The impact of mental health on outcome after anterior cervical discectomy: cohort study assessing the influence of mental health using predictive modelling.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common mental disorders among patients with chronic pain. It is hypothesised that patients suffering from these disorders benefit less from cervical spine surgery than mentally healthy patients. Therefore, this study aimed to quantify the effect of mental health status on functional outcome after anterior cervical discectomy in a post hoc analysis on RCT data. METHODS: One hundred eight patients from the NECK trial, with radiculopathy due to a one-level herniated disc, underwent anterior cervical discectomy and were included into this analysis. Functional outcome was quantified using the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and mental health status was measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS) questionnaire. NDI differences were assessed using generalised estimated equations (GEE), crude means, a predictive linear mixed model (LMM) using baseline scores and over time with an explanatory LMM. RESULTS: At baseline, 24% and 32% of patients were respectively depressed and anxious and had statistically significant and clinically relevant higher NDI scores during follow-up. However, in those patients in which the HADS returned to normal during follow-up, NDI values decreased comparably to the non-depression or non-anxiety cases. Those patients that demonstrated persisting high HADS values had convincingly worse NDI scores. A predictive LMM showed that combining baseline NDI and HADS scores was highly predictive of NDI during follow-up. The R shiny application enabled the effective, visual communication of results from the predictive LMM. CONCLUSION: This study shows that mental health status and disability are strongly associated and provides insight into the size of the effect, as well as a way to use this relation to improve preoperative patient counselling. These findings give rise to the suggestion that incorporating mental health screening in the preoperative assessment of patients could help to adequately manage patients' expectations for functional recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register Number: NTR1289.

Deep Learning for Adjacent Segment Disease at Preoperative MRI for Cervical Radiculopathy.

Background Patients who undergo surgery for cervical radiculopathy are at risk for developing adjacent segment disease (ASD). Identifying patients who will develop ASD remains challenging for clinicians. Purpose To develop and validate a deep learning algorithm capable of predicting ASD by using only preoperative cervical MRI in patients undergoing single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF). Materials and Methods In this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study, retrospective chart review was performed for 1244 patients undergoing single-level ACDF in two tertiary care centers. After application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 344 patients were included, of whom 60% (n = 208) were used for training and 40% for validation (n = 43) and testing (n = 93). A deep learning-based prediction model with 48 convolutional layers was designed and trained by using preoperative T2-sagittal cervical MRI. To validate model performance, a neuroradiologist and neurosurgeon independently provided ASD predictions for the test set. Validation metrics included accuracy, areas under the curve, and F1 scores. The difference in proportion of wrongful predictions between the model and clinician was statistically tested by using the McNemar test. Results A total of 344 patients (median age, 48 years; interquartile range, 41-58 years; 182 women) were evaluated. The model predicted ASD on the 93 test images with an accuracy of 88 of 93 (95%; 95% CI: 90, 99), sensitivity of 12 of 15 (80%; 95% CI: 60, 100), and specificity of 76 of 78 (97%; 95% CI: 94, 100). The neuroradiologist and neurosurgeon provided predictions with lower accuracy (54 of 93; 58%; 95% CI: 48, 68), sensitivity (nine of 15; 60%; 95% CI: 35, 85), and specificity (45 of 78; 58%; 95% CI: 56, 77) compared with the algorithm. The McNemar test on the contingency table demonstrated that the proportion of wrongful predictions was significantly lower by the model (test statistic, 2.000; P < .001). Conclusion A deep learning algorithm that used only preoperative cervical T2-weighted MRI outperformed clinical experts at predicting adjacent segment disease in patients undergoing surgery for cervical radiculopathy. © RSNA, 2021 An earlier incorrect version appeared online. This article was corrected on September 22, 2021.

