Immediate vs. delayed venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following spine surgery: increased rate of unplanned reoperation for postoperative hematoma with immediate prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There is significant variability in postoperative chemoprophylaxis protocols amongst spine providers due to perceived risks and benefits, but limited data on the topic. At our institution, both orthopaedic spine and neurosurgery departments utilize unfractionated subcutaneous heparin in identical dosages and frequency, with the only difference being time to initiation postoperatively. PURPOSE: To evaluate the rate of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTEs) and unplanned reoperation for hematoma based on timing of chemoprophylaxis initiation. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single institution retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery, excluding patients undergoing surgery in the setting of trauma, malignancy, or infection OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included the diagnosis of a venous thromboembolism within 90 days of surgery and unplanned reoperation for a hematoma METHODS: Patients undergoing elective spine surgery from 2017 to 2021 were grouped based on chemoprophylaxis protocol. In the "immediate" group, patients received subcutaneous heparin 5000 units every 8 hours starting immediately after surgery, and in the "delayed" group, patients received chemoprophylaxis starting postoperative day (POD)-2 for any decompressions and/or fusions involving a spinal cord level (i.e., L2 and above) and POD-1 for those involving only levels below the spinal cord (i.e., L3 to pelvis). A cox proportional hazards model was created to assess independent predictors of venous thromboembolic events, while a logistic regression was utilized for unplanned reoperations for hematoma. RESULTS: Of 8,704 patients, a total of 98 (1.13%) VTE events occurred, of which 43 (0.49%) were pulmonary embolism. Fifty-four patients (0.62%) had unplanned reoperations for postoperative hematomas. On cox proportional hazards model analysis, immediate chemoprophylaxis was not protective of a venous thromboembolism (Hazard Ratio: 1.18, p=.436), but, it was a significant independent predictor for unplanned reoperation for hematoma on multivariable logistic regression modeling (Odds Ratio: 3.29, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both chemoprophylaxis protocols in our study resulted in low rates of VTE and postoperative hematoma. However, our findings suggest that the delayed chemoprophylaxis protocol may mitigate postoperative hematoma formation without increasing the risk for a thrombotic event.

Capitate Fracture Subsequent to Capitolunate Staple Fusion: A Case Report.

We report a case of a 71-year-old man who underwent capitolunate fusion for scapholunate advanced collapse. At the patient's 4-month follow-up, there was evidence of a fracture at the distal staple tine. He subsequently underwent removal of staple hardware with revision open reduction internal fixation using headless compression screw fixation and bone grafting. The literature review aimed to identify possible mechanisms and analyze similar cases of this complication. We presume that the fracture resulted from increased stress on the bone from both drill holes and the orientation of the staples. Placing the tines in different planes may decrease the risk of this complication.

Radiology Reports Do Not Accurately Portray the Severity of Cervical Neural Foraminal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiology reports to a validated grading system for cervical foraminal stenosis (FS) and (2) to evaluate whether the severity of cervical neural FS on MRI correlates to motor weakness or patient-reported outcomes. BACKGROUND: Radiology reports of cervical spine MRI are often reviewed to assess the degree of neural FS. However, research looking at the association between these reports and objective MRI findings, as well as clinical symptoms, is lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all adult patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a single academic center for an indication of cervical radiculopathy. Preoperative MRI was assessed for neural FS severity using the grading system described by Kim and colleagues for each level of fusion, as well as adjacent levels. Neural FS severity was recorded from diagnostic radiologist MRI reports. Motor weakness was defined as an examination grade <4/5 on the final preoperative encounter. Regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the degree of FS by either classification was related to patient-reported outcome measure severity. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were included in the study, and 998 total levels were assessed. There were significant differences between the MRI grading system and the assessment by radio-logists ( P < 0.001). In levels with moderate stenosis, 28.9% were classified as having no stenosis by radiology. In levels with severe stenosis, 29.7% were classified as having mild-moderate stenosis or less. Motor weakness was found similarly often in levels of moderate or severe stenosis (6.9% and 9.2%, respectively). On regression analysis, no associations were found between baseline patient-reported outcome measures and stenosis severity assessed by radiologists or MRI grading systems. CONCLUSION: Radiology reports on the severity of cervical neural FS are not consistent with a validated MRI grading system. These radiology reports underestimated the severity of neural foraminal compression and may be inappropriate when used for clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Cellular Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery - Are They Worth the Risk: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature for complications and outcomes after the implantation of cellular bone matrix (CBM) during spine fusion. METHODS: The PubMed database was queried from inception to January 31, 2023 for any articles that discussed the role of and identified a specific CBM in spinal fusion procedures. Adverse events, reoperations, methods, and fusion rates were collected from all studies and reported. RESULTS: Six hundred articles were identified, of which 19 were included that reported outcomes of 7 different CBM products. Seven studies evaluated lumbar fusion, 11 evaluated cervical fusion, and 1 study reported adverse events of a single CBM product. Only 4 studies were comparative studies while others were limited to case series. Fusion rates ranged from 68% to 98.7% in the lumbar spine and 87% to 100% in the cervical spine, although criteria for radiographic fusion was variable. While 7 studies reported no adverse events, there was no strict consensus on what constituted a complication. One study reported catastrophic disseminated tuberculosis from donor contaminated CBM. The authors of 14 studies had conflicts of interest with either the manufacturer or distributor for their analyzed CBM. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence regarding the use of cellular bone matrix as an osteobiologic during spine surgery is weak and limited to low-grade non-comparative studies subject to industry funding. While reported fusion rates are high, the risk of severe complications should not be overlooked. Further large clinical trials are required to elucidate whether the CBMs offer any benefits that outweigh the risks.

