Telemedicine Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Experience During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Although telemedicine visits were essential and adopted by providers and patients alike, few studies have been conducted evaluating orthopedic patient perception of the care delivered during these visits. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated specific factors that affected patient satisfaction with telemedicine and the receptiveness to continue virtual visits post COVID-19 in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients. Thus, the purposes of our study are to determine the following: (1) patient satisfaction with using TJA telemedicine services, (2) whether patient characteristics might be associated with satisfaction, and (3) whether virtual clinic visits may be used post-COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional survey study was completed by 126 TJA patients who participated in telemedicine visits with TJA surgeons from May 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. The survey consisted of questions regarding demographics, satisfaction, and telemedicine experiences. RESULTS: One hundred one (80.2%) patients were satisfied with their telemedicine visit, with patients <80 years old (P = .008) and those with a longer commute time (P = .01) being more satisfied P = .01. There was a significant preference for in-person visits when meeting arthroplasty surgeons for the first time (P < .001), but patients were equally amenable to follow-up telemedicine visits once there was an established relationship with the surgeon. CONCLUSION: Younger patients, patients with longer commute distances, and patients who had established relationships with their provider expressed higher satisfaction with telemedicine arthroplasty visits. Although >80% of patients were satisfied with their telemedicine visit, an established patient-provider relationship may be integral to the success of an arthroplasty telemedicine practice.

Diagnosis and Management of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review.

Importance: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a prevalent and disabling cause of low back and leg pain in older persons, affecting an estimated 103 million persons worldwide. Most are treated nonoperatively. Approximately 600 000 surgical procedures are performed in the US each year for lumbar spinal stenosis. Observations: The prevalence of the clinical syndrome of lumbar spinal stenosis in US adults is approximately 11% and increases with age. The diagnosis can generally be made based on a clinical history of back and lower extremity pain that is provoked by lumbar extension, relieved by lumbar flexion, and confirmed with cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Nonoperative treatment includes activity modification such as reducing periods of standing or walking, oral medications to diminish pain such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and physical therapy. In a series of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis followed up for up to 3 years without operative intervention, approximately one-third of patients reported improvement, approximately 50% reported no change in symptoms, and approximately 10% to 20% of patients reported that their back pain, leg pain, and walking were worse. Long-term benefits of epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis have not been demonstrated. Surgery appears effective in carefully selected patients with back, buttock, and lower extremity pain who do not improve with conservative management. For example, in a randomized trial of 94 participants with symptomatic and radiographic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis, decompressive laminectomy improved symptoms more than nonoperative therapy (difference, 7.8 points; 95% CI, 0.8-14.9; minimum clinically important difference, 10-12.8) on the Oswestry Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Among persons with lumbar spinal stenosis and concomitant spondylolisthesis, lumbar fusion increased symptom resolution in 1 trial (difference, 5.7 points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 11.3) on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical dimension score (range, 0-100), but 2 other trials showed either no important differences between the 2 therapies or noninferiority of lumbar decompression alone compared with lumbar decompression plus spinal fusion (MCID, 2-4.9 points). In a noninferiority trial, 71.4% treated with lumbar decompression alone vs 72.9% of those receiving decompression plus fusion achieved a 30% or more reduction in Oswestry Disability Index score, consistent with the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis. Fusion is associated with greater risk of complications such as blood loss, infection, longer hospital stays, and higher costs. Thus, the precise indications for concomitant lumbar fusion in persons with lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis remain unclear. Conclusions and Relevance: Lumbar spinal stenosis affects approximately 103 million people worldwide and 11% of older adults in the US. First-line therapy is activity modification, analgesia, and physical therapy. Long-term benefits from epidural steroid injections have not been established. Selected patients with continued pain and activity limitation may be candidates for decompressive surgery.

Simplified Universal Grading of Lumbar Spine MRI Degenerative Findings: Inter-Reader Agreement of Non-Radiologist Spine Experts.