Cervical radiculopathy: is a prosthesis preferred over fusion surgery? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses on the comparison between fusion and prosthesis in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy mainly analyse studies including mixed patient populations: patients with radiculopathy with and without myelopathy. The outcome for patients with myelopathy is different compared to those without. Furthermore, apart from decompression of the spinal cord, restriction of motion is one of the cornerstones of the surgical treatment of spondylotic myelopathy. From this point of view, the results for arthroplasty might be suboptimal for this category of patients. Comparing clinical outcome in patients exclusively suffering from radiculopathy is therefore a more valid method to compare the true clinical effect of the prosthesis to that of fusion surgery. AIM: The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcome of cervical arthroplasty (ACDA) to the clinical outcome of fusion (ACDF) after anterior cervical discectomy in patients exclusively suffering from radiculopathy, and to evaluate differences with mixed patient populations. METHODS: A literature search was completed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE, CENTRAL and CINAHL using a sensitive search strategy. Studies were selected by predefined selection criteria (i.a.) patients exclusively suffering from cervical radiculopathy), and risk of bias was assessed using a validated Cochrane Checklist adjusted for this purpose. An additional overview of results was added from articles considering a mix of patients suffering from myelopathy with or without radiculopathy. RESULTS: Eight studies were included that exclusively compared intervertebral devices in radiculopathy patients. Additionally, 29 articles concerning patients with myelopathy with or without radiculopathy were studied in a separate results table. All articles showed intermediate to high risk of bias. There was neither a difference in decrease in mean NDI score between the prosthesis (20.6 points) and the fusion (20.3 points) group, nor was there a clinically important difference in neck pain (VAS). Comparing these data to the mixed population data demonstrated comparable mean values, except for the 2-year follow-up NDI values in the prosthesis group: mixed group patients that received a prosthesis reported a mean NDI score of 15.6, indicating better clinical outcome than the radiculopathy patients that received a prosthesis though not reaching clinical importance. CONCLUSIONS: ACDF and ACDA are comparably effective in treating cervical radiculopathy due to a herniated disc in radiculopathy patients. Comparing the 8 radiculopathy with the 29 mixed population studies demonstrated that no clinically relevant differences were present in clinical outcome between the two types of patients. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

The association of cervical sagittal alignment with adjacent segment degeneration.

PURPOSE: Cervical spine surgery may affect sagittal alignment parameters and induce accelerated degeneration of the cervical spine. Cervical sagittal alignment parameters of surgical patients will be correlated with radiological adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and with clinical outcome parameters. METHODS: Patients were analysed from two randomized, double-blinded trials comparing anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA), with intervertebral cage (ACDF) and without intervertebral cage (ACD). C2-C7 lordosis, T1 slope, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and the occipito-cervical angle (OCI) were determined as cervical sagittal alignment parameters. Radiological ASD was scored by the combination of decrease in disc height and anterior osteophyte formation. Neck disability index (NDI), SF-36 PCS and MCS were evaluated as clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The cervical sagittal alignment parameters were comparable between the three treatment groups, both at baseline and at 2-year follow-up. Irrespective of surgical method, C2-C7 lordosis was found to increase from 11° to 13°, but the other parameters remained stable during follow-up. Only the OCI was demonstrated to be associated with the presence and positive progression of radiological ASD, both at baseline and at 2-year follow-up. NDI, SF-36 PCS and MCS were demonstrated not to be correlated with cervical sagittal alignment. Likewise, a correlation with the value or change of the OCI was absent. CONCLUSION: OCI, an important factor to maintain horizontal gaze, was demonstrated to be associated with radiological ASD, suggesting that the occipito-cervical angle influences accelerated cervical degeneration. Since OCI did not change after surgery, degeneration of the cervical spine may be predicted by the value of OCI. NECK TRIAL: Dutch Trial Register Number NTR1289. PROCON TRIAL: Trial Register Number ISRCTN41681847. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Long-term results of the NECK trial-implanting a disc prosthesis after cervical anterior discectomy cannot prevent adjacent segment disease: five-year clinical follow-up of a double-blinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Motion preserving anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) in patients with cervical radiculopathy was introduced to prevent symptomatic adjacent segment disease as compared to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term outcome in patients with cervical radiculopathy due to a herniated disc undergoing ACDA, ACDF or ACD (no cage, no plate) in terms of clinical outcome measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Likewise, clinically relevant adjacent segment disease is assessed as a long-term result. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blinded randomized controlled trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 109 patients with one level herniated disc were randomized to one of the following treatments: ACDA, ACDF with intervertebral cage, ACD without cage. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical outcome was measured by patients' self-reported NDI, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) neck pain, VAS arm pain, SF36, EQ-5D, perceived recovery and reoperation rate. Radiological outcome was assessed by radiographic cervical curvature and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) parameters at baseline and up until five years after surgery. METHODS: To account for the correlation between repeated measurements of the same individual Generalized Estimated Equations (GEE) were used to calculate treatment effects, expressed in difference in marginal mean values for NDI per treatment group. RESULTS: Clinical outcome parameters were comparable in the ACDA and ACDF group, but significantly worse in the ACD group, though not reaching clinical relevance. Annual reoperation rate was 3.6% in the first two years after surgery, declined to 1.9% in the years thereafter. The number of reoperations for ASD was not lower in the ACDA group, while the number of reoperations at the index level was higher after ACD, when compared to ACDF and ACDA. CONCLUSIONS: A persisting absence of clinical superiority was demonstrated for the cervical disc prosthesis five years after surgery. Specifically, clinically relevant adjacent level disease was not prevented by implanting a prosthesis. Single level ACD without implanting an intervertebral device provided worse clinical outcome, which was hypothesized to be caused by delayed fusion. This stresses the need for focusing on timely fusion in future research.