Clinical Outcomes Following Open Olecranon Bursa Excision for Septic and Aseptic Olecranon Bursitis: An Observational Study.

Background and objective Olecranon bursitis (aseptic or septic) is caused by inflammation in the bursal tissue. While it is typically managed with conservative measures, refractory cases may indicate surgical intervention. There is currently limited research about outcomes following bursal excision for both septic and aseptic etiologies. In light of this, the purpose of this study was to determine if patients experienced improvement following surgical olecranon bursa excision and to compare outcomes between septic and aseptic forms. Materials and methods A retrospective review was performed involving patients who underwent olecranon bursa excision from 2014 to 2021. Demographic data, patient characteristics, surgical data, and outcome-related data were collected from the medical records. Patients were classified into subgroups based on the type of olecranon bursitis (septic or aseptic). Preoperative and one-year postoperative 12-item short-form survey (SF-12) results and range of motion (ROM) outcomes were evaluated for the entire cohort as well as the subgroups. Results We included 61 patients in our study and found significant improvement in the Physical Component Scale 12 (PCS-12) score for all patients (42.0 vs. 45.5, p=0.010) following surgery. However, based on subgroup analysis, the aseptic group improved in PCS-12 following surgery (41.5 vs. 46.8, p<0.001), but the septic group did not (43.6 vs. 40.5, p=0.277). No improvements were found in the Mental Component Scale 12 (MCS-12) scores following surgery in either group. Eighteen of the 61 patients experienced postoperative complications (29.5%), but only 6.5% required a second surgical procedure. Specifically, 14 of the 18 complications occurred in the aseptic group while two septic and two aseptic patients required additional surgeries. Elbow ROM did not change significantly after surgery but more patients were found to have full ROM postoperatively (83.0% to 91.8%, p=0.228). Conclusion Our findings suggest that patients with refractory olecranon bursitis, particularly if aseptic, tend to gain significant physical health benefits from open bursectomy.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Urinary Retention After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Anesthetics and Surgical Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) after lumbar fusion surgery can lead to longer hospital stays and thus increased risk of developing other postoperative complications. Therefore, we aimed to determine the relationship between POUR and (1) surgical approach and (2) anesthetic agents, including sugammadex and glycopyrrolate. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, L4-S1 single-level lumbar fusion surgeries between 2018 and 2021 were identified. A 3:1 propensity match of patients with POUR to those without was conducted, controlling for patient age, sex, diabetes status, body mass index, smoking status, history of benign prostatic hyperplasia, and the number of levels decompressed. POUR was defined as documented straight catheterization yielding >400 mL. We compared patient demographic, surgical, anesthetic, and postoperative characteristics. A bivariant analysis and backward multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis ( P -value < 0.200) were performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 899 patients identified, 51 met the criteria for POUR and were matched to 153 patients. No notable differences were observed between groups based on demographic or surgical characteristics. On bivariant analysis, patients who developed POUR were more likely to have been given succinylcholine (13.7% vs. 3.92%, P = 0.020) as an induction agent. The independent predictors of POUR identified by multivariable analysis included the use of succinylcholine {odds ratio (OR), 4.37 (confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 16.46), P = 0.022} and reduced postoperative activity (OR, 0.99 [CI, 0.993 to 0.999], P = 0.049). Factors protective against POUR included using sugammadex as a reversal agent (OR, 0.38 [CI, 0.17 to 0.82], P = 0.017). The stepwise regression did not identify an anterior surgical approach as a notable predictor of POUR. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that sugammadex for anesthesia reversal was protective against POUR while succinylcholine and reduced postoperative activity were associated with the development of POUR. In addition, we found no difference between the anterior or posterior approach to spinal fusion in the development of POUR.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Shoulder Stiffness With Rotator Cuff Repair Yields Similar Outcomes to Isolated Rotator Cuff Repair.

