readmission (31-90 d). Discharge disposition was stratified into home/self-care, acute inpatient rehabilitation, and subacute rehabilitation. Patient-reported outcome measures including VAS Back, VAS Leg, VAS Neck, VAS Arm, PCS-12 and MCS-12, ODI, and NDI were compared between patient discharge disposition settings using the Mann-Whitney U test. Pearson's chi-square analysis was used to assess for differences in wound complications, revision surgery, 30-day readmission, or 90-day readmission rates. Multivariate logistic regression incorporating age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and discharge disposition was used to determine independent predictors of wound complications. RESULTS: A total of 637 patients were included in the study. A significant difference (P = 0.03) was found in wound complication based on discharge disposition, with subacute disposition having the highest proportion of wound complications (6.1%) and home disposition having the lowest (1.5%). There were no significant differences in the rates of revision surgery, 30-day readmission, or 90-day readmission between groups. Subacute rehabilitation (odds ratio: 3.67, P = 0.047) and CCI (odds ratio 1.49, P = 0.01) were independent predictors of wound complications. Significant improvement in PROMs was seen across all postacute discharge dispositions. Baseline (P = 0.02) and postoperative (P = 0.02) ODI were significantly higher among patients discharged to an acute facility (49.4 and 32.0, respectively) compared to home (42.2 and 20.0) or subacute (47.4 and 28.4) environments. CONCLUSION: Subacute rehabilitation disposition and CCI are independent predictors of wound complications after spinal decompression surgery. Patients undergoing spine surgery have similar readmission and revision rates and experience similar clinical improvement across all postacute discharge dispositions.

Comparison of Outcomes Including or Excluding the Level of Listhesis After ACDF in the Setting of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients with cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), specifically comparing surgeries that include versus exclude the DS level. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DS has been extensively studied in the lumbar spine associated with both back and leg pain leading to worse patient quality of life measures. Conversely, there is a relative dearth of literature regarding surgical and clinical outcomes in the setting of cervical DS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 315 patients undergoing ACDF between 2014 and 2018 with minimum of 1-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-six patients were found to have DS and were categorized based on whether an ACDF was performed at the same level (SL) or at a different level (DL) than the spondylolisthesis. Patient demographics, surgical parameters, preoperative and postoperative radiographs, and PROMs were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 315 patients, a total of 46 met the inclusion criteria including 21 SL and 25 DL patients. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between the groups. The SL cohort had a significantly worse preoperative sagittal vertical axis (SL: 34.4 vs. 26.1, P=0.025) but no difference in postoperative or delta sagittal vertical axis. Both patient cohorts reported significant postoperative improvement in all PROMs, except Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score in the SL group. There were no differences between the groups regarding Visual Analog Scale Neck, Visual Analog Scale Arm, Neck Disability Index, or Short-Form 12 Physical Component Score. Regression analysis demonstrated SL to be a significant negative predictor for improvement in Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score (ß: -11.27, P=0.10). CONCLUSION: Patients treated only at their neurologically symptomatic levels, excluding asymptomatic listhesis in their construct, can expect equivalent radiographic as well as physical function, disability, and pain outcomes 1 year after ACDF compared with patients whose listhetic level was included in their construct. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Patients With Preoperative Cervical Deformity Experience Similar Clinical Outcomes to Those Without Deformity Following 1-3 Level Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the outcomes of patients with incompletely corrected cervical deformity against those without deformity following short-segment anterior cervical decompression and fusion for clinically significant radiculopathy or myelopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical deformity has increasingly been recognized as a driver of disability and has been linked to worse patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) after surgery. METHODS: Patients 18 years or above who underwent 1-3 level anterior cervical decompression and fusion to address radiculopathy and/or myelopathy at a single institution between 2014 and 2018 with at least 1 year of PROMs were reviewed. Patients were categorized based on cervical deformity into 2 groups: sagittal vertebral axis (cSVA) ≥40 mm as the deformity group, and cSVA <40 mm as the nondeformity group. Patient demographics, surgical parameters, preoperative and postoperative radiographs, and minimum 1-year PROMs were compared. RESULTS: Of the 230 patients, 191 (83%) were in the nondeformity group and 39 (17%) in the deformity group. Patients with deformity were more likely to be male (69.2% vs. 40.3%, P<0.001) and have a greater body mass index (32.8 vs. 29.7, P=0.028). The deformity group had significantly greater postoperative cSVA (44.2 vs. 25.1 mm, P<0.001) but also had significantly greater ∆cSVA (-4.87 vs. 0.25 mm, P=0.007) than the nondeformity group. Both groups had significant improvements in visual analog scale arm, visual analog scale neck, Short-Form 12 Physical Component Score, and neck disability index (NDI) (P<0.001). However, the deformity group experienced significantly greater ∆NDI and ∆mental component score (MCS)-12 scores (-19.45 vs. -11.11, P=0.027 and 7.68 vs. 1.32, P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with preoperative cervical sagittal deformity experienced relatively greater improvements in NDI and MCS-12 scores than those without preoperative deformity. These results suggest that complete correction of sagittal alignment is not required for patients to achieve significant clinical improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The Effect of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Procedure Duration on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether operative duration of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) significantly affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 90 days after surgery and at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary 1-level to 4-level ACDF were retrospectively identified. Demographic data and PROMs were collected through chart review. Patients were split into short, medium, and long tertiles based on procedure duration. PROM surveys were administered preoperatively as baseline measurements, at initial follow-up (between 60 and 120 days postoperatively), and at 1 year postoperatively. Outcomes included Neck Disability Index, Short-Form 12 Physical Component Score (PCS-12), Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score, visual analog scale (VAS) neck score, and VAS arm score. RESULTS: Significant short-term improvements were found across all groups for all PROMs. All groups showed long-term improvements in Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score, PCS-12, Neck Disability Index, VAS neck score, and VAS arm score, with the exception of the medium-duration group in PCS-12 (P = 0.093). On multivariate analysis, short-duration procedures predicted better improvement in VAS neck score (ß = -1.01; P = 0.012) and VAS arm score (ß = -1.38; P = 0.002) compared with long-duration procedures, whereas medium-duration procedures resulted in better improvement in VAS arm score (ß = -1.00; P = 0.011). Further, short and medium duration was a predictor of decreased length of hospital stay (ß = -0.67, P = 0.001 and ß = -0.59, P = 0.001, respectively) compared with long-duration procedures. CONCLUSIONS: All groups improved after ACDF regardless of surgical duration. Further, surgical duration was not a predictor of differing improvement in physical function or disability.

