Practical Answers to Frequently Asked Questions in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery for Degenerative Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical counseling enables shared decision making and optimal outcomes by improving patients' understanding about their pathologies, surgical options, and expected outcomes. Here, we aimed to provide practical answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) from patients undergoing an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) for the treatment of degenerative conditions. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary one-level or two-level ACDF or CDR for the treatment of degenerative conditions with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Data were used to answer 10 FAQs that were generated from author's experience of commonly asked questions in clinic before ACDF or CDR. RESULTS: A total of 395 patients (181 ACDF, 214 CDR) were included. (1, 2, and 3) Will my neck/arm pain and physical function improve? Patients report notable improvement in all patient-reported outcome measures. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? 13% (ACDF) and 5% (CDR) reported worsening. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? Patients on average received a 3.7 (ACDF) and 5.5 mGy (CDR) dose during. (6) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one. (7) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 13% (8% minor and 5% major) experienced in-hospital complications (ACDF) and 5% (all minor) did (CDR). (8) Will I need another surgery? 2.2% (ACDF) and 2.3% (CDR) of patients required a revision surgery. (9 & 10) When will I be able to return to work/driving? Most patients return to working (median of 16 [ACDF] and 14 days [CDR]) and driving (median of 16 [ACDF] and 12 days [CDR]). CONCLUSIONS: The answers to the FAQs can assist surgeons in evidence-based patient counseling.

Impact of Preoperative Symptom Duration on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cervical Disc Replacement for Cervical Radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of preoperative symptom duration on postoperative functional outcomes following cervical disc replacement (CDR) for radiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDR has emerged as a reliable and efficacious treatment option for degenerative cervical spine pathologies. The relationship between preoperative symptom duration and outcomes following CDR is not well established. METHODS: Patients with radiculopathy without myelopathy who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDRs were included and divided into shorter (<6 mo) and prolonged (≥6 mo) cohorts based on preoperative symptom duration. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Neck and Arm. Change in PROM scores and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) rates were calculated. Analyses were conducted on the early (within 3 mo) and late (6 mo-2 y) postoperative periods. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients (43.6±8.7 y, 33.3% female) were included. In both early and late postoperative periods, the shorter preoperative symptom duration cohort experienced significantly greater change from preoperative PROM scores compared to the prolonged symptom duration cohort for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm. The shorter symptom duration cohort achieved MCID in the early postoperative period at a significantly higher rate for NDI (78.9% vs. 54.9%, P=0.001), VAS-Neck (87.0% vs. 56.0%, P<0.001), and VAS-Arm (90.5% vs. 70.7%, P=0.002). Prolonged preoperative symptom duration (≥6 mo) was identified as an independent risk factor for failure to achieve MCID at the latest timepoint for NDI (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-6.9, P=0.016), VAS-Neck (OR: 9.8, 95% CI: 3.7-26.0, P<0.001), and VAS-Arm (OR: 7.5, 95% CI: 2.5-22.5, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates improved patient-reported outcomes for those with shorter preoperative symptom duration undergoing CDR for radiculopathy, suggesting delayed surgical intervention may result in poorer outcomes and greater postoperative disability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Ninety Percent of Patients Are Satisfied With Their Decision to Undergo Spine Surgery for Degenerative Conditions.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To explore how patients perceive their decision to pursue spine surgery for degenerative conditions and evaluate factors correlated with decisional regret. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior research shows that one-in-five older adults regret their decision to undergo spinal deformity surgery. However, no studies have investigated decisional regret in patients with degenerative conditions. METHODS: Patients who underwent cervical or lumbar spine surgery for degenerative conditions (decompression, fusion, or disk replacement) between April 2017 and December 2020 were included. The Ottawa Decisional Regret Questionnaire was implemented to assess prevalence of decisional regret. Questionnaire scores were used to categorize patients into low (<40) or medium/high (≥40) decisional regret cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back/Leg/Arm, and Neck Disability Index at preoperative, early postoperative (<6 mo), and late postoperative (≥6 mo) timepoints. Differences in demographics, operative variables, and PROMs between low and medium/high decisional regret groups were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients were included (mean follow-up: 18.2 mo). Overall, 92% of patients agreed that having surgery was the right decision, and 90% would make the same decision again. In contrast, 6% of patients regretted the decision to undergo surgery, and 7% noted that surgery caused them harm. In-hospital complications (P=0.02) and revision fusion (P=0.026) were significantly associated with higher regret. The medium/high decisional regret group also exhibited significantly worse PROMs at long-term follow-up for all metrics except VAS-Arm, and worse achievement of minimum clinically important difference for Oswestry Disability Index (P=0.007), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (P<0.0001), and VAS-Leg (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher decisional regret was encountered in the setting of need for revision fusion, increased in-hospital complications, and worse PROMs. However, 90% of patients overall were satisfied with their decision to undergo spine surgery for degenerative conditions. Current tools for assessing patient improvement postoperatively may not adequately capture the psychosocial values and patient expectations implicated in decisional regret.