Purpose: To compare patient-reported and surgical outcome measures in patients with and without secondary shoulder stiffness (SSS) undergoing rotator cuff repair (RCR). Methods: Patients undergoing rotator cuff repair from 2014 to 2020 with complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by the short-form 12 survey (SF-12) were retrospectively reviewed to identify if operative intervention for SSS was performed alongside the RCR. Those patients with operative intervention for SSS were propensity matched to a group without prior intervention for stiffness by age, sex, laterality, body mass index, diabetes mellitus status, and the presence of a thyroid disorder. The groups were compared by rotator cuff tear (RCT) size, surgical outcomes, further surgical intervention, rotator cuff retear rate, postoperative range of motion (ROM), and SF-12 results at 1 year after surgery. Delta values were calculated for component scores of the SF-12 and ROM values by subtracting the preoperative result from the postoperative result. Results: A total of 89 patients with SSS were compared to 156 patients in the control group at final analysis. The patients in the SSS group experienced a significant improvement in the delta mental health component score (MCS-12) of the SF-12 survey that was not seen in the control group (P = .005 to P = .539). Both groups experienced significant improvement by the delta physical health component score (PCS-12) of the SF-12 survey (SSS: 7.68; P < .001; control: 6.95; P < .001). The SSS group also experienced greater improvement of their forward flexion (25.8° vs 12.9°; P = .005) and external rotation (7.13° vs 1.65°; P = .031) ROM than the control group. Conclusions: Operative intervention of SSS at the time of RCR has equivalent postoperative SF-12 survey outcome scores when compared to patients undergoing RCR without preoperative stiffness despite those patients having lower preoperative scores. Level of Evidence: Level III retrospective comparative study.

