Cervical Steroid Injections Are Not Effective for Prevention of Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine how often patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and initially treated with cervical steroid injections (CSI) and to determine whether these injections provide any benefit in delaying ultimate surgical treatment. METHODS: All patients with a new diagnosis of DCM, without previous cervical spine surgery or steroid injections, were identified in PearlDiver, a large insurance database. Steroid injection and surgery timing was identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Multivariate logistic regression identified associations with surgical treatment. RESULTS: A total of 686 patients with DCM were identified. Pre-surgical cervical spine steroid injections were utilized in 244 patients (35.6%). All patients underwent eventual surgical treatment. Median time from initial DCM diagnosis to surgery was 75.5 days (mean 351.6 days; standard deviation 544.9 days). Cervical steroid injections were associated with higher odds of surgery within 1 year (compared to patients without injections, OR = 1.44, P < .001) and at each examined time point through 5 years (OR = 2.01, P < .001). In multivariate analysis comparing injection types, none of the 3 injection types were associated with decreased odds of surgery within 1 month of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: While cervical steroid injections continue to be commonly performed in patients with DCM, there is an overall increased odds of surgery after any type of cervical injection. Therefore injections should not be used to prevent surgical management of DCM.

Narrative Review of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Medications for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a narrative review. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify commonly utilized venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylactic measures, spine surgeon perspective, and provide pharmacologic recommendations from the literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Considered a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality, VTE remains an important iatrogenic diagnosis of concern. Reported rates of VTE following spine surgery vary widely (0.3%-31.0%). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A MEDLINE query identified literature reporting on VTE prevention and outcomes in the setting of spine surgery. Findings extracted from the included articles were summarized in a narrative review format to identify salient aspects of the current literature. RESULTS: Sixty articles were summarized. Many anticoagulation medications that are described in the literature target factors involved in the coagulation cascade common pathway including aspirin and other antiplatelet medications, heparins, and warfarin. Newer direct inhibitors of thrombin and factor Xa are now being utilized for VTE prevention, although with limited use specifically in spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative management of antiplatelet and anticoagulation medications in spine surgery requires evidence-based protocols that can account for patient comorbidities and surgery-specific features. Future studies should prospectively focus on establishing stronger recommendations based on pathology, surgical indications, patient comorbidities, region of the spine, and broad surgical intervention to enable effective prophylaxis for VTE. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Fusion rate for stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is used to treat multiple conditions, including spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disorders, adjacent segment disease, and degenerative scoliosis. Although many advocate for posterior fixation with LLIF, stand-alone LLIF is increasingly being performed. Yet the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF is unknown. PURPOSE: Determine the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We queried Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for literature on stand-alone LLIF fusion rate with a publication cutoff of April 2020. LLIF surgery was considered stand-alone when not paired with supplemental posterior fixation. Cohort fusion rate differences were calculated and tested for significance (p<0.05). All reported means were pooled. RESULTS: A total of 2,735 publications were assessed. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria, including 736 patients and 1,103 vertebral levels. Mean age was 61.7 years with BMI 26.5 kg/m2. Mean fusion rate was 85.6% (range, 53.0%-100.0%), which did not differ significantly by number of levels fused (1-level, 2-level, and ≥3-level). Use of rhBMP-2 was reported in 39.3% of subjects, with no difference in fusion rates between studies using rhBMP-2 (87.7%) and those in which rhBMP-2 was not used (83.9%, odds ratio=1.37, p=0.448). Fusion rate did not differ with the addition of a lateral plate, or by underlying diagnosis. All-complication rate was 42.2% and mean reoperation rate was 11.1%, with 2.3% reoperation due to pseudarthrosis. Of the studies comparing stand-alone to circumferential fusion, pooled fusion rate was found to be 80.4% versus 91.0% (p=0.637). CONCLUSIONS: Stand-alone LLIF yields high fusion rates overall. The wide range of reported fusion rates and lower fusion rates in studies involving subsequent surgical reoperation highlights the importance of proper training in this technique and employing a rigorous algorithm when indicating patients for stand-alone LLIF. Future research should focus on examining risk factors and patient-reported outcomes in stand-alone LLIF.