Predictors for Failure to Respond to Erector Spinae Plane Block Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk factors associated with failure to respond to erector spinae plane (ESP) block following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ESP block is an emerging opioid-sparing regional anesthetic that has been shown to reduce immediate postoperative pain and opioid demand following MI-TLIF-however, not all patients who receive ESP blocks perioperatively experience a reduction in immediate postoperative pain. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing 1-level MI-TLIF who received ESP blocks by a single anesthesiologist perioperatively at a single institution. ESP blocks were administered in the OR following induction. Failure to respond to ESP block was defined as patients with a first numerical rating scale (NRS) score post-surgery of >5.7 (mean immediate postoperative NRS score of control cohort undergoing MI TLIF without ESP block). Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify predictors for failure to respond to ESP block. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were included (mean age 60.6 years, 43.3% females). The median and interquartile range (IQR) first pain score post-surgery was 2.5 (0.0-7.5). Forty-nine (36.6%) of patients failed to respond to ESP block. In the multivariable regression analysis, several independent predictors for failure to respond to ESP block following MI TLIF were identified: female sex (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.04-5.98, P=0.040), preoperative opioid use (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.03- 7.30, P=0.043), anxiety requiring medication (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.27-11.49, P=0.017), and hyperlipidemia (OR 3.15, 95% CI 1.31-7.55, P=0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several predictors for failure to respond to ESP block following MI TLIF including female sex, preoperative opioid pain medication use, anxiety, and hyperlipidemia. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on perioperative outcomes and pain expectations following MI-TLIF with ESP block. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Impact of Metabolic Syndrome on Early Postoperative Outcomes After Cervical Disk Replacement: A Propensity-matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following cervical disk replacement (CDR) among patients with and without metabolic syndrome (MetS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The prevalence of MetS-involving concurrent obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia-has increased in the United States over the last 2 decades. Little is known about the impact of MetS on early postoperative outcomes and complications following CDR. METHODS: The 2005-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients with and without MetS were divided into 2 cohorts. MetS was defined, according to other National Surgical Quality Improvement Program studies, as concurrent diabetes mellitus, hypertension requiring medication, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, complications, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition were compared using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. One to 2 propensity-matching was performed, matching for demographics, comorbidities, and number of operative levels. RESULTS: A total of 5395 patients were included for unmatched analysis. Two hundred thirty-six had MetS, and 5159 did not. The MetS cohort had greater rates of 30-day readmission (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P=0.023), morbidity (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P=0.032), nonhome discharges (3% vs. 0.6%; P=0.002), and longer hospital stays (1.35±4.04 vs. 1±1.48 days; P=0.029). After propensity-matching, 699 patients were included. All differences reported above lost significance (P>0.05) except for 30-day morbidity (superficial wound infections), which remained higher for the MetS cohort (2.5% vs. 0.4%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We identified MetS as an independent predictor of 30-day morbidity in the form of superficial wound infections following single-level CDR. Although MetS patients experienced greater rates of 30-day readmission, nonhome discharge, and longer lengths of stay, MetS did not independently predict these outcomes after controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Limited Improvement with Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Alone for Degenerative Scoliosis with Cobb Angle over 20 Degrees: The Impact of Decompression Location.