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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Percutaneous Transforaminal Endoscopic Discectomy Learning Curve: A CuSum Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To describe the learning curve for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) and demonstrate its efficacy in treating lumbar disc herniation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The learning curve for PTED has not yet been standardized in the literature. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent lumbar PTED by a single surgeon between December 2020 and 2022 were included. Cumulative sum analysis was applied to operative and fluoroscopy time to assess the learning curve. Inflection points were used to divide cases into early and late phases. The 2 phases were analyzed for differences in operative and fluoroscopy time, length of stay, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Patient characteristics and operative levels were also compared. PROMs entailed the Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Visual Analog Scale Back/Leg, and 12-item Short Form Survey at preoperative, early postoperative (<6 mo), and late postoperative (≥6 mo) time points. PROMs between PTED cases and a comparable cohort of tubular microdiscectomy cases, performed by the same surgeon, were compared. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included. Cumulative sum analysis indicated that both operative and fluoroscopy time diminished rapidly after case 31, suggesting a learning curve of 31 cases (early phase: n = 31; late phase: n = 24). Late-phase cases exhibited significantly lower operative times (85.7 vs . 62.2 min, P = 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (131.0 vs . 97.2 s, P = 0.001) compared with the early-phase cases. Both early and late-phase cases showed significant improvement in all PROMs. There were no differences in PROMs between the patients who underwent PTED and tubular microdiscectomy. CONCLUSION: The PTED learning curve was found to be 31 cases and did not impact PROMs or complication rates. Although this learning curve reflects the experiences of a single surgeon and may not be broadly applicable, PTED can serve as an effective modality for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation.