Surgical appropriateness nudges: Developing behavioral science nudges to integrate appropriateness criteria into the decision making of spine surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists in surgeon decision making. In response, multiple specialty societies have established criteria for the appropriate use of spine surgery. Yet few strategies exist to facilitate routine use of appropriateness criteria by surgeons. Behavioral science nudges are increasingly used to enhance decision making by clinicians. We sought to design "surgical appropriateness nudges" to support routine use of appropriateness criteria for degenerative lumbar scoliosis and spondylolisthesis. METHODS: The work reflected Stage I of the NIH Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development and involved an iterative, multi-method approach, emphasizing qualitative methods. Study sites included two large referral centers for spine surgery. We recruited spine surgeons from both sites for two rounds of focus groups. To produce preliminary nudge prototypes, we examined sources of variation in surgeon decision making (Focus Group 1) and synthesized existing knowledge of appropriateness criteria, behavioral science nudge frameworks, electronic tools, and the surgical workflow. We refined nudge prototypes via feedback from content experts, site leaders, and spine surgeons (Focus Group 2). Concurrently, we collected data on surgical practices and outcomes at study sites. We pilot tested the refined nudge prototypes among spine surgeons, and surveyed them about nudge applicability, acceptability, and feasibility (scale 1-5, 5 = strongly agree). RESULTS: Fifteen surgeons participated in focus groups, giving substantive input and feedback on nudge design. Refined nudge prototypes included: individualized surgeon score cards (frameworks: descriptive social norms/peer comparison/feedback), online calculators embedded in the EHR (decision aid/mapping), a multispecialty case conference (injunctive norms/social influence), and a preoperative check (reminders/ salience of information/ accountable justification). Two nudges (score cards, preop checks) incorporated data on surgeon practices and outcomes. Six surgeons pilot tested the refined nudges, and five completed the survey (83%). The overall mean score was 4.0 (standard deviation [SD] 0.5), with scores of 3.9 (SD 0.5) for applicability, 4.1 (SD 0.5) for acceptability, and 4.0 (SD 0.5), for feasibility. Conferences had the highest scores 4.3 (SD 0.6) and calculators the lowest 3.9 (SD 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral science nudges might be a promising strategy for facilitating incorporation of appropriateness criteria into the surgical workflow of spine surgeons. Future stages in intervention development will test whether these surgical appropriateness nudges can be implemented in practice and influence surgical decision making.

Primary anterior lumbar interbody fusion, with and without posterior instrumentation: a 1,377-patient cohort from a multicenter spine registry.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar interbody instrumentation techniques are common and effective surgical options for a variety of lumbar degenerative pathologies. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has become a versatile and powerful means of decompression, stabilization, and reconstruction. As an anterior only technique, the integrity of the posterior muscle and ligaments remain intact. Adding posterior instrumentation to ALIF is common and may confer benefits in terms of higher fusion rate but could contribute to adjacent segment degeneration due to additional rigidity. Large clinical studies comparing stand-alone ALIF with and without posterior supplementary fixation (ALIF+PSF) are lacking. PURPOSE: To compare rates of operative nonunion and adjacent segment disease (ASD) in ALIF with or without posterior instrumentation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent primary ALIF for lumbar degenerative pathology between levels L4 to S1 over a 12-year period. Exclusion criteria included trauma, cancer, infection, supplemental decompression, noncontiguous fusions, prior lumbar fusions, and other interbody devices. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reoperation for nonunion and ASD compared between ALIF only and ALIF+PSF. METHODS: Reoperations were modeled as time-to-events where the follow-up time was defined as the difference between the primary ALIF procedure and the date of the outcome of interest. Crude cumulative reoperation probabilities were reported at 5-years follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate risk of operative nonunion and for ASD adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: The study consisted of 1,377 cases; 307 ALIF only and 1070 ALIF+PSF. Mean follow-up time was 5.6 years. The 5-year crude nonunion incidence was 2.4% for ALIF only and 0.5% for ALIF+PSF; after adjustment for covariates, a lower operative nonunion risk was observed for ALIF+PSF (HR=0.22, 95% CI=0.06-0.76). Of the patients who are deemed potentially suitable for ALIF alone, one would need to add posterior instrumentation in 53 patients to prevent one case of operative nonunion at a 5-year follow-up (number needed to treat). Five-year operative ASD incidence was 4.3% for ALIF only and 6.2% for ALIF+PSF; with adjustments, no difference was observed between the cohorts (HR=0.96, 95% CI=0.54-1.71). CONCLUSIONS: While the addition of posterior instrumentation in ALIFs is associated with lower risk of operative nonunion compared with ALIF alone, operative nonunion is rare in both techniques (<5%). Accordingly, surgeons should evaluate the added risks associated with the addition of posterior instrumentation and reserve the supplemental posterior fixation for patients that might be at higher risk for operative nonunion. Rates of operative ASD were not statistically higher with the addition of posterior instrumentation suggesting concern regarding future risk of ASD perhaps should not play a role in considering supplemental posterior instrumentation in ALIF.

