A vertebral skeletal stem cell lineage driving metastasis.

Vertebral bone is subject to a distinct set of disease processes from long bones, including a much higher rate of solid tumour metastases1-4. The basis for this distinct biology of vertebral bone has so far remained unknown. Here we identify a vertebral skeletal stem cell (vSSC) that co-expresses ZIC1 and PAX1 together with additional cell surface markers. vSSCs display formal evidence of stemness, including self-renewal, label retention and sitting at the apex of their differentiation hierarchy. vSSCs are physiologic mediators of vertebral bone formation, as genetic blockade of the ability of vSSCs to generate osteoblasts results in defects in the vertebral neural arch and body. Human counterparts of vSSCs can be identified in vertebral endplate specimens and display a conserved differentiation hierarchy and stemness features. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that vSSCs contribute to the high rates of vertebral metastatic tropism observed in breast cancer, owing in part to increased secretion of the novel metastatic trophic factor MFGE8. Together, our results indicate that vSSCs are distinct from other skeletal stem cells and mediate the unique physiology and pathology of vertebrae, including contributing to the high rate of vertebral metastasis.

Impact of age on comparative outcomes of decompression alone versus fusion for L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts. RESULTS: 233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion.

Improvement following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients aged 70 years or older compared with younger age groups.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) in patients ≥ 70 years old and compare them to younger age groups. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of data that were collected prospectively. Patients who underwent primary single-level MI-TLIF were included and divided into 3 groups: age < 60, 60-69, and ≥ 70 years. The outcome measures were as follows: 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (i.e., visual analog scale [VAS] for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary [SF-12 PCS]); 2) minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement; 3) return to activities; 4) opioid discontinuation; 5) fusion rates; and 6) complications/reoperations. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients (age < 60 years, 62; 60-69 years, 47; ≥ 70 years, 38) were included. All the groups showed significant improvements in all PROMs at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) time points and there was no significant difference between the groups. Although MCID achievement rates for VAS leg and ODI were similar, they were lower in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and SF-12 PCS. Although the time to MCID achievement for ODI and SF-12 PCS was similar, it was greater in the ≥ 70-year-old patient group for VAS back and leg. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of return to activities, opioid discontinuation, fusion rates, and complication/reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients > 70 years of age may be less likely and/or take longer to achieve MCID compared to their younger counterparts, they show an overall significant improvement in PROMs, a similar likelihood of returning to activities and discontinuing opioids, and comparable fusion and complication/reoperation rates following MI-TLIF.

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.

Global alignment and proportion (GAP) scores in an asymptomatic, nonoperative cohort: a divergence of age-adjusted and pelvic incidence-based alignment targets.

PURPOSE: To investigate GAP scores in an asymptomatic cohort of adults, including older adults with age-expected changes in spinal alignment. METHODS: One hundred and twenty asymptomatic volunteers underwent full-body radiographic scans. Demographics and sagittal radiographic parameters (pelvic incidence, sacral slope, L1-S1 lordosis, L4-S1 lordosis, and global tilt) were measured and GAP scores calculated ( www.gapcalculator.com ). Mann-Whitney U test compared groups. RESULTS: Eighty-five individuals (65 female, average age 48 ± 16 years, BMI 27 ± 6 kg/cm2) were analyzed. The median GAP score was that of a proportioned spine (0, range 0-10). 20% were moderately disproportioned and 6% were severely disproportioned. The mean relative pelvic version, relative lumbar lordosis (RLL), lumbar distribution index (LDI), and relative spinopelvic alignment were all considered aligned, although the mean RLL and LDI scores were both greater than 1. When categorized by age (< 60 years, ≥ 60 years), the median GAP score of the younger group was 0 (normal), while the median GAP score of the older cohort was 1 (normal) and different from the younger group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most patients in this asymptomatic, nonoperative cohort were normally proportioned. However, a large percentage of asymptomatic volunteers were moderately or severely disproportioned. Older patients had higher scores, indicating some disproportion. There was also a small number of severely sagittally misaligned and poorly proportioned, yet asymptomatic, volunteers. Further refinement of individualized targets is needed to determine the effect on mechanical complications and quality of life given the divergent recommendations of age-adjusted targets and GAP targets.

Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion?

OBJECTIVE: In an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1-2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°-8°, 10°-12°, and 15°-20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°-8° cages, 1.6° with 10°-12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°-20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs -0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1-2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.

Are Grit and Self-Control Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Spine Surgery?