Vascularized Bone Grafting Versus the 2-Stage Masquelet Technique for Upper-Extremity Bone Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Vascularized bone grafting (VBG) has been described as the technique of choice for larger bone defects in bone reconstruction, yielding excellent results at the traditional threshold of 6 cm as described in the literature. However, we hypothesize that the 2-stage Masquelet technique provides equivalent union rates for upper-extremity bone defects regardless of size, while having no increase in the rate of patient complications. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and Scopus for outcomes after VBG and the Masquelet technique for upper-extremity bone defects of the humerus, radius, ulna, metacarpal, or phalanx (carpal defects were excluded). A meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes following VBG and the Masquelet technique at varying defect sizes. RESULTS: There were 77 VBG (295 patients) and 25 Masquelet (119 patients) studies that met inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing the Masquelet technique had defect sizes ranging from 0-15 cm (average 4.5 cm), while patients undergoing VBG had defect sizes ranging from 0-24 cm (average 5.9 cm). The union rate for Masquelet patients was 94.1% with an average time to union of 5.8 months, compared to 94.9% and 4.4 months, respectively, for VBG patients. We did not identify a defect size threshold at which VBG demonstrated a significantly higher union rate. No statistically significant difference was found in union rates between techniques when using multivariable logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in union rates between VBG and the Masquelet technique in upper-extremity bone defects regardless of defect size. Surgeons may consider the Masquelet technique as an alternative to VBG in large bone defects of the upper extremity. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Are Clinical or Surgical Outcomes Different Based on Whether the Same Surgeon or Hospital System Performs the Spine Revision?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of discontinuity in care by changing surgeons, health systems, or increased time to revision surgery on revision spine fusion surgical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience worse outcomes than those undergoing primary lumbar surgery. Those requiring complex revisions are often transferred to tertiary or quaternary referral centers under the assumption that those institutions may be more accustomed at performing those procedures. However, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the impact of discontinuity of care in revision spinal fusions. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion 2011-2021 were grouped based on (1) revision performed by the index surgeon versus a different surgeon, (2) revision performed within the same versus different hospital system as the index procedure, and (3) length of time from index procedure. Multivariate regression for outcomes controlled for confounding differences. RESULTS: A total of 776 revision surgeries were included. An increased time interval between the index procedure and the revision surgery was predictive of a lower risk for subsequent revision procedure (odds ratio: 0.57, P =0.022). Revision surgeries performed by the same surgeon predicted a reduced length of hospital stay (ß: -0.14, P =0.001). Neither time to revision nor undergoing by the same surgeon or same practice predicted 90-day readmission rates. Patients are less likely to report meaningful improvement in Mental Component Score-12 or Physical Component Score-12 if revision surgery was performed at a different hospital system. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have revision lumbar fusions have similar clinical outcomes regardless of whether their surgeon performed the index procedure. However, continuity of care with the same surgeon may reduce hospital length of stay and associated health care costs. The length of time between primary and revision surgery does not significantly impact patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Preoperative Opioid Prescribers and Lumbar Fusion: Their Effect on Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Opioid Usage.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of multiple preoperative opioid prescribers on postoperative patient opioid usage and patient-reported outcome measures after single-level lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior literature has identified opioid prescriptions from multiple postoperative providers increase opioid usage rates. However, there is limited evidence on how multiple preoperative opioid prescribers affect postoperative opioid usage or clinical outcomes after a single-level lumbar fusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or posterolateral lumbar fusions between September 2017 and February 2020 at a single academic institution was performed. Patients were excluded if they were not identifiable in our state's prescription drug-monitoring program. Univariate comparisons and regression analyses identified factors associated with postoperative clinical outcomes and opioid usage. RESULTS: Of 239 patients, 160 (66.9%) had one or fewer preoperative prescribers and 79 (33.1%) had >1 prescribers. On regression analysis, the presence of multiple preoperative prescribers was an independent predictor of increased improvement in Visual Analog Scale (∆VAS) Back (ß=-1.61, P =0.012) and the involvement of a nonoperative spine provider was an independent predictor of increased improvement in ∆VAS Leg (ß = -1.53, P = 0.034). Multiple preoperative opioid prescribers correlated with an increase in opioid prescriptions postoperatively (ß = 0.26, P = 0.014), but it did not significantly affect the amount of morphine milligram equivalents prescribed (ß = -48.79, P = 0.146). A greater number of preoperative opioid prescriptions predicted worse improvements in VAS Back, VAS Leg, and Oswestry Disability Index and predicted increased postoperative opioid prescriptions, prescribers, and morphine milligram equivalents. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple preoperative opioid prescribers predicted increased improvement in postoperative back pain, whereas preoperative involvement of a nonoperative spine provider predicted improvements in leg pain after surgery. The number of preoperative opioid prescriptions was a better metric for predicting poor postoperative outcomes and increased opioid consumption compared with the number of preoperative opioid prescribers.

The role of socioeconomic factors as barriers to patient reported outcome measure completion following lumbar spine fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although incorporating patient reported outcomes (PROMs) into practice allows healthcare systems to evaluate the value of care provided, research and policy reflecting PROMs can only be valid if they represent all patients. Few studies have evaluated socioeconomic barriers to PROM completion, and none have done so in a spine patient population. PURPOSE: To identify patient barriers to PROM completion one year following lumbar spine fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective single-institution cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 2,984 patients undergoing lumbar fusion between 2014 and 2020 OUTCOME MEASURES: Completion of Mental Component Score (MCS-12) and Physical Component Score (PCS-12) of Short Form-12 questionnaire 1 year postoperatively. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients undergoing 1-3-level lumbar fusion at a single urban tertiary center. PROMs were queried from our prospectively managed electronic outcomes database. Patients were considered to have complete PROMs if 1-year outcomes were available. Community-level characteristics were collected from patients' zip codes using the Economic Innovation Group Distressed Communities Index. Bivariate analyses were performed to assess factors associated with PROM incompletion along with multivariate logistic regression to control for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 1,968 (66.0%) had incomplete 1-year PROMs. Patients with incomplete PROMs were more likely to be Black (14.5% vs 9.3%, p<.001), Hispanic (2.9% vs 1.6%, p=.027), reside in a distressed community (14.7% vs 8.5%, p<.001), and be active smokers (22.4% vs 15.5%, p<.001). On multivariate regression, Black race (OR: 1.46, p=.014, Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 2.19, p=.027), distressed community status (OR: 1.47, p=.024), workers' compensation status (OR: 2.82, p=.001), and active smoking (OR:1.31, p=.034) all were independently associated with PROM incompletion. Surgical characteristics, including primary surgeon, revision status, approach, and levels fused were not associated with PROM incompletion. CONCLUSIONS: Social determinants of health impact completion of PROMs. Patients completing PROMs are overwhelmingly White, non-Hispanic, and reside in wealthier communities. Efforts should be taken to provide better education regarding PROMs and ensure closer follow-up of certain subgroups of patients to avoid furthering disparities in PROM research.