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected multi-surgeon registry. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive (MI) decompression in patients with severe degenerative scoliosis (DS) and identify factors associated with poorer outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND CONTEXT: MI decompression has gained widespread acceptance as a treatment option for patients with lumbar canal stenosis and DS. However, there is a lack of research regarding the clinical outcomes and the impact of MI decompression location in patients with severe DS exhibiting a Cobb angle exceeding 20 degrees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent MI decompression alone were included and categorized into the DS or control groups based on Cobb angle (>20 degrees). Decompression location was labeled as "scoliosis-related" when the decompression levels were across or between end vertebrae, and "outside" when the operative levels did not include the end vertebrae. The outcomes including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were compared between the propensity score-matched groups for improvement and minimal clinical importance difference (MCID) achievement at ≥1 year postoperatively. Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to identify factors contributing to the non-achievement of MCID in ODI of the DS group at the ≥1 year timepoint. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients (41 DS) were included in the study. Following matching for age, gender, osteoporosis status, psoas muscle area, and preoperative ODI, the DS groups exhibited a significantly lower rate of MCID achievement in ODI (DS: 45.5% vs. control 69.0%, P=0.047). The "scoliosis-related" decompression (Odds ratio: 9.9, P=0.028) was an independent factor of non-achievement of MCID in ODI within the DS group. CONCLUSION: In patients with a Cobb angle>20 degrees, lumbar decompression surgery, even in the MI approach, may result in limited improvement of disability and physical function. Caution should be exercised when determining a surgical plan, especially when decompression involves the level between or across the end vertebrae. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Impact of Posterior Intervertebral Osteophytes on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After L5-S1 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: (1) To develop a reliable grading system to assess the severity of posterior intervertebral osteophytes and (2) to investigate the impact of posterior intervertebral osteophytes on clinical outcomes after L5-S1 decompression and fusion through anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and minimally-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence regarding the clinical implications of posterior lumbar vertebral body osteophytes for ALIF and MIS-TLIF surgeries and there are no established grading systems that define the severity of these posterior lumbar intervertebral osteophytes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing L5-S1 ALIF or MIS-TLIF was performed. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and leg Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 2-week, 6-week, 12-week, and 6-month follow-up time points were assessed. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI of 14.9 and VAS leg of 2.8 were utilized. Osteophyte grade was based on the ratio of osteophyte length to foraminal width. "High-grade" osteophytes were defined as a maximal osteophyte length >50% of the total foraminal width. RESULTS: A total of 70 consecutive patients (32 ALIF and 38 MIS-TLIF) were included in the study. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in patient-reported outcome measures or achievement of MCID for Leg VAS or ODI preoperatively or at any follow-ups. On multivariate analysis, neither the surgical approach nor the presence of high-grade foraminal osteophytes was associated with leg VAS or ODI scores at any follow-up time point. In addition, neither the surgical approach nor the presence of high-grade foraminal osteophytes was associated with the achievement of MCID for leg VAS or ODI at 6 months. CONCLUSION: ALIF and MIS-TLIF are both valid options for treating degenerative spine conditions and lumbar radiculopathy, even in the presence of high-grade osteophytes that significantly occupy the intervertebral foramen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