Background: Grit, defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals, and self-control, defined as the capacity to regulate impulses in the presence of momentarily gratifying temptations or diversion, have shown to be predictors of professional achievement. Their role in health care outcomes is less well understood. Purpose: We sought to determine whether grit and self-control are associated with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following spine surgery. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients who underwent cervical or lumbar procedures by a single fellowship-trained spine surgeon between March 2017 and October 2020. We included patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disk replacement, minimally invasive laminectomy/laminoplasty (MI-D), or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) with minimum 1-year follow-up. Grit and self-control scores were collected 1 year after the surgery. PROMs were collected preoperatively and at 6 postoperative timepoints. Grit and self-control were compared between patients who achieved substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in either physical or mental health versus those who did not. The association between grit/self-control and change in PROMs was also assessed. Results: In the 129 patients included in the analysis, we found that patients who achieved SCB in mental health had significantly higher grit scores than those who did not. In bivariate analysis, self-control was associated with greater improvement in leg pain scores at 1-year and 2-year follow-up following an MI-D. For the MI-TLIF cohort, grit was associated with a smaller change in Short Form 12 mental component score at 6 weeks, and self-control was associated with a smaller change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function at the 6-month timepoint. Grit and self-control were not associated with PROMs at other timepoints. Conclusion: This retrospective review found that grit and self-control were not significantly associated with PROMs at most postoperative timepoints in patients who underwent spine surgery.

Perception of Robotics and Navigation by Spine Fellows and Early Attendings: The Impact of These Technologies on Their Training and Practice.

BACKGROUND: There is scant data on the role that robotics and navigation play in spine surgery training and practice of early attendings. This study aimed to assess the impact of navigation and robotics on spine surgery training and practice. METHODS: A survey gathering information on utilization of navigation and robotics in training and practice was administered to trainees and early attendings. RESULTS: A total of 51 surveys were returned completed: 71% were attendings (average practice years: 2), 29% were trainees. During training, 22% were exposed to only fluoroscopy, 75% were exposed to navigation, 51% were exposed to robotics, and 40% were exposed to both navigation and robotics. In our sample, 87% and 61% of respondents who had exposure to navigation and robotics, respectively, felt that it had a positive impact on their training. In practice, 28% utilized only fluoroscopy, 69% utilized navigation, 30% utilized robotics, and 28% utilized both navigation and robotics. The top 3 reasons behind positive impact on training and practice were: 1) increased screw accuracy, 2) exposure to upcoming technology, and 3) less radiation exposure. The top 3 reasons behind negative impact were: 1) compromises training to independently place screws, 2) time and personnel requirements, and 3) concerns about availing it in practice. In sum, 76% of attendings felt that they will be utilizing more navigation and robotics in 5 years' time. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation and robotics have a perceivably positive impact on training and are increasingly being incorporated into practice. However, associated concerns demand spine surgeons to be thoughtful about how they integrate these technologies moving forward.

Chat Generative Pretraining Transformer Answers Patient-focused Questions in Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Review of Chat Generative Pretraining Transformer (ChatGPT) outputs to select patient-focused questions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the quality of ChatGPT responses to cervical spine questions. BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence and its utilization to improve patient experience across medicine is seeing remarkable growth. One such usage is patient education. For the first time on a large scale, patients can ask targeted questions and receive similarly targeted answers. Although patients may use these resources to assist in decision-making, there still exists little data regarding their accuracy, especially within orthopedic surgery and more specifically spine surgery. METHODS: We compiled 9 frequently asked questions cervical spine surgeons receive in the clinic to test ChatGPT's version 3.5 ability to answer a nuanced topic. Responses were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers on a Likert Scale for the accuracy of information presented (0-5 points), appropriateness in giving a specific answer (0-3 points), and readability for a layperson (0-2 points). Readability was assessed through the Flesh-Kincaid grade level analysis for the original prompt and for a second prompt asking for rephrasing at the sixth-grade reading level. RESULTS: On average, ChatGPT's responses scored a 7.1/10. Accuracy was rated on average a 4.1/5. Appropriateness was 1.8/3. Readability was a 1.2/2. Readability was determined to be at the 13.5 grade level originally and at the 11.2 grade level after prompting. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT has the capacity to be a powerful means for patients to gain important and specific information regarding their pathologies and surgical options. These responses are limited in their accuracy, and we, in addition, noted readability is not optimal for the average patient. Despite these limitations in ChatGPT's capability to answer these nuanced questions, the technology is impressive, and surgeons should be aware patients will likely increasingly rely on it.