Variations in surgical practice and short-term outcomes for degenerative lumbar scoliosis and spondylolisthesis: do surgeon training and experience matter?

For diverse procedures, sizable geographic variation exists in rates and outcomes of surgery, including for degenerative lumbar spine conditions. Little is known about how surgeon training and experience are associated with surgeon-level variations in spine surgery practice and short-term outcomes. This retrospective observational analysis characterized variations in surgical operations for degenerative lumbar scoliosis or spondylolisthesis, two common age-related conditions. The study setting was two large spine surgery centers in one region during 2017-19. Using data (International Classification of Diseases-10th edition and current procedural terminology codes) extracted from electronic health record systems, we characterized surgeon-level variations in practice (use of instrumented fusion - a more extensive procedure that involves device-related risks) and short-term postoperative outcomes (major in-hospital complications and readmissions). Next, we tested for associations between surgeon training (specialty and spine fellowship) and experience (career stage and operative volume) and use of instrumented fusion as well as outcomes. Eighty-nine surgeons performed 2481 eligible operations. For the study diagnoses, spine surgeons exhibited substantial variation in operative volume, use of instrumented fusion, and postoperative outcomes. Among surgeons above the median operative volume, use of instrumented fusion ranged from 0% to >90% for scoliosis and 9% to 100% for spondylolisthesis, while rates of major in-hospital complications ranged from 0% to 25% for scoliosis and from 0% to 14% for spondylolisthesis. For scoliosis, orthopedic surgeons were more likely than neurosurgeons to perform instrumented fusion for scoliosis [49% vs. 33%, odds ratio (OR) = 2.3, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.3-4.2, P-value = .006] as were fellowship-trained surgeons (49% vs. 25%, OR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.6-5.8; P = .001). Fellowship-trained surgeons had lower readmission rates. Surgeons with higher operative volumes used instrumented fusion more often (OR = 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2, P < .05 for both diagnoses) and had lower rates of major in-hospital complications (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97; P = .006). Surgical practice can vary greatly for degenerative spine conditions, even within the same region and among colleagues at the same institution. Surgical specialty and subspecialty, in addition to recent operative volume, can be linked to variations in spine surgeons' practice patterns and outcomes. These findings reinforce the notion that residency and fellowship training may contribute to variation and present important opportunities to optimize surgical practice over the course of surgeons' careers. Future efforts to reduce unexplained variation in surgical practice could test interventions focused on graduate medical education. Graphical Abstract.