Surgeon Estimations of Acetabular Cup Orientation Using Intraoperative Fluoroscopic Imagining Are Unreliable.

Background: Accurate acetabular cup orientation is associated with decreased revision rates and improved outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty. This study assesses surgeon's ability to estimate both the acetabular component inclination and anteversion angles via intraoperative fluoroscopy (IF) images. Methods: We surveyed orthopedic surgeons to estimate acetabular component inclination and anteversion based on 20 IF images of total hip arthroplasty through a direct anterior approach. Postoperative computed-tomography scans were used to calculate the true inclination and anteversion component angles. The absolute difference between the true and estimated values was calculated to determine the mean and standard deviation of the survey results. Interrater reliability was determined through interclass correlation coefficients. Results: A majority of surgeons preferred the direct anterior approach (83.3%) and utilized IF during surgery (70%). Surgeons surveyed were on average 5.9° away from the true value of inclination (standard deviation = 4.7) and 8.8° away from the true value of anteversion (standard deviation = 6.0). Respondents were within 5° of both inclination and anteversion in 19.7% of cases, and within 10° in 57.3% of cases. All surgeons were determined to have poor reliability in estimating anteversion (interclass correlation coefficient < 0.5). Only 2 surgeons were determined to have moderate reliability when estimating inclination. Conclusions: Surgeons, when solely relying on IF for the estimation of anteversion and inclination, are unreliable. Utilization of other techniques in conjunction with IF would improve observer reliability.

Spine Surgical Subspecialty and Its Effect on Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify if intraoperative or postoperative differences in outcomes exist between orthopedic and neurological spine surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine surgeons may become board certified through orthopedic surgery or neurosurgical residency training, and recent literature has compared surgical outcomes between surgeons based on residency training background with conflicting results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted and included articles comparing outcomes between orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to determine the quality of studies. Forest plots were generated using mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odds ratios (OR) for binomial variables, and 95% CI was reported. RESULTS: Of 615 search term results, 16 studies were identified for inclusion. Evaluation of the studies found no differences in readmission rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.901, 1.09); I2 = 80%], overall complication rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 1.03 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.10); I2 = 70%], reoperation rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.00); I2 = 86%], or overall length of hospital stay between orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons [MD: -0.19 days (95% CI: -0.38, 0.00); I2 = 98%]. However, neurosurgeons ordered a significantly lower rate of postoperative blood transfusions [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.49 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.57); I2 = 75%] while orthopedic spine surgeons had shorter operative times [MD: 14.28 minutes, (95% CI: 8.07, 20.49), I2 = 97%]. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is significant data heterogeneity, our meta-analysis found that neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons have similar readmission, complication, and reoperation rates regardless of the type of spine surgery performed.

Effect of Fracture Type, Treatment, and Surgeon Training on Reoperation After Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femur Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of Vancouver B periprosthetic proximal femur fractures (PPFFs) is complex due to the overlap between arthroplasty and orthopedic trauma techniques. Our purpose was to assess the effects of fracture type, treatment difference, and surgeon training on the risk of reoperation in Vancouver B PPFF. METHODS: A collaborative research consortium of 11 centers retrospectively reviewed PPFFs from 2014 to 2019 to determine the effects of variations in surgeon expertise, fracture type, and treatment on surgical reoperation. Surgeons were classified as per fellowship training, fractures using the Vancouver classification, and treatment as open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or revision total hip arthroplasty with or without ORIF. Regression analyses were performed with reoperation as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Fracture type (Vancouver B3 versus B1: odds ratio [OR]: 5.70) was an independent risk factor for reoperation. No differences were found in reoperation rates with treatment (ORIF versus revision: OR 0.92, P = .883). Treatment by a nonarthroplasty-trained surgeon versus an arthroplasty specialist led to higher odds of reoperation in all Vancouver B fracture (OR: 2.87, P = .023); however, no significant differences were seen in the Vancouver B2 group alone (OR: 2.61, P = .139). Age was a significant risk factor for reoperation in all Vancouver B fractures (OR: 0.97, P = .004) and in the B2 fractures alone (OR: 0.96, P = .007). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that age and fracture type affect reoperation rates. Treatment type did not affect reoperation rates and the effect of surgeon training is unclear.