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

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: Assess the feasibility of saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SN-SSEP) monitoring in lumbar spine surgeries. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: SN-SSEPs have been proposed for detecting lumbar plexus and femoral nerve injury during lateral lumbar surgery where tibial nerve (TN)SSEPs alone are insufficient. SN-SSEPs may also be useful in other types of lumbar surgery, as stimulation of SN below the knee derives solely from the L4 root and provides a means of L4 monitoring, whereas TN-SSEPs often do not detect single nerve root injury. The feasibility of routine SN-SSEP monitoring has not been established. METHODS: A total of 563 consecutive cases using both TN and SN-SSEP monitoring were included. Anesthesia was at the discretion of the anesthesiologist, using an inhalant in 97.7% of procedures. SN stimulation was performed using 13 mm needle electrodes placed below the knee using 200-400 µsec pulses at 15-100 mA. Adjustments to stimulation parameters were made by the neurophysiology technician while obtaining baselines. Data were graded retrospectively for monitorability and cortical response amplitudes were measured by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: 98% of TN-SSEPs and 92.5% of SN-SSEPs were monitorable at baseline, with a mean response amplitude of 1.35 µV for TN-SSEPs and 0.71 µV for SN-SSEPs. A significant difference between the stimulation parameters used to obtain reproducible TN and SN-SSEPs at baseline was observed, with SN-SSEPs requiring greater stimulation intensities. Body mass index (BMI) is not associated with baseline monitorability. Out of 20 signal changes observed, 11 involved SN while TN-SSEPs were unaffected. CONCLUSION: With adjustments to stimulation parameters, SN-SSEP monitoring is feasible within a large clinical cohort without modifications to the anesthetic plan. Incorporating SN into standard intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) protocols for lumbar spine procedures may expand the role of SSEP monitoring to include detecting injury to the lumbar plexus. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Telemedicine in Spine Patients: Utilization and Satisfaction Remain High Even After Easing of COVID-19 Lockdown Restrictions.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the present study were to (1) define telemedicine utilization rates during and after the initial height of the COVID-19 lockdown period and (2) determine patient satisfaction with telemedicine during and after the initial height of the COVID-19 lockdown period for spine patients at an orthopedic specialty hospital. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have shown high patient satisfaction with telemedicine during the initial height of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there exists limited data about spine telemedicine utilization and patient satisfaction after the reopening of in-person office visits and the easing of restrictions on elective surgical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who had an in-person or telemedicine visit at an urban tertiary specialty hospital from April 1, 2020 to April 15, 2021 were identified. Rates of overall telemedicine utilization over time were delineated. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine, as assessed through a series of questionnaires, was also evaluated over time. RESULTS: Overall, 60,368 patients were identified. Of these, 19,568 patients (32.4%) had telemedicine visit. During the peak initial coronavirus lockdown period, the rate of overall telemedicine utilization, on average, was greater than 90%. After the peak period, the rate of overall telemedicine utilization on average was at ~29% of all visits per month. The percentage of patients who would have been definitely comfortable if the telemedicine visit had been in-person increased over the entire study period ( P <0.001). Despite this, patient satisfaction based on survey responses remained statistically similar throughout the study period ( P >0.05). CONCLUSION: The rate of telemedicine utilization in spine patients remains high, at ~one-third of all visits, even after the initial peak coronavirus lockdown period. In addition, patient satisfaction with telemedicine remained consistent throughout the study period, regardless of pandemic restrictions on in-person visits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

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

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

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

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

Impact of Frailty and Cervical Radiographic Parameters on Postoperative Dysphagia Following Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected registry. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact of frailty and radiographical parameters on postoperative dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a growing body of literature indicating an association between frailty and increased postoperative complications following various surgeries. However, few studies have investigated the relationship between frailty and postoperative dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent anterior cervical spine surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology were included. Frailty and dysphagia were assessed by the modified Frailty Index-11 (mFI-11) and Eat Assessment Tool 10 (EAT-10), respectively. We also collected clinical demographics and cervical alignment parameters previously reported as risk factors for postoperative dysphagia. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify the odds ratio (OR) of postoperative dysphagia at early (2-6 weeks) and late postoperative time points (1-2 years). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients who underwent ACSS were included in the study. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 31 patients (32.6%) at the early postoperative time point. Multivariable logistic regression identified higher mFI-11 score (OR, 4.03; 95% CI: 1.24-13.16; P =0.021), overcorrection of TS-CL after surgery (TS-CL, T1 slope minus C2-C7 lordosis; OR, 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.95; P =0.003), and surgery at C3/C4 (OR, 12.38; 95% CI: 1.41-108.92; P =0.023) as factors associated with postoperative dysphagia. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty, as assessed by the mFI-11, was significantly associated with postoperative dysphagia after ACSS. Additional factors associated with postoperative dysphagia were overcorrection of TS-CL and surgery at C3/C4. These findings emphasize the importance of assessing frailty and cervical alignment in the decision-making process preceding ACSS.

