Effect of Ventral vs Dorsal Spinal Surgery on Patient-Reported Physical Functioning in Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction worldwide. It remains unknown whether a ventral or dorsal surgical approach provides the best results. Objective: To determine whether a ventral surgical approach compared with a dorsal surgical approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy improves patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of patients aged 45 to 80 years with multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy enrolled at 15 large North American hospitals from April 1, 2014, to March 30, 2018; final follow-up was April 15, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized to undergo ventral surgery (n = 63) or dorsal surgery (n = 100). Ventral surgery involved anterior cervical disk removal and instrumented fusion. Dorsal surgery involved laminectomy with instrumented fusion or open-door laminoplasty. Type of dorsal surgery (fusion or laminoplasty) was at surgeon's discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year change in the Short Form 36 physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) score (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]; minimum clinically important difference = 5). Secondary outcomes included 1-year change in modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale score, complications, work status, sagittal vertical axis, health resource utilization, and 1- and 2-year changes in the Neck Disability Index and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions score. Results: Among 163 patients who were randomized (mean age, 62 years; 80 [49%] women), 155 (95%) completed the trial at 1 year (80% at 2 years). All patients had surgery, but 5 patients did not receive their allocated surgery (ventral: n = 1; dorsal: n = 4). One-year SF-36 PCS mean improvement was not significantly different between ventral surgery (5.9 points) and dorsal surgery (6.2 points) (estimated mean difference, 0.3; 95% CI, -2.6 to 3.1; P = .86). Of 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 showed no significant difference. Rates of complications in the ventral and dorsal surgery groups, respectively, were 48% vs 24% (difference, 24%; 95% CI, 8.7%-38.5%; P = .002) and included dysphagia (41% vs 0%), new neurological deficit (2% vs 9%), reoperations (6% vs 4%), and readmissions within 30 days (0% vs 7%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing cervical spinal surgery, a ventral surgical approach did not significantly improve patient-reported physical functioning at 1 year compared with outcomes after a dorsal surgical approach. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02076113.

Carotid Revascularization and Its Effect on Cognitive Function: A Prospective Nonrandomized Multicenter Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting data on the effect of carotid revascularization on cognitive function. OBJECTIVE: To examine cerebral blood flow and cognitive function after carotid revascularization. METHODS: Patients with unilateral, asymptomatic hemodynamically significant carotid artery stenosis (80% by computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography) were eligible. Cerebral blood flow was measured preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively using quantitative phase contrast magnetic resonance angiography. Preoperative flow impairment was defined as ipsilateral flow at least 20% less than contralateral flow (ie, an ipsilateral and/or contralateral flow ratio ≤0.8). Significant improvement in blood flow was defined as at least a 0.15 increase in flow ratio from pre- to postoperative. A control group was managed medically. Four cognitive domains were assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 6-12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled at 6 sites; 53 carotid endarterectomy, 11 carotid artery stenting, and 11 medical management only controls. Preoperative Trails B scores were similar between groups. Revascularization was associated with significant improvement in executive function (Trials B) while no improvement was observed in controls (P = .007). Of patients with improvement in middle cerebral artery (MCA) flow, 90% had improved Trails B scores compared to 46.5% of patients without MCA flow improvement (P = .01). Greater absolute improvement in mean Trails B scores was observed in patients with MCA flow improvement compared to those without (48 seconds versus 24.7 seconds, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patient with asymptomatic carotid stenosis, improvement in MCA flow following carotid revascularization is associated with improvement in executive functioning.

Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of performing instrumented (rigid pedicle screws affixed to titanium alloy rods) lumbar spinal fusion in addition to decompressive laminectomy in patients with symptomatic lumbar grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis is unknown. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients, 50 to 80 years of age, who had stable degenerative spondylolisthesis (degree of spondylolisthesis, 3 to 14 mm) and symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis to undergo either decompressive laminectomy alone (decompression-alone group) or laminectomy with posterolateral instrumented fusion (fusion group). The primary outcome measure was the change in the physical-component summary score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36; range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life) 2 years after surgery. The secondary outcome measure was the score on the Oswestry Disability Index (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more disability related to back pain). Patients were followed for 4 years. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients (mean age, 67 years; 80% women) underwent randomization. The rate of follow-up was 89% at 1 year, 86% at 2 years, and 68% at 4 years. The fusion group had a greater increase in SF-36 physical-component summary scores at 2 years after surgery than did the decompression-alone group (15.2 vs. 9.5, for a difference of 5.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.1 to 11.3; P=0.046). The increases in the SF-36 physical-component summary scores in the fusion group remained greater than those in the decompression-alone group at 3 years and at 4 years (P=0.02 for both years). With respect to reductions in disability related to back pain, the changes in the Oswestry Disability Index scores at 2 years after surgery did not differ significantly between the study groups (-17.9 in the decompression-alone group and -26.3 in the fusion group, P=0.06). More blood loss and longer hospital stays occurred in the fusion group than in the decompression-alone group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The cumulative rate of reoperation was 14% in the fusion group and 34% in the decompression-alone group (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with degenerative grade I spondylolisthesis, the addition of lumbar spinal fusion to laminectomy was associated with slightly greater but clinically meaningful improvement in overall physical health-related quality of life than laminectomy alone. (Funded by the Jean and David Wallace Foundation and others; SLIP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00109213.).

Increased Patient Enrollment to a Randomized Surgical Trial Through Equipoise Polling of an Expert Surgeon Panel.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients who learned the views of an expert surgeons' panel's assessment of equipoise between 2 alternative operative treatments had increased likelihood of consenting to randomization. BACKGROUND: Difficulty obtaining patient consent to randomization is an important barrier to conducting surgical randomized clinical trials, the gold standard for generating clinical evidence. METHODS: Observational study of the rate of patient acceptance of randomization within a 5-center randomized clinical trial comparing lumbar spinal decompression versus lumbar spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion for patients with symptomatic grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Eligible patients were enrolled in the trial and then asked to accept randomization. A panel of 10 expert spine surgeons was formed to review clinical information and images for individual patients to provide an assessment of suitability for randomization. The expert panel vote was disclosed to the patient by the patient's surgeon before the patient decided whether to accept randomization or not. RESULTS: Randomization acceptance among eligible patients without expert panel review was 40% (19/48) compared with 81% (47/58) among patients undergoing expert panel review (P < 0.001). Among expert-reviewed patients, randomization acceptance was 95% when all experts or all except 1 voted for randomization, 75% when 2 experts voted against randomization, and 20% with 3 or 4 votes against (P < 0.001 for trend). CONCLUSIONS: Patients provided with an expert panel's assessment of their own suitability for randomization were twice as likely to agree to randomization compared with patients receiving only their own surgeon's recommendation.

Cost-effectiveness of lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis: experience with the NeuroPoint-SD registry.

OBJECT: There is significant practice variation and uncertainty as to the value of surgical treatments for lumbar spine disorders. The authors' aim was to establish a multicenter registry to assess the efficacy and costs of common lumbar spinal procedures by using prospectively collected outcomes. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study was completed at 13 academic and community sites. Patients undergoing single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis or single-level lumbar discectomy were included. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Power analysis estimated a sample size of 160 patients: lumbar disc (125 patients) and lumbar listhesis (35 patients). The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) data were calculated using 6-dimension utility index scores. Direct costs and complication costs were estimated using Medicare reimbursement values from 2011, and indirect costs were estimated using the human capital approach with the 2011 US national wage index. Total costs equaled $14,980 for lumbar discectomy and $43,852 for surgery for lumbar spondylolisthesis. RESULTS: There were 198 patients enrolled over 1 year. The mean age was 46 years (49% female) for lumbar discectomy (n = 148) and 58.1 years (60% female) for lumbar spondylolisthesis (n = 50). Ten patients with disc herniation (6.8%) and 1 with listhesis (2%) required repeat operation at 1 year. The overall 1-year follow-up rate was 88%. At 30 days, both lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion procedures were associated with significant improvements in ODI, visual analog scale, and SF-36 scores (p = 0.0002), which persisted at the 1-year evaluation (p < 0.0001). By 1 year, more than 80% of patients in each cohort who were working preoperatively had returned to work. Lumbar discectomy was associated with a gain of 0.225 QALYs over the 1-year study period ($66,578/QALY gained). Lumbar spinal fusion for Grade I listhesis was associated with a gain of 0.195 QALYs over the 1-year study period ($224,420/QALY gained). CONCLUSIONS: This national spine registry demonstrated successful collection of high-quality outcomes data for spinal procedures in actual practice. These data are useful for demonstrating return to work and cost-effectiveness following surgical treatment of single-level lumbar disc herniation or spondylolisthesis. One-year cost per QALY was obtained, and this cost per QALY is expected to improve further by 2 years. This work sets the stage for real-world analysis of the value of health interventions.