OBJECTIVE: 1) To describe a simplified multidisciplinary grading system for the most clinically relevant lumbar spine degenerative changes. 2) To measure the inter-reader variability among non-radiologist spine experts in their use of the classification system for interpretation of a consecutive series of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. METHODS: ATS multidisciplinary and collaborative standardized grading of spinal stenosis, foraminal stenosis, lateral recess stenosis, and facet arthropathy was developed. Our institution's picture archiving and communication system was searched for 50 consecutive patients who underwent non-contrast MRI of the lumbar spine for chronic back pain, radiculopathy, or symptoms of spinal stenosis. Three fellowship-trained spine subspecialists from neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and physiatry interpreted the 50 exams using the classification at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels. Inter-reader agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: For spinal stenosis, the readers demonstrated substantial agreement (κ = 0.702). For foraminal stenosis and facet arthropathy, the three readers demonstrated moderate agreement (κ = 0.544, and 0.557, respectively). For lateral recess stenosis, there was fair agreement (κ = 0.323). CONCLUSIONS: A simplified universal grading system of lumbar spine MRI degenerative findings is newly described. Use of this multidisciplinary grading system in the assessment of clinically relevant degenerative changes revealed moderate to substantial agreement among non-radiologist spine physicians. This standardized grading system could serve as a foundation for interdisciplinary communication.

The past, present, and future of remote patient monitoring in spine care: an overview.

PURPOSE: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) has revolutionized the landscape of healthcare. From humble beginnings rooted in landline home telephone calls to present-day devices with near instantaneous wireless connectivity, the evolution of technology has ushered in an era of digital medicine and remote care. Presently, a vast array of healthcare data points can be automatically generated, analyzed, and forwarded to providers to supplement clinical decision-making. While RPM originated and was popularized within medicine, its role in orthopedics, and particularly within spine surgery, is evolving. We sought to provide an overview of RPM within orthopedics, with specific attention on spine care, analyzing its origins, present-day form, and prospects. METHODS: We reviewed the literature to date as it pertains to RPM within healthcare at large, orthopedics, and spine care. RESULTS: We detail the development and clinical use of wearable technology and smart implants, examining the underlying technology and evaluating the spectrum of their present-day and potential applications. CONCLUSIONS: Technological advancements are not only reshaping the paradigm of musculoskeletal care but are also redefining the physician-patient relationship as well as reimagining traditional perspectives on healthcare data collection and privacy.

Telemedicine in research and training: spine surgeon perspectives and practices worldwide.

PURPOSE: To utilize a global survey to elucidate spine surgeons' perspectives towards research and resident education within telemedicine. METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous email survey was circulated to the members of AO Spine, an international organization consisting of spine surgeons from around the world. Questions were selected and revised using a Delphi approach. A major portion of the final survey queried participants on experiences with telemedicine in training, the utility of telemedicine for research, and the efficacy of telemedicine as a teaching tool. Responses were compared by region. RESULTS: A total of 485 surgeons completed the survey between May 15, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Though most work regularly with trainees (83.3%) and 81.8% agreed that telemedicine should be incorporated into clinical education, 61.7% of respondents stated that trainees are not present during telemedicine visits. With regards to the types of clinical education that telemedicine could provide, only 33.9% of respondents agreed that interpretation of physical exam maneuvers can be taught (mean score = - 0.28, SD = ± 1.13). The most frequent research tasks performed over telehealth were follow-up of imaging (28.7%) and study group meetings (26.6%). Of all survey responses provided by members, there were no regional differences (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Our study of spine surgeons worldwide noted high agreement among specialists for the implantation of telemedicine in trainee curricula, underscoring the global acceptance of this medium for patient management going forward. A greater emphasis towards trainee participation as well as establishing best practices in telemedicine are essential to equip future spine specialists with the necessary skills for navigating this emerging platform.

Provider confidence in the telemedicine spine evaluation: results from a global study.