The Effect of L5-S1 Degenerative Disc Disease on Outcomes of L4-L5 Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the clinical relevance of preoperative caudal adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing isolated L4-5 fusion to determine a threshold of degeneration at which a primary L4-S1 fusion would be warranted. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Increased motion and biomechanical forces across the adjacent caudal segment in isolated L4-L5 fusion leads to concerns regarding the increased incidence of revision surgery because of the development of ASD. METHODS: Patients who underwent isolated L4-L5 fusion between 2014 and 2019 were reviewed. Pfirrmann grading and the disc heights of the caudal level relative to the rostral level were used to quantify preoperative adjacent degenerative disc disease. To assess the influence of preoperative caudal degenerative disc disease, preoperative disc height ratios (DHRs) were compared for patients who reported minimal, moderate, and severe Oswestry disability index (ODI) sores on postoperative assessment. For each patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), adjacent DDD was compared for those who did and did not meet MCID. An area under curve analysis was used to identify a threshold of degeneration impacting outcomes from the preoperative DHR. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were studied with an average follow-up of 2.11 years. All patients demonstrated a significant improvement in all PROMs after surgery. When categorizing patients based on the severity of postoperative ODI scores, there were no preoperative differences in the L5-S1 Pfirrmann grading or DHRs. There was a significant association between greater preoperative anterior DHR and an increased number patients who met MCID for visual analog scale back. There were no radiographic differences in preoperative L5-S1 Pfirrmann grade or DHR for ODI, visual analog scale leg, MCS-12, or PCS-12. area under curve analysis was not able to identify a preoperative DHR threshold that reflected worse MCID for any PROM. CONCLUSION: No preoperative radiographic indicators of caudal ASD were predictive of worse clinical outcomes after isolated L4-5 fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Cervical Alignment and Proximal and Distal Junctional Failure in Posterior Cervical Fusion: A Multicenter Comparison of 2 Surgical Approaches.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical and radiographic outcomes of patients undergoing posterior cervical fusion (PCF) with constructs extending from C2 to T2 to patients with constructs extending from C3 to T1. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Limited evidence exists regarding the appropriate level of proximal and distal extension of PCF constructs. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent PCF between 2012 and 2020 was performed. Surgical and radiographic outcomes were compared between those who had C3-T1 or C2-T2 constructs. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were included in the study (C2-T2: 106 patients, C3-T1: 49 patients). There were no significant differences in demographics or preoperative symptoms between cohorts. Fusion rates were significantly higher in the C2-T2 (93%) than the C3-T1 (80%, P=0.040) cohort. When comparing the C2-T2 to the C3-T1 cohort, the C3-T1 cohort had a significantly greater rate of proximal junctional failure (2% vs. 10%, P=0.006), distal junctional failure (1% vs. 20%, P<0.001) and distal screw loosening (4% vs. 15%, P=0.02). Although ∆C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis increased significantly in both cohorts (C2-T2: 6.2 mm, P=0.04; C3-T1: 8.4 mm, P<0.001), correction did not significantly differ between groups (P=0.32). The C3-T1 cohort had a significantly greater increase in ∆C2 slope (8.0 vs. 3.1 degrees, P=0.03) and ∆C0-C2 Cobb angle (6.4 vs. 1.2 degrees, P=0.04). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing PCF, a C2-T2 construct demonstrated lower rates of pseudarthrosis, distal junctional failure, proximal junctional failure, and compensatory upper cervical hyperextension compared with a C3-T1 construct.

