The Impact of Preoperative Sagittal Imbalance on Long-term Postoperative Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Laminectomy.

Background: Postoperative sagittal alignment has been shown to be associated with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following open lumbar decompression procedures, although it is unknown whether preoperative sagittal imbalance affects clinical outcomes of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) decompression only surgery. Purpose: We sought to evaluate the impact of preoperative pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) imbalance on PROMs after MIS laminectomy for the treatment of neurogenic claudication symptoms. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing MIS laminectomy for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis between April 2017 and April 2021 at a single institution. Of the 52 patients included (mean follow-up, 17 months) radiographs were taken prior to surgery and assessed for sagittal alignment parameters. Patients were grouped based on the preoperative PI-LL (balanced vs unbalanced). Changes in PROMs were compared between unbalanced PI-LL and balanced PI-LL groups. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was also assessed. Results: Of the 52 patients, 17 (32.7%) had unbalanced age-adjusted preoperative PI-LL. There was no significant difference found in PROMs between unbalanced and balanced PI-LL groups preoperatively or at final follow-up. Compared with those with unbalanced PI-LL, patients with balanced PI-LL were shown to have no added benefit in achieving MCID for ODI at long-term follow-up and no added benefit in the time to achieving MCID. Conclusion: These retrospective findings suggest that patients with unbalanced preoperative PI-LL may experience significant benefit in long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy, similarly to those with balanced PI-LL at baseline. The findings also suggest that the presence of sagittal imbalance preoperatively may not appreciably influence the long-term clinical outcomes following MIS laminectomy. Prospective study involving a larger population is warranted.

Impact of preoperative age-adjusted sagittal imbalance on radiographic and clinical outcomes following 1-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Prior studies investigating the use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions and concomitant sagittal deformity have not stratified patients by preoperative pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, which is the earliest parameter to deteriorate in mild sagittal deformity. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the impact of preoperative PI-LL mismatch on clinical outcomes and sagittal balance restoration among patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing primary 1-level MI-TLIF between April 2017 and April 2022 for DS with ≥ 6 months radiographic follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System at preoperative, early postoperative (< 6 months), and late postoperative (≥ 6 months) time points. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMs was also evaluated. Radiographic parameters included PI, LL, pelvic tilt (PT), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Patients were categorized into balanced and unbalanced groups based on preoperative PI-LL mismatch according to age-adjusted alignment goals. Changes in radiographic parameters and PROMs were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included (L4-5 82.5%, grade I spondylolisthesis 82.5%, unbalanced 58.8%). Mean clinical and radiographic follow-up were 17.0 and 8.3 months, respectively. The average preoperative PI-LL was 18.8° in the unbalanced group and -3.3° in the balanced group. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch had significantly worse preoperative PT (26.2° vs 16.4°, p < 0.001) and SVA (53.2 vs 9.0 mm, p = 0.001) compared with balanced patients. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch also showed significantly worse PI-LL (16.0° vs 0.54°, p < 0.001), PT (25.9° vs 18.7°, p < 0.001), and SVA (49.4 vs 22.8 mm, p = 0.013) at long-term follow-up. No significant radiographic improvement was observed among unbalanced patients. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05) except for SF-12 mental component score. Achievement of MCID for VAS back score was significantly greater among patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch (85.7% vs 65.5%, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Although 1-level MI-TLIF did not restore sagittal alignment in patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch, patients presenting with DS can expect significant improvement in PROMs following 1-level MI-TLIF regardless of preoperative alignment or extent of correction. Thus, attaining good clinical outcomes in patients with mild sagittal imbalance may not require addressing imbalance directly.