Lateral Mass Screws Versus Pedicle Screws at C7: Reoperation Rates for Operative Adjacent Segment Disease and Nonunion in Posterior Cervical Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in reoperation rates for symptomatic adjacent segment disease (operative ASD) and symptomatic nonunions (operative nonunions) in posterior cervical fusions (PCFs) stopping at C7 using either lateral mass screws (LMS) or cervical pedicle screws (CPS) at C7. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Stopping PCFs at C7 has been controversial because of the risks of adjacent segment disease or nonunions. The two commonly used fixation techniques at the C7 level are LMS and CPS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry identified a cohort of patients with cervical degenerative disk disease who underwent primary PCFs stopping at C7 with either LMS or CPS at C7. Demographic and operative data were extracted from the registry, and operative ASD and operative nonunions were adjudicated through chart review. Patients were followed until validated operative ASD or nonunion, membership termination, death, or end of study (March 31, 2022). Descriptive statistics and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were calculated for operative ASDs and operative nonunions. RESULTS: We found 481 patients with PCFs stopping at C7 with either LMS (n=347) or CPS (n=134) at C7 with an average follow-up time of 5.6 (±3.8) years, time to operative ASD of 3.0 (±2.8) years, and to operative nonunion of 1.2 (±0.7) years. There were 11 operative ASDs (LMS=8, CPS=3) and eight operative nonunions (LMS=4, CPS=4). There was no statistical difference between patients stopping at C7 with LMS versus CPS for operative ASDs (HR: 0.68, 95% CI=0.17-2.77, P =0.60) or operative nonunions (HR: 2.09, 95% CI=0.45-8.58, P =0.37). CONCLUSION: A large cohort of patients with PCFs stopping at C7 with an average follow-up of > 5 years found no statistical difference in reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) or operative nonunion using either LMS or CPS at C7.

Increased risks of vertebral fracture and reoperation in primary spinal fusion patients who test positive for osteoporosis by Biomechanical Computed Tomography analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: While osteoporosis is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in spinal fusion patients, diagnosing osteoporosis reliably in this population has been challenging due to degenerative changes and spinal deformities. Addressing that challenge, biomechanical computed tomography analysis (BCT) is a CT-based diagnostic test for osteoporosis that measures both bone mineral density and bone strength (using finite element analysis) at the spine; CT scans taken for spinal evaluation or previous care can be repurposed for the analysis. PURPOSE: Assess the effectiveness of BCT for preoperatively identifying spinal fusion patients with osteoporosis who are at high risk of reoperation or vertebral fracture. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study in a multi-center integrated managed care system using existing data from patient medical records and imaging archives. PATIENT SAMPLE: We studied a randomly sampled subset of all adult patients who had any type of primary thoracic (T4 or below) or lumbar fusion between 2005 and 2018. For inclusion, patients with accessible study data needed a preop CT scan without intravenous contrast that contained images (before any instrumentation) of the upper instrumented vertebral level. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reoperation for any reason (primary outcome) or a newly documented vertebral fracture (secondary outcome) occurring up to 5 years after the primary surgery. METHODS: All study data were extracted using available coded information and CT scans from the medical records. BCT was performed at a centralized lab blinded to the clinical outcomes; patients could test positive for osteoporosis based on either low values of bone strength (vertebral strength ≤ 4,500 N women or 6,500 N men) and/or bone mineral density (vertebral trabecular bone mineral density ≤ 80 mg/cm3 both sexes). Cox proportional hazard ratios were adjusted by age, presence of obesity, and whether the fusion was long (four or more levels fused) or short (3 or fewer levels fused); Kaplan-Meier survival was compared by the log rank test. This project was funded by NIH (R44AR064613) and all physician co-authors and author 1 received salary support from their respective departments. Author 6 is employed by, and author 1 has equity in and consults for, the company that provides the BCT test; the other authors declare no conflicts of interest. RESULTS: For the 469 patients analyzed (298 women, 171 men), median follow-up time was 44.4 months, 11.1% had a reoperation (median time 14.5 months), and 7.7% had a vertebral fracture (median time 2.0 months). Overall, 25.8% of patients tested positive for osteoporosis and no patients under age 50 tested positive. Compared to patients without osteoporosis, those testing positive were at almost five-fold higher risk for vertebral fracture (adjusted hazard ratio 4.7, 95% confidence interval = 2.2-9.7; p<.0001 Kaplan-Meier survival). Of those positive-testing patients, those who tested positive concurrently for low values of both bone strength and bone mineral density (12.6% of patients overall) were at almost four-fold higher risk for reoperation (3.7, 1.9-7.2; Kaplan-Meier survival p<.0001); the remaining positive-testing patients (those who tested positive for low values of either bone strength or bone mineral density but not both) were not at significantly higher risk for reoperation (1.6, 0.7-3.7) but were for vertebral fracture (4.3, 1.9-10.2). For both clinical outcomes, risk remained high for patients who underwent short or long fusion. CONCLUSION: In a real-world clinical setting, BCT was effective in identifying primary spinal fusion patients aged 50 or older with osteoporosis who were at elevated risks of reoperation and vertebral fracture.