Clinical Improvements in Myelopathy Result in Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine if myelopathy severity predicted the magnitude of improvement in health-related quality of life metrics following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery for myelopathy is primarily performed to halt disease progression. However, it is still controversial if these patients can expect significant health-related quality-of life improvements following ACDF. We explore the relationship between modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) improvements and its effect on other health-related quality-of life metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing ACDF for myelopathy were grouped based on preoperative mJOA scores into mild (15-17), moderate (12-14), and severe (<12) groups. Patients were subsequently categorized based on if they attained the minimum clinically detectable improvement (MCID) threshold for mJOA. Multivariate linear regression was performed to determine the magnitude of improvement in ∆patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 374 patients were identified for inclusion. Of those, 169 (45.2%) had mild myelopathy, 125 (33.4%) had moderate, and 80 (21.4%) had severe myelopathy. Only the moderate and severe groups had significant improvements in mJOA following surgery (mild: P =0.073, moderate: P <0.001, severe: P <0.001). There were no significant differences in the magnitude of improvement for any patient-reported outcome measure based on myelopathy severity, except for mJOA (mild: 0.27, moderate: 1.88, severe: 3.91; P <0.001). Patients meeting the MCID for mJOA had better ∆Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score (3.29 vs. -0.21, P =0.007), ∆Short-Form 12 Physical Component Score (6.82 vs. 1.96, P <0.001), ∆Visual Analog Scale Neck (-3.11 vs. -2.17, P =0.001), ∆Visual Analog Scale Arm (-2.92 vs. -1.48, P <0.001), ∆Neck Disability Index (-18.35 vs. -7.86, P <0.001), and ∆mJOA (3.38 vs. -0.56, P <0.001) compared with patients who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Worse baseline myelopathy severity predicts worse postoperative outcomes. However, baseline myelopathy severity is not predictive of the magnitude of postoperative improvement with the exception of mJOA. Patients who attain MCID improvement in mJOA had greater postoperative improvement for other health-related quality of life metrics.

Modified Frailty Index Does Not Provide Additional Value in Predicting Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Elective Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive value of the modified Frailty Index (mFI) in evaluating sarcopenia and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing 1-level or 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS: Patients who underwent a 1-level or 2-level TLIF between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively identified. Frailty was compared among groups using mFI, and sarcopenia was classified by the psoas muscle cross-sectional area. Bivariate statistics compared demographics, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes. A linear regression model was developed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) or mFI as independent variables to determine potential predictors for improvement in 1-year patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of 488 included patients, 60 were severely frail and 60 patients had sarcopenia, but sarcopenia was not associated with patient frailty (P = 0.469). Severely frail patients had worse baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (P < 0.001), Mental Component Score-12 (P = 0.001), and Physical Component Score-12 (P < 0.001), and worse improvement in ODI (P = 0.037), Physical Component Score-12 (P < 0.001), and visual analog scale (VAS) back (P = 0.007). mFI was an independent predictor of poorer improvement in VAS back and ODI, whereas age + CCI in addition predicted poorer improvement in VAS leg. Patients with higher mFI experienced longer length of stay, less frequent home discharge, and higher rates of complications, but similar readmission and reoperation rates. CONCLUSIONS: Frailer patients experience poorer improvement in back pain, physical functioning, and disability after TLIF. mFI and the combination of age and CCI comparably predict patient-reported outcomes but do not correlate to baseline sarcopenia. Frailty increased the risk of complications, length of hospital stay, and risk of nonhome discharge.

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Freehand Pedicle Screw Placement After One-to Three-Level Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing one-to three-level lumbar fusion using robotically assisted vs freehand pedicle screw placement. METHODS: Patients who underwent either robotically assisted or freehand pedicle screw placement for one-to three-level lumbar fusion surgery from January 1, 2014 to August 31, 2020 at a single academic institution were identified. Propensity score matching was performed based on demographic variables. Clinical and surgical outcomes were compared between groups. Recovery Ratios (RR) and the proportion of patients achieving the minimally clinically important difference (%MCID) were calculated for Oswestry Disability Index, PCS-12, MCS-12, VAS Back, and VAS Leg at 1 year. Surgical outcomes included complication and revision rates. RESULTS: A total of 262 patients were included in the study (85 robotic and 177 freehand). No significant differences were found in ΔPROM scores, RR, or MCID between patients who underwent robotically assisted vs freehand screw placement. The rates of revision (1.70% freehand vs 1.18% robotic, P = 1.000) and complications (.57% freehand vs 1.18% robotic, P = .546) were not found to be statically different between the 2 groups. Controlling for demographic factors, procedure type (robotic vs freehand) did not emerge as a significant predictor of ΔPROM scores on multivariate linear regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Robotically assisted pedicle screw placement did not result in significantly improved clinical or surgical outcomes compared to conventional freehand screw placement for patients undergoing one-to three-level lumbar fusion.