PURPOSE: To utilize data from a global spine surgeon survey to elucidate (1) overall confidence in the telemedicine evaluation and (2) determinants of provider confidence. METHODS: Members of AO Spine International were sent a survey encompassing participant's experience with, perception of, and comparison of telemedicine to in-person visits. The survey was designed through a Delphi approach, with four rounds of question review by the multi-disciplinary authors. Data were stratified by provider age, experience, telemedicine platform, trust in telemedicine, and specialty. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-five surgeons participated in the survey. The global effort included respondents from Africa (19.9%), Asia Pacific (19.7%), Europe (24.3%), North America (9.4%), and South America (26.6%). Providers felt that physical exam-based tasks (e.g., provocative testing, assessing neurologic deficits/myelopathy, etc.) were inferior to in-person exams, while communication-based aspects (e.g., history taking, imaging review, etc.) were equivalent. Participants who performed greater than 50 visits were more likely to believe telemedicine was at least equivalent to in-person visits in the ability to make an accurate diagnosis (OR 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.03-5.43). Compared to in-person encounters, video (versus phone only) visits were associated with increased confidence in the ability of telemedicine to formulate and communicate a treatment plan (OR 3.88, 95% C.I. 1.71-8.84). CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are confident in the ability of telemedicine to communicate with patients, but are concerned about its capacity to accurately make physical exam-based diagnoses. Future research should concentrate on standardizing the remote examination and the development of appropriate use criteria in order to increase provider confidence in telemedicine technology.

Spine surgeon perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine: an international study.

INTRODUCTION: While telemedicine usage has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains little consensus about how spine surgeons perceive virtual care. The purpose of this study was to explore international perspectives of spine providers on the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. METHODS: Responses from 485 members of AO Spine were analyzed, covering provider perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. All questions were optional, and blank responses were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: The leading challenges reported by surgeons were decreased ability to perform physical examinations (38.6%), possible increased medicolegal exposure (19.3%), and lack of reimbursement parity compared to traditional visits (15.5%). Fewer than 9.0% of respondents experienced technological issues. On average, respondents agreed that telemedicine increases access to care for rural/long-distance patients, provides societal cost savings, and increases patient convenience. Responses were mixed about whether telemedicine leads to greater patient satisfaction. North Americans experienced the most challenges, but also thought telemedicine carried the most benefits, whereas Africans reported the fewest challenges and benefits. Age did not affect responses. CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are supportive of the benefits of telemedicine, and only a small minority experienced technical issues. The decreased ability to perform the physical examination was the top challenge and remains a major obstacle to virtual care for spine surgeons around the world, although interestingly, 61.4% of providers did not acknowledge this to be a major challenge. Significant groundwork in optimizing remote physical examination maneuvers and achieving legal and reimbursement clarity is necessary for widespread implementation.

Post-operative nerve injuries after cervical spine surgery.

Although relatively rare, post-operative nerve injuries may occur after cervical spine procedures. The most common post-operative neural disorder is C5 nerve palsy. The risk factors for C5 nerve palsy are male gender, OPLL, and posterior cervical approaches. It generally presents with deltoid and/or biceps weakness, and may present immediately or several days after surgery. Treatment is generally conservative due to transient duration of symptoms, but evaluation of residual compression at C4-5 is essential. PTS (Parsonage-Turner syndrome) is an idiopathic plexopathy generally presenting with severe neuropathic pain in the shoulder, neck, and arms, followed by neurological deficits involving the upper brachial plexus. The deficits typically present in a delayed fashion after the onset of pain. Once residual nerve compression is ruled out, initial treatment is based on pain control and physical therapy. Post-operative C8-T1 nerve palsies occur with weakness of the five intrinsic muscles of the hand innervated by the medial nerve, with sensory symptoms in the territory innervated by the ulnar nerve (ulnar two digits of the hand), and also the medial forearm. The risk factors for C8-T1 nerve injuries after surgery are C7 pedicle subtraction osteotomies and posterior fixation of the cervico-thoracic junction, especially in patients with preoperative C7-T1 stenosis. A wide foraminal decompression at C7-T1 region is necessary to minimize risk of this complication. Finally, Horner's syndrome can occur post-operatively, especially after anterolateral approaches to the middle and lower levels of the cervical spine. It is characterized by ipsilateral papillary miosis, facial anhydrosis, and ptosis secondary to injury of the cervical sympathetic nerves. Avoid using the cautery on the lateral border of the longus colli muscle, where the sympathetic chain lies and place the retractors properly underneath the muscle to decrease the chance of sympathetic injuries. It can also occur from iatrogenic compression or injury to the T1 nerve root, as the sympathetic chain gets some of its fibers from that level. Understanding the most common potential nerve injuries after cervical spine procedures is helpful in prevention, early diagnosis, and appropriate management.

