One year patient reported outcomes after single-level lumbar fusion at orthopedic specialty hospital compared to tertiary referral center.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar spinal fusion is an increasingly common operation to treat symptoms related to degenerative disorders of the spine including radiculopathy and pain. As the volume of spine surgeries grows, it is becoming increasingly common for procedures to take place in nontertiary care centers, including orthopaedic specialty hospitals (OSH). While previous research demonstrates that surgical outcomes at an OSH are noninferior to those at a tertiary referral center (TRC), the implications of this difference on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not been sufficiently assessed. PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were (1) to determine if changes in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elective lumbar spinal fusion surgery differ between patients who undergo surgery at an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) and those who undergo surgery at a tertiary referral center (TRC) and (2) to characterize differences in short-term outcomes between hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent primary, elective single-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion between January 2014 and December 2021 at a tertiary referral center or an orthopaedic specialty hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMs: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-form 12 (SF12) Mental Component Summary (MCS); SF12 Physical Component Summary (PCS); Visual Analogue Back and Leg (VAS Back/Leg) METHODS: PROMs were collected preoperatively, 6 months after surgery, and 1 year after surgery. Six-month and 1-year delta PROM values were calculated by subtracting the preoperative PROM score from the 6-month or 1-year score, respectively. Multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the independent effect of hospital location on postoperative PROM scores. RESULTS: A total of 288 patients were identified as part of the study cohort including 205 patients who underwent surgery at the tertiary hospital and 83 patients who underwent surgery at the OSH. OSH patients had shorter length of stay (1.57±0.72 vs. 3.28±1.32, p<.001), however there was no difference in discharge disposition or 90-day readmission rates between hospitals (p>.05). At 6 months, having surgery at the specialty hospital was associated with higher PCS (estimate=2.96, confidence interval: 0.21-5.71, p=.035). At 1-year postoperatively, the location of surgery no longer demonstrated significant associations with PROM scores. Preoperative PROM scores demonstrated significant associations with 6-month and 1-year scores for each PROM (p<.05) except VAS leg at 6 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies investigating PROMs at OSH versus TRCs for single-level lumbar fusions. We demonstrated that at 1-year follow-up, there is not a significant difference in PROM improvement between patients who undergo surgery at a TRC and patients who do so at an OSH.

Socioeconomic Status Impacts Length of Stay and Non-Home Discharge Disposition after Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To examine how community-level economic disadvantage impacts short-term outcomes following posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The effects of socioeconomic factors, measured by the Distress Community Index (DCI), on postoperative outcomes after PCDF are underexplored. By understanding the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on PCDF outcomes, disparities in care can be addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 554 patients who underwent PCDF for cervical spondylotic myelopathy between 2017 and 2022. SES was assessed using DCI obtained from patient zip codes. Patients were stratified into quintiles from Prosperous to Distressed based on DCI. Bivariate analyses and multivariate regressions were performed to evaluate the associations between social determinants of health and surgical outcomes including length of stay, home discharge, complications, and readmissions. RESULTS: Patients living in At-Risk/Distressed communities were more likely to be Black (53.3%). Patients living in At-Risk/Distressed communities had the longest hospitalization (6.24 d vs. Prosperous: 3.92, P=0.006). Significantly less At-Risk/Distressed patients were discharged home without additional services (37.3% vs. Mid-Tier: 52.5% vs. Comfortable: 53.4% vs. Prosperous: 56.4%, P<0.001). On multivariate analysis, residing in an At-Risk/Distressed community was independently associated with non-home discharge (odds ratio (OR): 2.28, P=0.007) and longer length of stay (E:1.54, P=0.017). CONCLUSION: Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged communities experience longer hospitalizations and are more likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation or skilled nursing facility following PCDF. Social and economic barriers should be addressed as part of presurgical counseling and planning in elective spine surgery to mitigate these disparities and improve the quality and value of health care delivery, regardless of socioeconomic status.

