Obstacles to receiving postoperative radiation therapy following separation surgery for metastatic spine disease.

OBJECTIVE: Obtaining timely postoperative radiotherapy (RT) following separation surgery is critical to avoid local recurrence of disease yet can be a challenge due to scheduling conflicts, insurance denials, and travel arrangements. In patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery for spinal cord compression, the authors sought to: 1) report the rate of postoperative RT, 2) describe reasons for patients not receiving postoperative RT, and 3) investigate factors that may predict whether a patient receives postoperative RT. METHODS: A single-center retrospective case series was undertaken of all patients who underwent metastatic spine surgery for extradural disease between January 2010 and January 2021. Inclusion criteria were patients with intermediate or radioresistant tumors with evidence of spinal cord compression who underwent surgery. The primary outcome was the occurrence of RT within 3 months following surgery. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed controlling for age, BMI, race, total number of decompressed levels, tumor size, other organ metastasis, and preoperative RT or chemotherapy to predict patients receiving postoperative RT. RESULTS: Of 239 patients undergoing spine surgery for metastatic disease, 113 (47.3%) received postoperative RT while 126 (52.7%) did not. In the postoperative RT group, 24 (21.2%) received stereotactic body radiation therapy while 89 (78.8%) received conventional external-beam radiation therapy. The most common reasons for patients not receiving postoperative RT included death or transfer to hospice (31.0%), RT not being recommended by radiation oncology (30.2%), and loss to follow-up (23.8%). On critical review with the radiation oncology department, the authors estimated that 101 of 126 (80.2%) patients who did not receive postoperative RT were potential candidates for postoperative RT. Patients who received postoperative RT had more documented inpatient (48.7% vs 32.5%, p < 0.001) and outpatient (100.0% vs 65.1%, p < 0.001) radiation oncology consultations than those who did not. Additionally, patients who received postoperative RT had a higher rate of postoperative chemotherapy (53.1% vs 25.4%, p < 0.001), while patients who did not receive postoperative RT had a higher rate of preoperative RT (7.1% vs 31.0%, p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis confirmed that patients who received preoperative RT had lower odds of undergoing postoperative RT (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.34; p < 0.001), and patients who underwent postoperative chemotherapy had higher odds of undergoing postoperative RT (OR 3.83, 95% CI 2.05-7.17; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the current study reflecting real-world care of patients with metastatic spine disease after undergoing separation surgery, 47% of patients did not receive postoperative RT, and 80% of those patients were potential candidates for postoperative RT. Radiation oncology consultation and postoperative chemotherapy were significantly associated with receiving postoperative RT, whereas preoperative RT was significantly associated with not receiving postoperative RT. The lack of timely postoperative RT highlights a potential gap in metastatic spine tumor care and underscores the necessity for prompt radiation oncology consultation and effective planning.

Comparing the Upper Instrumented Vertebrae Tilt Angle vs Screw Angle in the Development of Proximal Junction Kyphosis After Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Which Matters More?

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine which aspect of the upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV)-tilt angle or screw angle-was more strongly associated with: (1) proximal junctional kyphosis/failure (PJK/F), (2) other mechanical complications and reoperations, and (3) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was undertaken for patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery from 2011 to 2017. Only patients with UIV at T7 or below were included. The primary exposure variables were UIV tilt angle (the angle of the UIV inferior endplate and the horizontal) and UIV screw angle (the angle of the UIV screws and superior endplate). Multivariable logistic regression included age, body mass index, osteopenia/osteoporosis, postoperative sagittal vertical axis, postoperative pelvic-incidence lumbar lordosis mismatch, UIV tilt angle, and UIV screw angle. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen patients underwent adult spinal deformity surgery with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. A total of 41 patients (35.0%) had PJK and 26 (22.2%) had PJF. (1) UIV tilt angle: 96 (82.1%) had lordotic UIV tilt angles, 6 (5.1%) were neutral, and 15 (12.8%) were kyphotic. (2) UIV screw angle: 38 (32.5%) had cranially directed screws, 4 (3.4%) were neutral, and 75 (64.1%) were caudally directed. Both lordotic-angled UIV endplate (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.01-1.12, and P = 0.020) and cranially directed screws (OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.07-1.33, and P < 0.001) were associated with higher odds of PJK, with a more pronounced effect of UIV screw angle compared with UIV tilt angle (Wald test, 9.40 vs 4.42). Similar results were found for PJF. Neither parameter was associated with other mechanical complications, reoperations, or patient-reported outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: UIV screw angle was more strongly associated with development of PJK/F compared with tilt angle. Overall, these modifiable parameters are directly under the surgeon's control and can mitigate the development of PJK/F. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgeons may consider selecting a UIV with a neutral or kyphotically directed UIV tilt angle when performing ASD surgery with a UIV in the lower thoracic or lumbar region, as well as use UIV screw angles that are caudally directed, for the purprose of decreasing the risk of developing PJK/F.

