Is Upper Extremity or Lower Extremity Function More Important for Patient Satisfaction? An Analysis of 24-Month Outcomes from the QOD Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicenter registry. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether upper or lower limb mJOA improvement more strongly associates with patient satisfaction after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) is commonly used to assess functional status in patients with CSM. Patients present with upper and/or lower extremity dysfunction, and it is unclear whether improvement in one and/or both symptoms drives postoperative patient satisfaction. METHODS: This study utilizes the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM data set. Clinical outcomes included mJOA and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction. The upper limb mJOA score was defined as upper motor plus sensory mJOA, and the lower limb mJOA as lower motor plus sensory mJOA. Ordered logistic regression was used to determine whether upper or lower limb mJOA was more closely associated with NASS satisfaction, adjusting for other covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 1141 patients were enrolled in the QOD CSM cohort. In all, 780 had both preoperative and 24-month mJOA scores, met inclusion criteria, and were included for analysis. The baseline mJOA was 12.1±2.7, and postoperatively, 85.6% would undergo surgery again (NASS 1 or 2, satisfied). Patients exhibited mean improvement in both upper (baseline:3.9±1.4 vs. 24 mo:5.0±1.1, P<0.001) and lower limb mJOA (baseline:3.9±1.4 vs. 24 mon:4.5±1.5, P<0.001); however, the 24-month change in the upper limb mJOA was greater (upper:1.1±1.6 vs. lower:0.6±1.6, P<0.001). Across 24-month NASS satisfaction, the baseline upper and lower limb mJOA scores were similar (pupper=0.28, plower=0.092). However, as satisfaction decreased, the 24-month change in upper and lower limb mJOA decreased as well (pupper<0.001, plower<0.001). Patients with NASS scores of 4 (lowest satisfaction) did not demonstrate significant differences from baseline in upper or lower limb mJOA (P>0.05). In ordered logistic regression, NASS satisfaction was independently associated with upper limb mJOA improvement (OR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.97; P=0.019) but not lower limb mJOA improvement (OR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.70-1.0; P=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: As the magnitude of upper and lower mJOA improvement decreased postoperatively, so too did patient satisfaction with surgical intervention. Upper limb mJOA improvement was a significant independent predictor of patient satisfaction, whereas lower limb mJOA improvement was not. These findings may aid preoperative counseling, stratified by patients' upper and lower extremity treatment expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-III.

Lumbar Facet Arthroplasty Versus Fusion for Grade-I Degenerative Spondylolisthesis with Stenosis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty versus decompression plus instrumented lumbar spinal fusion in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption trial, we assigned patients who had single-level lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis to undergo decompression plus lumbar facet arthroplasty (arthroplasty group) or decompression plus fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome was a predetermined composite clinical success score. Secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg pain, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Short Form (SF)-12, radiographic parameters, surgical variables, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 321 adult patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with 219 patients assigned to undergo facet arthroplasty and 102 patients assigned to undergo fusion. Of these, 113 patients (51.6%) in the arthroplasty group and 47 (46.1%) in the fusion group who had either reached 24 months of postoperative follow-up or were deemed early clinical failures were included in the primary outcome analysis. The arthroplasty group had a higher proportion of patients who achieved composite clinical success than did the fusion group (73.5% versus 25.5%; p < 0.001), equating to a between-group difference of 47.9% (95% confidence interval, 33.0% to 62.8%). The arthroplasty group outperformed the fusion group in most patient-reported outcome measures (including the ODI, VAS back pain, and all ZCQ component scores) at 24 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences between groups in surgical variables or complications, except that the fusion group had a higher rate of developing symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and grade-I degenerative spondylolisthesis, lumbar facet arthroplasty was associated with a higher rate of composite clinical success than fusion was at 24 months postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in radiculopathic patients: an analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between posterior foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients presenting with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had undergone ACDF or posterior foraminotomy for radiculopathy. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal individual matching was performed at a 5:1 ratio between the two groups on 29 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, underlying pathologies, and levels treated). Outcomes of interest were length of stay, reoperations, patient-reported satisfaction, increase in EQ-5D score, and decrease in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores for arm and neck pain as long as 1 year after surgery. Noninferiority analysis of achieving patient satisfaction and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in PROs was performed with an accepted risk difference of 5%. RESULTS: A total of 7805 eligible patients were identified: 216 of these underwent posterior foraminotomy and were matched to 1080 patients who underwent ACDF. The patients who underwent ACDF had more underlying pathologies, lower EQ-5D scores, and higher NDI and neck pain scores at baseline. Posterior foraminotomy was associated with shorter hospitalization (0.5 vs 0.9 days, p < 0.001). Reoperations within 12 months were significantly more common among the posterior foraminotomy group (4.2% vs 1.9%, p = 0.04). The two groups performed similarly in PROs, with posterior foraminotomy being noninferior to ACDF in achieving MCID in EQ-5D and neck pain scores but also having lower rates of maximal satisfaction at 12 months (North American Spine Society score of 1 achieved by 65.2% posterior foraminotomy patients vs 74.6% of ACDF patients, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The two procedures were found to be offered to different populations, with ACDF being selected for patients with more complicated pathologies and symptoms. After individual matching, posterior foraminotomy was associated with a higher reoperation risk within 1 year after surgery compared to ACDF (4.2% vs 1.9%). In terms of 12-month PROs, posterior foraminotomy was noninferior to ACDF in improving quality of life and neck pain. The two procedures also performed similarly in improving NDI scores and arm pain, but ACDF patients had higher maximal satisfaction rates.