FDA-approved machine learning algorithms in neuroradiology: A systematic review of the current evidence for approval.

Over the past decade, machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) have become increasingly prevalent in the medical field. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating AI algorithms as "medical devices" to ensure patient safety. However, recent work has shown that the FDA approval process may be deficient. In this study, we evaluate the evidence supporting FDA-approved neuroalgorithms, the subset of machine learning algorithms with applications in the central nervous system (CNS), through a systematic review of the primary literature. Articles covering the 53 FDA-approved algorithms with applications in the CNS published in PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar and Scopus between database inception and January 25, 2022 were queried. Initial searches identified 1505 studies, of which 92 articles met the criteria for extraction and inclusion. Studies were identified for 26 of the 53 neuroalgorithms, of which 10 algorithms had only a single peer-reviewed publication. Performance metrics were available for 15 algorithms, external validation studies were available for 24 algorithms, and studies exploring the use of algorithms in clinical practice were available for 7 algorithms. Papers studying the clinical utility of these algorithms focused on three domains: workflow efficiency, cost savings, and clinical outcomes. Our analysis suggests that there is a meaningful gap between the FDA approval of machine learning algorithms and their clinical utilization. There appears to be room for process improvement by implementation of the following recommendations: the provision of compelling evidence that algorithms perform as intended, mandating minimum sample sizes, reporting of a predefined set of performance metrics for all algorithms and clinical application of algorithms prior to widespread use. This work will serve as a baseline for future research into the ideal regulatory framework for AI applications worldwide.