No Difference in Reoperation Rates for Adjacent Segment Disease (Operative Adjacent Segment Disease) in Posterior Cervical Fusions Stopping at C7 Versus T1/T2: A Cohort of 875 Patients-Part 1.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with chart review. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a difference in reoperation rates for adjacent segment disease ([ASD] operative ASD) in posterior cervical fusions (PCFs) that stop at -C7 versus -T1/T2. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are surgical treatment challenges to the anatomical complexities of the cervicothoracic junction. Current posterior cervical spine surgery is based on the belief that ASD occurs if fusions are stopped at C7 although there is varying evidence to support this assumption. METHODS: Patients were followed until validated reoperations for ASD, membership termination, death, or March 31, 2020. Descriptive statistics and 5-year crude incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals for operative ASD for PCF ending at -C7 or -T1/T2 were reported. Time-dependent crude and adjusted multivariable Cox-Proportional Hazards models were used to evaluate operative ASD rates with adjustment for covariates or risk change estimates more than 10%. RESULTS: We identified 875 patients with PCFs (beginning at C3 or C4 or C5 or C6) stopping at either -C7 (n = 470) or -T1/T2 (n = 405) with average follow-up time of 4.6 (±3.3) years and average time to operative ASD of 2.7 (±2.8) years. Crude overall incidence rates for stopping at -C7 (2.12% [1.02%-3.86%]) and -T1/T2 (2.48% [1.25%-4.40%]) were comparable with no statistical difference in risk (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval = 0.61-3.53, P = 0.39). In addition, we observed no differences in the probability of operative ASD in competing risk time-dependent models (Grey test P  = 0.448). CONCLUSION: A large cohort of 875 patients with PCFs stopping at -C7 or -T1/T2 with an average follow-up of more than 4 years found no statistical difference in reoperation rates for ASD (operative ASD).Level of Evidence: 3.

No difference in reoperation rates for nonunions (operative nonunions) in posterior cervical fusions stopping at C7 versus T1/2: a cohort of 875 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The challenges of posterior cervical fusions (PCFs) at the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) are widely known, including the development of adjacent-segment disease by stopping fusions at C7. One solution has been to cross the CTJ (T1/T2) rather than stopping at C7. This approach may have undue consequences, including increased reoperations for symptomatic nonunion (operative nonunion). The authors sought to investigate if there is a difference in operative nonunion in PCFs that stop at C7 versus T1/T2. METHODS: A retrospective analysis identified patients from the authors' spine registry (Kaiser Permanente) who underwent PCFs with caudal fusion levels at C7 and T1/T2. Demographics, diagnoses, operative times, lengths of stay, and reoperations were extracted from the registry. Operative nonunion was adjudicated via chart review. Patients were followed until validated operative nonunion, membership termination, death, or end of study (March 31, 2020). Descriptive statistics and 2-year crude incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals for operative nonunion for PCFs stopping at C7 or T1/T2 were reported. Time-dependent crude and adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate operative nonunion rates. RESULTS: The authors identified 875 patients with PCFs (beginning at C3, C4, C5, or C6) stopping at either C7 (n = 470) or T1/T2 (n = 405) with a mean follow-up time of 4.6 ± 3.3 years and a mean time to operative nonunion of 0.9 ± 0.6 years. There were 17 operative nonunions, and, after adjustment for age at surgery and smoking status, the cumulative incidence rates were similar between constructs stopping at C7 and those that extended to T1/T2 (C7: 1.91% [95% CI 0.88%-3.60%]; T1/T2: 1.98% [95% CI 0.86%-3.85%]). In the crude model and model adjusted for age at surgery and smoking status, no difference in risk for constructs extended to T1/T2 compared to those stopping at C7 was found (adjusted HR 1.09 [95% CI 0.42-2.84], p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In one of the largest cohort of patients with PCFs stopping at C7 or T1/T2 with an average follow-up of > 4 years, the authors found no statistically significant difference in reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunion (operative nonunion). This finding shows that there is no added risk of operative nonunion by extending PCFs to T1/T2 or stopping at C7.