Adjunctive Use of Bone Growth Stimulation Increases Cervical Spine Fusion Rates in Patients at Risk for Pseudarthrosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective multicenter clinical trial (NCT03177473) was conducted with a retrospective cohort used as a control arm. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate cervical spine fusion rates in subjects with risk factors for pseudarthrosis who received pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Certain risk factors predispose patients to pseudarthrosis, which is associated with prolonged pain, reduced function, and decreased quality of life. METHODS: Subjects in the PEMF group were treated with PEMF for 6 months postoperatively. The primary outcome measure was fusion status at the 12-month follow-up period. Fusion status was determined using anterior/posterior, lateral, and flexion/extension radiographs and computed tomography (without contrast). RESULTS: A total of 213 patients were evaluated (PEMF, n=160; Control, n=53). At baseline, the PEMF group had a higher percentage of subjects who used nicotine ( P =0.01), had osteoporosis ( P <0.05), multi-level disease ( P <0.0001), and were >65 years of age ( P =0.01). The PEMF group showed over two-fold higher percentage of subjects that had ≥3 risk factors (n=92/160, 57.5%) compared with the control group (n=14/53, 26.4%). At the 12-month follow-up, the PEMF group demonstrated significantly higher fusion rates compared with the control (90.0% vs. 60.4%, P <0.05). A statistically significant improvement in fusion rate was observed in PEMF subjects with multi-level surgery ( P <0.0001) and high BMI (>30 kg/m 2 ; P =0.0021) when compared with the control group. No significant safety concerns were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive use of PEMF stimulation provides significant improvements in cervical spine fusion rates in subjects having risk factors for pseudarthrosis. When compared with control subjects that did not use PEMF stimulation, treated subjects showed improved fusion outcomes despite being older, having more risk factors for pseudarthrosis, and undergoing more complex surgeries.