Effect of a Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program on Patient-initiated Phone Calls After Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of a statewide, government-mandated prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) on patient-initiated phone calls after lumbar and cervical spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior studies have examined the most common reasons for a postoperative phone calls, most of which pertain to pain or prescription medications. However, no studies have investigated the effects of mandatory opioid prescription reporting on these calls. METHODS: Patients who underwent lumbar decompression, lumbar fusion, or posterior cervical fusion were retrospectively identified. Patients were sorted into 1 of 2 cohorts based on their procedure date's relation to the initiation of the state's PDMP: "pre-PDMP" and "post-PDMP." All clinical and demographic data were obtained from electronic health records. Telephone communications from or on behalf of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine independent factors associated with a postoperative phone call. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-five patients (2689 phone calls) were included in the study. Average number of phone calls per patient increased significantly after PDMP implementation among lumbar (3.27 vs. 5.18, P<0.001), cervical (5.08 vs. 11.67, P<0.001), and all (3.59 vs. 6.30, P<0.001) procedures. Age [odds ratio (OR): 1.05 (1.01, 1.09), P=0.02], cervical procedure [OR: 4.65 (1.93, 11.21), P=0.001], and a post-PDMP date of surgery [OR: 6.35 (3.55, 11.35), P<0.001] were independently associated with an increased likelihood of a postoperative phone call. A higher percentage of calls were in reference to postoperative care (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.01) and wound care (4.3% vs. 1.4%, P<0.001) in the post-PDMP cohort compared with the pre-PDMP cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-initiated telephone calls increased significantly after implementation of a mandatory statewide PDMP. Increasing age, operation involving the cervical spine, and surgery occurring after implementation of the state's PDMP were independently associated with an increased likelihood of postoperative phone call to health care providers.

Updated Review: The Steroid Controversy for Management of Spinal Cord Injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute spinal cord injury (ASCI) is a devastating event that can have a profound impact on the lives of patients and their families. While no definitive medical treatment exists, the role of methylprednisolone (MP) in the management of ASCI and other spinal cord pathologies has been investigated in depth; however, its use remains contentious. While MP initially showed promise in the efficacy of ASCI treatment, more recent studies have questioned its use citing numerous systemic adverse effects. Pharmacologic treatments in this area are poorly understood due to the scarcity of knowledge surrounding the pathophysiology and heterogeneity of patients presenting with these conditions. Despite these shortcomings and due to the lack of alternative treatment options, MP is still widely used by physicians. METHODS: We review prior and current literature on the use of MP treatment for ASCI patients with a discussion of novel drug delivery systems that have demonstrated the potential to improve MP's bioavailability at the site of injury while minimizing systemic side effects. In addition, current views on the role of MP and dexamethasone in metastatic spinal cord compression and postoperative infection are reviewed. RESULTS: While some data support benefits in the use of steroids on spinal cord pathology, extensive research suggests at best limited effects and an unresolvable risk/benefit problem. CONCLUSIONS: At present, evidence regarding use of dexamethasone for MSCC is contentious, especially regarding dose regiments. Ultimately, further investigation into the use of steroids is required to determine its utility in treating patients with spinal cord pathology.

Does Smoking Affect Short-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Decompression?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine how smoking status influences patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression between 1 to 3 levels at a single-center, academic hospital were retrospectively identified. Patients <18 years old, and those undergoing surgery for infection, trauma, tumor, or revision, with less than 12 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were divided into 3 groups: (1) never smokers (NSs); (2) current smokers (CSs); and (3) former smokers (FSs). PROMs analyzed included the Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score of the Short Form-12 Health Survey, the Oswestry Disability Index, and Visual Analogue Scale Back and Leg pain scores. One-way ANOVA was used to compare preoperative and postoperative scores between smoking groups, and multiple linear regression analysis was performed to determine whether smoking status predicted change in each outcome score, controlling for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and other clinical variables. A P value <.05 was considered to be significant. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients were included in the final cohort, with 121 (62.1%) patients in the NS group, 22 (11.3%) in the CS group, and 52 (26.6%) in the FS group. There were no significant differences between groups at baseline or postoperatively. Smoking status was also not a significant predictor of change in any outcome scores over time on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that smoking status does not significantly affect short-term complications or outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery.

