Revisiting the Posterior Approach for Cervical Radiculopathy Utilizing Endoscopic Techniques: A Favorable Short-Term Outcome and Cost Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Cervical radiculopathy is a spine ailment frequently requiring surgical decompression via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior foraminotomy/discectomy. While endoscopic posterior foraminotomy/discectomy is gaining popularity, its financial impact remains understudied despite equivalent randomized long-term outcomes to ACDF. In a cohort of patients undergoing ACDF vs endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy, we sought to compare the total cost of the surgical episode while confirming an equivalent safety profile and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients with unilateral cervical radiculopathy undergoing ACDF or endoscopic cervical foraminotomy between 2018 and 2023 was undertaken. Primary outcomes included the total cost of care for the initial surgical episode (not charges or reimbursement). Perioperative variables and neurological recovery were recorded. Multivariable analysis tested age, body mass index, race, gender, insurance type, operative time, and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 38 ACDF and 17 endoscopic foraminotomy/discectomy operations were performed. All patients underwent single-level surgery except for 2 two-level endoscopic decompressions. No differences were found in baseline characteristics and symptom length except for younger age (46.8 ± 9.4 vs 57.6 ± 10.3, P = 0.002) and more smokers (18.4% vs 11.8%, P = 0.043) in the ACDF group. Actual hospital costs for the episode of surgical care were markedly higher in the ACDF cohort (mean ±95% CI; $27,782 ± $2011 vs $10,103 ± $720, P < 0.001) driven by the ACDF approach (ß = $17,723, P < 0.001) on multivariable analysis. On sensitivity analysis, ACDF was never cost-efficient compared with endoscopic foraminotomy, and endoscopic failure rates of 64% were required for break-even cost. ACDF was associated with significantly longer operative time (167.7 ± 22.0 vs 142.7 ± 27.4 minutes, P < 0.001) and length of stay (1.1 ± 0.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.2 days, P < 0.001). No significant difference was found regarding 90-day neurological improvement, readmission, reoperation, or complications. CONCLUSION: Compared with patients treated with a single-level ACDF for unilateral cervical radiculopathy, endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy can achieve a similar safety profile, pain relief, and neurological recovery at considerably less cost. These findings may help patients and surgeons revisit offering the posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy utilizing endoscopic techniques. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Endoscopic posterior cervical foraminotomy/discectomy offers comparable safety, pain relief, and neurological recovery to traditional methods but at a significantly lower cost.

Disparities in Access to Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease and Proposed Interventions: A Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective therapy for Parkinson's disease (PD), but disparities exist in access to DBS along gender, racial, and socioeconomic lines. SUMMARY: Women are underrepresented in clinical trials and less likely to undergo DBS compared to their male counterparts. Racial and ethnic minorities are also less likely to undergo DBS procedures, even when controlling for disease severity and other demographic factors. These disparities can have significant impacts on patients' access to care, quality of life, and ability to manage their debilitating movement disorders. KEY MESSAGES: Addressing these disparities requires increasing patient awareness and education, minimizing barriers to equitable access, and implementing diversity and inclusion initiatives within the healthcare system. In this systematic review, we first review literature discussing gender, racial, and socioeconomic disparities in DBS access and then propose several patient, provider, community, and national-level interventions to improve DBS access for all populations.

Who Can Be Discharged Home after Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery?