PLF Versus PLIF and the Fate of L5-S1: Analysis of Operative Nonunion Rates Among 3065 Patients with Lumbar Fusions from a Regional Spine Registry.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with chart review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions (operative nonunion rates) between posterolateral fusions with pedicle screws (PLFs) and posterior interbody fusion with pedicle screws (PLIFs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although radiographic nonunions in PLFs and PLIFs are well documented in the literature, there is no consensus on which technique has lower nonunions. Since some radiographic nonunions may be asymptomatic, a more clinically useful measure is operative nonunions, of which there is minimal research. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry, identified adult patients (≥18 years' old) who had elective single and multilevel PLFs and PLIFs. Descriptive statistics and 2-year incidence rates for operative nonunions were calculated by fusion-level (1-3), fusion type (PLF vs. PLIF), and levels fused (L3 to S1). Time-dependent multivariable Cox-Proportional Hazards regression was used to evaluate nonunion reoperation rates with adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 3065 patients with PLFs (71.6%) and PLIFs (28.4%). Average age was 65.0 ±â€Š11.7, average follow-up time was 4.8 ±â€Š3.1 years, and average time to operative nonunion was 1.6 (±1.3) years. Single and multilevel incidence rates for nonunions after PLF versus PLIF were similar except for three-level fusions (2.9% [95% confidence interval, CI = 1.0-6.7] vs. 7.1% [95% CI = 0.2-33.9]). In adjusted models, there was no difference in risk of operative nonunions in PLIF compared to PLF (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.8, 95% CI = 0.4-1.6); however, patients with L5-S1 constructs with PLFs had 2.8 times the risk of operative nonunion compared to PLIFs (PLF: HR = 2.8, 95% CI = 1.3-6.2; PLIF: HR = 1.5, 95% CI = 0.4-5.1). CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients with >4 years of follow-up, we found no difference in operative nonunions between PLF and PLIF except for constructs that included L5-S1 in which the risk of nonunion was limited to PLF patients.Level of Evidence: 3.

Exclusion criteria for dysphagia for outpatient single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using inpatient data from a spine registry.

OBJECTIVES: Reported incidence of dysphagia after ACDFs has been as high as 79%. There, however, have been no studies that have specifically looked at developing a criteria for reducing the incidence of dysphagia for outpatient ACDFs. The aim of this study was to determine the risks factors for significant dysphagia that will exclude patients from outpatient single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Kaiser Permanente Spine registry database, between January 2009 and September 2013, we identified all inpatients (there were no outpatients) who underwent primary elective one-level ACDFs. A cohort of patients were identified with in-hospital length of stay (LOS) > 48 h in which the reason for continued admission was primarily significant dysphagia (DG). Patient's demographics and intraoperative data (ACDF levels (upper [C2-3, C3-4], middle [C4-5, C5-6], lower [C6-7, C7-T1]), and operative times (<100, 100-199, ≥ 200, minutes)) was used to determine risk factors for dysphagia. RESULTS: We found 747 single-level ACDF cases with a cohort of 239 (32.0%) who met the criteria for dysphagia (DG) with > 48 h admission. The DG group and non-dysphagia group (NDG) had similar demographics. Diabetes was excluded from regression analysis due to the low frequency. Compared to the lower spine level (C5-6, C7-T1), the upper spine level (C2-3, C3-4) ACDF had a higher likelihood for dysphagia (OR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.35-3.68, p = 0.0016); no difference was found for middle spine level (C4-5, C5-6) ACDF. CONCLUSION: Single-level ACDF at the upper cervical spine (C2-3, C3-4) was found to be the only risk factor for dysphagia with LOS > 48 h based on inpatient data from a spine registry. Age, BMI category, gender, ASA classification, smoking, and operative time were not predictive factors. These findings should be used for excluding patients who undergo outpatient single-level ACDF surgery to reduce significant postoperative dysphagia.