Cost effectiveness of implanting a prosthesis after anterior cervical discectomy for radiculopathy: results of the NECK randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In the treatment of cervical radiculopathy due to a herniated disc, potential surgical treatments include: anterior cervical discectomy (ACD), ACD and fusion using a cage (ACDF), and anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA). Previous publications yielded comparable clinical and radiological outcome data for the various implants, but research on their comparative costutility has been inconclusive. PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost utility of ACD, ACDF, and ACDA. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: About 109 patients with cervical radiculopathy randomized to undergo ACD, ACDF, or ACDA as part of the NEtherlands Cervical Kinetics trial. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) estimated from patient-reported utilities using the EuroQol-5D questionnaire and EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS), measured at baseline, 2, 4, 8, 12, 26, 52, and 104 weeks postprocedure. Societal costs including admissions to hospital (related and otherwise), GP visits, specialist visits, physical therapy, medications, home care, aids, informal care, productivity losses, and out of pocket condition-related expenses. METHODS: The cost utility of the competing strategies over 1 and 2 years was assessed following a net benefit (NB) approach, whereby the intervention with the highest NB among competing strategies is preferred. Cost effectiveness acceptability curves were produced to reflect the probability of each strategy being the most cost effective across various willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Five sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS: ACDF was more likely to be the most cost-effective strategy at WTP thresholds of €20,000 to 50,000/QALY in all but one of the analyses. The mean QALYs during the first year were 0.750, 0.817, and 0.807 for ACD, ACDF, and ACDA, respectively, with no significant differences between groups. Total healthcare costs over the first year were significantly higher for ACDA, largely due to the higher surgery and implant costs. The total societal costs of the three strategies were €12,173 for ACD, €11,195 for ACDF, and €13,746 for ACDA, with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that ACDF is likely to be more cost-effective than ACDA or ACD at most WTP thresholds, and this conclusion is robust to most sensitivity analyses conducted. It is demonstrated that the difference in costs is mainly caused by the initial surgical costs and that there are only minimal differences in other costs during follow-up. Since clinical data are comparable between the groups, it is to the judgment of the patient and surgeon which intervention is applied.

The Clinical Relevance of the Cervical Disc Prosthesis: Combining Clinical Results of Two RCTs.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis was performed on data from 251 patients that were included in two randomized, double-blinded clinical trials comparing clinical results of anterior cervical discectomy and arthroplasty (ACDA) to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and anterior cervical discectomy (ACD), for single-level disc herniation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether the ACDA procedure offers superior clinical results 2 years after surgery, to either ACDF or ACD without instrumentation, in the entire group of patients or in a particular subgroup of patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The cervical disc prosthesis was introduced to provide superior clinical outcomes after ACD. METHODS: Neck Disability Index (NDI), and subscales of the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) and McGill pain score were collected at baseline, 1 year and 2 years after surgery. Reoperations and complications were also evaluated. A preliminary subgroup analysis was performed for age, disc height, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and sex. RESULTS: The NDI decreased comparably in all treatment arms to circa 50% of the baseline value and marginal mean NDI differences varied from 0.4 to 1.1 on a 100 point NDI scale, with confidence intervals never exceeding the 20-point minimal clinical important difference (MCID). Secondary outcome parameters showed comparable results. Preliminary subgroup analysis could not demonstrate clinically relevant differences in NDI between treatments after 2 years. CONCLUSION: After combining data from two Randomized Controlled Trials it can be concluded that there is no clinical benefit for ACDA, when compared with ACDF or ACD 2 years after surgery. Preliminary subgroup analysis indicated outcomes were similar between treatment groups, and that no subgroup could be appointed that benefited more from either ACD, ACDF, or ACDA.Level of Evidence: 1.

Single- versus Dual-Attending Surgeon Approach for Spine Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of spine deformity is associated with significant morbidity. Recent literature has inconsistently demonstrated better outcomes after utilizing 2 attending surgeons for spine deformity. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on studies reporting outcomes following single- vs dual-attending surgeons for spine deformity. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane databases were last searched on July 16, 2020. A total of 1013 records were identified excluding duplicates. After screening, 10 studies (4 cohort, 6 case series) were included in the meta-analysis. Random-effect models were used to pool the effect estimates by study design. When feasible, further subgroup analysis by deformity type was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 953 patients were analyzed. Pooled results from propensity score-matched cohort studies revealed that the single-surgeon approach was unfavorably associated with a nonstatistically significant higher blood loss (mean difference = 421.0 mL; 95% CI: -28.2, 870.2), a statistically significant higher operative time (mean difference = 94.3 min; 95% CI: 54.9, 133), length of stay (mean difference = 0.84 d; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.22), and an increased risk of complications (Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio = 2.93; 95% CI: 1.12, 7.66). Data from pooled case series demonstrated similar results for all outcomes. Moreover, these results did not differ significantly between deformity types (adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and adult spinal deformity). CONCLUSION: Dual-attending surgeon approach appeared to be associated with reduced operative time, shorter hospital stays, and reduced risk of complications. These findings may potentially improve outcomes in surgical treatment of spine deformity.