Does Timing of Radiation Therapy Impact Wound Healing in Patients Undergoing Metastatic Spine Surgery?

INTRODUCTION: The impact of radiation on wound healing after metastatic spine surgery remains an active area of research. In patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery, we sought to (1) assess the relationship between preoperative and/or postoperative radiation on wound complications, and (2) evaluate the relationship between the timing of postoperative radiation and wound complications. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective, cohort study of patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery was conducted from 2010 to 2021. The primary exposure variable was the use/timing of radiation. Radiation included both external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Patients were trichotomized into the following groups: (1) preoperative radiation only, (2) postoperative radiation only, and (3) no radiation. The primary outcome variable was wound complications, which was defined as dehiscence requiring reoperation, infection requiring antibiotics, or infection requiring surgical debridement. Multivariable logistic/linear regression controlled for age, tumor size, primary organ of origin, and the presence of other organ metastases. RESULTS: A total of 207 patients underwent surgery for extradural spinal metastasis. Participants were divided into three groups: preoperative RT only (N = 29), postoperative RT only (N = 91), and no RT (N = 178). Patients who received postoperative RT only and no RT were significantly older than patients who received preoperative RT only (p = 0.009) and were less likely to be white (p < 0.001). No other significant differences were found in basic demographics, tumor characteristics, or intraoperative variables. Wound-related complications occurred in two (6.9%) patients with preoperative RT only, four patients (4.4%) in postoperative RT only, and 11 (6.2%) patients with no RT, with no significant difference among the three groups (p = 0.802). No significant difference was found in wound-related complications, reoperation, and time to wound complications between patients with preoperative RT only and no RT, and between postoperative RT only and no RT (p > 0.05). Among the postoperative-RT-only group, no difference in wound complications was seen between those receiving SBRT (5.6%) and EBRT (4.1%) (p > 0.999). However, patients who received preoperative RT only had a longer time to wound complications in comparison to those who received postoperative RT only (43.5 ± 6.3 vs. 19.7 ± 3.8, p = 0.004). Regarding timing of postoperative RT, the mean (SD) time to RT was 28.7 ± 10.0 days, with a median of 28.7 (21-38) days. No significant difference was found in time to postoperative RT between patients with and without wound complications (32.9 ± 12.3 vs. 29.0 ± 9.7 days, p = 0.391). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery, a history of previous RT or postoperative RT did not significantly affect wound complications. However, those with previous RT prior to surgery had a longer time to wound complications than patients undergoing postoperative RT only. Moreover, timing of RT had no impact on wound complications, indicating that earlier radiation may be safely employed to optimize tumor control without fear of compromising wound healing.

Does Elective Admission vs. Emergency Department Presentation Affect Surgical Outcomes in Metastatic Spine Surgery?

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 20% of patients with metastatic spine disease develop symptomatic spinal cord compression, and these patients can present urgently to the emergency department (ED) or, in a more organized fashion, to a clinic. In a cohort of patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the rate of ED presentation, (2) identify preoperative and perioperative risk factors associated with ED presentation, and (3) evaluate whether ED vs. clinic presentation impacts long-term outcomes. METHODS: A single-institution, multi-surgeon, retrospective cohort study was undertaken of patients undergoing metastatic spinal tumor surgery between 02/2010 and 01/2021. The primary exposure variable was presentation setting, dichotomized to the ED vs. clinic. The primary outcomes were postoperative functional status, measured with the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and McCormick Scale (MMS), local recurrence (LR), and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included complications and readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients underwent metastatic spine surgery (51.7% ED vs. 48.3% clinic). Those presenting to the ED had higher rates of smoking (21.7% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.02), were more likely to have 2+ comorbidities (47.2% vs. 32.7%, p = 0.011), and were more likely to have public insurance (43.5% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.043). Preoperative KPS was lower in ED patients (p < 0.001), while the Bilsky score was higher (p = 0.049). ED patients had higher rates of oligometastatic disease (p = 0.049), higher total decompressed levels (p = 0.041), and higher rates of costotransversectomy (p = 0.031) compared to clinic patients. Length of stay was significantly longer for ED patients (7.7 ± 6.1 vs. 6.1 ± 5.8 days, p = 0.020), and they were less likely to be discharged home (52.2% vs. 69.3%, p = 0.025). ED presentation was significantly associated with shorter overall survival (HR =1.53 95% CI = 1.13-2.08, p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Of patients undergoing metastatic spine disease, approximately half presented through the ED vs. clinic. ED patients had higher rates of smoking, public insurance, and higher Bilsky score. ED patients also underwent more extensive surgery, had longer LOS, were less likely discharged home, and most importantly, had a shorter overall survival. These results suggest that initial presentation for patients undergoing surgery for metastatic spine disease significantly impacts outcomes, and signs/symptoms of metastatic spine disease should be recognized as soon as possible to prevent ED presentation.