Opioid Prescription Trends Among Orthopaedic, Primary Care, and Pain Management Providers in Spine Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine prescription trends across specialties in the perioperative care of patients undergoing spine surgery from 2018 to 2021. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A range of measures, including implementation of state prescription drug monitoring programs, have been instituted to combat the opioid epidemic. Considering the continued presence of opioids for spine-related pain management, a better understanding of the patterns of opioid prescription practices may be important for future intervention. METHODS: All patients aged 18 years and older who underwent elective posterior lumbar decompression and fusion, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion from 2018 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics were collected through a Structured Query Language search and manual chart review. Opioid prescription data were collected through Pennsylvania's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) database and grouped into the following prescriber categories: primary care, pain management, physiatry, and orthopaedic surgery. RESULTS: Of the 1,062 patients, 302 (28.4%) underwent anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion, 345 (32.4%) underwent posterior lumbar decompression and fusion, and 415 (39.1%) underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. From 2018 to 2021, there were no significant differences in total opioid prescriptions from orthopaedic surgery (P = 0.892), primary care (P = 0.571), pain management (P = 0.687), or physiatry (P = 0.391) providers. Pain management providers prescribed the most opioids between 1 year and 2 months preoperatively (P = 0.003), between 2 months and 1 year postoperatively (P = 0.018), and overall (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite increasing national awareness of the opioid epidemic and the establishment of statewide prescription drug monitoring programs, prescription rates have not changed markedly in spine patients. Pain management and primary care physicians prescribe opioids at a higher rate in the chronic periods before and after surgery, likely in part because of longitudinal relationships with these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study.

The Effect of Patient Resilience on Postoperative Scores After One- and Two-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between resilience and outcomes of pain and neck-related disability after single- and double-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Patients who underwent single- or double-level ACDF were sent a survey between 6 months and 2 years after surgery. The survey included the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-2). Patients completed the VAS and NDI twice, once describing preoperative pain and disability and once describing current pain and disability. Respondents were classified as high resilience (HR), medium resilience (MR), or low resilience (LR). Demographics, PSEQ-2 scores, pre- and postoperative VAS and NDI scores, and change in VAS (ΔVAS) and NDI (ΔNDI) scores were compared between groups. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients comprised the HR group, 273 patients comprised the MR group, and 47 patients comprised the LR group. All groups demonstrated postoperative improvement in VAS and NDI scores that exceeded previously established MCID values. The HR group demonstrated greater improvement in pain compared with the LR group (ΔVAS: -5.8 for HR vs. -4.4 for LR, P = 0.05). Compared with the MR group, the LR group demonstrated greater postoperative pain (VAS: 3.2 for LR vs. 2.5 for MR, P = 0.02) and disability (NDI: 11.9 for LR vs. 8.6 for MR, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients demonstrated improvement in pain and neck-related disability after single- and double-level ACDF, regardless of resilience score. Patients with greater resilience may be expected to demonstrate more improvement in pain after ACDF.

Construct length analysis of type B and C cervical and thoracolumbar fractures.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to identify if construct length affects the rate of surgical complications and instrumentation revision following surgical fixation of subaxial and thoracolumbar Type B and C fractures. This study evaluates the effect of ankylosing spondylitis/diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (AS/DISH) within this population on outcomes. Methods: Retrospective review of 91 cervical and 89 thoracolumbar Type B and C fractures. Groups were divided by construct length for analysis: short-segment (constructs spanning two or less segments adjacent to the fracture) and long-segment (constructs spanning more than two segments adjacent to the vertebral fracture). Results: For cervical fractures, construct length did not impact surgical complications (P = 0.641), surgical hardware revision (P = 0.167), or kyphotic change (P = 0.994). For thoracolumbar fractures, construct length did not impact surgical complications (P = 0.508), surgical hardware revision (P = 0.224), and kyphotic change (P = 0.278). Cervical Type B fractures were nonsignificantly more likely to have worsened kyphosis (P = 0.058) than Type C fractures. Assessing all regions of the spine, a diagnosis of AS/DISH was associated with an increase in kyphosis (P = 0.030) and a diagnosis of osteoporosis was associated with surgical hardware failure (P = 0.006). Conclusion: Patients with short-segment instrumentation have similar surgical outcomes and changes in kyphosis compared to those with long-segment instrumentation. A diagnosis of AS/DISH or osteoporosis was associated with worse surgical outcomes.