Does type of bone graft matter? A retrospective review of the use of biological bone grafts in patients undergoing elective 1-3 level spinal interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of strong evidence for use of expensive bone substitutes. This study compares perioperative data and patient reported quality-of-life outcomes across the varied types of bone graft extenders. The study analyzes the existing Quality and Outcomes Database and evaluates patient reported outcomes for 1-3 level lumbar fusion procedures comparing across different types of biologics bone graft. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected data registry. Bone graft implant data were collected and grouped into the following categories: (1) Autograft with basic allograft (2) Enhanced, synthetic, or cellular allograft (3) Use of BMP. Preoperative and 1 year patient reported outcomes and perioperative data from the prospective collected registry were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 384 patients included in this study. There were 168 (43.8%) patients in group 1, 133 (34.6%) patients in group 2, and 83 (21.6%) in group 3. There were no group differences in baseline or 1 year back pain, leg pain, ODI, or EQ-5D. The GLM Repeated Measures results indicate a significant difference within each of the three groups between the preoperative and postoperative measures for back pain, leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D. The change over time was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bone graft extenders are a significant contributor to the cost of lumbar fusion. This study demonstrates no difference in preoperative, and 1 year patient reported outcomes between the three groups. There was no significant difference in rate of reoperations across the three groups.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy and driving abilities: defining the prevalence and long-term postoperative outcomes using the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) can cause significant difficulty with driving and a subsequent reduction in an individual's quality of life due to neurological deterioration. The positive impact of surgery on postoperative patient-reported driving capabilities has been seldom explored. METHODS: The CSM module of the Quality Outcomes Database was utilized. Patient-reported driving ability was assessed via the driving section of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) questionnaire. This is an ordinal scale in which 0 represents the absence of symptoms while driving and 5 represents a complete inability to drive due to symptoms. Patients were considered to have an impairment in their driving ability if they reported an NDI driving score of 3 or higher (signifying impairment in driving duration due to symptoms). Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate mediators of baseline impairment and improvement at 24 months after surgery, which was defined as an NDI driving score < 3. RESULTS: A total of 1128 patients who underwent surgical intervention for CSM were included, of whom 354 (31.4%) had baseline driving impairment due to CSM. Moderate (OR 2.3) and severe (OR 6.3) neck pain, severe arm pain (OR 1.6), mild-moderate (OR 2.1) and severe (OR 2.5) impairment in hand/arm dexterity, severe impairment in leg use/walking (OR 1.9), and severe impairment of urinary function (OR 1.8) were associated with impaired driving ability at baseline. Of the 291 patients with baseline impairment and available 24-month follow-up data, 209 (71.8%) reported postoperative improvement in their driving ability. This improvement seemed to be mediated particularly through the achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain and improvement in leg function/walking. Patients with improved driving at 24 months noted higher postoperative satisfaction (88.5% vs 62.2%, p < 0.01) and were more likely to achieve a clinically significant improvement in their quality of life (50.7% vs 37.8%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients with CSM report impaired driving ability at presentation. Seventy-two percent of these patients reported improvements in their driving ability within 24 months of surgery. Surgical management of CSM can significantly improve patients' driving abilities at 24 months and hence patients' quality of life.

What predicts the best 24-month outcomes following surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A QOD prospective registry study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of the best 24-month improvements in patients undergoing surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). For this purpose, the authors leveraged a large prospective cohort of surgically treated patients with CSM to identify factors predicting the best outcomes for disability, quality of life, and functional status following surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM dataset (1141 patients) at 14 top enrolling sites was used. Baseline and surgical characteristics were compared for those reporting the top and bottom 20th percentile 24-month Neck Disability Index (NDI), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) change scores. A multivariable logistic model was constructed and included candidate variables reaching p ≤ 0.20 on univariate analyses. Least important variables were removed in a stepwise manner to determine the significant predictors of the best outcomes (top 20th percentile) for 24-month NDI, EQ-5D, and mJOA change. RESULTS: A total of 948 (83.1%) patients with 24-month follow-up were included in this study. For NDI, 204 (17.9%) had the best NDI outcome and 200 (17.5%) had the worst NDI outcome. Factors predicting the best NDI outcomes included symptom duration less than 12 months (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-1.9; p = 0.01); procedure other than posterior fusion (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.1; p = 0.03); higher preoperative visual analog scale neck pain score (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.3; p < 0.001); and higher baseline NDI (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05-1.07; p < 0.001). For EQ-5D, 163 (14.3%) had the best EQ-5D outcome and 169 (14.8%) had the worst EQ-5D outcome. Factors predicting the best EQ-5D outcomes included arm pain-only complaints (compared to neck pain) (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9; p = 0.002) and lower baseline EQ-5D (OR 167.7 per unit lower, 95% CI 85.0-339.4; p < 0.001). For mJOA, 222 (19.5%) had the best mJOA outcome and 238 (20.9%) had the worst mJOA outcome. Factors predicting the best mJOA outcomes included lower BMI (OR 1.03 per unit lower, 95% CI 1.004-1.05; p = 0.02; cutoff value of ≤ 29.5 kg/m2); arm pain-only complaints (compared to neck pain) (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.5; p = 0.02); and lower baseline mJOA (OR 1.6 per unit lower, 95% CI 1.5-1.7; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the worst outcomes for EQ-5D, the best outcomes were associated with patients with arm pain-only complaints. For mJOA, lower BMI and arm pain-only complaints portended the best outcomes. For NDI, those with the best outcomes had shorter symptom durations, higher preoperative neck pain scores, and less often underwent posterior spinal fusions. Given the positive impact of shorter symptom duration on outcomes, these data suggest that early surgery may be beneficial for patients with CSM.

Does the number of social factors affect long-term patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction in those with cervical myelopathy? A QOD study.