Stopping at C2 Versus C3/4 in Elective Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: A 5-Year Follow-up Study.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) with a minimum of 5-year follow-up, we sought to compare reoperation rates between patients with an upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) of C2 versus C3/4. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The long-term outcomes of choosing between C2 versus C3/4 as the UIV in PCLF remain unclear. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study from a prospective registry was conducted of patients undergoing elective, degenerative PCLF from December 2010 to June 2018. The primary exposure was UIV of C2 versus C3/4. The primary outcome was reoperation. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for age, smoking, diabetes, and fusion to the thoracic spine. RESULTS: Of the 68 patients who underwent PCLF with 5-year follow-up, 27(39.7%) had a UIV of C2, and 41(60.3%) had a UIV of either C3/4. Groups had similar duration of symptoms (P=0.743), comorbidities (P>0.999), and rates of instrumentation to the thoracic spine (70.4% vs. 53.7%, P=0.210). The C2 group had significantly longer operative time (231.8±65.9 vs. 181.6±44.1 mins, P<0.001) and more fused segments (5.9±1.8 vs. 4.2±0.9, P<0.001). Reoperation rate was lower in the C2 group compared with C3/4 (7.4% vs. 19.5%), though this did not reach statistical significance (P=0.294). Multivariable logistic regression showed increased odds of reoperation for the C3/4 group compared with the C2 group (OR=3.29, 95%CI=0.59-18.11, P=0.170), though statistical significance was not reached. Similarly, the C2 group had a lower rate of instrumentation failure (7.4% vs. 12.2%, P=0.694) and adjacent segment disease/disk herniation (0% vs. 7.3%, P=0.271), though neither trend attained statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a UIV of C2 had less than half the number of reoperations and less adjacent segment disease, though neither trend was statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, whether a clinically meaningful difference exists between UIV of C2 versus C3/4 should be validated in larger samples with long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-3.

Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: An Umbrella Review and a Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Whether endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) versus open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) has superior outcomes remains a controversial topic. Therefore, we sought to perform an umbrella review and meta-analysis to compare ECTR and OCTR with regards to (1) postoperative functional ability, (2) operative outcomes, and (3) time to return to work. METHODS: A PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane database search was conducted for all meta-analyses comparing ECTR and OCTR performed between 2000 and 2022 in accordance to PRISMA and Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for umbrella reviews. The primary outcomes were as follows: (1) functional ability-symptoms severity, postoperative grip strength, postoperative pinch strength, 2-point discrimination, and pain; (2) operative outcomes-operation time, total complications, nerve injury, and scar-related complication; and (3) time to return to work. Quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. Pooled analysis was performed to compare several clinical outcome measures between groups, depending on the availability of data using Review Manager Version 5.2.11. RESULTS: A total of 9 meta-analyses were included, 5 were of high quality and 4 were moderate quality. For functional ability, ECTR was associated with better pinch strength after 3 months (0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.00, 1.40, P = 0.05) and 6 months (0.77, 95% CI = 0.14, 1.40, P = 0.02, I2 = 84%). For return to work, OCTR was associated with longer return to work compared with ECTR (-10.89, 95% CI = -15.14, -6.64, P < 0.00001, I2= 83%). There were no significant differences between OCTR and ECTR in the hand function, symptom severity, grip strength, pain, operation time, and total complications. CONCLUSIONS: In an umbrella review and meta-analysis of ECTR versus OCTR, ECTR was associated with a higher pinch strength, and a shorter time to return to work. Differences in major complications, such as nerve injury, were unclear due to statistical inconsistency and bias.