Preoperative Radiographic Predictors of Subsequent Fusion after Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine which demographic, surgical, and radiographic preoperative characteristics are most associated with the need for subsequent fusion after decompression lumbar spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a relatively high rate of the need for repeat decompression or fusion after an index decompression procedure for degenerative spine disease. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of literature identifying risk factors for lumbar fusion following decompression surgery. METHODS: Patients 18 years or older receiving a primary lumbar decompression surgery within the levels of L3-S1 between 2011 and 2020 were identified. All patients had preoperative radiographs and 2 years of follow-up data. Chart review was performed for surgical characteristics and demographics. The sagittal parameters included lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (aDH), posterior disk height (pDH), sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Pelvic incidence (PI=PT+SS) and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) were calculated. In addition, the Roussouly classification was determined for each patient. Bivariant and multivariant analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 363 patients identified in this study, 96 patients had a fusion after their index decompression surgery. Multivariable analysis identified involvement of L4-L5 level in the decompression (odds ratio (OR)=1.83 (1.09-3.14), P=0.026), increased L5-S1 segmental lordosis (OR=1.08 (1.03-1.13), P=0.001), decreased SS (OR=0.96 (0.93-0.99), P=0.023), and decreased endplate obliquity (OR=0.88 (0.77-0.99), P=0.040) as significant independent predictors of fusion after decompression surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to assess preoperative sagittal parameters in conjunction with demographic variables to determine predictors of the need for fusion after index decompression. We demonstrated that decompression at L4-L5, greater L5-S1 segmental lordosis, decreased sacral slope, and decreased endplate obliquity were associated with higher rates of fusion after decompression surgery.

Which North American spine society disc herniation morphology descriptors are most associated with improvements in clinical outcomes after microdiscectomy?

Background: The North American Spine Society (NASS) assembled the first ever comprehensive naming system for describing lumbar disc disease, including lumbar disc herniation. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine which NASS descriptors are most predictive of independent patient-reported outcomes after microdiscectomy and (2) to identify the inter-rater reliability of each NASS descriptor. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years) who underwent a lumbar microdiscectomy from 2014-2021 were retrospectively identified. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected at preoperative, 3-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. Lumbar disc herniations were evaluated and classified on preoperative MRI using the NASS lumbar disc nomenclature specific to disc herniation. Results: About 213 microdiscectomy patients were included in the final analysis. Herniation descriptors exhibiting the greatest reliability included sequestration status (κ=0.83), axial disc herniation area (κ=0.83), and laterality (κ=0.83). The descriptor with the lowest inter-rater reliability was direction of migration (κ=0.53). At 3 months, a sequestered herniation was associated with lower odds of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI (p=.004) and MCS (p=.032). At 12 months, a similar trend was observed for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) MCID achievement (p=.001). At 3 months, a herniation with larger axial area was a predictor of MCID achievement in ODI (p=.004) and the mental component summary (MCS) (p=.009). Neither association persisted at 12 months; however, larger axial disc herniation area was able to predict MCID achievement in the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) leg (p=.031) at 12 months. Conclusions: The utility of the NASS nomenclature system in predicting postoperative outcomes after microdiscectomy has yet to be studied. We showed that sequestration status and disc area are both reliable and able to predict the odds of achieving MCID in certain clinical outcomes at 3 months and 12 months after surgery. Hence, preoperative imaging analysis of lumbar disc herniations may be useful in accurately setting patient expectations.