Isolated decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis is less costly than fusion even with high revision rates.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Isolated decompression and decompression with instrumented fusion are accepted surgical treatments for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Although isolated decompression is a less costly solution with similar patient-reported outcomes, it is associated with higher rates of reoperation than primary fusion. PURPOSE: To determine the costs associated with primary decompression, primary fusion, and decompression and fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. We further sought to establish at what revision rate is primary decompression still a less costly surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective database study of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) limited data set. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent single-level fusion or decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of surgical care. METHODS: All inpatient stays that underwent surgery for single-level lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative spondylolisthesis in the 2019 calendar year (n=6,653) were queried from the MEDPAR limited data set. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: primary decompression (n=300), primary fusion (n=5,757), and revision fusion (n=566). Univariate analysis was conducted to determine cost differences between these groups and results were confirmed with multivariable regression. An economic analysis was then done to determine at what revision rate would primary decompression still be a less costly treatment choice. RESULTS: on univariate analysis, the cost of primary single-level decompression for spondylolisthesis was $14,690±9,484, the cost of primary single-level fusion was $26,376±11,967, and revision fusion was $26,686±11,309 (p<0.001). on multivariate analysis, primary fusion was associated with an increased cost of $3,751, and revision fusion was associated with increased cost of $7,502 (95%ci: 2,990-4,512, p<0.001). economic analysis found that a revision rate less than or equal to 43.8% would still result in primary decompression being less costly for a practice than primary fusion for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is a less costly treatment choice even with rates of revision fusion as high as 43.8%. This was true even with an assumed revision rate of 0% after primary fusion. This study solely looks at cost data, however, and many patients may still benefit from primary fusion when appropriately indicated.

The Impact of Endplate Coverage on Heterotopic Ossification Following Cervical Disc Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Describe the impact of endplate coverage on HO in cervical disc replacement (CDR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDR is a motion-sparing alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. However, the high prevalence of heterotopic ossification threatens to diminish range of motion and limit this benefit associated with CDR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. EMBASE and PubMed databases were queried. Results were deduplicated and screened. Relevant studies were included. All metrics that were reported in ≥3 studies were aggregated for analysis. SPSS was used to perform the meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included in the systematic review. Endplate coverage was assessed using a wide variety of measurements, including anteroposterior implant depth (ID), endplate depth (ED), exposed endplate depth (EED), implant depth to endplate depth ratio (ID:ED), EED to ED ratio (EED:ED), implant width (IW) to endplate width (EW) ratio (IW:EW), and the implant area (IA) to endplate area (EA) ratio (IA:EA). No evidence has linked ID (three studies) to HO. Mixed evidence has linked ID:ED (3/5) and IW:ED (1/2) to HO. All available evidence has linked ED (2), EED (4), EED:ED (2), and IA:EA (1) to HO. In our meta-analysis, ID was not found to be a significant risk factor for HO. However, EED and ID:ED were found to be significant risk factors for HO formation. CONCLUSIONS: Exposed endplate, especially as assessed by EED and ID:ED, is a significant risk factor for HO. Surgeons should focus on preoperative planning and intraoperative implant selection to maximize endplate coverage. While optimizing technique and implant selection is crucial, improved implant design may also be necessary to ensure that appropriate implant-endplate footprint matching is possible across the anatomic spectrum.

Comparison of the Safety of Inpatient Versus Outpatient Lumbar Fusion : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to synthesize the early data regarding and analyze the safety profile of outpatient lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Performing lumbar fusion in an outpatient or ambulatory setting is becoming an increasingly employed strategy to provide effective value-based care. As this is an emerging option for surgeons to employ in their practices, the data is still in its infancy. METHODS: This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that described outcomes of inpatient and outpatient lumbar fusion cohorts were searched from PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, and Embase. Rates of individual medical and surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation were collected when applicable. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were additionally collected if reported. Individual pooled comparative meta-analysis was performed for outcomes of medical complications, surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation. PROMs were reviewed and qualitatively reported. RESULTS: The search yielded 14 publications that compared outpatient and inpatient cohorts with a total of 75,627 patients. Odds of readmission demonstrated no significant difference between outpatient and inpatient cohorts [OR=0.94 (0.81-1.11)]. Revision surgery similarly was no different between the cohorts [OR=0.81 (0.57-1.15)]. Pooled medical and surgical complications demonstrated significantly decreased odds for outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts [OR=0.58 (0.34-0.50), OR=0.41 (0.50-0.68), respectively]. PROM measures were largely the same between the cohorts when reported, with few studies showing better ODI and VAS Leg outcomes among outpatient cohorts compared with inpatient cohorts. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data regarding the safety of outpatient lumbar fusion demonstrates a favorable safety profile in appropriately selected patients, with PROMs remaining comparable in this setting. There is no data in the form of prospective and randomized trials which is necessary to definitively change practice.