Evidence-based use of arthroplasty in cervical degenerative disc disease.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) was developed to decrease the rate of symptomatic adjacent-level disease while preserving motion in the cervical spine. METHODS: The objectives of this paper are to provide criteria for proper patient selection as well as to present a comprehensive literature review of the current evidence for CDA, including randomized studies, the most recent meta-analysis findings, and long-term follow-up clinical trials as well. RESULTS: Currently, there are several prospective randomized controlled studies of level I of evidence attesting to the safety and efficacy of CDA in the management of cervical spondylotic disease (CSD) for one- or two-level degenerative diseases. These as well as recent meta-analyses suggest that CDA is potentially similar or even superior to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when considering several outcomes, including dysphagia and re-operation rate over medium-term follow-up. Less robust studies have also reported satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes of CDA for hybrid procedures (ACDF combined with CDA), non-contiguous disease, and even for multilevel disease (more than 2 levels). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this evidence we conclude that CDA is a safe and effective alternative to ACDF in properly selected patients for one- or two-level diseases. Defining superiority of specific implants and detailing optimal surgical indications will require further well-designed long-term studies.

Cervical disc arthroplasty: tips and tricks.

Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a powerful, motion-sparing treatment option for managing cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. While CDA can be an excellent surgery for properly indicated patients, it is also less forgiving than cervical fusion. Optimally resolving patient symptoms while maintaining range of motion relies on near perfection in the surgical technique. Different CDA options exist on the market, with some having long-term proven success and others in early stages of clinical trials. We discuss the different options available for use, as well as strategies of positioning, approach, disc space preparation, implantation, and fusion prevention that we believe can help improve performance and outcomes of CDA.

Recurrent spinal deformity after scoliosis surgery in children.

The management of complex spinal deformities in the growing child continues to evolve. The implementation of new techniques and biomaterial constructs has improved outcomes of deformity correction procedures but has also led to unforeseen complications. After spinal alignment through posterior instrumentation and fusion, progressive global decompensation in the coronal and sagittal planes or local decompensation in the vertebral segments adjacent to the fusion have developed in some children. These complications can lead to poor cosmesis, function, and quality of life, and a higher risk for revision surgery. Although postoperative spinal imbalance develops in few children, diligent monitoring of patients with predisposing risk factors for decompensation will allow surgeons to better predict, manage, and potentially prevent these complications.