Safety of early discharge after elective lumbar spine surgery with subfascial drains and association with significant reduction in length of stay.

OBJECTIVE: After lumbar spine surgery, postoperative drain removal often delays discharge. Whether inpatient drain removal reduces the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) or hematoma remains controversial. Therefore, in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery, the authors sought to determine the impact of inpatient versus outpatient drain removal on the following variables: 1) length of hospital stay (LOS), and 2) postoperative complications. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study in which the authors used prospectively collected data of patients undergoing primary, elective, 1- or 2-level lumbar spine decompression and/or fusion was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. Patients with intraoperative or postoperative CSF leaks were excluded. The primary exposure variable was inpatient versus outpatient drain removal. The primary outcome was LOS, and secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, including 90-day postoperative SSI or hematoma. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed, controlling for age, body mass index, instrumentation, number of levels, antibiotics at discharge, and surgeons involved. RESULTS: Of 483 patients included, 325 (67.3%) had inpatient drain removal and 158 (32.7%) had outpatient drain removal. Patients with outpatient drain removal were significantly younger (58.6 ± 12.4 vs 61.2 ± 13.2 years, p = 0.040); more likely to have 1-level surgery (75.9% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001); and less likely to receive instrumentation (50.6% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, patients with outpatient drain removal had a shorter LOS (0.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 1.6 days, p < 0.001); were more likely to be discharged home (98.1% vs 92.3%, p = 0.015); were more likely to be discharged on antibiotics (76.6% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001); were less likely to be on opioids (32.3% vs 88.3%, p < 0.001); and were more likely to have Jackson-Pratt compared to Hemovac drains (96.2% vs 34.5%, p < 0.001). No difference was found in SSI (3.7% vs 3.8%, p > 0.999) or hematoma (0.9% vs 0.6%, p > 0.999), as well as reoperation or readmission due to SSI or hematoma. On multivariable regression, outpatient drain removal was significantly associated with shorter LOS (ß = -1.15, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.73, p < 0.001). No association was found with SSI/hematoma (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient drain removal after elective lumbar spine surgery was associated with a significantly decreased LOS without a significant increase in postoperative SSI or hematoma. Although the choice of drain removal and the LOS may be subject to surgeons' preference, these results may support the feasibility and safety of outpatient drain removal, and the potential cost savings resulting from shortened hospital stays. Drawbacks may exist regarding added burden to the patient and the surgeon's team to accommodate 1-week follow-up appointments for drain removal.

Spinopelvic fixation failure in the adult spinal deformity population: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite modern fixation techniques, spinopelvic fixation failure (SPFF) after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery ranges from 4.5 to 38.0%, with approximately 50% requiring reoperation. Compared to other well-studied complications after ASD surgery, less is known about the incidence and predictors of SPFF. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: Given the high rates of SPFF and reoperation needed to treat it, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to report the incidence and failure mechanisms of SPF after ASD surgery. MATERIALS/METHODS: The literature search was executed across four databases: Medline via PubMed and Ovid, SPORTDiscus via EBSCO, Cochrane Library via Wiley, and Scopus. Study inclusion criteria were patients undergoing ASD surgery with spinopelvic instrumentation, report rates of SPFF and type of failure mechanism, patients over 18 years of age, minimum 1-year follow-up, and cohort or case-control studies. From each study, we collected general demographic information (age, gender, and body mass index), primary/revision, type of ASD, and mode of failure (screw loosening, rod breakage, pseudarthrosis, screw failure, SI joint pain, screw protrusion, set plug dislodgment, and sacral fracture) and recorded the overall rate of SPF as well as failure rate for each type. For the assessment of failure rate, we required a minimum of 12 months follow-up with radiographic assessment. RESULTS: Of 206 studies queried, 14 met inclusion criteria comprising 3570 ASD patients who underwent ASD surgery with pelvic instrumentation (mean age 65.5 ± 3.6 years). The mean SPFF rate was 22.1% (range 3-41%). Stratification for type of failure resulted in a mean SPFF rate of 23.3% for the pseudarthrosis group; 16.5% for the rod fracture group; 13.5% for the iliac screw loosening group; 7.3% for the SIJ pain group; 6.1% for the iliac screw group; 3.6% for the set plug dislodgement group; 1.1% for the sacral fracture group; and 1% for the iliac screw prominence group. CONCLUSION: The aggregate rate of SPFF after ASD surgery is 22.1%. The most common mechanisms of failure were pseudarthrosis, rod fracture, and iliac screw loosening. Studies of SPFF remain heterogeneous, and a consistent definition of what constitutes SPFF is needed. This study may enable surgeons to provide patient specific constructs with pelvic fixation constructs to minimize this risk of failure.