Analysis of 1027 Adverse Events Reports for Interspinous Process Devices From the US Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database.

BACKGROUND: Interspinous process devices (IPDs) introduce a new class of complications to surgical decompression without fusion: hardware-related complications. The purpose of this study was to describe the adverse events associated with IPDs. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. METHODS: The database was queried from its inception to November 2022 for reports associated with "Prosthesis, Spinous Process Spacer/Plate." Entries were categorized by event type, patient impact, and interventions. RESULTS: A total of 943 surgery-related adverse events were identified. The most common intraoperative events were implant malfunctions (39.7%, n = 374) and fractures (2.2%, n = 21). The most common postoperative events were persistent pain (26.6%, n = 251), implant migration (19.1%, n = 180), and fracture (6.8%, n = 64). The most common resultant outcome of an adverse event was the need for revision surgery (48.8%, n = 460). The need for revision surgery was common in patients who experienced fracture (47.1%), implant migration (84.5%), infection (76.7%), and neurological complications (76.9%). Implant migration, fracture, and implant malfunction, 3 complications that are unique to decompression with an IPD as compared with traditional laminectomy, accounted for 45.9% of revisions (211/460), and revision was required in 33.0% of cases where 1 of these complications was reported (211/640). Implant malfunction made up 21.2% of Coflex complications, 47.3% of Superion complications, and 5.2% of X-Stop complications. CONCLUSIONS: The most common adverse events were implant malfunction, inadequate efficacy, implant migration, and fracture. Concerningly, these complications require revision surgery in one-third of cases when they occur. Implant-specific assessments demonstrate a high prevalence of implant malfunctions for the Coflex and Superion implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Interspinous process devices introduce a new class of complications to isolated spinal decompression surgery: implant-related complications. These complications occur both intraoperatively and postoperatively, and they frequently necessitate revision surgery.

Feasibility of Saphenous Nerve Somatosensory-Evoked Potential Intraoperative Monitoring During Lumbar Spine Surgery: Early Results.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: Assess the feasibility of saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SN-SSEP) monitoring in lumbar spine surgeries. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: SN-SSEPs have been proposed for detecting lumbar plexus and femoral nerve injury during lateral lumbar surgery where tibial nerve (TN) SSEPs alone are insufficient. SN-SSEPs may also be useful in other types of lumbar surgery, as stimulation of SN below the knee derives solely from the L4 root and provides a means of L4 monitoring, whereas TN-SSEPs often do not detect single nerve root injury. The feasibility of routine SN-SSEP monitoring has not been established. METHODS: A total of 563 consecutive cases using both TN-SSEP and SN-SSEP monitoring were included. Anesthesia was at the discretion of the anesthesiologist, using an inhalant in 97.7% of procedures. SN stimulation was performed using 13 mm needle electrodes placed below the knee using 200-400 µsec pulses at 15 to 100 mA. Adjustments to stimulation parameters were made by the neurophysiology technician while obtaining baselines. Data were graded retrospectively for monitorability and cortical response amplitudes were measured by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of TN-SSEPs and 92.5% of SN-SSEPs were monitorable at baseline, with a mean response amplitude of 1.35 µV for TN-SSEPs and 0.71 µV for SN-SSEPs. A significant difference between the stimulation parameters used to obtain reproducible TN and SN-SSEPs at baseline was observed, with SN-SSEPs requiring greater stimulation intensities. Body mass index is not associated with baseline monitorability. Out of 20 signal changes observed, 11 involved SN, while TN-SSEPs were unaffected. CONCLUSION: With adjustments to stimulation parameters, SN-SSEP monitoring is feasible within a large clinical cohort without modifications to the anesthetic plan. Incorporating SN into standard intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring protocols for lumbar spine procedures may expand the role of SSEP monitoring to include detecting injury to the lumbar plexus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Capacity for large language model chatbots to aid in orthopedic management, research, and patient queries.

Large language model (LLM) chatbots possess a remarkable capacity to synthesize complex information into concise, digestible summaries across a wide range of orthopedic subject matter. As LLM chatbots become widely available they will serve as a powerful, accessible resource that patients, clinicians, and researchers may reference to obtain information about orthopedic science and clinical management. Here, we examined the performance of three well-known and easily accessible chatbots-ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing AI-in responding to inquiries relating to clinical management and orthopedic concepts. Although all three chatbots were found to be capable of generating relevant responses, ChatGPT outperformed Bard and BingAI in each category due to its ability to provide accurate and complete responses to orthopedic queries. Despite their promising applications in clinical management, shortcomings observed included incomplete responses, lack of context, and outdated information. Nonetheless, the ability for these LLM chatbots to address these inquires has largely yet to be evaluated and will be critical for understanding the risks and opportunities of LLM chatbots in orthopedics.