Predictors of Nonhome Discharge After Cervical Disc Replacement.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a national database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the factors that increase the risk of nonhome discharge after CDR. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As spine surgeons continue to balance increasing surgical volume, identifying variables associated with patient discharge destination can help expedite postoperative placement and reduce unnecessary length of stay. However, no prior study has identified the variables predictive of nonhome patient discharge after cervical disc replacement (CDR). METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried for patients who underwent primary 1-level or 2-level CDR between 2011 and 2020. Multivariable Poisson regression with robust error variance was employed to identify the predictors for nonhome discharge destination following surgery. RESULTS: A total of 7276 patients were included in this study, of which 94 (1.3%) patients were discharged to a nonhome destination. Multivariable regression revealed older age (OR: 1.076, P <0.001), Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 4.222, P =0.001), BMI (OR: 1.062, P =0.001), ASA class ≥3 (OR: 2.562, P =0.002), length of hospital stay (OR: 1.289, P <0.001), and prolonged operation time (OR: 1.007, P <0.001) as predictors of nonhome discharge after CDR. Outpatient surgery setting was found to be protective against nonhome discharge after CDR (OR: 0.243, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Age, Hispanic ethnicity, BMI, ASA class, prolonged hospital stay, and prolonged operation time are independent predictors of nonhome discharge after CDR. Outpatient surgery setting is protective against nonhome discharge. These findings can be utilized to preoperatively risk stratify expected discharge destination, anticipate patient discharge needs postoperatively, and expedite discharge in these patients to reduce health care costs associated with prolonged length of hospital stay. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Impact of age on comparative outcomes of decompression alone versus fusion for L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts. RESULTS: 233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion.

Return to sporting activities following long fusions to the pelvis in adult spinal deformity.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Returning to recreational sporting activities after adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction may significantly impact the patient's perceived quality of life. PURPOSE: This study sought to characterize participation in sporting activities before and after ASD surgery, and to identify factors associated with impaired return to sports. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent posterior-only thoracolumbar ASD surgery between 2016 and 2021 with ≥1 year follow-up and ≥3 levels of fusion to the pelvis were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Preoperative and postoperative participation in sports, timing of return to these activities, and reasons for limited sports participation postoperatively were assessed. METHODS: A survey was used to evaluate outcome measures. Differences in demographic, surgical, and perioperative variables between patients who reported improved, unchanged, or worsened activity tolerance were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included (mean age: 64.3±10.1 years; BMI: 27.3±6.1 kg/m2; median levels fused: 7). The survey was completed at an average of 43.5±15.9 months after surgery. Sixty-eight (72%) patients participated in sports preoperatively. The most common sports were swimming (n=33, 34.7%), yoga (n=23, 24.2%), weightlifting (n=20, 21.1%), elliptical (n=19, 20.0%), and golf (n=11, 11.6%). Fifty-seven (83.8%) returned to at least one sport postoperatively, most commonly 6-12 months after surgery (45%). Elliptical had the highest rate of equal or improved participation (53%). Patients generally returned below their preoperative level to all other sports. Reasons for reduced sporting activities included physical limitation (51.4%), fear (20.0%), pain (17.1%), and surgeon advice (8.6%). There were no differences in the demographic, surgical, or perioperative characteristics between those who returned to sports at the same or better level compared with those who returned at a lower level. CONCLUSIONS: About 84% of patients successfully resumed sporting activities after undergoing fusion to the sacrum/pelvis for ASD. However, this return is typically at a lower level of participation than their preoperative participation, particularly in higher demand sports. Understanding trends in sporting activity may be valuable for counseling patients and setting expectations.

