The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Better Reflects the Impact of Length of Stay and the Occurrence of Complications Within 90 Days Than Legacy Outcome Measures for Lumbar Degenerative Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and legacy outcome measures like the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) have not been compared for their sensitivity in reflecting the impact of perioperative complications and length of stay (LOS) in a surgical thoracolumbar population. The purpose of this study is to assess the strength of PROMIS and ODI scores as they correlate with LOS and complication outcomes of surgical thoracolumbar patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Included: patients ≥18 years undergoing thoracolumbar surgery with available preoperative and 3-month postoperative ODI and PROMIS scores. Pearson correlation assessed the linear relationships between LOS, complications, and scores for PROMIS (physical function, pain intensity, pain interference) and ODI. Linear regression predicted the relationship between complication incidence and scores for ODI and PROMIS. RESULTS: Included: 182 patients undergoing thoracolumbar surgery. Common diagnoses were stenosis (62.1%), radiculopathy (48.9%), and herniated disc (47.8%). Overall, 58.3% of patients underwent fusion, and 50.0% underwent laminectomy. Patients showed preoperative to postoperative improvement in ODI (50.2 to 39.0), PROMIS physical function (10.9 to 21.4), pain intensity (92.4 to 78.3), and pain interference (58.4 to 49.8, all P < .001). Mean LOS was 2.7 ± 2.8 days; overall complication rate was 16.5%. Complications were most commonly cardiac, neurologic, or urinary (all 2.2%). Whereas preoperative to postoperative changes in ODI did not correlate with LOS, changes in PROMIS pain intensity (r = 0.167, P = .024) and physical function (r = -0.169, P = .023) did. Complications did not correlate with changes in ODI or PROMIS score; however, postoperative scores for physical function (r = -0.205, P = .005) and pain interference (r = 0.182, P = .014) both showed stronger correlations with complication occurrence than ODI (r = 0.143, P = .055). Regression analysis showed postoperative physical function (R 2 = 0.037, P = .005) and pain interference (R 2 = 0.028, P = .014) could predict complications; ODI could not. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS domains of physical function and pain interference better reflected perioperative complications and LOS than the ODI. These results suggest PROMIS may offer more utility as an outcomes assessment instrument. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Radiation Exposure in Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Comparison of CT Image-Guided Navigation, Robotic Assistance, and Intraoperative Fluoroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical review. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of intraoperative computed tomography (CT) image-guided navigation (IGN) and robotic assistance in posterior lumbar surgery and their relationship with patient radiation exposure and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old undergoing 1- to 2-level transforaminal lateral interbody fusion in 12-month period were included. Chart review was performed for pre- and intraoperative data on radiation dose and perioperative outcomes. All radiation doses are quantified in milliGrays (mGy). Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were utilized for categorical variables. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey test was used for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were assessed: 12 IGN, 62 robotic, 56 open, 35 fluoroscopically guided minimally invasive surgery (MIS). There was a lower proportion of women in open and MIS groups (P = .010). There were more younger patients in the MIS group (P < .001). MIS group had the lowest mean posterior levels fused (P = .015). Total-procedure radiation, total-procedure radiation/level fused, and intraoperative radiation was the lowest in the open group and highest in the MIS group compared with IGN and robotic groups (all P < .001). Higher proportion of robotic and lower proportion of MIS patients had preoperative CT (P < .001). Estimated blood loss (P = .002) and hospital length of stay (P = .039) were lowest in the MIS group. Highest operative time was observed for IGN patients (P < .001). No differences were observed in body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and postoperative complications (P = .313, .051, and .644, respectively). CONCLUSION: IGN and robotic assistance in posterior lumbar fusion were associated with higher intraoperative and total-procedure radiation exposure than open cases without IGN/robotics, but significantly less than MIS without IGN/robotics, without differences in perioperative outcomes. Fluoro-MIS procedures reported highest radiation exposure to patient, and of equal concern is that the proportion of total radiation dose also applied to the surgeon and operating room staff in fluoro-MIS group is higher than in IGN/robotics and open groups.

Biologics and Minimally Invasive Approach to TLIFs: What Is the Risk of Radiculitis?