The Burden of Back and Neck Strains and Sprains in Professional Baseball Players.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case series study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the epidemiology of diagnoses of back and neck strains and sprains among Major League (MLB) and Minor League (MiLB) Baseball players. BACKGROUND: Baseball players perform unique sets of repetitive movements that may predispose to neck and back strains and sprains. Data are lacking concerning the epidemiology of these diagnoses in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: De-identified data on neck/back strains and sprains were collected from all MLB and MiLB teams from 2011 to 2016 using the MLB-commissioned Health and Injury Tracking System database. Diagnosis rates of conditions related to cervical, thoracic, and lumbar musculature and their impact on days missed due to injury, player participation, and season or career-ending status were assessed. Injury rates were reported as injuries per 1000 athlete exposures (AEs). RESULTS: There were 3447 cases of neck/back strains and sprains in professional baseball players from 2011 to 2016. Seven hundred twenty-one of these occurred in MLB versus 2726 in MiLB. Of injuries 136 were season-ending (26 in MLB, 110 in MiLB); 22 were career-ending (2 in MLB, 20 in MiLB). The total days missed were 39,118 (8838 from MLB and 30,280 from MiLB). Excluding season or career-ending injuries, the mean days missed were 11.8 (12.7 and 11.6 in MLB and MiLB, respectively). The median days missed were 4 (3 and 5 in MLB and MiLB, respectively). Combining MLB and MiLB, the pitcher injury rate was 1.893 per 1000 AEs versus 0.743 per 1000 Aes for other position players (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was a high incidence of neck/back strains and sprains in MLB and MiLB players, with nearly 40,000 aggregate days missed in our 6-year study period. The median days missed were lower than the mean days missed, indicating rightward outliers. Pitchers had over double the rates of injuries compared with other position players. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Epidemiology of Lumbar Spine Conditions in Professional Baseball Players.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case series study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the epidemiology and burden of diagnoses of lumbar spinal conditions affecting Major League Baseball (MLB) and Minor League Baseball players. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar spinal conditions are a common cause of low back pain in the general population and can be caused by participation in sports and athletics. Data concerning the epidemiology of these injuries in professional baseball players are limited. METHODS: We collected deidentified MLB and Minor League Baseball data concerning lumbar spine conditions (lumbar disk herniations, lumbar degenerative disease, or pars conditions) from 2011 to 2017 using the MLB-commissioned Health and Injury Tracking System database. Data concerning days missed because of injury, need for surgery, and player participation and career-ending status were assessed. Injury rates were reported as injuries per 1000 athlete exposures in concordance with prior studies. RESULTS: Over 2011-2017, 5948 days of play were missed because of 206 lumbar spine-related injuries, of which 60 (29.1%) were season ending. Twenty-seven (13.1%) of these injuries required surgery. The most common injury among both pitchers and position players were lumbar disk herniations (45, 44.1% and 41, 39.4%, respectively). More surgeries were performed for lumbar disk herniations and degenerative disk disease compared with pars conditions (74% and 18.5% vs. 3.7%). Injury rates for pitchers was significantly higher than those of other position players 0.111 per 1000 AEs versus 0.040 per 1000 AEs ( P <0.0001). Injuries requiring surgery did not vary significantly by league, age group, or player position. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar spine-related injuries incurred substantial disability and days missed from play in professional baseball players. Lumbar disk herniations were the most common injury, and together with pars conditions led to higher rates of surgery compared with degenerative conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Telemedicine in Spine Surgery: Global Perspectives and Practices.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, anonymous, international survey. OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine in spine surgery. This study sought to determine the extent of adoption and global perspectives on telemedicine in spine surgery. METHODS: All members of AO Spine International were emailed an anonymous survey covering the participant's experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses. Responses were compared among regions. RESULTS: 485 spine surgeons participated in the survey. Telemedicine usage rose from <10.0% to >39.0% of all visits. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least one telemedicine visit. The format of "telemedicine" varied widely by region: European (50.0%) and African (45.2%) surgeons were more likely to use phone calls, whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used video (P < 0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). 81.9% of all providers "agreed/strongly agreed" telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to "agree" that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine adoption and the platform of telemedicine utilized. The results suggest a significant increase in telemedicine utilization, particularly in North America. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit.

Online access to spine care: do institutions advertise themselves as multidisciplinary?