Patients with radiculopathy have worse baseline disability and greater improvements following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion compared to patients with myelopathy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is commonly performed in patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy. Although the goal of surgery in patients with radiculopathy is to improve function and reduce pain, patients with myelopathy undergo surgery to halt disease progression. Although the expectations between these preoperative diagnoses are generally understood to be disparate by spine surgeons, there is limited literature demonstrating their discordant outcomes. PURPOSE: To compare improvements in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing ACDF for myelopathy or radiculopathy. Secondarily, we analyzed the proportion of patients who attain the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) postoperatively using thresholds derived from radiculopathy, myelopathy, and mixed cohort studies. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single institution retrospective cohort study PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary, elective ACDF with a preoperative diagnosis of radiculopathy or myelopathy and a complete set of preoperative and one-year postoperative PROMs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included the following PROMs: Short-Form 12 Physical Component (PCS-12) and Mental Component (MCS-12) scores, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Arm score, and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Hospital readmissions and revision surgery were also collected and evaluated. METHODS: Patients undergoing an ACDF from 2014 to 2020 were identified and grouped based on preoperative diagnosis (radiculopathy or myelopathy). We utilized "general MCID" thresholds from a cohort of patients with degenerative spine conditions, and "specific MCID" thresholds generated from cohorts of patients with myelopathy or radiculopathy, respectively. Multivariate linear regressions were performed for delta (∆) PROMs and multivariate logistic regressions were performed for both general and specific MCID improvements. RESULTS: A total of 798 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients with myelopathy had better baseline function and arm pain (MCS-12: 49.6 vs 47.6, p=.018; VAS Arm: 3.94 vs 6.02, p<.001; and NDI: 34.1 vs 41.9, p<.001), were older (p<.001), had more comorbidities (p=.014), more levels fused (p<.001), and had decreased improvement in PROMs following surgery compared to patients with radiculopathy (∆PCS-12: 4.76 vs 7.21, p=.006; ∆VAS Arm: -1.69 vs -3.70, p<.001; and ∆NDI: -11.94 vs -18.61, p<.001). On multivariate analysis, radiculopathy was an independent predictor of increased improvement in PCS-12 (ß=2.10, p=.019), ∆NDI (ß=-5.36, p<.001), and ∆VAS Arm (ß=-1.93, p<.001). Radiculopathy patients were more likely to achieve general MCID improvements following surgery (NDI: Odds ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.035 and VAS Arm: OR: 2.98, p<.001), but there was no difference between patients with radiculopathy or myelopathy when using radiculopathy and myelopathy specific MCID thresholds (MCS-12: p=.113, PCS-12: p=.675, NDI: p=.108, and VAS Arm: p=.314). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing ACDF with myelopathy or radiculopathy represent two distinct patient populations with differing treatment indications and clinical outcomes. Compared to radiculopathy, patients with myelopathy have better baseline function, decreased improvement in PROMs, and are less likely to reach MCID using general threshold values, but there is no difference in the proportion reaching MCID when using specific threshold values. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IRB.