Postoperative opioid consumption patterns diverge between propensity matched patients undergoing traumatic and elective cervical spine fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prolonged opioid therapy following spine surgery is an ongoing postoperative concern. While prior studies have investigated postoperative opioid use patterns in the elective cervical surgery patient population, to our knowledge, opioid use patterns in patients undergoing surgery for traumatic cervical spine injuries have not been elucidated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare opioid use and prescription patterns in the postoperative pain management of patients undergoing traumatic and elective cervical spine fusion surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with traumatic cervical injuries who underwent primary anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) during their initial hospital admission. The propensity matched, control group consisted of adult elective cervical fusion patients who underwent primary ACDF or PCDF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic data, surgical characteristics, spinal disease diagnosis, location of cervical injury, procedure type, operative levels fused, and Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data. PDMP data included the number of opioid prescriptions filled, preoperative opioid use, postoperative opioid use, and use of perioperative benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or gabapentin. Opioid consumption data was collected in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and standardized per day. METHODS: A 1:1 propensity match was performed to match traumatic injury patients undergoing cervical fusion surgery with elective cervical fusion patients. Traumatic injury patients were matched based on age, sex, CCI, procedure type, and cervical levels fused. Pre- and postoperative opioid, benzodiazepine, muscle relaxant, and gabapentin use were assessed for the traumatic injury and elective patients. T- or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare continuous data and Chi-Squared or Fisher's Exact were used to compare categorical data. Multivariate stepwise regression using MME per day 0 - 30 days following surgery as the dependent outcome was performed to further evaluate associations with postoperative opioid use. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients underwent fusion surgery for a traumatic cervical spine injury and 48 elective cervical fusion with complete PDMP data were assessed. Elective patients were found to fill more prescriptions (3.19 vs 0.65, p=.023) and take more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day (0.60 vs 0.04, p=.014) within 1 year prior to surgery in comparison to traumatic patients. Elective patients were also more likely to use opioids (29.2% vs 10.4%, p=.040) and take more MMEs per day (0.70 vs 0.05, p=.004) within 30 days prior to surgery. Within 30 days postoperatively, elective patients used opioids more frequently (89.6% vs 52.1%, p<.001) and took more MMEs per day (3.73 vs 1.71, p<.001) than traumatic injury patients. Multivariate stepwise regression demonstrated preoperative opioid use (Estimate: 1.87, p=.013) to be correlated with higher postoperative MME per day within 30 days of surgery. Surgery after traumatic injury was correlated with lower postoperative MME use per day within 30 days of surgery (Estimate: -1.63 p=.022). CONCLUSION: Cervical fusion patients with a history of traumatic spine injury consume fewer opioids in the early postoperative period in comparison to elective cervical fusion patients, however both cohorts consumed a similar amount after the initial 30-day postoperative period. Preoperative opioid use was also a risk factor for higher consumption in the short-term postoperative period. These results may aid physicians in further understanding patients' postoperative care needs based on presenting injury characteristics and highlights the need for enhanced follow-up care for traumatic cervical spine injury patients after fusion surgery.