Postoperative Glycemic Variability and Adverse Outcomes After Posterior Cervical Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: Posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) is a procedure commonly performed to help alleviate symptoms and improve quality of life in patients experiencing cervical spondylotic myelopathy, multilevel stenosis, and cervical deformity. Although various risk factors have been linked to adverse outcomes in patients after PCDF, this is the first study that specifically explores postoperative glycemic variability and its association with adverse outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with a total of 264 patients after PCDF procedures that had available postoperative blood glucose measurements. Patients were divided into tertiles based on their coefficient of variation as an indicator of glycemic variability. Outcomes measured included inpatient complications, length of stay (LOS), 90-day readmission, revision, and surgical site infection rates. RESULTS: Results showed a significant difference in glycemic variability among tertiles with respect to LOS (P = 0.01). The average LOS for the first, second, and third tertiles was 3.90 (3.20, 4.59), 5.73 (4.45, 7.00), and 6.06 (4.89, 7.22), respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed significantly higher odds of readmission (odds ratio: 4.77; P = 0.03) and surgical site infections (odds ratio: 4.35; P = 0.04) in the high glycemic variability group compared with the low glycemic variability group within 90 days of surgery. No significant difference was noted among tertiles with respect to inpatient complications. DISCUSSION: This study establishes a relationship between postoperative glycemic variability and LOS, as well as 90-day readmission and surgical site infection rates after PCDF. Our results suggest that limiting fluctuations in blood glucose levels may curtail inpatient healthcare costs related to in-hospital stay. Although immediate postoperative glycemic variability is ultimately acceptable, before discharge, proper glucose management plans should be in place to help prevent adverse patient outcomes.

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.

Reimbursement of Lumbar Decompression at an Orthopedic Specialty Hospital Versus Tertiary Referral Center.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in Medicare reimbursement for one- to three-level lumbar decompression procedures performed at a tertiary referral center versus an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar decompression surgery is one of the most commonly performed spinal procedures. Lumbar decompression also comprises the largest proportion of spinal surgery that has transitioned to the outpatient setting. METHODS: Patients who underwent a primary one- to three- level lumbar decompression were retrospectively identified. Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an OSH were compiled through Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Demographic data, surgical characteristics, and time cost data were collected through chart review. Multivariate regression models were used to determine independent factors associated with total episode of care cost, operating room (OR) time, procedure time, and length of stay (LOS), and to determine independent predictors of having the decompression performed at the OSH. RESULTS: Total episode of care, facility, and non-facility payments were significantly greater at the tertiary referral center than the OSH, as were OR time for one- to three-level procedures, procedure time of all pooled levels, and LOS for one- and two-level procedures. Three-level procedure was independently associated with increased OR time, procedure time, and LOS. Age and two-level procedure were also associated with increased LOS. Procedure at the OSH was associated with decreased OR time and LOS. Charlson Comorbidity Index was a negative predictor of decompression being performed in the OSH setting. CONCLUSION: Significant financial savings to health systems can be expected when performing lumbar decompression surgery at a specialty hospital as opposed to a tertiary referral center. Patients who are appropriate candidates for surgery in an OSH can in turn expect faster perioperative times and shorter LOS.Level of Evidence: 3.

How Does the Presence of a Surgical Trainee Impact Patient Outcomes in Lumbar Fusion Surgery?

BACKGROUND: While the impact of trainee involvement in other surgical fields is well established, there is a paucity of literature assessing this relationship in orthopaedic spine surgery. The goal of this study was to further elucidate this relationship. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was initiated on patients undergoing 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion at a single academic center. Operative reports from cases were examined, and patients were divided into 2 groups depending on whether a fellow or resident (F/R) or a physician's assistant (PA) was used as the primary assist. Patients with less than 1-year follow-up were excluded. Multiple linear regression was used to assess change in each patient-reported outcome, and multiple binary logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of revision, infection, and 30- or 90-day readmission. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two patients were included in the F/R group compared with 178 patients in the PA group. No differences existed between groups for total surgery time, length of stay, 30- or 90-day readmissions, infection, or revision rates. No differences existed between groups in terms of patient-reported outcomes preoperatively or postoperatively. In addition, presence of a surgical trainee was not a significant predictor of patient outcomes or rates of infection, overall revision, or 30- and 90-day readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate the presence of an orthopaedic spine F/R does not increase complication rates and does not affect short-term patient-reported outcomes in lumbar decompression and fusion surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

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.