Trends in Indications and Contraindications for Cervical Disk Arthroplasty from 2009 to 2019.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: Assess trends of indications and contraindications for the use of Cervical Disk Arthroplasty (CDA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As spine surgeons become more familiar with CDA, there have been expansions in indications. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Sets for 2009, 2014, and 2019 were utilized. Patients undergoing elective CDA were included. Diagnosis for index surgery and "contraindications" as defined by original CDA Investigative Device Exemption (IDE) criteria were assessed. Variables were identified by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis and procedural codes. RESULTS: A total of 1067 elective CDA patients were included. There were 230 patients in 2009, 300 patients in 2014, and 537 patients in 2019. The proportion of patients aged >65 increased from 35% to 51% ( P <0.001). Incidence of CDA for radiculopathy increased from 57% to 69% ( P <0.001), myelopathy increased from 23% to 78% ( P <0.001), and spondylosis without radiculopathy or myelopathy decreased from 19% to 3% ( P <0.001). There were increased incidences of ankylosing spondylitis (0.4% to 2.8%, P =0.007), long-term steroid use (1% to 2%, P =0.039), morbid obesity (2% to 6%, P =0.019), and osteoporosis (1% to 5%, P =0.014). The incidence of hybrid CDA and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) decreased from 28% to 23% ( P =0.007). CONCLUSION: From 2009 to 2019, the number of CDA performed in older patients increased. An increase in the use of CDA for the treatment of myelopathy and radiculopathy and a decrease in the treatment of isolated cervical spondylosis was observed. The proportion of CDA performed in patients with original IDE trial "contraindications" increased. Further research into the efficacy of CDA for patients with contraindications is warranted.

Development of Murine Anterior Interbody and Posterolateral Spinal Fusion Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Multiple animal models have previously been utilized to investigate anterior fusion techniques, but a mouse model has yet to be developed. The purpose of this study was to develop murine anterior interbody and posterolateral fusion techniques. METHODS: Mice underwent either anterior interbody or posterolateral spinal fusion. A protocol was developed for both procedures, including a description of the relevant anatomy. Samples were subjected to micro-computed tomography to assess fusion success and underwent biomechanical testing with use of 4-point bending. Lastly, samples were fixed and embedded for histologic evaluation. RESULTS: Surgical techniques for anterior interbody and posterolateral fusion were developed. The fusion rate was 83.3% in the anterior interbody model and 100% in the posterolateral model. Compared with a control, the posterolateral model exhibited a greater elastic modulus. Histologic analysis demonstrated endochondral ossification between bridging segments, further confirming the fusion efficacy in both models. CONCLUSIONS: The murine anterior interbody and posterolateral fusion models are efficacious and provide an ideal platform for studying the molecular and cellular mechanisms mediating spinal fusion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given the extensive genetic tools available in murine disease models, use of fusion models such as ours can enable determination of the underlying genetic pathways involved in spinal fusion.

Erector Spinae Plane Block Reduces Immediate Postoperative Pain and Opioid Demand After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Matched cohort comparison. OBJECTIVE: To determine perioperative outcomes of erector spinae plane (ESP) block for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a paucity of data on the impact of lumbar ESP block on perioperative outcomes and its safety in MI-TLIF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent 1-level MI-TLIF and received the ESP block (group E ) were included. An age and sex-matched control group was selected from a historical cohort that received the standard-of-care (group NE). The primary outcome of this study was 24-hour opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents. Secondary outcomes were pain severity measured by a numeric rating scale, opioid-related side effects, and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Ninety-eight and 55 patients were included in the E and NE groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in patient demographics. Group E had lower 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption ( P = 0.117, not significant), reduced opioid consumption on a postoperative day (POD) 0 ( P = 0.016), and lower first pain scores postsurgery ( P < 0.001). Group E had lower intraoperative opioid requirements ( P < 0.001), and significantly lower average numeric rating scale pain scores on POD 0 ( P = 0.034). Group E reported fewer opioid-related side effects as compared with group NE, although this was not statistically significant. The average highest postoperative pain score within 3 hours postprocedurally was 6.9 and 7.7 in the E and NE cohorts, respectively ( P = 0.029). The median length of stay was comparable between groups with the majority of patients in both groups being discharged on POD 1. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective matched cohort, ESP blocks resulted in reduced opioid consumption and decreased pain scores on POD 0 in patients undergoing MI-TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.