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Posterior Cervical Laminoplasty for Multilevel Cervical Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported outcomes and surgical outcomes after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus cervical laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. BACKGROUND: Treatment options for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy include ACDF and cervical laminoplasty. Given that the literature has been mixed regarding the optimal approach, especially in patients without kyphosis, there is a need for additional studies investigating outcomes between ACDF and cervical laminoplasty. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of adult patients undergoing 3 or 4-level surgery. Patients with preoperative kyphosis based on C2-C7 Cobb angles were excluded. The electronic medical record and institutional databases were reviewed for baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients who underwent ACDF and 52 patients who underwent laminoplasty were included in the study. The laminoplasty cohort had a higher overall Charlson Comorbidity Index (3.10 ± 1.43 vs 2.39 ± 1.57, P = 0.011). Both groups had a comparable number of levels decompressed, C2-C7 lordosis, and diagnosis of myelopathy versus myeloradiculopathy. Patients who underwent laminoplasty had a longer length of stay (2.04 ± 1.15 vs 1.48 ± 0.70, P = 0.003) but readmission, complication, and revision rates were similar. Both groups had similar improvement in myelopathy scores (∆modified Japanese Orthopedic Association: 1.11 ± 3.09 vs 1.06 ± 3.37, P = 0.639). ACDF had greater improvement in Neck Disability Index (∆Neck Disability Index: -11.66 ± 19.2 vs -1.13 ± 11.2, P < 0.001), neck pain (∆Visual Analog Scale-neck: -2.69 ± 2.78 vs -0.83 ± 2.55, P = 0.003), and arm pain (∆Visual Analog Scale-arm: -2.47 ± 3.15 vs -0.48 ± 3.19, P = 0.010). These findings persisted in multivariate analysis except for Neck Disability Index. CONCLUSION: ACDF and cervical laminoplasty appear equally efficacious at halting myelopathic progression. However, patients who underwent ACDF had greater improvements in arm pain at 1 year postoperatively. Longitudinal studies evaluating the efficacy of laminoplasty to mitigate adjacent segment disease are indicated to establish a robust risk-benefit assessment for these 2 procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The Impact of the Preoperative Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) Score on Short-term Outcomes after Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to characterize the relationship between preoperative MCS and surgical outcomes after lumbar spine surgery including inpatient complications, length of stay, readmissions, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As the prevalence of mental health disorders in the United States increases, it is important to identify risks associated with poor mental health status in the surgical spine patient. The mental health component summary (MCS) of the Short Form-12 has been used extensively as an indication of a patient's mental health status and psychological well-being. METHODS: Adult patients older than or equal to 18 years who underwent primary one to three level lumbar fusion surgery at our academic medical institution from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Preoperative MCS score was used to analyze outcomes in patients based on a cutoff (<45.6). A score >45.6 indicated better preoperative mental health and a score <45.6 indicated worse preoperative mental health. RESULTS: Patients with lower preoperative MCS scores had longer hospital stays (3.86 + 2.16 vs. 3.55 + 1.42 days, P=0.010) and were more likely to have inpatient renal complications (3.09% vs. 7.19%, P=0.006). Patients with lower preoperative MCS scores also had lower Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) scores (17.1 + 2.85 vs. 17.6 + 2.49, P=0.030). Ninety-day surgical readmissions, medical readmissions, and reoperations were not significantly different between groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that patients with lower preoperative mental health scores (MCS < 45.6) were independently more likely to experience more renal complications and longer length of stay after primary lumbar fusion. Additionally, higher MCS scores may correlate with better postoperative mobility and daily activity scores. Nevertheless, long-term outcomes are not significantly different between patients of better or worse preoperative mental health.

Preoperative Electrodiagnostic Study Findings Differ Between Patients With Double-crush Syndrome and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Propensity Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Double-crush syndrome (DCS) represents a condition that involves peripheral nerve compression in combination with spinal nerve root impingement. The purpose of this study was to compare electrodiagnostic study (EDS) results in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release (CTR) for carpal tunnel syndrome with those undergoing both CTR and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion for DCS. METHODS: Patients receiving an isolated CTR were compared with those undergoing CTR and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion within two years of CTR. The latter group was defined as our DCS cohort. Electrodiagnostic study results were collected which included sensory and motor nerve conduction data as well as electromyogram (EMG) findings. All electrodiagnostic studies were done before CTR in both sets of patients. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with DCS and 137 CTR-only patients were included. Patients with DCS were found to have decreased sensory onset latency (3.51 vs 4.01; P = 0.015) and peak latency (4.25 vs 5.17; P = 0.004) compared with the CTR-only patients. Patients with DCS had slower wrist motor velocity (30.5 vs 47.7; P = 0.012), decreased elbow motor latency (9.62 vs 10.6; P = 0.015), and faster elbow motor velocity (56.0 vs 49.4; P = 0.031). EMG results showed that patients with DCS were more likely to have positive findings in the biceps (31.9% vs 1.96%; P < 0.001) and triceps (24.4% vs 2.97%; P < 0.001), but not abductor pollicis brevis (APB) (45.7% vs 37.9%; P = 0.459). CONCLUSION: We identified changes on EDS between patients with and without DCS. In patients with DCS, sensory nerve studies showed shorter peak and onset latency than in CTR-only patients. Interestingly, DCS and CTR-only patients had different patterns of wrist and elbow motor nerve conduction. Providers observing positive EMG findings proximal to the APB should raise their suspicion for possible cervical radiculopathy and when present with carpal tunnel syndrome-like symptoms, should also consider DCS in their diagnostic differential.