Introduction: After adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, patients often require postoperative rehabilitation at an inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) center or a skilled nursing facility (SNF). However, home discharge is often preferred by patients and hsas been shown to decrease costs. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we sought to (1) report the incidence of discharge to home, (2) determine the factors significantly associated with discharge to home in the form of a simple scoring system, and (3) evaluate the impact of discharge disposition on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was undertaken for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and at least 2-year follow-up. Exposure variables included preoperative, perioperative, and radiographic data. The primary outcome was discharge status (dichotomized as home vs. IPR/SNF). Secondary outcomes included PROMs, such as the numeric rating scales (NRSs) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. A subanalysis comparing IPR to SNF discharge was conducted. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: Of 221 patients undergoing ASD surgery with a mean age of 63.6 ± 17.6, 112 (50.6%) were discharged home, 71 (32.2%) were discharged to an IPR center, and 38 (17.2%) were discharged to an SNF. Patients discharged home were significantly younger (55.7 ± 20.1 vs. 71.8 ± 9.1, p < 0.001), had lower rate of 2+ comorbidities (38.4% vs. 45.0%, p = 0.001), and had less hypertension (57.1% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, patients who were discharged home had significantly fewer levels instrumented (10.0 ± 3.0 vs. 11.0 ± 3.4 levels, p = 0.030), shorter operative times (381.4 ± 139.9 vs. 461.6 ± 149.8 mins, p < 0.001), less blood loss (1101.0 ± 977.8 vs. 1739.7 ± 1332.9 mL, p < 0.001), and shorter length of stay (5.4 ± 2.8 vs. 9.3 ± 13.9 days, p < 0.001). Radiographically, preoperative SVA (9.1 ± 6.5 vs. 5.2 ± 6.8 cm, p < 0.001), PT (27.5 ± 11.1° vs. 23.4 ± 10.8°, p = 0.031), and T1PA (28.9 ± 12.7° vs. 21.6 ± 13.6°, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients who were discharged to an IPR center/SNF. Additionally, the operating surgeon also significantly influenced the disposition status (p < 0.001). A scoring system of the listed factors was proposed and was validated using univariate logistic regression (OR = 1.55, 95%CI = 1.34-1.78, p < 0.001) and ROC analysis, which revealed a cutoff value of > 6 points as a predictor of non-home discharge (AUC = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.68-0.80, p < 0.001, sensitivity = 63.3%, specificity = 74.1%). The factors in the scoring system were age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, TIL ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15°. When comparing IPR (n = 71) vs. SNF (n = 38), patients discharged to an SNF were significantly older (74.4 ± 8.6 vs. 70.4 ± 9.1, p = 0.029) and were more likely to be female (89.5% vs. 70.4%, p = 0.024). Conclusions: Approximately 50% of patients were discharged home after ASD surgery. A simple scoring system based on age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, total instrumented levels ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15° was proposed to predict non-home discharge. These findings may help guide postoperative expectations and resource allocation after ASD surgery.

Predictors of acute post-thrombectomy intracranial hemorrhage expansion in anterior circulation infarcts.

BACKGROUND: Post-mechanical thrombectomy (MT) intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is a major source of morbidity in treated acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion. ICH expansion may further contribute to morbidity. We sought to identify factors associated with ICH expansion on imaging evaluation post-MT. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing MT at a single comprehensive stroke center. Per protocol, patients underwent dual-energy head CT (DEHCT) post-MT followed by a 24-h interval non-contrast enhanced MRI. ICH expansion was defined as any increase in blood volume between the two studies if identified on the DEHCT. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors for ICH expansion. RESULTS: ICH was identified on DEHCT in 13% of patients (n = 35/262), with 20% (7/35) demonstrating expansion on interval MRI. The average increase in blood volume was 11.4 ml (SD 6.9). Univariate analysis identified anticoagulant usage (57% vs 14%, p = 0.03), petechial hemorrhage inside the infarct margins or intraparenchymal hematoma on DEHCT (ECASS-II HI2/PH1/PH2) (71% vs 14%, p < 0.01), basal ganglia hemorrhage (71% vs 21%, p = 0.02), and basal ganglia infarction (86% vs 32%, p = 0.03) as factors associated with ICH expansion. Multivariate regression demonstrated that anticoagulant usage (OR 20.3, 95% C.I. 2.43-446, p < 0.05) and ECASS II scores of HI2/PH1/PH2 (OR 11.7, 95% C.I. 1.24-264, p < 0.05) were significantly predictive of ICH expansion. CONCLUSION: Expansion of post-MT ICH on 24-h interval MRI relative to immediate post-thrombectomy DEHCT is significantly associated with baseline anticoagulant usage and petechial hemorrhage inside the infarct margins or presence of intraparenchymal hematoma (ECASS-II HI2/PH1/PH2).

The association between motor and non-motor symptoms in essential tremor patients being evaluated for deep brain stimulation surgery.

BACKGROUND: Non-motor symptoms, including depression and cognitive impairment, are common in essential tremor (ET), but associations between these symptoms and tremor are poorly understood. METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution, cohort study evaluated 140 patients with ET undergoing evaluation for deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery. The Fahn-Tolosa-Marin (FTM) or Washington Heights-Inwood Genetic Study of ET (WHIGET) scale was used to grade tremor. Tremor scores were divided into quartiles. Patients underwent clinical neuropsychological evaluations that included a comprehensive cognitive test battery and Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Subgroup analysis was performed with groups who met criteria for depression (BDI-II > 14) or overall cognitive impairment (<9th percentile on at least two dissimilar cognitive tests). Independent samples t-tests were used for continuous variables and chi square tests for categorical variables. Univariable and multivariable regressions were used to determine relationships between tremor and non-motor scores. RESULTS: Tremor quartile was correlated with language domain performance (p = 0.044) but not depression scores. FTM score was associated with BDI-II (ß = 0.940, p = 0.010), language (ß = -0.936, p = 0.012), and visuospatial domain (ß = -0.836, p = 0.025) scores, such that worse tremor was associated with more depression and worse language and visuospatial function. WHIGET score was not associated with any neuropsychological scores on multivariable regression. CONCLUSION: FTM score was associated with language, visuospatial, and mood symptoms, suggesting a relationship between the severity of these symptom types. Different tremor scores capture different motor symptoms and relationships with nonmotor symptoms.