Impact of Depression and Anxiety on Patient Reported Outcomes Measures after Lumbar Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common in patients undergoing spinal surgery and might negatively impact outcomes. This study investigates the possible effect of these diagnoses on patient reported outcomes following lumbar fusion. METHODS: Retrospective review of a registry containing prospectively collected data of lumbar fusion procedures at a single institution was performed from May 23, 2012 to June 15, 2022. Patients with a minimum of two year follow-up were included. Demographic information, diagnoses, medications, patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), and complications data at preoperative, three months, six months, 1 year, and two years postoperative were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-tests, χ2, binomial correlation, odds ratios, logistic regression, and mean clinically important difference. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were included (60 males, 96 females) with mean age 62.6 ± 11.1 years at surgery. Thirty-nine (25%) had depression and/or anxiety (DA). Baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EuroQol Group 5D questionnaire (EQ5D) scores were significantly worse in the DA cohort compared to controls (ODI 51.1 ± 18.3 vs. 42.9 ± 15.8; P = 0.010, EQ5D 0.46 ± 0.21 vs. 0.57 ± 0.21; P = 0.005). Both cohorts experienced similar relative improvement at two years (delta ODI -18.2 ± 27.9 vs. -17.8 ± 22.1; P = 0.924, EQ5D 6.8 ± 33.8 vs. 8.1 ± 32.9; P = 0.830). Absolute outcome scores were worse in the DA cohort at all intervals. DA were not independently predictive of changes in PROMs (delta ODI mean difference 4.49, r2 = 0.36, P = 0.924). CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed similar improvement in PROMs following lumbar fusion for patients with anxiety and depression compared to healthy controls. These data suggest these patients are no less likely to benefit from appropriately planned lumbar fusion.

Patients May Return to Work Sooner After Laminoplasty: Occupational Outcomes of the Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Surgical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Return-to-work (RTW) is an important outcome for employed patients considering surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). We conducted a post hoc analysis of patients as-treated in the Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Surgical Trial, a prospective, randomized trial comparing surgical approaches for CSM to evaluate factors associated with RTW. METHODS: In the trial, patients were randomized (2:3) to either anterior surgery (anterior cervical decompression/fusion [ACDF]) or posterior surgery (laminoplasty [LP], or posterior cervical decompression/fusion [PCDF], at surgeon's discretion). Work status was recorded at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. For patients working full-time or part-time on enrollment, time to RTW was compared across as-treated surgical groups using discrete-time survival analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess predictors of RTW. Clinical outcomes were compared using a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 68 (42%) of 163 patients were working preoperatively and were analyzed. In total, 27 patients underwent ACDF, 29 underwent PCDF, and 12 underwent LP. 45 (66%) of 68 patients returned to work by 12 months. Median time to RTW differed by surgical approach (LP = 1 month, ACDF = 3 months, PCDF = 6 months; P = .02). Patients with longer length-of-stay were less likely to be working at 1 month (odds ratio 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.91; P = .022) and 3 months (odds ratio 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.96; P = .04). At 3 months, PCDF was associated with lower Short-Form 36 physical component summary scores than ACDF (estimated mean difference [EMD]: 6.42; 95% CI, 1.4-11.4; P = .007) and LP (EMD: 7.98; 95% CI, 2.7-13.3; P = .003), and higher Neck Disability Index scores than ACDF (EMD: 12.48; 95% CI, 2.3-22.7; P = .01) and LP (EMD: 15.22; 95% CI, 2.3-28.1; P = .014), indicating worse perceived physical functioning and greater disability, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most employed patients returned to work within 1 year. LP patients resumed employment earliest, while PCDF patients returned to work latest, with greater disability at follow-up, suggesting that choice of surgical intervention may influence occupational outcomes.