The Role of L1PA in Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Single-level Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the L1 pelvic angle (L1PA) can be used to predict quality of life outcomes for adults one year after L4-L5 fusion to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: L1PA is beneficial in the evaluation of preoperative and postoperative quality of life outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for spinal deformity. No studies have examined its utility in surgical patients with degenerative spinal disease. METHODS: Patients undergoing L4-L5 posterolateral decompression and fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were grouped by preoperative and postoperative L1PA, and further stratified by cut offs of >7.2° and <7.2° based on previous literature. We also stratified patients by presence of an ideal calculated L1PA, defined as (0.5×Pelvic incidence) -21 +/-5°, as proposed by prior literature. Preoperative, one-year postoperative and Δ (postoperative minus preoperative) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic measurements were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were identified with preoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 132 with L1PAs >7.2°. Eighteen patients were identified with postoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 138 with L1PAs>7.2°. Sixty-five and fifty-seven patients were identified as having ideal calculated preoperative and postoperative L1PAs, respectively. When using absolute cutoffs, L1PA correlated with pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). When using calculated L1PAs, L1PA correlated with lumbar lordosis, PI-LL, pelvic tilt and sacral slope. With respect to PROMs, no statistically significant differences existed between cohorts both preoperatively and at one-year postoperatively on either univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: L1PA may be a helpful radiographic consideration that translates to clinically relevant outcomes in spinal deformity. However, it does not appear as predictive of patient outcomes after single-level fusion for patients with L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Further studies are warranted to investigate the role of L1PA in degenerative spine patients.

The impact of robotic assistance for lumbar fusion surgery on 90-day surgical outcomes and 1-year revisions.

Objectives: To evaluate the (1) 90-day surgical outcomes and (2) 1-year revision rate of robotic versus nonrobotic lumbar fusion surgery. Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary lumbar fusion surgery at our institution were identified and propensity-matched in a 1:1 fashion based on robotic assistance during surgery. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and surgical outcomes, including 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revisions, were collected. Multivariable regression analysis was performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05. Results: Four hundred and fifteen patients were identified as having robotic lumbar fusion and were matched to a control group. Bivariant analysis revealed no significant difference in total 90-day surgical complications (P = 0.193) or 1-year revisions (P = 0.178). The operative duration was longer in robotic surgery (287 + 123 vs. 205 + 88.3, P ≤ 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that robotic fusion was not a significant predictor of 90-day surgical complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76 [0.32-1.67], P = 0.499) or 1-year revisions (OR = 0.58 [0.28-1.18], P = 0.142). Other variables identified as the positive predictors of 1-year revisions included levels fused (OR = 1.26 [1.08-1.48], P = 0.004) and current smokers (OR = 3.51 [1.46-8.15], P = 0.004). Conclusion: Our study suggests that robotic-assisted and nonrobotic-assisted lumbar fusions are associated with a similar risk of 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revision rates; however, robotic surgery does increase time under anesthesia.

The Relationship Between Disc Herniation Morphology and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Microdiscectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Determine if herniation morphology based on the Michigan State University Classification is associated with differences in (1) patient-reported outcome measures (or (2) surgical outcomes after a microdiscectomy. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing single-level microdiscectomy between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Demographics and surgical characteristics were collected through a query search and manual chart review. The Michigan State University classification, which assesses disc herniation laterality (zone A was central, zone B/C was lateral) and degree of extrusion into the central canal (grade 1 was up to 50% of the distance to the intra-facet line, grade >1 was beyond this line), was identified on preoperative MRIs. patient-reported outcome measures were collected at preoperative, 3-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. RESULTS: Of 233 patients, 84 had zone A versus 149 zone B/C herniations while 76 had grade 1 disc extrusion and 157 had >1 grade. There was no difference in surgical outcomes between groups (P > 0.05). Patients with extrusion grade >1 were found to have lower Physical Component Score at baseline. On bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis, extrusion grade >1 was a significant independent predictor of greater improvement in Physical Component Score at three months (estimate = 7.957; CI: 4.443-11.471, P < 0.001), but not at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Although all patients were found to improve after microdiscectomy, patients with disc herniations extending further posteriorly reported lower preoperative physical function but experienced significantly greater improvement three months after surgery. However, improvement in Visual Analog Scale Leg and back, ODI, and MCS at three and twelve months was unrelated to laterality or depth of disc herniation.