Reoperation for Symptomatic Nonunions in Atlantoaxial (C1-C2) Fusions with and without Bone Morphogenetic Protein: A Cohort of 108 Patients with >2 Years Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions in atlantoaxial (C1-C2) fusions with or without bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) using data from a national spine registry and to analyze the different types of bone grafts used in the non-BMP group. METHODS: Data from the Kaiser Permanente spine registry were used to identify patients with C1-C2 fusions with >2 years follow-up. Patient characteristics, diagnosis, operative times, length of stay, and reoperations were extracted from the registry. The data set was divided into patients with and without BMP. Further analysis was made of the different types of non-BMP grafts as well as the instrumentation used. RESULTS: In our cohort, we found 58 patients (53.7%) with BMP and 50 patients (46.3%) without with an average follow-up time of 5 years (interquartile range, 2.04-8.49). The BMP versus non-BMP groups differed in admitting diagnosis, operative times, length of stay, and follow-up times. There were no reoperations for symptomatic nonunions in both groups. The non-BMP group included iliac crest graft (with or without allograft [+/-] allograft); lamina (+/- allograft); and allograft alone. CONCLUSIONS: Using one of the largest retrospective studies on C1-C2 fusions with and without BMP, we found no difference in reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions. For the non-BMP group, we found that lamina (+/- allograft) or allograft alone may also be just as effective as iliac crest graft (+/- allograft) in having no reoperations for symptomatic nonunions.

How does sagittal imbalance affect the appropriateness of surgical indications and selection of procedure in the treatment of degenerative scoliosis? Findings from the RAND/UCLA Appropriate Use Criteria study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS) is often associated with sagittal imbalance, which may affect patients' health outcomes before and after surgery. The appropriateness of surgery and preferred operative approaches has not been examined in detail for patients with DLS and sagittal imbalance. PURPOSE: The goals of this article were to describe what is currently known about the relationship between sagittal imbalance and health outcomes among patients with DLS and to determine how indications for surgery in patients with DLS differ when sagittal imbalance is present. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This study included a literature review and an expert panel using the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method. METHODS: To develop appropriate use criteria for DLS, researchers at the RAND Corporation recently employed the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, which involves a systematic review of the literature and multidisciplinary expert panel process. Experts reviewed a synopsis of published literature and rated the appropriateness of five common operative approaches for 260 different clinical scenarios. In the present work, we updated the literature review and compared panelists' ratings in scenarios where imbalance was present versus absent. This work was funded by the Collaborative Spine Research Foundation, a group of surgical specialty societies and device manufacturers. RESULTS: On the basis of 13 eligible studies that examined sagittal imbalance and outcomes in patients with DLS, imbalance was associated with worse functional status in the absence of surgery and worse symptoms and complications postoperatively. Panelists' ratings demonstrated a consistent pattern across the diverse clinical scenarios. In general, when imbalance was present, surgery was more likely to be appropriate or necessary, including in some situations where surgery would otherwise be inappropriate. For patients with moderate to severe symptoms and imbalance, a deformity correction procedure was usually appropriate and frequently necessary, except in some patients with severe risk factors for complications. Conversely, procedures that did not correct imbalance, when present, were usually inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical experts agreed that sagittal imbalance is a major factor affecting both when surgery is appropriate and which type of procedure is preferred among patients with DLS.

Occipitocervical Fusions in Elderly Patients: Mortality and Reoperation Rates From a National Spine Registry.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown excellent fusion rates in occipitocervical (OC) fusions, but very little is reported on mortality and reoperation rates in elderly patients. Our article reports these rates in elderly patients from a national spine registry with a >2-year follow-up period. METHODS: Using data from a spine implant registry developed at a large integrated health care system (Kaiser Permanente), elderly patients (aged ≥ 65 years) with instrumented OC fusions between January 1, 2009 and September 30, 2013 were identified. Patients' demographics were extracted from the registry. From chart review, the types of hardware and bone graft used, as well as mortality and reoperations rates were noted. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients with OC fusions were identified. Six patients had reoperations related to their fusions. Two occurred in the same patient, which resulted in a 14.9% reoperation rate. There were a total of 13 deaths (27.7%), with 7 occurring within 3 months, but only 4 (8.5%) related to the procedure. Bone morphogenetic protein was used in 29 patients (85.3%, 29/34). All cases used occipital plates with rods and screws. There was 1 nonunion. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rate was 27.7% and the reoperations rate was 14.9% for patients who underwent OC fusions with age >65 years and were observed for >2 years. These numbers are much higher than in younger patients, but reflect a higher mortality due to their comorbidities and from progression of their disease for cases of metastasis to the spine.