Who Can Be Discharged Home after Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery?

Introduction: After adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, patients often require postoperative rehabilitation at an inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) center or a skilled nursing facility (SNF). However, home discharge is often preferred by patients and hsas been shown to decrease costs. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we sought to (1) report the incidence of discharge to home, (2) determine the factors significantly associated with discharge to home in the form of a simple scoring system, and (3) evaluate the impact of discharge disposition on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was undertaken for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and at least 2-year follow-up. Exposure variables included preoperative, perioperative, and radiographic data. The primary outcome was discharge status (dichotomized as home vs. IPR/SNF). Secondary outcomes included PROMs, such as the numeric rating scales (NRSs) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. A subanalysis comparing IPR to SNF discharge was conducted. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: Of 221 patients undergoing ASD surgery with a mean age of 63.6 ± 17.6, 112 (50.6%) were discharged home, 71 (32.2%) were discharged to an IPR center, and 38 (17.2%) were discharged to an SNF. Patients discharged home were significantly younger (55.7 ± 20.1 vs. 71.8 ± 9.1, p < 0.001), had lower rate of 2+ comorbidities (38.4% vs. 45.0%, p = 0.001), and had less hypertension (57.1% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, patients who were discharged home had significantly fewer levels instrumented (10.0 ± 3.0 vs. 11.0 ± 3.4 levels, p = 0.030), shorter operative times (381.4 ± 139.9 vs. 461.6 ± 149.8 mins, p < 0.001), less blood loss (1101.0 ± 977.8 vs. 1739.7 ± 1332.9 mL, p < 0.001), and shorter length of stay (5.4 ± 2.8 vs. 9.3 ± 13.9 days, p < 0.001). Radiographically, preoperative SVA (9.1 ± 6.5 vs. 5.2 ± 6.8 cm, p < 0.001), PT (27.5 ± 11.1° vs. 23.4 ± 10.8°, p = 0.031), and T1PA (28.9 ± 12.7° vs. 21.6 ± 13.6°, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients who were discharged to an IPR center/SNF. Additionally, the operating surgeon also significantly influenced the disposition status (p < 0.001). A scoring system of the listed factors was proposed and was validated using univariate logistic regression (OR = 1.55, 95%CI = 1.34-1.78, p < 0.001) and ROC analysis, which revealed a cutoff value of > 6 points as a predictor of non-home discharge (AUC = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.68-0.80, p < 0.001, sensitivity = 63.3%, specificity = 74.1%). The factors in the scoring system were age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, TIL ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15°. When comparing IPR (n = 71) vs. SNF (n = 38), patients discharged to an SNF were significantly older (74.4 ± 8.6 vs. 70.4 ± 9.1, p = 0.029) and were more likely to be female (89.5% vs. 70.4%, p = 0.024). Conclusions: Approximately 50% of patients were discharged home after ASD surgery. A simple scoring system based on age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, total instrumented levels ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15° was proposed to predict non-home discharge. These findings may help guide postoperative expectations and resource allocation after ASD surgery.