Robot-navigated pedicle screw insertion can reduce intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay: analysis of 1,633 patients utilizing propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Navigation and robotic technologies have emerged as an alternative option to conventional freehand techniques for pedicle screw insertion. However, the effectiveness of these technologies in reducing the perioperative complications of spinal fusion surgery remains limited due to the small cohort size in the existing literature. PURPOSE: To investigate whether utilization of robotically navigated pedicle screw insertion can reduce the perioperative complications of spinal fusion surgery-including reoperations-with a sizeable cohort. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent primary lumbar fusion surgery between 2019 and 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative complications including readmission, reoperation, its reasons, estimated blood loss, operative time, and length of hospital stay. METHODS: Patients' data were collected including age, sex, race, body mass index, upper-instrumented vertebra, lower-instrumented vertebra, number of screws inserted, and primary procedure name. Patients were classified into the following two groups: freehand group and robot group. The variable-ratio greedy matching was utilized to create the matched cohorts by propensity score and compared the outcomes between the two group. RESULTS: A total of 1,633 patients who underwent primary instrumented spinal lumbar fusion surgery were initially identified (freehand 1,286; robot 347). After variable ratio matching was performed with age, sex, body mass index, fused levels, and upper instrumented vertebrae level, 694 patients in the freehand group and 347 patients in robot groups were selected. The robot group showed less estimated blood loss (418.9±398.9 vs 199.2±239.6 ml; p<.001), shorter LOS (4.1±3.1 vs 3.2±3.0 days; p<.001) and similar operative time (212.5 vs 222.0 minutes; p=.151). Otherwise, there was no significant difference in readmission rate (3.6% vs 2.6%; p=.498), reoperation rate (3.2% vs 2.6%; p=.498), and screw malposition requiring reoperation (five cases, 0.7% vs one case, 0.3%; p=1.000). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative complications requiring readmission and reoperation were similar between fluoroscopy guided freehand and robotic surgery. Robot-guided pedicle screw insertion can enhance surgical efficiency by reducing intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay without extending operative time.

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

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

Preoperative Disability Influences Effectiveness of Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Predicting Patient Improvement Following Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) metrics when interpreting Neck Disability Index (NDI) following cervical spine surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary cervical fusion, discectomy, or laminectomy were included. NDI and global rating change (GRC) data at 6 months/1 year/2 years were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MCID and PASS in predicting improvement on GRC were calculated for the overall cohort and separately for patients with minimal (NDI <30), moderate (NDI 30 - 49), and severe (NDI ≥ 50) preoperative disability. Two groups with patients who achieved PASS but not MCID and patients who achieved MCID but not PASS were analyzed. RESULTS: 141 patients (206 responses) were included. PASS had significantly greater sensitivity for the overall cohort (85% vs 73% with MCID, P = .02) and patients with minimal disability (96% vs 53% with MCID, P < .001). MCID had greater sensitivity for patients with severe disability (78% vs 57% with PASS, P = .05). Sensitivity was not significantly different for PASS and MCID in patients with moderate preoperative disability (83% vs 92%, P = .1). 17% of patients achieved PASS but not MCID and 9% of patients achieved MCID but not PASS. Most of these patients still reported improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (89% vs 72%, P = .13). CONCLUSION: PASS and MCID are better metrics for patients with minimal and severe preoperative disability, respectively. Both metrics are equally effective for patients with moderate preoperative disability.