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.

Is Open Surgery for Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression Secondary to Lung Cancer Really Beneficial? A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord compression secondary to metastatic epidural lung cancer generally has a worse prognosis when compared with other metastatic tumors. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of open surgery on the survival time, ambulation status, and associated prognostic variables of these patients over the past 2 decades. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL databases to identify patients with spinal cord compression secondary to metastatic lung cancer. We assessed the role of the following factors on survival outcome and ambulation recovery: Karnofsky Performance Scale, number of extraspinal bone metastases, number of metastases in the vertebrae, major internal organs involvement, vertebral location of spinal metastases, and neurologic status. RESULTS: Our initial search yielded 367 articles, from which 11 studies met the eligibility criteria for a total of 395 patients. Significant correlations with the survival period and the recovery in ambulation were found in the prognostic score for the number of metastases in vertebrae (R = 0.74 and 0.88, respectively), and in the prognostic score for metastases to major internal organs (R = 0.82 and 0.81, respectively). A significant correlation with survival period was found in the numbers of extraspinal bone metastases (R = -0.82). The rates of major complications were comparable with those for open surgery for metastatic tumors of other origin. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer vertebral metastases and less major internal organ involvement were associated with longer survival periods and greater ambulation recovery in patients undergoing open surgery for spinal cord compression secondary to metastatic lung cancer.

The Prevalence and Management of Stingers in College and Professional Collision Athletes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Particularly common in collision sports such as American football or rugby, stingers are a traumatic transient neuropraxia of a cervical nerve root(s) or brachial plexus that may last anywhere from minutes to hours. This review summarizes the knowledge on the diagnosis and management of stingers in college and professional collision athletes by providing an overview of their epidemiology and pathophysiology, followed by a discussion on current treatment guidelines and return-to-play recommendations. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite modifications to tackling technique, increasing awareness, and various equipment options, American football continues to have a high rate of cervical spine injuries, the majority of which occur in preseason and regular season competition settings. The incidence of stingers has slowly increased among collision athletes, and nearly half of all players report sustaining at least one stinger in their career. Recent studies have shown certain anatomical changes in the cervical spine are related to acute and reoccurring stingers. Most players who experience stingers do not miss practices or games. Despite their prevalence, literature highlighting the impact of stingers on college and professional collision athletes is limited. Advances in imaging modalities and novel radiographic parameters have provided tools for screening athletes and can guide return-to-play decisions. Future research regarding appropriate screening practices for athletes with reoccurring stingers, use of protective equipment, and rehabilitation strategies are needed to identify predisposing factors, mitigate the risk of injury, and restore full functional strength and ability.

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.

BMI Does Not Affect Complications or Patient Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective comparative review. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the influence of body mass index (BMI) on postsurgical complications and patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) following lumbar decompression surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current literature does not accurately identify the impact of BMI on postsurgical complications or outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records from a single-center, academic hospital were used to identify patients undergoing 1 to 3-level lumbar decompression surgery. Patients under 18 years of age, those undergoing surgery for infection, trauma, tumor, or revision, and those with <1-year follow-up were excluded. Patients were split into groups based on preoperative BMI: class I: BMI <25.0 kg/m; class II: BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m; class III: BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m; and class IV: BMI >35.0 kg/m. Absolute PROM scores, the recovery ratio and the percent of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference between groups were compared and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients were included with 34 (17.4%) patients in group I, 80 (41.0%) in group II, 49 (25.1%) in group III, and 32 (16.5%) in group IV. Average age was 60.0 (58.0, 62.0) years and average follow-up was 13.0 (12.6, 13.4) months. All patients improved significantly within each group, except for class III and class IV patients, who did not demonstrate significant improvements in terms of Mental Component Score (MCS-12) scores (P=0.546 and 0.702, respectively). There were no significant differences between BMI groups for baseline or postoperative PROM values, recovery ratio, or the percent of patients reaching minimum clinically important difference. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that BMI was not a significant predictor for change in outcomes for any measure. The 30-day readmission rate was 6.2% and overall revision rate at final follow-up was 5.1%, with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: This study's results suggest that BMI may not significantly affect complications or patient outcomes at 1-year in those undergoing lumbar decompression surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.