Earlier Radiation Is Associated with Improved 1-Year Survival After Metastatic Spine Tumor Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery, we sought to 1) report time to postoperative radiation therapy (RT), 2) describe the predictive factors of time to postoperative RT, and 3) determine if earlier postoperative RT is associated with improved local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was undertaken of all patients undergoing spine surgery for extradural metastatic disease and receiving RT within 3 months postoperatively between January 2010 and January 2021. Time to postoperative RT was dichotomized at <1 month versus 1-3 months. The primary outcomes were LR, OS, and 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes were wound complication, Karnofsky Performance Status, and modified McCormick Scale (MMS) score. Regression analyses controlled for age, body mass index, tumor size, preoperative RT, preoperative/postoperative chemotherapy, and type of RT. RESULTS: Of 76 patients undergoing spinal metastasis surgery and receiving postoperative RT within 3 months, 34 (44.7%) received RT within 1 month and 42 (55.2%) within 1-3 months. Patients with larger tumor size (ß = -3.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.59 to -0.57; P = 0.021) or new neurologic deficits (ß = -16.21; 95% CI, -32.21 to -0.210; P = 0.047) had a shorter time to RT. No significant association was found between time to RT and LR or OS on multivariable logistic/Cox regression. However, patients who received RT between 1 and 3 months had a lower odds of 1-year survival compared with those receiving RT within 1 month (odds ratio, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.74; P = 0.022). Receiving RT within 1 month versus 1-3 months was not associated with wound complications (7.1% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.556) (odds ratio, 4.40; 95% CI, 0.40-118.0; P = 0.266) or Karnofsky Performance Status/modified McCormick Scale score. CONCLUSIONS: Spine surgeons, oncologists, and radiation oncologists should make every effort to start RT within 1 month to improve 1-year survival after metastatic spine tumor surgery.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy With Fusion in Patients With Cervical Spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate preoperative differences in racial and socioeconomic factors in patients undergoing laminoplasty (LP) versus laminectomy and fusion (LF) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DCM is prevalent in the United States, requiring surgical intervention to prevent neurological degeneration. While LF is utilized more frequently, LP is an emerging alternative. Previous studies have demonstrated similar neurological outcomes for both procedures. However, treatment selection is primarily at the discretion of the surgeon and may be influenced by social determinants of health that impact surgical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Quality Outcome Database (QOD), a national spine registry, was queried for adult patients who underwent either LP or LF for the management of DCM. Covariates associated with socioeconomic status, pain and disability, and demographic and medical history were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess patient factors associated with undergoing LP versus LF. RESULTS: Of 1673 DCM patients, 157 (9.4%) underwent LP and 1516 (90.6%) underwent LF. A significantly greater proportion of LP patients had private insurance (P<0.001), a greater than high school level education (P<0.001), were employed (P<0.001), and underwent primary surgery (P<0.001). LP patients reported significantly lower baseline neck/arm pain and Neck Disability Index (P<0.001). In the multivariate regression model, lower baseline neck pain [odds ratio (OR)=0.915, P=0.001], identifying as non-Caucasian (OR=2.082, P<0.032), being employed (OR=1.592, P=0.023), and having a greater than high school level education (OR=1.845, P<0.001) were associated with undergoing LP rather than LF. CONCLUSIONS: In DCM patients undergoing surgery, factors associated with patients undergoing LP versus LF included lower baseline neck pain, non-Caucasian race, higher education, and employment. While symptomatology may influence the decision to choose LP over LF, there may also be socioeconomic factors at play. The trend of more educated and employed patients undergoing LP warrants further investigation.

Adult versus adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: While the natural history of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and adult idiopathic scoliosis (AdIS) is well documented in the literature, the impact of age on postoperative outcomes remains an active area of research. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patients undergoing surgery for AIS and AdIS with respect to: (1) postoperative Cobb correction, (2) perioperative variables, and (3) postoperative complications. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. INCLUSION CRITERIA: studies published between 2002 and 2022, retrospective, and comparing AIS vs. AdIS patients undergoing deformity surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative Cobb correction. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, total instrumented levels, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Random-effects models were performed according to the method of DerSimonian and Laird. RESULTS: Of 190 identified articles, 14 fit the inclusion criteria. A total of 1788 patients were included, 1275(71.3%) with AIS, and 513(28.7%) with AdIS. There was a significant age difference between AIS and AdIS (15.3 vs. 36.7 years, mean difference (MD) = 21.3 years, 95%CI = 14.3-28.4,p < 0.001). Mean postoperative Cobb percentage correction was reported in 5 articles and was significantly higher in AIS (68.4%) vs. AdIS (61.4%) (MD = -7.2, 95%CI = -11.6,-2.7,p = 0.001). EBL was not significantly different between AIS and AdIS (695.6 mL vs 817.7 mL,p = 0.204). Furthermore, no difference was found in operative time (MD = 37.9 min,95%CI = -10.7;86.6,p = 0.127), total instrumented level (MD = 0.88,95%CI = -0.7,2.4,p = 0.273), and LOS (MD = 0.5, 95%CI = -0.2;1.2, p = 0.188). Four articles reported postoperative complications in AIS vs AdIS, with no difference in neurological deficit, instrumentation-related complications, and medical complications. CONCLUSION: AIS patients had better radiographic correction compared to AdIS. Though no difference was found in perioperative outcomes and complications, these findings emphasize the importance of counseling patients regarding the optimal timing of surgical correction.