Global Economic Evaluation of the Reported Costs of Deep Brain Stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the known benefits of deep brain stimulation (DBS), the cost of the procedure can limit access and can vary widely. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of the reported costs associated with DBS, as well as the variability in reporting cost-associated factors to ultimately increase patient access to this therapy. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature for cost of DBS treatment was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and Embase databases were queried. Olsen & Associates (OANDA) was used to convert all reported rates to USD. Cost was corrected for inflation using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, correcting to April 2022. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles on the cost of DBS surgery from 2001 to 2021 were included. The median number of patients across studies was 193, the mean reported age was 60.5 ± 5.6 years, and median female prevalence was 38.9%. The inflation- and currency-adjusted mean cost of the DBS device was USD 21,496.07 ± USD 8,944.16, the cost of surgery alone was USD 14,685.22 ± USD 8,479.66, the total cost of surgery was USD 40,942.85 ± USD 17,987.43, and the total cost of treatment until 1 year of follow-up was USD 47,632.27 ± USD 23,067.08. There were no differences in costs observed across surgical indication or country. CONCLUSION: Our report describes the large variation in DBS costs and the manner of reporting costs. The current lack of standardization impedes productive discourse as comparisons are hindered by both geographic and chronological variations. Emphasis should be put on standardized reporting and analysis of reimbursement costs to better assess the variability of DBS-associated costs in order to make this procedure more cost-effective and address areas for improvement to increase patient access to DBS.

Combined Anterior-Posterior vs. Posterior-Only Approach in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Which Strategy Is Superior?

Introduction: Whether a combined anterior-posterior (AP) approach offers additional benefits over the posterior-only (P) approach in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery remains unknown. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we compared the combined AP vs. the P-only approach in: (1) preoperative/perioperative variables, (2) radiographic measurements, and (3) postoperative outcomes. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. The primary exposure was the operative approach: a combined AP approach or P alone. Postoperative outcomes included mechanical complications, reoperation, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), defined as 30% of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Multivariable linear regression was controlled for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Results: Among 238 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 34 (14.3%) patients underwent the AP approach and 204 (85.7%) underwent the P-only approach. The AP group consisted mostly of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1 (73.5%) and/or L4/L5 (38.0%). Preoperatively, the AP group had more previous fusions (64.7% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001), higher pelvic tilt (PT) (29.6 ± 11.6° vs. 24.6 ± 11.4°, p = 0.037), higher T1 pelvic angle (T1PA) (31.8 ± 12.7° vs. 24.0 ± 13.9°, p = 0.003), less L1-S1 lordosis (-14.7 ± 28.4° vs. -24.3 ± 33.4°, p < 0.039), less L4-S1 lordosis (-25.4 ± 14.7° vs. 31.6 ± 15.5°, p = 0.042), and higher sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (102.6 ± 51.9 vs. 66.4 ± 71.2 mm, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, the AP approach had longer operative time (553.9 ± 177.4 vs. 397.4 ± 129.0 min, p < 0.001), more interbodies placed (100% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001), and longer length of stay (8.4 ± 10.7 vs. 7.0 ± 9.6 days, p = 0.026). Radiographically, the AP group had more improvement in T1PA (13.4 ± 8.7° vs. 9.5 ± 8.6°, p = 0.005), L1-S1 lordosis (-14.3 ± 25.6° vs. -3.2 ± 20.2°, p < 0.001), L4-S1 lordosis (-4.7 ± 16.4° vs. 3.2 ± 13.7°, p = 0.008), and SVA (65.3 ± 44.8 vs. 44.8 ± 47.7 mm, p = 0.007). These outcomes remained statistically significant in the multivariable analysis controlling for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found in mechanical complications, reoperations, or MCID of PROMs. Conclusions: Preoperatively, patients undergoing the combined anterior-posterior approach had higher PT, T1PA, and SVA and lower L1-S1 and L4-S1 lordosis than the posterior-only approach. Despite increased operative time and length of stay, the anterior-posterior approach provided greater sagittal correction without any difference in mechanical complications or PROMs.