Recovery Kinetics After Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multisurgeon registry. OBJECTIVE: To study recovery kinetics and associated factors after cervical spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have described return to activities cervical spine surgery. This is a big gap in the literature, as preoperative counseling and expectations before surgery are important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) were included. Data collected included preoperative patient-reported outcome measures, return to driving, return to working, and discontinuation of opioids data. A multivariable regression was conducted to identify the factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to working by 15 days, and discontinuing opioids by 30 days. RESULTS: Seventy ACDF patients and 70 CDR patients were included. Overall, 98.2% of ACDF patients and 98% of CDR patients returned to driving in 16 and 12 days, respectively; 85.7% of ACDF patients and 90.9% of CDR patients returned to work in 16 and 14 days; and 98.3% of ACDF patients and 98.3% of CDR patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and six days. Though not significant, minimal (odds ratio (OR)=1.65) and moderate (OR=1.79) disability was associated with greater odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Sedentary work (OR=0.8) and preoperative narcotics (OR=0.86) were associated with decreased odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Medium (OR=0.81) and heavy (OR=0.78) intensity occupations were associated with decreased odds of returning to work by 15 days. High school education (OR=0.75), sedentary work (OR=0.79), and retired/not working (OR=0.69) were all associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery kinetics for ACDF and CDR are comparable. Most patients return to all activities after ACDF and CDR within 16 days. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

Unplanned readmissions following ambulatory spine surgery: assessing common reasons and risk factors.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although outpatient spine surgery is becoming increasingly popular in the United States, unplanned readmission following outpatient surgery remains a significant postoperative concern. PURPOSE: This study aimed to (1) describe the incidence and timing of 30-day unplanned readmission after ambulatory lumbar and cervical spine surgery (2) evaluate the common reasons for readmission, and (3) identify factors associated with readmission in this population. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent ambulatory cervical or lumbar spine surgery between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital readmission within 30 postoperative days. METHODS: Patients who underwent ambulatory cervical or lumbar spine surgery between 2015 and 2020 were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Reasons for and timing of unplanned readmissions were recorded. Multivariable poisson regressions were employed to determine any independent predictors of readmission. RESULTS: A total of 33,092 ambulatory cervical and 68,115 ambulatory lumbar spine surgery patients were identified. Incidences of 30-day readmission were 3.37% and 3.07% among cervical and lumbar patients, respectively. The most common surgical site-related reasons for readmission included uncontrolled pain, recurrence of disc herniation or major symptom, and postoperative hematoma/seroma. Common nonsurgical site-related reasons included gastrointestinal, neurological, and cardiovascular complications. Factors associated with readmission among cervical patients included age ≥55, BMI ≥35, functional dependence, diabetes, smoking, COPD, and steroid use, whereas factors associated with readmission following lumbar spine surgery included age ≥65, female sex, BMI ≥35, functional dependence, ASA ≥3, diabetes, smoking, COPD, and hypertension (p<.05 for all). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the common reasons and factors associated with unplanned readmission following ambulatory spine surgery. Consideration of these factors may be critical to ensuring appropriate patient selection for ambulatory spine surgery.