BACKGROUND: Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and allograft containing mesenchymal stem cells (live cell) are popular biologic substitutes for iliac crest autograft used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Use of these agents in the pathogenesis of postoperative radiculitis remains controversial. Recent studies have independently linked minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF with increased radiculitis risk compared to open TLIF. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of postoperative radiculitis in open and MIS TLIF patients along with its relationship to concurrent biologic adjuvant use. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years undergoing single-level TLIF from June 2012 to December 2018 with minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were rate of radiculitis, intra- and postoperative complications, revision surgery; length of stay (LOS), and estimated blood loss (EBL). RESULTS: There were 397 patients: 223 with open TLIFs, 174 with MIS TLIFs. One hundred and fifty-nine surgeries used bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), 26 live cell, 212 neither. Open TLIF: higher mean EBL, LOS, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) than MIS. Postoperative radiculitis in 37 patients (9.32% overall): 16 cases MIS BMP (15.69% of their cohort), 6 MIS without BMP (8.33%), 5 open BMP (8.77%), 10 open without BMP (6.02%). MIS TLIF versus open TLIF: no differences in 1-year reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. BMP versus non-BMP: no differences in reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. Multivariate logistic regression found that neither BMP (P = .109) nor MIS (P = .314) was an independent predictor for postoperative radiculitis when controlled for age, gender, body mass index, and CCI. Using paired open and MIS groups (N = 168 each) with propensity score matching, these variables were still not independently associated with radiculitis (P = .174 BMP, P = .398 MIS). However, the combination of MIS with BMP was associated with increased radiculitis risk in both the entire patient cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 2.259 [1.117-4.569], P = .023, N = 397) and PSM cohorts (OR: 2.196 [1.045-4.616], P = .038, N = 336) compared to other combinations of surgical approach and biologic use. CONCLUSION: Neither the MIS approach nor BMP use is an independent risk factor for post-TLIF radiculitis. However, risk of radiculitis significantly increases when they are used in tandem. This should be considered when selecting biological adjuvants for MIS TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Bariatric Surgery Population at Significantly Increased Risk of Spinal Disorders and Surgical Intervention Compared With Morbidly Obese Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is associated with acceleration of musculoskeletal degenerative diseases and functional impairment secondary to spinal disorders. Bariatric surgery (BS) is an increasingly common treatment for severe obesity but can affect bone and mineral metabolism. The effect of BS on degenerative spinal disorders is yet to be fully described. The aim of our study was to analyze changes in bariatric patients' risk for spinal degenerative diseases and spinal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the prospectively collected New York State Inpatient Database (NYSID) years (2004-2013) using patient linkage codes. The incidence of degenerative spinal diagnoses and spinal surgery was queried using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD)-9 codes for morbidly obese patients (ICD-9 278.01) with and without a history of BS. The incidence of degenerative spinal diagnoses and spinal surgery was determined using χ tests for independence. Logistic testing controlled for age, sex, and comorbidity burden. RESULTS: A total of 18,176 patients were identified in the NYSID database with a history of BS and 146,252 patients were identified as morbidly obese without a history of BS. BS patients have a significantly higher rate of spinal diagnoses than morbidly obese patients without BS (19.3% vs. 8.1%, P<0.001). Bariatric patients were more likely to have spinal diagnoses and procedures than nonbariatric obese patients (P<0.001). This was mostly observed in lumbar spinal stenosis (5.0%), cervical disk herniation (3.3%), lumbar disk degeneration (3.4%), lumbar spondylolisthesis (2.9%), lumbar spondylosis (1.9%), and cervical spondylosis with myelopathy (2.0%). Spine procedure rates are higher for bariatric patients than nonbariatric overall (25.6% vs. 2.3, P<0.001) and for fusions and decompressions (P<0.001). When controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities (and diagnosis rate with regards to procedure rates), these results persist, with BS patients having a higher likelihood of spinal diagnoses and procedures. In addition, bariatric patients had a lower comorbidity burden than morbidly obese patients without a history of BS. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidly obese BS patients have a dramatically higher incidence of spinal diagnoses and procedures, relative to morbidly obese patients without BS. Further study is necessary to determine if there is a pathophysiological mechanism underlying this higher risk of spinal disease and intervention in bariatric patients, and the effect of BS on these rates following treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