OBJECTIVE: It is not clear whether there is an additive effect of social factors in keeping patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) from achieving both a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in outcomes and satisfaction after surgery. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of multiple social factors on postoperative outcomes and satisfaction. METHODS: This was a multiinstitutional, retrospective study of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older who were diagnosed with primary CSM and underwent operative management. Social factors included race (White vs non-White), education (high school or below vs above), employment (employed vs not), and insurance (private vs nonprivate). Patients were considered to have improved from surgery if the following criteria were met: 1) they reported a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society index, and 2) they met the MCID in patient-reported outcomes (i.e., visual analog scale [VAS] neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index [NDI], and EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D]). RESULTS: Of the 1141 patients included in the study, 205 (18.0%) had 0, 347 (30.4%) had 1, 334 (29.3%) had 2, and 255 (22.3%) had 3 social factors. The 24-month follow-up rate was > 80% for all patient-reported outcomes. After adjusting for all relevant covariates (p < 0.02), patients with 1 or more social factors were less likely to improve from surgery in all measured outcomes including VAS neck pain (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.99) and arm pain (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96); NDI (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.98); and EQ-5D (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97) (all p < 0.05) compared to those without any social factors. Patients with 2 social factors (outcomes: neck pain OR 0.86, arm pain OR 0.81, NDI OR 0.84, EQ-5D OR 0.81; all p < 0.05) or 3 social factors (outcomes: neck pain OR 0.84, arm pain OR 0.84, NDI OR 0.84, EQ-5D OR 0.84; all p < 0.05) were more likely to fare worse in all outcomes compared to those with only 1 social factor. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to those without any social factors, patients who had at least 1 social factor were less likely to achieve MCID and feel satisfied after surgery. The effect of social factors is additive in that patients with a higher number of factors are less likely to improve compared to those with only 1 social factor.

Prosthesis design and likelihood of achieving physiological range of motion after cervical disc arthroplasty: Analysis of range of motion data from 1,173 patients from 7 IDE clinical trials.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The functional goals of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are to restore enough range of motion (ROM) to reduce the risk of accelerated adjacent segment degeneration but limit excessive motion to maintain a biomechanically stable index segment. This motion-range is termed the "Physiological mobility range." Clinical studies report postoperative ROM averaged over all study subjects but they do not report what proportion of reconstructed segments yield ROM in the Physiological mobility range following CDA surgery. PURPOSE: To calculate the proportion of reconstructed segments that yield flexion-extension ROM (FE-ROM) in the Physiological mobility range (defined as 5-16 degrees) by analyzing the 24-month postoperative data reported by clinical trials of various cervical disc prostheses. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Analysis of 24-month postoperative FE-ROM data from clinical trials. PATIENT SAMPLE: Data from 1,173 patients from single-level disc replacement clinical trials of 7 cervical disc prostheses. OUTCOME MEASURES: 24-month postoperative index-level FE-ROM. METHODS: The FE-ROM histograms reported in Food and Drug Administration-Investigational Device Exemption (FDA-IDE) submissions and available for this analysis were used to calculate the frequencies of implanted levels with postoperative FE-ROM in the following motion-ranges: Hypomobile [0-4 degrees], Physiological [5-16 degrees], and Hypermobile [≥17 degrees]. The ROM histograms also allowed calculation of the average ROM of implanted segments in each of the 3 motion-ranges. RESULTS: Only 762 of 1,173 patients (implanted levels) yielded 24-month post-CDA FE-ROM in the physiological mobility range [5-16 degrees]. The proportions ranged from 60% to 79% across the 7 disc-prostheses, with an average of 65.0%±6.2%. Three-hundred and two (302) of 1,173 implanted levels yielded ROM in the 0-4-degree range. The proportions ranged from 15% to 38% with an average of 25.7%±8.9%. One-hundred and nine (109) of 1,173 implanted levels yielded ROM of ≥17 degrees with a range of 2%-21% and an average proportion of 9.3%±7.9%. The prosthesis with built-in stiffness due to its nucleus-annulus design yielded the highest proportion (103/131, 79%) of implanted segments in the physiological mobility range, compared to the cohort average of 65% (p<.01). Sixty-five of the 350 (18.6%) discs implanted with the 2 mobile-core designs in this cohort yielded ROM≥17 degrees as compared to the cohort average of 9.3% (109/1,173) (p<.05). At 2-year post-CDA, the "hypomobile" segments moved on average 2.4±1.2 degrees, those in the "physiological-mobility" group moved 9.4±3.2 degrees, and the hypermobile segments moved 19.6±2.6 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis design significantly influenced the likelihood of achieving FE-ROM in the physiological mobility range, while avoiding hypomobility or hypermobility (p<.01). Postoperative ROM averaged over all study subjects provides incomplete information about the prosthesis performance - it does not tell us how many implanted segments achieve physiological mobility and how many end up with hypomobility or hypermobility. We conclude that the proportion of index levels achieving post-CDA motions in the physiological mobility range (5-16 degrees) is a more useful outcome measure for future clinical trials.

