Perioperative Nutritional, Functional, and Bone Health Optimization in Spine Surgery: A National Investigation of Spine Surgeons' Perceptions and Practices.

INTRODUCTION: While perioperative nutritional, functional, and bone health status optimization in spine surgery is supported with ample evidence, the implementation and surgeon perception regarding such efforts in clinical practice remain largely unexplored. This study sought to assess the current perception of spine surgeons and implementation regarding the nutritional, functional status, and bone health perioperative optimization. METHODS: An anonymous 30-question survey was distributed to orthopaedic spine fellowship and neurosurgery program directors identified through the North American Spine Society and American Association of Neurological Surgeons contact databases. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 51 surgeon survey respondents. Among those, 62% reported no current formal nutritional optimization protocols with 14% not recommending an optimization plan, despite only 10% doubting benefits of nutritional optimization. While 5% of respondents perceived functional status optimization as nonbeneficial, 68% of respondents reported no protocol in place and 46% noted a functional status assessment relying on patient dependency. Among the respondents, 85% routinely ordered DEXA scan if there was suspicion of osteoporosis and 85% usually rescheduled surgery if bone health optimization goals were not achieved while 6% reported being suspicious of benefit from such interventions. CONCLUSION: While most responding spine surgeons believe in the benefit of perioperative nutritional and functional optimization, logistical and patient compliance challenges were noted as critical barriers toward optimization. Understanding surgeon perception and current practices may guide future efforts toward advancement of optimization protocols.

Efficacy and Outcome Measurement of iFactor/ABM/P-15 in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and overall outcomes of iFactor/ABM/P-15 following lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: We performed a search of the Cochrane Library, Medline Ovid, PubMed, and SCOPUS databases from inception until August 2023. Eligible studies included outcomes of patients receiving iFactor following lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcomes of interest were fusion rates and iFactor efficacy after lumbar surgery in patients who received iFactor. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes and complication rates. RESULTS: A total of 766 titles were initially screened. After inclusion criteria were applied, 5 studies (388 patients) were included, which measured overall outcomes of iFactor/ABM/P-15 following lumbar spine surgery. These studies showed acceptable reliability for inclusion based on the Methodical Index for Non-Randomized studies and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme assessment tools. iFactor/ABM/P-15 facilitated significantly faster bone development in various procedures while maintaining favorable clinical outcomes compared to traditional grafts. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that iFactor/ABM/P-15 use for lumbar spine surgery maintains similar managing patient-reported outcomes relative to other grafting methods. In regard to rates of fusion, iFactor/ABM/P-15 showed a significantly faster rate of fusion when compared to traditional grafts including allograft, autograft, demineralized bone matrix (DBM), and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). Future multicenter randomized control trials with larger sample sizes are recommended to further assess iFactor/ABM/P-15 efficacy in lumbar spine surgery.