MRI Radiological Predictors of Requiring Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy After Lumbar Disc Herniation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate radiological differences in lumbar disc herniations (herniated nucleus pulposus [HNP]) between patients receiving microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) and nonoperative patients. METHODS: Patients with primary treatment for an HNP at a single academic institution between November 2012 to March 2017 were divided into MLD and nonoperative treatment groups. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), axial HNP area; axial canal area; HNP canal compromise; HNP cephalad/caudal migration and HNP MRI signal (black, gray, or mixed) were measured. T test and chi-square analyses compared differences in the groups, binary logistic regression analysis determined odds ratios (ORs), and decision tree analysis compared the cutoff values for risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (78 MLD, 207 nonoperative) were included. Risk factors for MLD treatment included larger axial HNP area (P < .01, OR = 1.01), caudal migration, and migration magnitude (P < .05, OR = 1.90; P < .01, OR = 1.14), and gray HNP MRI signal (P < .01, OR = 5.42). Cutoff values for risks included axial HNP area (70.52 mm2, OR = 2.66, P < .01), HNP canal compromise (20.0%, OR = 3.29, P < .01), and cephalad/caudal migration (6.8 mm, OR = 2.43, P < .01). MLD risk for those with gray HNP MRI signal (67.6% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area >70.52 mm2 (75.5%, P = .01) and HNP canal compromise >20.0% (71.1%, P = .05) cutoffs. MLD risk in patients with cephalad/caudal migration >6.8 mm (40.5% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area and HNP canal compromise (52.4%, 50%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent MLD treatment had significantly different axial HNP area, frequency of caudal migration, magnitude of cephalad/caudal migration, and disc herniation MRI signal compared to patients with nonoperative treatment.

Diminishing Clinical Returns of Multilevel Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Single institution retrospective clinical review. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between levels fused and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing open and minimally invasive surgical (MIS) lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally invasive spinal fusion aims to reduce the morbidity associated with conventional open surgery. As multilevel arthrodesis procedures are increasingly performed using MIS techniques, it is necessary to weigh the risks and benefits of multilevel MIS lumbar fusion as a function of fusion length. METHODS: Patients undergoing <4 level lumbar interbody fusion were stratified by surgical technique (MIS or open), and grouped by fusion length: 1-level, 2-levels, 3+ levels. Demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), surgical factors, and perioperative complication rates were compared between technique groups at different fusion lengths using means comparison tests. RESULTS: Included: 361 patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion (88% transforaminal, 14% lateral; 41% MIS). Breakdown by fusion length: 63% 1-level, 22% 2-level, 15% 3+ level. Op-time did not differ between groups at 1-level (MIS: 233 min vs. Open: 227, P = 0.554), though MIS at 2-levels (332 min vs. 281) and 3+ levels (373 min vs. 323) were longer (P = 0.033 and P = 0.231, respectively). While complication rates were lower for MIS at 1-level (15% vs. 30%, P = 0.006) and 2-levels (13% vs. 27%, P = 0.147), at 3+ levels, complication rates were comparable (38% vs. 35%, P = 0.870). 3+ level MIS fusions had higher rates of ileus (13% vs. 0%, P = 0.008) and a trend of increased adverse pulmonary events (25% vs. 7%, P = 0.110). MIS was associated with less EBL at all lengths (all P < 0.01) and lower rates of anemia at 1-level (5% vs. 18%, P < 0.001) and 2-levels (7% vs. 16%, P = 0.193). At 3+ levels, however, anemia rates were similar between groups (13% vs. 15%, P = 0.877). CONCLUSION: MIS lumbar interbody fusions provided diminishing clinical returns for multilevel procedures. While MIS patients had lower rates of perioperative complications for 1- and 2-level fusions, 3+ level MIS fusions had comparable complication rates to open cases, and higher rates of adverse pulmonary and ileus events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Impact of Adult Thoracolumbar Spinal Deformities on Standing to Sitting Regional and Segmental Reciprocal Alignment.