Prospective, multicenter clinical trial comparing the M6-C compressible cervical disc with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the treatment of single-level degenerative cervical radiculopathy: 5-year results of an FDA investigational device exemption study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Various total disc replacement (TDR) designs have been compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with favorable short and long-term outcomes in FDA-approved investigational device exemption (IDE) trials. The unique design of M6-C, with a compressible viscoelastic nuclear core and an annular structure, has previously demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes through 24 months. PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of the M6-C compressible artificial cervical disc and compare to ACDF at 5 years. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, concurrently and historically controlled, FDA-approved IDE clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: Subjects with one-level symptomatic degenerative cervical radiculopathy were enrolled and received M6-C (n=160) or ACDF (n=189) treatment as part of the IDE study. Safety outcomes were evaluated at 5 years for all subjects. The primary effectiveness endpoint was available at 5 years for 113 M6-C subjects and 106 ACDF controls. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint of this analysis was composite clinical success (CCS) at 60 months. Secondary endpoints were function and pain (neck disability index, VAS), physical quality of life (SF-36, SF-12), safety, neurologic, and radiographic assessments. METHODS: Propensity score subclassification was used to control for selection bias and match baseline covariates of the control group to the M6-C subjects. Sixty-month CCS rates were estimated for each treatment group using a generalized linear model controlling for propensity score. RESULTS: At 5 years postoperatively, the M6-C treatment resulted in 82.3% CCS while the ACDF group showed 67.0% CCS (superiority p=.013). Secondary endpoints indicated that significantly more M6-C subjects achieved VAS neck and arm pain improvements and showed maintained or improved physical functioning on quality-of-life measures compared to baseline assessments. The M6-C group-maintained flexion-extension motion, with significantly greater increases from baseline disc height and disc angle than observed in the control group. The rates of M6-C subsequent surgical interventions (SSI; 3.1%) and definitely device- or procedure-related serious adverse events (SAE failure; 3.1%) were similar to ACDF rates (SSI=5.3%, SAE failure=4.8%; p>.05 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Subjects treated with the M6-C artificial disc demonstrated superior 5-year achievement of clinical success when compared to ACDF controls. In addition, significantly more subjects in the M6-C group showed improved pain and physical functioning scores than observed in ACDF subjects, with no difference in reoperation rates or safety outcomes.

What factors influence surgical decision-making in anterior versus posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy? A QOD analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the preoperative patient characteristics that affect surgical decision-making when selecting an anterior or posterior operative approach in patients diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective study of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy module. Patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with primary CSM who underwent multilevel (≥ 2-level) elective surgery were included. Demographics and baseline clinical characteristics were collected. RESULTS: Of the 841 patients with CSM in the database, 492 (58.5%) underwent multilevel anterior surgery and 349 (41.5%) underwent multilevel posterior surgery. Surgeons more often performed a posterior surgical approach in older patients (mean 64.8 ± 10.6 vs 58.5 ± 11.1 years, p < 0.001) and those with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (class III or IV: 52.4% vs 46.3%, p = 0.003), a higher rate of motor deficit (67.0% vs 58.7%, p = 0.014), worse myelopathy (mean modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score 11.4 ± 3.1 vs 12.4 ± 2.6, p < 0.001), and more levels treated (4.3 ± 1.3 vs 2.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). On the other hand, surgeons more frequently performed an anterior surgical approach when patients were employed (47.2% vs 23.2%, p < 0.001) and had intervertebral disc herniation as an underlying pathology (30.7% vs 9.2%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The selection of approach for patients with CSM depends on patient demographics and symptomology. Posterior surgery was performed in patients who were older and had worse systemic disease, increased myelopathy, and greater levels of stenosis. Anterior surgery was more often performed in patients who were employed and had intervertebral disc herniation.