Post-Operative Hyperextension Bracing Has the Potential to Reduce Proximal Junctional Kyphosis: A Propensity Matched Analysis of Braced versus Non-braced Cohorts.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: Determine effects of bracing on proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) after adult deformity correction. METHODS: Patients were identified from a single-surgeon dataset of posterior-only fusions for ASD (pelvis to UIV of T9-12) with a minimum of 1-year follow up. Starting in 2021, all lower thoracic fusions were braced using a hyperextension brace. Patients wore the brace at all times (unless in bed) for the first 6 weeks after surgery. A 1:1 propensity-match was performed based on age, number of levels, 3 column osteotomies, and magnitude of correction to identify a comparative non-braced cohort. RESULTS: 141 patients (113 non-brace, 28 brace) were evaluated. After matching, 56 patients were identified to form similar cohorts. Non-matched and matched groups had no statistically significant differences in demographics, comorbid conditions, surgical characteristics (except shorter operative time and lower EBL in the braced group), and preoperative radiographic parameters. For the overall cohort, the change in proximal junctional angle at 1-year was higher in the non-braced group (7.6° vs 8.1°, P = .047), and non-braced patients had a higher incidence of PJK at 1-year in both the overall cohort (36% vs 14%, P = .045) and matched cohort (43% vs 14%, P = .038). There was no difference in proximal junctional failure between groups. CONCLUSION: This pilot study shows that our protocol for extension bracing may reduce rates of PJK. These findings can form the basis for future multi-center trials examining the effect of extension bracing on junctional complications.

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.

Temporal Trends of Improvement After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To analyze temporal trends in improvement after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although several studies have shown that patients improve significantly after MIS TLIF, evidence regarding the temporal trends in improvement is still largely lacking. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary single-level MIS TLIF for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine and had a minimum of 2-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were: 1) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale, VAS back and leg; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS); 2) global rating change (GRC); 3) minimal clinically important difference (MCID); and 4) return to activities. Timepoints analyzed were preoperative, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Trends across these timepoints were plotted on graphs. RESULTS: 236 patients were included. VAS back and VAS leg were found to have statistically significant improvement compared to the previous timepoint up to 3 months after surgery. ODI and SF-12 PCS were found to have statistically significant improvement compared to the previous timepoint up to 6 months after surgery. Beyond these timepoints, there was no significant improvement in PROMs. 80% of patients reported feeling better compared to preoperative by 3 months. >50% of patients achieved MCID in all PROMs by 3 months. Most patients returned to driving, returned to work, and discontinued narcotics at an average of 21, 20, and 10 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are expected to improve up to 6 months after MIS TLIF. Back pain and leg pain improve up to 3 months and disability and physical function improve up to 6 months. Beyond these timepoints, the trends in improvement tend to reach a plateau. 80% of patients feel better compared to preoperative by 3 months after surgery.