BACKGROUND: Regional and segmental changes of the lumbar spine have previously been described as patients transition from standing to sitting; however, alignment changes in the cervical and thoracic spine have yet to be investigated. So, the aim of this study was to assess cervical and thoracic regional and segmental changes in patients with thoracolumbar deformity versus a nondeformed thoracolumbar spine population. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort study of a single center's database of full-body stereoradiographic imaging and clinical data. Patients were ≥ 18 years old with nondeformed spines (nondegenerative, nondeformity spinal pathologies) or thoracolumbar deformity (ASD: PI-LL > 10°). Patients were propensity-score matched for age and maximum hip osteoarthritis grade and were stratified by Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab classification by PI-LL, SVA, and PT. Patients with lumbar transitional anatomy or fusions were excluded. Outcome measures included changes between standing and sitting in global alignment parameters: sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), pelivc tilt (PT), thoracic kyphosis, cervical alignment, cervical SVA, C2-C7 lordosis (CL), T1 slop minus CL (TS-CL), and segmental alignment from C2 to T12. Another analysis was performed using patients with cervical and thoracic segmental measurements. RESULTS: A total of 338 patients were included (202 nondeformity, 136 ASD). After propensity-score matching, 162 patients were included (81 nondeformity, 81 ASD). When categorized by SRS-Schwab classification, all nondeformity patients were nonpathologically grouped for PI-LL, SVA, and PT, whereas ASD patients had mix of moderately and markedly deformed modifiers. There were significant differences in pelvic and global spinal alignment changes from standing to sitting between nondeformity and ASD patients, particularly for SVA (nondeformed: 49.5 mm versus ASD: 27.4 mm; P < .001) and PI-LL (20.12° versus 13.01°, P < .001). With application of the Schwab classification system upon the cohort, PI-LL (P = .040) and SVA (P = .007) for severely classified deformity patients had significantly less positional alignment change. In an additional analysis of patients with segmental measurements from C2 to T12, nondeformity patients showed significant mobility of T2-T3 (-0.99° to -0.54°, P = .023), T6-T7 (-3.39° to -2.89°, P = .032), T7-T8 (-2.68° to -2.23°, P = .048), and T10-T11 (0.31° to 0.097°, P = .006) segments from standing to sitting. ASD patients showed mobility of the C6-C7 (1.76° to 3.45°, P < .001) and T11-T12 (0.98° to 0.54°, P = 0.014) from standing to sitting. The degree of mobility between nondeformity and ASD patients was significantly different in C6-C7 (-0.18° versus 1.69°, P = .003), T2-T3 (0.45° versus -0.27°, P = .034), and T10-T11 (0.45° versus -0.30°, P = .001) segments. With application of the Schwab modifier system upon the cohort, mobility was significant in the C6-C7 (nondeformed: 0.18° versus moderately deformed: 2.12° versus markedly deformed: 0.92°, P = .039), T2-T3 (0.45° versus -0.08° versus -0.63°, P = .020), T6-T7 (0.48° versus 0.36° versus -1.85°, P = .007), and T10-T11 (0.45° versus -0.21° versus -0.23°, P = .009) segments. CONCLUSIONS: Nondeformity patients and ASD patients have significant differences in mobility of global spinopelvic parameters as well as segmental regions in the cervical and thoracic spine between sitting and standing. This study aids in our understanding of flexibility and compensatory mechanisms in deformity patients, as well as the possible impact on unfused segments when considering deformity corrective surgery.

Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study at a single institution. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and bilateral minimally invasive surgery (MIS) Wiltse approach TLIF (Wil-TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies have compared open TLIF to MIS TLIF; however, comparing the techniques using a large cohort of one-level TLIFs has not been fully explored. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of patients undergoing a single-level primary posterior lumbar interbody fusion between 2012 and 2017. The cases were categorized as Open TLIF (traditional midline exposure including lateral exposure of transverse processes) or bilateral paramedian Wiltse TLIF approach. Differences between groups were assessed by t tests. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-seven patients underwent one-level primary TLIF (116 O-TLIF, 111 Wil-TLIF). There was no difference in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), or body mass index (BMI) between groups. Wil-TLIF had the lowest estimated blood loss (EBL; 197 vs. 499 mL O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001), length of stay (LOS; 2.7 vs. 3.6 days O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001), overall complication rate (12% vs. 24% O-TLIF, P = 0.015), minor complication rate (7% vs. 16% O-TLIF, P = 0.049), and 90-day readmission rate (1% vs. 8% O-TLIF, P = 0.012). Wil-TLIF was associated with the higher fluoroscopy time (83 vs. 24 seconds O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001). There was not a significant difference in operative time, intraoperative or neurological complications, extubation time, reoperation rate, or infection rate. CONCLUSION: In comparing Wiltse MIS TLIF to Open TLIF, the minimally invasive paramedian Wiltse approach demonstrated the lowest EBL, LOS, readmission rates, and complications, but longer fluoroscopy times when compared with the traditional open approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Cervical Versus Thoracolumbar Spinal Deformities: A Comparison of Baseline Quality-of-Life Burden.