Does diabetes affect outcome or reoperation rate after lumbar decompression or arthrodesis? A matched analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database data set.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a known risk factor for postsurgical and systemic complications after lumbar spinal surgery. Smaller studies have also demonstrated diminished improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), with increased reoperation and readmission rates after lumbar surgery in patients with DM. The authors aimed to examine longer-term PROs in patients with DM undergoing lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. Patients were grouped into DM and non-DM groups and optimally matched in a 1:1 ratio on 31 baseline variables, including the number of operated levels. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 and 90 days after surgery in addition to improvements in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain scores and quality-adjusted life-years at 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: The matched decompression cohort comprised 7836 patients (3236 [41.3] females) with a mean age of 63.5 ± 12.6 years, and the matched arthrodesis cohort comprised 7336 patients (3907 [53.3%] females) with a mean age of 64.8 ± 10.3 years. In patients undergoing lumbar decompression, no significant differences in nonroutine discharge, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, reoperations, and PROs were observed. In patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, nonroutine discharge (15.7% vs 13.4%, p < 0.01), LOS (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.0 ± 3.5 days, p < 0.01), 30-day (6.5% vs 4.4%, p < 0.01) and 90-day (9.1% vs 7.0%, p < 0.01) readmission rates, and the 90-day reoperation rate (4.3% vs 3.2%, p = 0.01) were all significantly higher in the DM group. For DM patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly higher risk of poor surgical outcomes with the open approach. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with and without DM undergoing lumbar spinal decompression alone have comparable readmission and reoperation rates, while those undergoing arthrodesis procedures have a higher risk of poor surgical outcomes up to 90 days after surgery. Surgeons should target optimal DM control preoperatively, particularly for patients undergoing elective lumbar arthrodesis.

Impact of Educational Background on Preoperative Disease Severity and Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. OBJECTIVE: Assess differences in preoperative status and postoperative outcomes among patients of different educational backgrounds undergoing surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patient education level (EL) has been suggested to correlate with health literacy, disease perception, socioeconomic status (SES), and access to health care. METHODS: The CSM data set of the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing surgical management of CSM. EL was grouped as high school or below, graduate-level, and postgraduate level. The association of EL with baseline disease severity (per patient-reported outcome measures), symptoms >3 or ≤3 months, and 24-month patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 1141 patients with CSM, 509 (44.6%) had an EL of high school or below, 471 (41.3%) had a graduate degree, and 161 (14.1%) had obtained postgraduate education. Lower EL was statistically significantly associated with symptom duration of >3 months (odds ratio=1.68), higher arm pain numeric rating scale (NRS) (coefficient=0.5), and higher neck pain NRS (coefficient=0.79). Patients with postgraduate education had statistically significantly lower Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores (coefficient=-7.17), lower arm pain scores (coefficient=-1), and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) scores (coefficient=0.06). Twenty-four months after surgery, patients of lower EL had higher NDI scores, higher pain NRS scores, and lower QALY scores ( P <0.05 in all analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing surgical management for CSM, those reporting a lower educational level tended to present with longer symptom duration, more disease-inflicted disability and pain, and lower QALY scores. As such, patients of a lower EL are a potentially vulnerable subpopulation, and their health literacy and access to care should be prioritized.

Greater improvement in Neck Disability Index scores in women after surgery for cervical myelopathy: an analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: There is a high prevalence of cervical myelopathy that requires surgery; as such, it is important to identify how different groups benefit from surgery. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons launched the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospective longitudinal registry, that includes demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome data to measure the safety and quality of neurosurgical procedures. In this study, the authors assessed the impact of gender on patient-reported outcomes in patients who underwent surgery for cervical myelopathy. METHODS: The authors analyzed 1152 patients who underwent surgery for cervical myelopathy and were included in the QOD cervical module. Univariate comparison of baseline patient characteristics between males and females who underwent surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy was performed. Baseline characteristics that significantly differed between males and females were included in a multivariate generalized linear model comparing baseline and 1-year postoperative Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. RESULTS: This study included 546 females and 604 males. Females demonstrated significantly greater improvement in NDI score 1 year after surgery (p = 0.036). In addition to gender, the presence of axial neck pain and insurance status were also significantly predictive of improvement in NDI score after surgery (p = 0.0013 and p = 0.0058, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Females were more likely to benefit from surgery for cervical myelopathy compared with males. It is important to identify gender differences in postoperative outcomes after surgery in order to deliver more personalized and patient-centric care.

Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Laminoforaminotomy for C4 Radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy (MELF) has been proven to be an effective, motion preserving procedure for the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Cervical 4 (C4) radiculopathies are often unrecognized by the initial evaluating physician and may be misdiagnosed as axial neck pain. In this study, we compare MELF to anterior cervical disk fusion (ACDF) for C4 radiculopathy in the largest series of minimally invasive foraminotomy for C4 radiculopathy to date. METHODS: This is a single-institution retrospective chart review of 42 cases for C4 radiculopathy, 21 MELF and 21 ACDF. Primary outcome measures were length of surgery, length of hospital stay, and time to return to work. Secondary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain and reoperation rate. RESULTS: All patients were diagnosed with a unilateral C4 radiculopathy using magnetic resonance imaging or steroid injections. The length of surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly decreased in the MELF group compared with ACDF. VAS neck pain significantly decreased for patients in both groups, but the difference between MELF and ACDF was not statistically significant. There were no major complications. No patient underwent revision at the index level or adjacent levels in the MELF group. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that C4 radiculopathy can be identified with appropriate history, physical examination, and targeted nerve root injections. When identified, these radiculopathies that fail conservative therapy can be effectively treated with cervical microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy, with comparable outcomes to ACDF. The length of surgery and length of stay are reduced when compared with ACDF.

Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation in Lumbar Spine Fusion for Patients With Risk Factors for Pseudarthrosis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal fusion surgeries are increasing steadily due to an aging and ever-growing population. Patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion surgery may present with risk factors that contribute to complications, pseudarthrosis, prolonged pain, and reduced quality of life. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation represents an adjunct noninvasive treatment intervention that has been shown to improve successful fusion and patient outcomes following spinal surgery. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study investigated PEMF as an adjunct therapy to lumbar spinal fusion procedures in patients at risk for pseudarthrosis. Patients with at least 1 of the following risk factors were enrolled: prior failed fusion, multilevel fusion, nicotine use, osteoporosis, or diabetes. Fusion status was determined by radiographic imaging, and patient-reported outcomes were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were included in the analysis. Fusion status was assessed at 12 months follow-up where 88.0% (n = 125/142) of patients demonstrated successful fusion. Fusion success for patients with 1, 2+, or 3+ risk factors was 88.5%, 87.5%, and 82.3%, respectively. Significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes using the Short Form 36, EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) survey, Oswestry Disability Index, and visual analog scale for back and leg pain were also observed compared with baseline scores (P < 0.001). A favorable safety profile was observed. PEMF treatment showed a positive benefit-risk profile throughout the 6-month required use period. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of PEMF as an adjunct treatment in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery provided a high rate of successful fusion with significant improvements in pain, function, and quality of life, despite having risk factors for pseudarthrosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PEMF represents a useful tool for adjunct treatment in patients who have undergone lumbar spinal surgery. Treatment with PEMF may result in improved fusion and patient-reported outcomes, regardless of risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03176303.

Cervical laminoplasty versus laminectomy and posterior cervical fusion for cervical myelopathy: propensity-matched analysis of 24-month outcomes from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: Compared with laminectomy with posterior cervical fusion (PCF), cervical laminoplasty (CL) may result in different outcomes for those operated on for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The aim of this study was to compare 24-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for laminoplasty versus PCF by using the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM data set. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using an augmented data set from the prospectively collected QOD Registry Cervical Module. Patients undergoing laminoplasty or PCF for CSM were included. Using the nearest-neighbor method, the authors performed 1:1 propensity matching based on age, operated levels, and baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) and visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain scores. The 24-month PROs, i.e., mJOA, Neck Disability Index (NDI), VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction scores, were compared. Only cases in the subaxial cervical region were included; those that crossed the cervicothoracic junction were excluded. RESULTS: From the 1141 patients included in the QOD CSM data set who underwent anterior or posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy, 946 (82.9%) had 24 months of follow-up. Of these, 43 patients who underwent laminoplasty and 191 who underwent PCF met the inclusion criteria. After matching, the groups were similar for baseline characteristics, including operative levels (CL group: 4.0 ± 0.9 vs PCF group: 4.2 ± 1.1, p = 0.337) and baseline PROs (p > 0.05), except for a higher percentage involved in activities outside the home in the CL group (95.3% vs 81.4%, p = 0.044). The 24-month follow-up for the matched cohorts was similar (CL group: 88.4% vs PCF group: 83.7%, p = 0.534). Patients undergoing laminoplasty had significantly lower estimated blood loss (99.3 ± 91.7 mL vs 186.7 ± 142.7 mL, p = 0.003), decreased length of stay (3.0 ± 1.6 days vs 4.5 ± 3.3 days, p = 0.012), and a higher rate of routine discharge (88.4% vs 62.8%, p = 0.006). The CL cohort also demonstrated a higher rate of return to activities (47.2% vs 21.2%, p = 0.023) after 3 months. Laminoplasty was associated with a larger improvement in 24-month NDI score (-19.6 ± 18.9 vs -9.1 ± 21.9, p = 0.031). Otherwise, there were no 3- or 24-month differences in mJOA, mean NDI, VAS neck pain, VAS arm pain, EQ-5D, EQ-VAS, and distribution of NASS satisfaction scores (p > 0.05) between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PCF, laminoplasty was associated with decreased blood loss, decreased length of hospitalization, and higher rates of home discharge. At 3 months, laminoplasty was associated with a higher rate of return to baseline activities. At 24 months, laminoplasty was associated with greater improvements in neck disability. Otherwise, laminoplasty and PCF shared similar outcomes for functional status, pain, quality of life, and satisfaction. Laminoplasty and PCF achieved similar neck pain scores, suggesting that moderate preoperative neck pain may not necessarily be a contraindication for laminoplasty.