Psoas Muscle Health is Correlated With Time to Achieve MCID in Patients With Predominant Axial Back Pain Following Decompression Surgery: Early Results.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of psoas muscle health [cross-sectional area (CSA)] on achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following laminectomy for patients with predominant back pain (PBP) and leg pain (PLP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Psoas muscle health is linked to postoperative outcomes in decompression patients, with MRI-based grading of psoas CSA correlating with these outcomes. However, evidence on its impact on symptomatic recovery, measured by PROMs, is lacking. METHODS: One hundred six patients with PBP (VAS back > VAS leg) and 139 patients with PLP (VAS leg > VAS back) who underwent laminectomy from 2017 to 2021 were included. Axial T2 MRI images were analyzed for psoas CSA using a validated method. Based on the lowest-quartile normalized total psoas area (NTPA) thresholds, patients were divided into "good" and "poor" muscle health groups. The correlation analyses were performed between the psoas CSA and changes in PROMs. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted to determine the probability of achieving MCID as a function of time. RESULTS: Of 106 patients with PBP, 83 (78.3%) had good muscle health, and 23 (21.6%) had poor muscle health. Of 139 patients with PLP, 54 (38.8%) had good muscle health, and 85 (61.1%) had poor muscle health. In the PBP group, older age was associated with poor muscle health (69.70±9.26 vs . 59.92±15.01, P =0.0002). For both cohorts, there were no differences in the rate of MCID achievement for any PROMs between the good and poor muscle health groups. In the PBP group, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed patients with good psoas health achieved MCID-VAS back and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in median times of 14 and 42 days ( P =0.045 and 0.015), respectively. CONCLUSION: Good psoas muscle health is linked to faster attainment of MCID, especially in patients with PBP compared with PLP after decompression surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Clinical and Radiological Predictors of Slower and Non-Improvement Following Surgical Treatment of L4-5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Preliminary Results.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To identify the predictors of slower and non-improvement following surgical treatment of L4-5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is limited evidence regarding clinical and radiological predictors of slower and non-improvement following surgery for L4-5 DLS. METHODS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were: (1) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (2) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and (3) global rating change (GRC). Clinical variables analyzed for predictors were age, gender, body mass index (BMI), surgery type, comorbidities, anxiety, depression, smoking, osteoporosis, and preoperative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale, VAS back and leg; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS). Radiological variables analyzed were slip percentage, translational and angular motion, facet diastasis/cyst/orientation, laterolisthesis, disc height, scoliosis, main and fractional curve Cobb angles, and spinopelvic parameters. RESULTS: 233 patients (37% decompression, 63% fusion) were included. At <3 months, high pelvic tilt (PT) (OR 0.92, P 0.02) and depression (OR 0.28, P 0.02) were predictors of MCID non-achievement and GRC non-betterment, respectively. Neither retained significance at >6 months and hence, were identified as predictors of slower improvement. At >6 months, low preoperative VAS leg (OR 1.26, P 0.01) and high facet orientation (OR 0.95, P 0.03) were predictors of MCID non-achievement, high L4-5 slip percentage (OR 0.86, P 0.03) and L5-S1 angular motion (OR 0.78, P 0.01) were predictors of GRC non-betterment, and high preoperative ODI (OR 0.96, P 0.04) was a predictor of PASS non-achievement. CONCLUSIONS: High PT and depression were predictors of slower improvement and low preoperative leg pain, high disability, high facet orientation, high slip percentage, and L5-S1 angular motion were predictors of non-improvement. However, these are preliminary findings and further studies with homogeneous cohorts are required to establish these findings.

Chat Generative Pretraining Transformer Answers Patient-focused Questions in Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Review of Chat Generative Pretraining Transformer (ChatGPT) outputs to select patient-focused questions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the quality of ChatGPT responses to cervical spine questions. BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence and its utilization to improve patient experience across medicine is seeing remarkable growth. One such usage is patient education. For the first time on a large scale, patients can ask targeted questions and receive similarly targeted answers. Although patients may use these resources to assist in decision-making, there still exists little data regarding their accuracy, especially within orthopedic surgery and more specifically spine surgery. METHODS: We compiled 9 frequently asked questions cervical spine surgeons receive in the clinic to test ChatGPT's version 3.5 ability to answer a nuanced topic. Responses were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers on a Likert Scale for the accuracy of information presented (0-5 points), appropriateness in giving a specific answer (0-3 points), and readability for a layperson (0-2 points). Readability was assessed through the Flesh-Kincaid grade level analysis for the original prompt and for a second prompt asking for rephrasing at the sixth-grade reading level. RESULTS: On average, ChatGPT's responses scored a 7.1/10. Accuracy was rated on average a 4.1/5. Appropriateness was 1.8/3. Readability was a 1.2/2. Readability was determined to be at the 13.5 grade level originally and at the 11.2 grade level after prompting. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT has the capacity to be a powerful means for patients to gain important and specific information regarding their pathologies and surgical options. These responses are limited in their accuracy, and we, in addition, noted readability is not optimal for the average patient. Despite these limitations in ChatGPT's capability to answer these nuanced questions, the technology is impressive, and surgeons should be aware patients will likely increasingly rely on it.

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.

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/m 2 . Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, complications, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition were compared using χ 2 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.

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-SSEP 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 to 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: Ninety-eight percent 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 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 protocols for lumbar spine procedures may expand the role of SSEP monitoring to include detecting injury to the lumbar plexus. 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.

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.

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.

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.