Impact of occupational characteristics on return to work for employed patients after elective cervical spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In a cohort of employed patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery with an uncomplicated postoperative course, the authors sought to determine the demographic, functional, and occupational characteristics associated with return to work (RTW) following surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was undertaken of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the Quality Outcomes Database. Study inclusion criteria were: 1) employed prior to surgery and planned to RTW, 2) no unplanned readmissions, 3) achieved 30% improvement on the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and 4) were satisfied with the surgical outcome at 3 or 12 months postoperatively. A multivariable Cox regression model was built using demographic, functional, operative, and occupational characteristic to predict time to RTW. RESULTS: Of 5110 included patients, 4788 (93.7%) returned to work within 12 months, with a median time of 35 (IQR 19-60) days. Patients who did RTW were significantly younger (51.3 ± 9.4 vs 55.8 ± 9.6 years, p < 0.001), more often underwent an anterior approach (85.8% vs 80.7%, p = 0.009), were significantly more privately insured (82.1% vs 64.0%, p < 0.001), and were less likely to have workers' disability insurance (6.7% vs 14.6%, p < 0.001) compared with patients who did not RTW. On multivariable Cox regression, demographic factors associated with a longer RTW were older age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p < 0.001) and Black race (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.81, p < 0.001). Male sex was associated with a shorter RTW time (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.26, p < 0.001). Regarding baseline functional status, worse preoperative NDI (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, p < 0.001) was associated with a longer RTW, whereas the absence of myelopathy was associated with a shorter RTW (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25, p < 0.001). Having a sedentary (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.65-1.99, p < 0.001), light-intensity (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.45-1.76, p < 0.001), and medium-intensity (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, p = 0.037) occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation at any time point. Heavy-intensity occupations were independently the strongest predictor of longer RTW. Similar predictors of shorter RTW were found in a subanalysis of occupation intensity and among operative approaches used. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective degenerative cervical spine surgery who had favorable surgical outcomes and planned to RTW before surgery, 94% had a successful RTW. Age was the strongest predictor of lower odds of RTW. Regarding time to RTW, having a sedentary, light-intensity, or medium-intensity occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation. These findings highlight the importance of considering the demographic and occupational characteristics when predicting postoperative RTW in patients with satisfactory surgical outcomes.

Combined Anterior-Posterior vs. Posterior-Only Approach in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Which Strategy Is Superior?

Introduction: Whether a combined anterior-posterior (AP) approach offers additional benefits over the posterior-only (P) approach in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery remains unknown. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we compared the combined AP vs. the P-only approach in: (1) preoperative/perioperative variables, (2) radiographic measurements, and (3) postoperative outcomes. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. The primary exposure was the operative approach: a combined AP approach or P alone. Postoperative outcomes included mechanical complications, reoperation, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), defined as 30% of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Multivariable linear regression was controlled for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Results: Among 238 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 34 (14.3%) patients underwent the AP approach and 204 (85.7%) underwent the P-only approach. The AP group consisted mostly of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1 (73.5%) and/or L4/L5 (38.0%). Preoperatively, the AP group had more previous fusions (64.7% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001), higher pelvic tilt (PT) (29.6 ± 11.6° vs. 24.6 ± 11.4°, p = 0.037), higher T1 pelvic angle (T1PA) (31.8 ± 12.7° vs. 24.0 ± 13.9°, p = 0.003), less L1-S1 lordosis (-14.7 ± 28.4° vs. -24.3 ± 33.4°, p < 0.039), less L4-S1 lordosis (-25.4 ± 14.7° vs. 31.6 ± 15.5°, p = 0.042), and higher sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (102.6 ± 51.9 vs. 66.4 ± 71.2 mm, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, the AP approach had longer operative time (553.9 ± 177.4 vs. 397.4 ± 129.0 min, p < 0.001), more interbodies placed (100% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001), and longer length of stay (8.4 ± 10.7 vs. 7.0 ± 9.6 days, p = 0.026). Radiographically, the AP group had more improvement in T1PA (13.4 ± 8.7° vs. 9.5 ± 8.6°, p = 0.005), L1-S1 lordosis (-14.3 ± 25.6° vs. -3.2 ± 20.2°, p < 0.001), L4-S1 lordosis (-4.7 ± 16.4° vs. 3.2 ± 13.7°, p = 0.008), and SVA (65.3 ± 44.8 vs. 44.8 ± 47.7 mm, p = 0.007). These outcomes remained statistically significant in the multivariable analysis controlling for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found in mechanical complications, reoperations, or MCID of PROMs. Conclusions: Preoperatively, patients undergoing the combined anterior-posterior approach had higher PT, T1PA, and SVA and lower L1-S1 and L4-S1 lordosis than the posterior-only approach. Despite increased operative time and length of stay, the anterior-posterior approach provided greater sagittal correction without any difference in mechanical complications or PROMs.