Readmission and Resource Utilization in Patients From Socioeconomically Distressed Communities Following Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether: (1) patients from communities of socioeconomic distress have higher readmission rates or postoperative healthcare resource utilization and (2) there are differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on socioeconomic distress. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Socioeconomic disparities affect health outcomes, but little evidence exists demonstrating the impact of socioeconomic distress on postoperative resource utilization or PROMs. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent lumbar fusion at a single tertiary academic center from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2021. Patients were classified according to the distressed communities index. Hospital readmission, postoperative prescriptions, patient telephone calls, follow-up office visits, and PROMs were recorded. Multivariate analysis with logistic, negative binomial regression or Poisson regression were used to investigate the effects of distressed communities index on postoperative resource utilization. Alpha was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 4472 patients were included for analysis. Readmission risk was higher in distressed communities (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.87; P =0.028). Patients from distressed communities (odds ratio, 3.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-9.72; P =0.003) were also more likely to be readmitted for medical, but not surgical causes ( P =0.514), and distressed patients had worse preoperative (visual analog-scale Back, P <0.001) and postoperative (Oswestry disability index, P =0.048; visual analog-scale Leg, P =0.013) PROMs, while maintaining similar magnitudes of clinical improvement. Patients from distressed communities were more likely to be discharged to a nursing facility and inpatient rehabilitation unit (25.5%, P =0.032). The race was not independently associated with readmissions ( P =0.228). CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic distress is associated with increased postoperative health resource utilization. Patients from distressed communities have worse preoperative PROMs, but the overall magnitude of improvement is similar across all classes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Indications for revision lumbar fusion are variable, but include recurrent stenosis (RS), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and pseudarthrosis. The efficacy of revision lumbar fusion has been well established, but their outcomes compared to primary procedures is not well documented. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compares surgical and clinical outcomes between (1) revision and primary lumbar fusion, (2) revision lumbar fusion based on indication (ASD, pseudarthrosis, or RS), and (3) revision lumbar fusion based on whether the index procedure included an isolated decompression or decompression with fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective single-institution cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Four thousand six hundred seventy-one consecutive lumbar fusions from 2011 to 2021, of which 892 (23.6%) were revision procedures. The indication for revision procedures included 502 (56.3%) for ASD, 153 (17.2%) for pseudarthrosis, and 237 (26.6%) for RS. Of the 892 revision procedures, 694 (77.8%) underwent an index fusion while 198 (22.2%) underwent an index decompression without fusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital readmissions, all-cause reoperation, need for subsequent revision and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline, 3-months postoperatively, and 1-year postoperatively, including the Mental Health Component score (MCS-12) and Physical Health Component score (PCS-12) of the Short Form 12 survey, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Back and Leg pain. METHODS: Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records. Twenty-eight percent of patients had preoperative and postoperative PROMs. A delta PROM score was calculated for the 3-month and 1-year postoperative timepoints, which was the change from the preoperative to postoperative value. Univariate comparisons were performed to compare revision fusions to primary fusions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for all-cause reoperation and subsequent revision surgery, while multivariate linear regression was performed for ∆PROMs at 3-months and 1-year. Revision procedures were then separately regrouped based on indication for revision fusion and whether they underwent a fusion for their index procedure. Univariate comparisons and multivariate linear regressions for ∆PROMs were then repeated based on the new groupings. RESULTS: There was no difference in hospital readmission rate (5.38% vs. 4.60%, p=.372) or length of stay (4.10 days vs. 3.94 days, p=.129) between revision and primary lumbar fusion, but revision fusions had a higher rate of all-cause reoperation (16.1% vs. 11.2%, p<.001) and subsequent revision (13.7% vs. 9.71%, p=.001), which was confirmed on multivariate logistic regression (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.001 and OR: 1.37, p=.007, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a revision procedure was an independent risk factor for worse improvement ∆ODI, ∆VAS Back, ∆VAS Leg, and ∆PCS-12 and 1-year postoperatively. Regardless of the indication for revision lumbar fusion, patients significantly improved in the 3-month and 1-year postoperative PCS-12, ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg, with the exception of the 3-month PCS-12 for pseudarthrosis (p=.620). Patients undergoing revision for ASD had significantly worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (32.3 vs. Pseudarthrosis: 35.6 and RS: 37.0, p=.026), but there were no differences in ∆PROMs. There was no difference in hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, or subsequent revision based on whether a patient had an index lumbar fusion or isolated decompression. Multivariate linear regression analysis found that a surgical indication of pseudarthrosis was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in 3-month ∆VAS Leg (ref: ASD, ß=2.26, p=.036), but having an index fusion did not significantly predict worse improvement in ∆PROMs when compared to isolated decompressions. CONCLUSIONS: Revision lumbar fusions had a higher rate of reoperation and subsequent revision surgery when compared to primary lumbar fusions, but there were no difference in hospital readmission rates. Patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion experience improvements in all patient reported outcome measures, but their baseline, postoperative, and magnitude of improvement are worse than primary procedures. Regardless of whether the lumbar fusion is a primary or revision procedure, all patients have significant improvements in pain, disability and physical function. Further, the indication for the revision procedure is not correlated with the expected magnitude of improvement in patient reported outcomes. Finally, no differences in baseline, postoperative, and ∆PROMs for revision fusions were identified when stratifying by whether the patient had an index decompression or fusion.