Radiology Reports Do Not Accurately Portray the Severity of Cervical Neural Foraminal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiology reports to a validated grading system for cervical foraminal stenosis (FS) and (2) to evaluate whether the severity of cervical neural FS on MRI correlates to motor weakness or patient-reported outcomes. BACKGROUND: Radiology reports of cervical spine MRI are often reviewed to assess the degree of neural FS. However, research looking at the association between these reports and objective MRI findings, as well as clinical symptoms, is lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all adult patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a single academic center for an indication of cervical radiculopathy. Preoperative MRI was assessed for neural FS severity using the grading system described by Kim and colleagues for each level of fusion, as well as adjacent levels. Neural FS severity was recorded from diagnostic radiologist MRI reports. Motor weakness was defined as an examination grade <4/5 on the final preoperative encounter. Regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the degree of FS by either classification was related to patient-reported outcome measure severity. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were included in the study, and 998 total levels were assessed. There were significant differences between the MRI grading system and the assessment by radio-logists ( P < 0.001). In levels with moderate stenosis, 28.9% were classified as having no stenosis by radiology. In levels with severe stenosis, 29.7% were classified as having mild-moderate stenosis or less. Motor weakness was found similarly often in levels of moderate or severe stenosis (6.9% and 9.2%, respectively). On regression analysis, no associations were found between baseline patient-reported outcome measures and stenosis severity assessed by radiologists or MRI grading systems. CONCLUSION: Radiology reports on the severity of cervical neural FS are not consistent with a validated MRI grading system. These radiology reports underestimated the severity of neural foraminal compression and may be inappropriate when used for clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Early Diet Liberalization After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Improves Postoperative Recovery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of diet liberalization on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing anterior interbody lumbar fusion (ALIF). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for patients undergoing ALIF at our tertiary care center institution from 2010 to 2022. Electronic medical records were reviewed for demographics, surgical characteristics, and 90-day postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: We included 515 patients in this study with 102 patients receiving a full diet on the same day as their operation. All other patients had a delay of at least 1 day (average 1.6 days) until a full diet was provided. This group was found to have a higher rate of postoperative ileus (10.2% vs 2.9%) and urinary retention (16.0% vs 3.9%). The readmission rate and percent of patients presenting to the emergency department within 90 days postoperatively were similar. On multivariate regression analysis, same-day, full-diet patients had decreased odds of developing urinary retention (OR = .17) and a shorter length of hospital stay (Estimate: -.99). Immediate full diet had no impact on the development of ileus (OR: .33). CONCLUSIONS: An immediate postoperative full diet following an anterior approach to the lumbar spine was not found to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative ileus in patients deemed appropriate for early diet liberalization. Moreover, an early full diet was found to reduce length of hospitalization and risk of postoperative urinary retention. Reconsideration of postoperative diet protocols may help optimize patient outcomes and recovery.

Does physical therapy impact clinical outcomes after lumbar decompression surgery?

Objectives: The objectives of our study were to (1) determine if physical therapy (PT) impacts patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after lumbar decompression surgery and (2) determine if PT impacts postsurgical readmissions or reoperations after lumbar decompression surgery. Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary one- or two-level lumbar decompression at our institution were identified. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, surgical outcomes (all-cause 90 days readmissions and 90 days surgical readmissions), and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared between the groups. Multivariate linear regression was utilized to determine the individual predictors of 90 days readmissions and PROMs at the 1-year postoperative point. Alpha was set at P < 0.05. Results: Of the 1003 patients included, 421 attended PT postoperatively. On univariate analysis, PT attendance did not significantly impact 90-day surgical reoperations (P = 0.225). Although bivariate analysis suggests that attendance of PT is associated with worse improvement in physical function (P = 0.041), increased preoperative Visual Analogue Scale leg pain (0 = 0.004), and disability (P = 0.006), as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index, our multivariate analysis, which accounts for confounding variables found there was no difference in PROM improvement and PT was not an independent predictor of 90-day all-cause readmissions (P = 0.06). Instead, Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 0.025) and discharge to a skilled nursing facility (P = 0.013) independently predicted greater 90-day all-cause readmissions. Conclusions: Postoperative lumbar decompression PT attendance does not significantly affect clinical improvement, as measured by PROMs or surgical outcomes including all-cause 90 days readmissions and 90-day surgical readmissions.