Background: The primary aim of our study is to assess the extent to which healthcare systems advertise their spine care programs as multidisciplinary and furthermore clarify whether these institutions accurately reflect this description in their online access to spine care. The secondary aim of our study is to determine what proportion of institutions enable patients to self-schedule appointments online and select providers. Methods: Newsweek's 2021 list entitled "Best Hospitals 2021-United States" was utilized to obtain an extensive list of top-rated hospitals in the country. Institutions were considered to be advertising themselves as multidisciplinary if they used this term or similar wording (such as "care encompassing broad range of specialties", "interdisciplinary", "multidisciplinary"). Each institution's website was additionally assessed for the existence of: (I) a standard overview website or multiple individual sites for respective spine-focused divisions (i.e., orthopaedic surgery, neurosurgery, physical medicine and rehabilitation, anesthesiology); (II) online self-scheduling; (III) triage questions prior to requesting appointments; and (IV) selection choice for specific providers. Results: In total, 334 institutions were included in analysis, with 66% utilizing multidisciplinary terminology in describing their institution on their website. However, most institutions only had a standard overview website with no separate websites for respective divisions (54%). Institutions described as multidisciplinary were more likely to have a link on a central page to each division (31% vs. 4%, P<0.001). No significant differences were found between institutions described as multidisciplinary and those not described as such when considering triage questions, online self-scheduling, and choice of provider. Conclusions: Though the majority of spine care centers are described as multidisciplinary, the patient experience when navigating websites online does not always meet this standard. Further progress in website design, automated triaging, and online scheduling are needed to truly achieve multidisciplinary care.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function instruments compare favorably to legacy patient-reported outcome measures in spine patients: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Preliminary evidence has suggested favorable correlation between National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments and traditional ("legacy") patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in spine surgery. There has been a significant increase in PROMIS research with regards to spinal conditions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an assessment of PROMIS Physical Function (PF) measures in this patient population. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Two authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 1,060 studies, 124 of which were selected for independent review by two authors. Of these, 37 were selected for inclusion. Mixed linear models were performed to assess for differences between legacy PROMs and PROMIS measures. RESULTS: The combined sample size of all included studies yielded 10,296 total patients. Overall, PROMIS Physical Function (PF) measures demonstrated strong correlations with legacy PROMs when evaluating spine patients (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.589, standard error [SE]=0.023; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.702, SE=0.028). PROMIS questionnaires had significantly fewer questions than did legacy PROMs (4.2±0.30 vs. 9.53±0.82, p=.015). In spine studies, the PROMIS PF forms were completed in significantly less time than legacy PROMs (48.1±2.9 vs. 174.7±12.6 seconds, p<.001). The differences for the reliability measures and the floor and ceiling effects were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PF forms compare favorably with legacy PROMs with regard to correlations, ease of use, and quality criteria in the field of spine surgery. PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly with commonly used legacy PROMs, particularly in spine patients. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PF forms can be administered efficiently and to a broad patient population while remaining highly reliable.

Trends and Complications in Spinopelvic Fixation for Deformity for Spinal Surgeons in Early Independent Practice.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series study. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate trends and complications following posterior spinal instrumented fusion for deformity with/without pelvic fixation using the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Oral Examination Candidate Case List data from 2008 to 2017. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Complication rates for cases with pelvic fixation are widely reported in spine deformity literature but are typically derived from practices of senior surgeons. As surgical experience and clinical volume are shown to decrease complication rates, spine surgeons newly in practice may have higher risks of such events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgical cases submitted by candidates taking the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Oral Examination between 2008 and 2017 with a self-designated sub-specialty of spine surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Mortality, readmission/reoperation data, and complications as reported by candidates were tracked over time. Bivariate testing and multivariable Poisson analyses, respectively, were used to assess complication rates and time-related trends. RESULTS: A total of 37,539 cases were submitted between 2008 and 2017. Four hundred sixty-one cases (1.2%) were for deformity; of these, 60 cases included pelvic fixation (13% of deformity cases). For all deformity cases, we noted medical, surgical, and overall complication rates to be 17%, 22.3%, and 31.5%. Multivariable analyses demonstrated no difference in surgical/overall complication rates between spinopelvic and nonspinopelvic instrumented groups, but showed a consistently low number of cases using spinopelvic fixation over time. CONCLUSIONS: Newly practicing spinal surgeons consistently performed low numbers of deformity cases with relatively high complication rates which remained stable over time.