Preoperative Mobile Health Data Improve Predictions of Recovery From Lumbar Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neurosurgeons and hospitals devote tremendous resources to improving recovery from lumbar spine surgery. Current efforts to predict surgical recovery rely on one-time patient report and health record information. However, longitudinal mobile health (mHealth) assessments integrating symptom dynamics from ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and wearable biometric data may capture important influences on recovery. Our objective was to evaluate whether a preoperative mHealth assessment integrating EMA with Fitbit monitoring improved predictions of spine surgery recovery. METHODS: Patients age 21-85 years undergoing lumbar surgery for degenerative disease between 2021 and 2023 were recruited. For up to 3 weeks preoperatively, participants completed EMAs up to 5 times daily asking about momentary pain, disability, depression, and catastrophizing. At the same time, they were passively monitored using Fitbit trackers. Study outcomes were good/excellent recovery on the Quality of Recovery-15 (QOR-15) and a clinically important change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference 1 month postoperatively. After feature engineering, several machine learning prediction models were tested. Prediction performance was measured using the c-statistic. RESULTS: A total of 133 participants were included, with a median (IQR) age of 62 (53, 68) years, and 56% were female. The median (IQR) number of preoperative EMAs completed was 78 (61, 95), and the median (IQR) number of days with usable Fitbit data was 17 (12, 21). 63 patients (48%) achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain interference. Compared with traditional evaluations alone, mHealth evaluations led to a 34% improvement in predictions for pain interference (c = 0.82 vs c = 0.61). 49 patients (40%) had a good or excellent recovery based on the QOR-15. Including preoperative mHealth data led to a 30% improvement in predictions of QOR-15 (c = 0.70 vs c = 0.54). CONCLUSION: Multimodal mHealth evaluations improve predictions of lumbar surgery outcomes. These methods may be useful for informing patient selection and perioperative recovery strategies.

The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database and NeuroPoint Alliance: rationale, development, and implementation.

Patient care data will soon inform all areas of health care decision making and will define clinical performance. Organized neurosurgery believes that prospective, systematic tracking of practice patterns and patient outcomes will allow neurosurgeons to improve the quality and efficiency and, ultimately, the value of care. In support of this mission, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, in cooperation with a broad coalition of other neurosurgical societies including the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Society of Neurological Surgeons, and American Board of Neurological Surgery, created the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA), a not-for-profit corporation, in 2008. The NPA coordinates a variety of national projects involving the acquisition, analysis, and reporting of clinical data from neurosurgical practice using online technologies. It was designed to meet the health care quality and related research needs of individual neurosurgeons and neurosurgical practices, national organizations, health care plans, biomedical industry, and government agencies. To meet the growing need for tools to measure and promote high-quality care, NPA collaborated with several national stakeholders to create an unprecedented program: the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N(2)QOD). This resource will allow any US neurosurgeon, practice group, or hospital system to contribute to and access aggregate quality and outcomes data through a centralized, nationally coordinated clinical registry. This paper describes the practical and scientific justifications for a national neurosurgical registry; the conceptualization, design, development, and implementation of the N(2)QOD; and the likely role of prospective, cooperative clinical data collection systems in evolving systems of neurosurgical training, continuing education, research, public reporting, and maintenance of certification.

The future of practice science: challenges and opportunities for neurosurgery.

Outcomes-directed approaches to quality improvement have been adopted by diverse industries and are increasingly the focus of government-mandated reforms to health care education and delivery. The authors identify and review current reform initiatives originating from agencies regulating and funding graduate medical education and health care delivery. These reforms use outcomes-based methodologies and incorporate principles of lifelong learning and patient centeredness. Important new initiatives include the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones; the pending adoption by the American Board of Neurological Surgery of new requirements for Maintenance of Certification that are in part outcomes based; initiation by health care systems and consortia of public reporting of patient outcomes data; institution by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of requirements for comparative effectiveness research and the physician quality reporting system; and linking of health care reimbursement in part to patient outcomes data and quality measures. Opportunities exist to coordinate and unify patient outcomes measurement throughout neurosurgical training and practice, enabling effective patient-centered improvements in care delivery as well as efficient compliance with regulatory mandates. Coordination will likely require the development of a new science of practice based in the daily clinical environment and utilizing clinical data registries. A generation of outcomes science and quality experts within neurosurgery should be trained to facilitate attainment of these goals.

The effect of carotid endarterectomy on cerebral blood flow and cognitive function.