Criteria for success after surgery for cervical radiculopathy-estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Defining clinically meaningful success criteria from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is crucial for clinical audits, research and decision-making. PURPOSE: We aimed to define criteria for a successful outcome 3 and 12 months after surgery for cervical degenerative radiculopathy on recommended PROMs. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with 12 months follow-up. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients operated at one or two levels for cervical radiculopathy included in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine) from 2011 to 2016. OUTCOME MEASURES: Neck disability index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale for neck pain (NRS-NP) and arm pain (NRS-AP), health-related quality-of-life EuroQol 3L (EQ-5D), general health status (EQ-VAS). METHODS: We included 2,868 consecutive cervical degenerative radiculopathy patients operated for cervical radiculopathy in one or two levels and included in the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). External criterion to determine accuracy and optimal cut-off values for success in the PROMs was the global perceived effect scale. Success was defined as "much better" or "completely recovered." Cut-off values were assessed by analyzing the area under the receiver operating curves for follow-up scores, mean change scores, and percentage change scores. RESULTS: All PROMs showed high accuracy in defining success and nonsuccess and only minor differences were found between 3- and 12-month scores. At 12 months, the area under the receiver operating curves for follow-up scores were 0.86 to 0.91, change scores were 0.74 to 0.87, and percentage change scores were 0.74 to 0.91. Percentage scores of NDI and NRS-AP showed the best accuracy. The optimal cut-off values for each PROM showed considerable overlap across those operated due to disc herniation and spondylotic foraminal stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: All PROMs, especially NDI and NRS-AP, showed good to excellent discriminative ability in distinguishing between a successful and nonsuccessful outcome after surgery due to cervical radiculopathy. Percentage change scores are recommended for use in research and clinical practice.

The NECK trial: Effectiveness of anterior cervical discectomy with or without interbody fusion and arthroplasty in the treatment of cervical disc herniation; a double-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Motion preserving anterior cervical disc arthroplasty (ACDA) in patients with cervical radiculopathy was introduced to prevent symptomatic adjacent disc degeneration as compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Prior reports suggest that ACDF is not more effective than anterior cervical discectomy (ACD) alone for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether patients with cervical radiculopathy due to a herniated disc benefit more from undergoing ACDA, ACDF, or ACD in terms of clinical outcome measured by the neck disability index (NDI). STUDY DESIGN: Double-blinded randomized controlled trial. METHODS: One hundred-nine patients with one level herniated disc were randomized to one of the following treatments: ACDA, ACDF with intervertebral cage, ACD without fusion. Clinical and radiological outcome was measured by NDI, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) neck pain, VAS arm pain, SF36, EQ-5D, patients' self-reported perceived recovery, radiographic cervical curvature, and adjacent segment degeneration parameters at baseline and until two years after surgery. BBraun Medical paid €298.837 to cover the costs for research nurses. RESULTS: The NDI declined from 41 to 47 points at baseline to 19 ± 15 in the ACD group, 19 ± 18 in the ACDF group, and 20 ± 22 in the ACDA group after surgery (p=.929). VAS arm and neck pain declined to half its baseline value and decreased below the critical value of 40 mm. Quality of life, measured by the EQ-5D, increased in all three groups. Adjacent segment degeneration parameters were comparable in all three groups as well. No statistical differences were demonstrated between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis that ACDA would lead to superior clinical outcome in comparison to ACDF or ACD could not be confirmed during a 2-year follow-up time period. Single level ACD without implanting an intervertebral device may be a reasonable alternative to ACDF or ACDA.