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 2 prospectively collected multicenter databases, one for cervical deformity (CD) and the other for general adult spinal deformity. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relative quality-of-life and disability burden in patients with uncompensated cervical, thoracolumbar, or cervical and thoracolumbar deformities. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The relative quality-of-life burden of cervical and thoracolumbar deformities have never been compared with each other. This may have significant implications when deciding on the appropriate treatment intervention for patients with combined thoracolumbar and cervical deformities. METHODS: When defining CD C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA)>4 cm was used while a C7-S1 SVA>5 cm was used to defined thoracolumbar deformity. Patients with both SVA criteria were defined as "combined." Primary analysis compared patients in the different groups by demographic, comorbidity data, and quality-of-life scores [EuroQOL 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D)] using t tests. Secondary analysis matched deformity groups with propensity scores matching based on baseline EQ-5D scores. Differences in disease-specific metrics [the Oswestry Disability Index, Neck Disability Index, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association questionnaire (mJOA)] were analyzed using analysis of variance tests and post hoc analysis. RESULTS: In total, 212 patients were included in our analysis. Patients with CD only had less neurological deficits (mJOA: 14.6) and better EQ-5D (0.746) scores compared with patients with combined deformities (11.9, 0.716), all P<0.05. Regarding propensity score-matched deformity cohorts, 99 patients were matched with similar quality-of-life burden, 33 per deformity cohort. CD only patients had fewer comorbidities (1.03 vs. 2.12 vs. 2.70; P<0.001), whereas patients with combined deformity had more baseline neurological impairment compared with CD only patients (mJOA: 12.00 vs. 14.25; P=0.050). CONCLUSIONS: Combined deformity patients were associated with the lowest quality-of-life and highest disability. Furthermore, regarding deformity cohorts matched by similar baseline quality-of-life status (EQ-5D), patients with combined deformities were associated with significantly worse neurological impairments. This finding implies that quality of life may not be a direct reflection of a patient's disability status, especially in patients with combined cervical and thoracolumbar deformities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

The Influence of Body Mass Index on Achieving Age-Adjusted Alignment Goals in Adult Spinal Deformity Corrective Surgery with Full-Body Analysis at 1 Year.

BACKGROUND: The impact of obesity on global spinopelvic alignment is poorly understood. This study investigated the effect of body mass index on achieving alignment targets and compensation mechanisms after corrective surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD). METHODS: Retrospective review of a single-center database. Inclusion: patients ≥18 years with full-body stereographic images (baseline and 1 year) and who met ASD criteria (sagittal vertical axis [SVA] >5 cm, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis [PI-LL] >10°, coronal curvature >20° or pelvic tilt >20°). Patients were stratified by age (<40, 40-65, and ≥65 years) and body mass index (<25, 25-30, and >30). Postoperative alignment was compared with age-adjusted ideal values. Prevalence of patients who matched ideals and unmatched (undercorrected/overcorrected) was assessed. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) scores, alignment, and compensatory mechanisms were compared across cohorts using analysis of variance and temporally with paired t tests. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were included (average age, 62 years; 66% female). After corrective surgery, obese and overweight patients had more residual malalignment (worse PI-LL, T1 pelvic angle, pelvic tilt, and SVA) compared with normal patients (P < 0.05). In addition, obese and overweight patients recruited more pelvic shift (obese, 62.36; overweight, 49.80; normal, 31.50) and had a higher global sagittal angle (obese, 6.51; overweight, 6.35; normal, 3.40) (P < 0.05). Obese and overweight patients showed lower overcorrection rates and higher undercorrection rates (P < 0.05). Obese patients showed worse postoperative HRQL scores (Scoliosis Research Society 22 Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale-leg) than did overweight and normal patients (P < 0.05). Obese and overweight patients who matched age-adjusted alignment targets for SVA or PI-LL showed no HRQL improvements (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: After surgery, obese patients were undercorrected, showed more residual malalignment, recruited more pelvic shift, and had a greater global sagittal angle and worse HRQL scores. The benefits from age-adjusted alignment targets seem to be less substantial for obese and overweight patients.