BACKGROUND: The effect of carotid endarterectomy on cognitive function is not fully understood. This study aims to characterize changes in cerebral blood flow after carotid endarterectomy and to determine if patients with improvement in cerebral blood flow have improved cognitive function after endarterectomy. METHODS: Cerebral blood flow was measured preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively using phase contrast magnetic resonance angiography. Preoperative flow impairment was defined as ipsilateral flow at least 20% less than contralateral flow. Improvement in flow was defined as an absolute increase of at least 0.10 in flow ratio from pre- to postoperative assessments. Patients underwent cognitive testing preoperatively and at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with unilateral carotid stenosis were enrolled from 3 sites. Preoperative internal carotid artery (ICA) and middle cerebral artery (MCA) flow impairment was observed in 50% and 22% of patients, respectively. Patients with preoperative flow impairment had an average of 0.25 and 0.16 absolute improvement in flow ratio in the ICA and MCA vessels, respectively; this was statistically significant for patients with baseline ICA flow impairment (P < .01). One hundred percent of patients with improvement in MCA flow had a significant improvement in attention compared to 56% of patients without MCA flow improvement (P = .06). Clinically significant improvements in all 4 cognitive domains were observed at 1 year (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with baseline impairment of MCA blood flow were more likely to experience improvement in flow after revascularization. Improvement in MCA blood flow was associated with greater cognitive improvement in attention and executive functioning.

Natural History of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal treatment algorithm for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis has not been clarified. Part of the reason for this is that the natural history of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) has not been sufficiently studied. Comprehension of the natural history is essential for surgical decision making. We aimed to determine 1) the proportion of patients that develop de novo DS during follow-up; and 2) the proportion of patients with progression of preexistent DS by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Ovid, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception through April 2022. Demographic values of the study populations, grade of slip, rate of slippage before and after the follow-up period, and percentage of patients with slip in the populations at baseline and after follow-up were the extracted parameters. RESULTS: Of the 1909 screened records, eventually 10 studies were included. Of these studies, 5 reported the development of de novo DS and 9 reported on the progression of preexistent DS. Proportions of patients developing de novo DS ranged from 12% to 20% over a period ranging from 4 to 25 years. The proportion of patients with progression of DS ranged from 12% to 34% over a period ranging from 4 to 25 years. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review and metanalysis of DS on the basis of radiologic parameters revealed both an increasing incidence over time and an increasing progression of the slip rate in up to a third of the patients older than 25 years, which is important for counseling patients and surgical decision making. Importantly, two thirds of patients did not experience slip progression.

Implementation of a spine triage program and its effect on outpatient radiology utilization.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical care pathways designed to triage spinal disorders have been shown to reduce wait times and improve patient satisfaction. The goal of this study was to perform an analysis of outpatient radiology costs before and after the implementation of a spine care triage pathway. METHODS: All imaging orders and surgical procedures were captured in a prospective spine registry for patients referred to the department of neurosurgery within a single academic center between July 1, 2017, and November 3, 2020. A spine triage algorithm was developed and implemented January 1, 2018. Healthcare utilization was recorded for 1 year after the first appointment in the department of neurosurgery. Imaging costs were estimated using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Statistical analysis consisted of an independent sample t-test or randomization test for continuous variables and a chi-square test for categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 3854 patients were included in this study. The mean age was 60 years (50.8% female) and 89.8% had undergone advanced imaging before being referred to the department of neurosurgery. In total, 12.6% of patients were referred with a specific surgical diagnosis (i.e., spinal stenosis, lumbar spondylolisthesis, etc.). During the pretriage phase 1810 patients were enrolled, and there were 2044 patients enrolled after the triage algorithm was implemented. Advanced imaging (CT or MRI) was ordered more frequently by providers before the triage program was initiated, with imaging ordered in 34% (617/1810) of patients pretriage versus 14.8% (302/2044) after the triage pathway was implemented (p < 0.001). The authors calculated a significant reduction in cost associated with reduced radiology utilization. Before triage, the cost of radiology utilization was $85,475/1000 patients compared with $40,107/1000 patients afterward (p < 0.001). The triage program did not change the utilization of surgery (14.6% before, 13.6% after). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated after a spinal triage program was implemented in a single neurosurgery department, there was a substantial reduction in the use of advanced imaging and a 50% reduction in cost associated with outpatient radiology utilization. The triage program did not change the rate of spine surgery being performed.