Patient Experiences of Telemedicine in Spine Care: A Mixed Methods Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey-based study. OBJECTIVE: We performed a mixed methods study involving patients using telemedicine for spine care. We sought to understand factors influencing the utilization and evaluation of this modality. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Telemedicine has been integrated into routine spine care; its long-term viability will depend not only on optimizing its safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, but also on understanding patient valuation of its benefits and limitations. METHODS: We used a clinical registry to identify spine patients seen virtually by providers at our tertiary academic medical center between March and September of 2020. We distributed an online survey that queried patients' experiences with telemedicine. We performed statistical analyses of Likert-scale questions and a thematic analysis of free-form responses. Sociodemographic data were abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, we evaluated 139 patient surveys. High levels of patient-rated care and patient-rated experience were observed for both in-person and telemedicine visits; however, in-person visits were rated significantly higher in both respects (9.3/10 vs. 8.7/10 for patient-rated care, P < 0.001; 9.0/10 vs. 8.4/10 for patient-rated experience, P = 0.006). A preference for in-person first-time visits was observed which was not maintained for follow up appointments. Both patient and clinical factors influenced perceptions of telemedicine. Thematic analysis of free-form responses provided by 113 patients (81%) generated favorable, unfavorable, and reflective themes, each further contextualized by subthemes. Responders were not significantly different from nonresponders across sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSION: Our quantitative and qualitative findings yield insight into the patient experience of telemedicine in spine care. A preference for in-person visits was notable, particularly for new patient evaluations. This preference was not maintained for follow-up care. Patients acknowledged the benefits of telemedicine and reflected on its effective integration with in-person care. These results may guide best practices to improve access and patient satisfaction in the future.Level of Evidence: 4.

Epidemiology of Spine-Related Neurologic Injuries in Professional Baseball Players.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case series study. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the epidemiology of diagnoses of degenerative cervical and lumbar spinal conditions among Major League Baseball (MLB) and Minor League Baseball (MiLB) players. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Repetitive high-energy forces in professional baseball players may predispose them to degenerative cervical and lumbar spinal conditions. There is a lack of data concerning the epidemiology of these injuries in professional baseball. METHODS: Deidentified data on spine injuries were collected from all MLB and MiLB teams from 2011 to 2016 from the MLB-commissioned Health and Injury Tracking System database. Rates of diagnoses of common degenerative spinal conditions as well as their impact on days missed due to injury, necessitation of surgery, and player participation and career-ending status were assessed. Injury rates were reported as injuries per 1000 athlete-exposures in concordance with prior studies. RESULTS: Over 2011 to 2016, 4246 days of play were missed due to 172 spine-related injuries. 73.3% were related to the lumbar spine and 26.7% to the cervical spine. There were similar rates of surgery required for these injuries (18.3% of lumbar injuries vs. 13.0% of cervical injuries, P = 0.2164). Mean age of players with cervical injuries was higher compared with the lumbar group (27.5 vs. 25.4, P = 0.0119). Average number of days missed due to lumbar injuries was significantly higher than those due to cervical injuries (34.1 vs. 21.6 d, P = 0.0468). Spine injury rates for pitchers were significantly higher than those of other position players (0.086 per 1000 athlete-exposures vs. 0.037, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Neurologic diagnoses relating to the cervical and lumbar spine lead to substantial disability among MLB and MiLB players as well as days missed from play. Pitchers have over double the rates of injury compared with other position players. Lumbar conditions were associated with significantly higher numbers of days missed from play.Level of Evidence: 4.