Three-level ACDF versus 3-level laminectomy and fusion: are there differences in outcomes? An analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database cervical spondylotic myelopathy cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to compare 3-level anterior with posterior fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: The authors analyzed prospective data from the 14 highest enrolling sites of the Quality Outcomes Database CSM module. They compared 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) surgical procedures, excluding surgical procedures crossing the cervicothoracic junction. Rates of reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared at 24 months postoperatively. Multivariable analyses adjusted for potential confounders elucidated in univariable analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 199 patients met the inclusion criteria: 123 ACDF (61.8%) and 76 PCF (38.2%) patients. The 24-month follow-up rates were similar (ACDF 90.2% vs PCF 92.1%, p = 0.67). Preoperatively, ACDF patients were younger (60.8 ± 10.2 vs 65.0 ± 10.3 years, p < 0.01), and greater proportions were privately insured (56.1% vs 36.8%, p = 0.02), actively employed (39.8% vs 22.8%, p = 0.04), and independently ambulatory (14.6% vs 31.6%, p < 0.01). Otherwise, the cohorts had equivalent baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS)-arm pain, NRS-neck pain, and EQ-5D scores (p > 0.05). ACDF patients had reduced hospitalization length (1.6 vs 3.9 days, p < 0.01) and a greater proportion had nonroutine discharge (7.3% vs 22.8%, p < 0.01), but they had a higher rate of postoperative dysphagia (13.5% vs 3.5%, p = 0.049). Compared with baseline values, both groups demonstrated improvements in all outcomes at 24 months (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, after controlling for age, insurance payor, employment status, ambulation status, and other potential clinically relevant confounders, ACDF was associated with a greater proportion of patients with maximum satisfaction on the North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index (NASS) (NASS score of 1) at 24 months (69.4% vs 53.7%, OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.17-5.09, adjusted p = 0.02). Otherwise, the cohorts shared similar 24-month outcomes in terms of reaching the MCID for mJOA, NDI, NRS-arm pain, NRS-neck pain, and EQ-5D score (adjusted p > 0.05). There were no differences in the 3-month readmission (ACDF 4.1% vs PCF 3.9%, p = 0.97) and 24-month reoperation (ACDF 13.5% vs PCF 18.6%, p = 0.36) rates. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort limited to 3-level fusion surgical procedures, ACDF was associated with reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization length, and higher routine home discharge rates; however, PCF resulted in lower rates of postoperative dysphagia. The procedures yielded comparably significant improvements in functional status (mJOA score), neck and arm pain, neck pain-related disability, and quality of life at 3, 12, and 24 months. ACDF patients had significantly higher odds of maximum satisfaction (NASS score 1). Given comparable outcomes, patients should be counseled on each approach's complication profile to aid in surgical decision-making.

International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Statement: Restorative Neurostimulation for Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain Resulting From Neuromuscular Instability.

This International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery statement has been generated to respond to growing requests for background, supporting literature and evidence, and proper coding for restorative neurostimulation for chronic low back pain. Chronic low back pain describes the diverse experience of a significant proportion of the population. Conservative management of these patients remains the predominant care pathway, but for many patients, symptom relief is poor. The application of new techniques in patients who have exhausted traditional care paradigms should be undertaken with a detailed understanding of the pathology being treated, the mechanisms involved, and the data supporting efficacy. This statement on restorative neurostimulation places this technology in the context of the current understanding of the etiology of mechanical low back pain and the currently available evidence for this technique. In an appropriately selected cohort with a specific subset of chronic low back pain symptoms, this technique may provide benefit to payers and patients.