Cervical Total Disc Replacement in Athletes: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to describe clinical characteristics, outcomes, and return to play after cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) in athletes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The role of cTDR in treating athletes with symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease is undefined. METHODS: A systematic search using MEDLINE through PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify all relevant literature. Data regarding study type, country in which the study was conducted, sample size, mean age, sex, type of sport, level of patient participation in sports, surgical indication, levels operated, type of implant, duration of follow-up, reoperations, surgical complications, extent of postoperative return to sports (RTSs), time to RTSs, and outcome notes were extracted from the included studies and analyzed. RESULTS: Seven studies, including 4 case series and 3 case reports, and a total of 57 cTDR cases, were included. There was significant heterogeneity among the cTDR cases in terms of chosen sport and level of participation. Prestige LP was utilized in 51 out of 57 (89.5%) cases and 53 out of 57 (93%) cases were single-level. No reoperations were noted at a mean follow-up of 51.6 months. All patients returned to sports postoperatively. Return to training and competition occurred at a mean of 10.1 weeks and 30.7 weeks postoperatively, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence regarding cTDR in athletes indicates that these patients RTSs at high rates, with return to training occurring around 10 weeks and return to competition occurring around 30 weeks. Clinical outcomes in these patients are like those reported for the general population. Low-level evidence, small numbers of cases, heterogeneity in chosen sport and participation level, and predominance of a single implant type limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the current literature on this patient population.

Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference following cervical disc replacement.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: While cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been emerging as a reliable and efficacious treatment option for degenerative cervical spine pathology, not all patients undergoing CDR will achieve minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) postoperatively-risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in PROMs following CDR have not been established. PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in Neck Disability Index (NDI, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck and arm following primary 1- or 2-level CDRs in the early and late postoperative periods. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who had undergone primary 1- or 2-level CDR for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks between 2017 and 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes: Neck disability index (NDI), Visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm, MCID. METHODS: Minimal clinically important difference achievement rates for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm within early (within 3 months) and late (6 months to 2 years) postoperative periods were assessed based on previously established thresholds. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed for each PROM and evaluation period, with failure to achieve MCID assigned as the outcome variable, to establish models to identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID and predictors for achievement of MCID. Predictor variables included in the analyses featured demographics, comorbidities, diagnoses/symptoms, and perioperative characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients achieved MCID for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm for both early and late postoperative periods-79% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the early postoperative period, while 80% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the late postoperative period. Predominant neck pain was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for NDI in the early (OR: 3.13 [1.10-8.87], p-value: .032) and late (OR: 5.01 [1.31-19.12], p-value: .018) postoperative periods, and VAS-Arm for the late postoperative period (OR: 36.63 [3.78-354.56], p-value: .002). Myelopathy was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the early postoperative period (OR: 3.40 [1.08-10.66], p-value: .036). Anxiety was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the late postoperative period (OR: 6.51 [1.91-22.18], p-value: .003). CDR at levels C5C7 was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID in NDI for the late postoperative period (OR: 9.74 [1.43-66.34], p-value: .020). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in common PROMs following CDR including predominant neck pain, myelopathy, anxiety, and CDR at levels C5-C7. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on outcomes of CDR as the evidence suggests that those with the risk factors above may not improve as reliably after CDR.

Preoperative Disability Influences Effectiveness of MCID and PASS in Predicting Patient Improvement Following Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) are utilized to interpret Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), it is unclear whether there is a clearly better metric between the two and if not, which metric should be utilized when. OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of MCID and PASS when interpreting ODI after lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or decompression were included. The ODI and global rating change data at 1 year were analyzed. The global rating change was collapsed to a dichotomous outcome variable-(a) improved, (b) not improved The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of MCID and PASS were calculated for the overall cohort and separately for patients with minimal, moderate, and severe preoperative disability. Two groups with patients who achieved PASS but not MCID and patients who achieved MCID but not PASS were analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty patients (mean age 62 y, 57% males) were included. PASS (86% vs. 69%) and MCID (88% vs. 63%) had significantly greater sensitivity in patients with moderate and severe preoperative disability, respectively. Nineteen percent of patients achieved PASS but not MCID and 10% of patients achieved MCID but not PASS, with the preoperative ODI being significantly greater in the latter. Most of these patients still reported improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (93% vs. 86%). CONCLUSION: Significant postoperative clinical improvement is most effectively assessed by PASS in patients with minimal or moderate preoperative disability and by MCID in patients with severe preoperative disability. Adequate interpretation of ODI using the PASS and MCID metrics warrants individualized application as their utility is highly dependent on the degree of preoperative disability.