Impact of Unplanned Readmission on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Cervical Spine Surgery: A National Study of 13 355 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although risk factors for unplanned readmission after cervical spine surgery have been widely reported, less is known about how readmission itself affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Using the Quality Outcomes Database registry of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the impact of unplanned readmission on PROMs and (2) compare the effect of specific readmission reasons on PROMs. METHODS: An observational study was performed using a multi-institution, retrospective registry for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. The occurrence of 90-day unplanned readmission classified into medical, surgical, pain only, and no readmissions was the exposure variable. Outcome variables included 12-month PROMs of Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-neck/arm pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and patient dissatisfaction. Multivariable models predicting each PROM were built using readmission reasons controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and preoperative PROMs. RESULTS: Data from 13 355 patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery (82% anterior approach and 18% posterior approach) were analyzed. Unplanned readmission within 90 days of surgery occurred in 3.8% patients, including medical (1.6%), surgical (1.8%), and pain (0.3%). Besides medical reasons, wound infection/dehiscence was the most common reason for unplanned readmission for the total cohort (0.5%), dysphagia in the anterior approach (0.6%), and wound infection/dehiscence in the posterior approach (1.5%). Based on multivariable regression, surgical readmission was significantly associated with worse 12-month NDI, NRS-neck pain, NRS-arm pain, EQ-5D, and higher odds of dissatisfaction. Pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month NDI and NRS-neck pain scores, and worse dissatisfaction. For specific readmission reasons, pain, surgical site infection/wound dehiscence, hematoma/seroma, revision surgery, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were significantly associated with worsened 12-month PROMs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, 90-day unplanned surgical and pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month PROMs compared with patients with medical readmissions and no readmissions.

Prospective Validation of the Spinal Cord Shape Classification System in the Prediction of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Data Loss: Assessing the Risk of Spinal Cord Data Loss During Spinal Deformity Correction.

BACKGROUND: The Spinal Cord Shape Classification System (SCSCS) class has been associated with spinal cord monitoring data loss during spinal deformity surgery. The objective of the current study was to prospectively validate the SCSCS as a predictor of spinal cord monitoring data loss during spinal deformity surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of consecutive patients who were undergoing primary deformity surgery at a single institution from 2018 to 2023 and whose major curve was in the spinal cord region was undertaken. Spinal cord morphology at the apex of the major curve on preoperative axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was used to categorize patients into 3 spinal cord shape types based on the SCSCS. The primary outcome was intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) data loss related to spinal cord dysfunction. Demographics and surgical and radiographic variables were compared between patients with IONM data loss and those without loss. Predictors of IONM loss were determined using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients (168 adult, 88 pediatric) were included and were separated into 3 SCSCS types: 110 (43.0%) with Type I, 105 (41.0%) with Type II, and 41 (16.0%) with Type III. IONM loss was observed in 30 (11.7%) of the 256 patients, including 7 (6.4%) of 110 with SCSCS Type I, 7 (6.7%) of 105 with Type II, and 16 (39.0%) of 41 with Type III. IONM loss was associated with SCSCS Type III, the preoperative deformity angular ratio, performance of 3-column osteotomies, greater operative time, greater transfusion volume, and greater postoperative sagittal corrections. SCSCS type was the strongest independent predictor of IONM data loss. SCSCS Type III had the greatest odds of IONM loss (odds ratio [OR] = 6.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45 to 18.23 compared with Types I and II combined). The overall predictive performance with respect to IONM loss (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.827) was considered excellent. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective cohort study of patients undergoing spinal deformity correction confirmed that patients with a Type-III spinal cord shape had greater odds of IONM loss. Inclusion of the SCSCS in preoperative risk stratification and intraoperative management of spinal deformity corrective surgery is recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.