Effect of Preoperative Marijuana on Patient Outcomes and Opioid Use after Lumbar Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to analyze the effect of preoperative marijuana use on outcomes and postoperative opioid use in patients who have undergone lumbar decompression without fusion. METHODS: All patients >18 years of age who underwent lumbar decompression from 2017-2022 with documented preoperative marijuana use at our academic institution were retrospectively identified. A 3:1 propensity match incorporating demographics, procedure type, and levels decompressed was performed to compare preoperative marijuana users and non-users. 1-year preoperative and postoperative opioid consumption in milligrams of morphine equivalents and postoperative outcomes including readmissions, reoperations, and complications, were obtained. A multivariate regression model was performed to measure the effect of marijuana use on the likelihood of a spine reoperation. RESULTS: Of the 340 included patients, 85 were preoperative marijuana users. There were no significant differences in medical complications, 90-day readmissions, or opioid consumption preoperatively or postoperatively (P > .05). We identified a trend towards patients who used marijuana having more reoperations for any cause (20.0% vs 11.37%, P = .067). Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that preoperative marijuana use was a significant predictor of all-spine reoperations (OR = 2.06, P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: In lumbar decompression patients, preoperative marijuana use does not impact opioid consumption, readmissions, or medical complications, but is a significant predictor of future postoperative reoperations. Additional research is necessary to further explore the role of marijuana use in spine surgery.

Reasons for transfer and subsequent outcomes among patients undergoing elective spine surgery at an orthopedic specialty hospital.

Objective: To evaluate the reasons for transfer as well as the 90-day outcomes of patients who were transferred from a high-volume orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) following elective spine surgery. Materials and Methods: All patients admitted to a single OSH for elective spine surgery from 2014 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Ninety-day complications, readmissions, revisions, and mortality events were collected and a 3:1 propensity match was conducted. Results: Thirty-five (1.5%) of 2351 spine patients were transferred, most commonly for arrhythmia (n = 7; 20%). Thirty-three transferred patients were matched to 99 who were not transferred, and groups had similar rates of complications (18.2% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.228), readmissions (3.0% vs. 4.0%; P = 1.000), and mortality (6.1% vs. 0%; P = 0.061). Conclusion: Overall, this study demonstrates a low transfer rate following spine surgery. Risk factors should continue to be optimized in order to decrease patient risks in the postoperative period at an OSH.

Perioperative Dexamethasone Does Not Reduce Postoperative Opioid Use Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if dexamethasone administration reduced narcotic consumption during hospitalization and to evaluate if patients who received dexamethasone refilled fewer opioid prescriptions postoperatively. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent primary elective 1- to 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a single center were retrospectively identified. Prescription opioid use was collected from governmental online prescription drug monitoring programs, and in-hospital opioid use was collected from each patient's medication administration record and recorded as morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Patients were categorized by whether or not intravenous dexamethasone was administered perioperatively. Dexamethasone protocols were considered high dose if weight-based dosing was >0.20 mg/kg and low dose if <0.20 mg/kg. Multivariable linear regression was conducted to assess the relationship between dexamethasone administration and MMEs prescribed at each time point while accounting for confounders. RESULTS: Of 249 included patients, 167 (67%) were administered dexamethasone. Patients in both groups used a similar quantity of opioids while hospitalized (no dexamethasone: 56.7 MMEs/day vs. dexamethasone: 39.4 MMEs/day, P = 0.350). Patients in both groups refilled a similar quantity of opioids in all postoperative time periods: 0-3 weeks (3.38 vs. 4.07 MMEs/day, P = 0.528), 3-6 weeks (0.36 vs. 0.75 MMEs/day, P = 0.198), 6-12 weeks (0.53 vs. 0.75 MMEs/day, P = 0.900), and 3 months to 1 year (0.28 vs. 0.43 MMEs/day, P = 0.531). On multivariable linear regression, dexamethasone was not associated with a reduction in opioid volume at any time point (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of perioperative dexamethasone does not reduce in-hospital or home opioid usage regardless of weight-based dose. Analgesia should not be the primary driver of dexamethasone administration for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.