Does axial cervical pain improve with surgical fusion? A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Axial neck pain is a prevalent condition that causes significant morbidity and productivity loss. This study aimed to review the current literature and define the impact of surgical intervention on the management of cervical axial neck pain. METHODS: A search was conducted of three databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies written in the English language with a minimum 6-month follow-up. The analysis was limited to patients with axial neck pain/cervical radiculopathy and preoperative/postoperative Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Literature reviews, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, surveys, and case studies were excluded. Two patient groups were analyzed: the arm pain predominant (pAP) cohort and the neck pain predominant (pNP) cohort. The pAP cohort had preoperative VAS neck scores that were lower than the arm scores, whereas the pNP cohort was defined as having preoperative VAS neck scores higher than the arm scores. A 30% reduction in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores from the baseline represented the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria, involving a total of 5221 patients. Patients with pAP showed a slightly higher percent reduction in PROM scores from baseline than those with pNP. The NDI reduction in patients with pNP was 41.35% (mean change in NDI score 16.3/mean baseline NDI score 39.42) (p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had a reduction of 45.12% (15.86/35.15) (p < 0.0001). Surgical improvement was slightly but similarly greater in pNP patients compared with pAP patients (16.3 vs 15.86 points, respectively; p = 0.3193). Regarding VAS scores, patients with pNP had a greater reduction in neck pain, with a change from baseline of 53.4% (3.60/6.74, p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had a change from baseline of 50.3% (2.46/4.89, p < 0.0001). The difference in VAS scores for neck pain improvement was significant (3.6 vs 2.46, p < 0.0134). Similarly, patients with pNP had a 43.6% (1.96/4.5) improvement in VAS scores for arm pain (p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had 66.12% (4.43/6.7) improvement (p < 0.0001). The VAS scores for arm pain were significantly greater in patients with pAP (4.43 vs 1.96 points, respectively; p < 0.0051). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, despite significant variations in the existing literature, there is mounting evidence that surgical intervention can lead to clinically meaningful improvements in patients with primary axial neck pain. The studies suggest that patients with pNP tend to have better improvement in neck pain than in arm pain. In both groups, the average improvements exceeded the MCID values and reached substantial clinical benefit in all studies. Further research is necessary to identify which patients and underlying pathologies will benefit most from surgical intervention for axial neck pain because it is a multifaceted condition with many causes.

International and Multicenter Prospective Controlled Study of Dysphagia After Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In the context of anterior approach to the cervical spine, dysphagia is a common complication and still without a clear distinction of risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the risk factors of dysphagia after cervical spine surgery. METHODS: Multicenter prospective study evaluated patients who underwent anterior cervical spine surgery for degenerative pathologies, studying surgical, anesthesia, base disease, and radiological variables (preoperatively, 24 hours, 1 and 3 weeks, and 6 months after surgery), with control group matched. Postoperative dysphagia was assessed by Swallowing Satisfaction Index and Swallowing Questionnaire; besides, based on multiple logistic regression model, a risk factor analysis correlation was applied. RESULTS: In total, 233 cervical patients were evaluated; most common level approached was C5-C6 (71.8%). All showed same decreasing trade for dysphagia incidence-with more cases on cervical group ( P < .05); severe cases were rare. At postoperative day 1, identified risk factors were approach to C3-C4 (4.11, P < .01), loss of preoperative cervical lordosis (2.26, P < .01), intubation attempts ≥2 (3.10, P < .01), and left side approach (1.85, P = .02); at day 7, body mass index ≥30 (2.29, P = .02), C3-C4 (3.42, P < .01), and length of surgery ≥90 minutes (2.97, P = .005); and at day 21, C3-C4 were kept as a risk factor (3.62, P < .01). CONCLUSION: A high incidence level of dysphagia was identified, having a clear decreasing trending (number of cases and severity) through postoperative time points; considering possible risk factors, strongest correlation was the approach at the C3-C4 level-statistically significant at the 24 hours, 7 days, and 21 days assessment.

Current and future applications of mobile health technology for evaluating spine surgery patients: a review.

Mobile health (mHealth) technology has assumed a pervasive role in healthcare and society. By capturing real-time features related to spine health, mHealth assessments have the potential to transform multiple aspects of spine care. Yet mHealth applications may not be familiar to many spine surgeons and other spine clinicians. Consequently, the objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the technology, analytical considerations, and applications of mHealth tools for evaluating spine surgery patients. Reflecting their near-ubiquitous role in society, smartphones are the most commonly available form of mHealth technology and can provide measures related to activity, sleep, and even social interaction. By comparison, wearable devices can provide more detailed mobility and physiological measures, although capabilities vary substantially by device. To date, mHealth evaluations in spine surgery patients have focused on the use of activity measures, particularly step counts, in an attempt to objectively quantify spine health. However, the correlation between step counts and patient-reported disease severity is inconsistent, and further work is needed to define the mobility metrics most relevant to spine surgery patients. mHealth assessments may also support a variety of other applications that have been studied less frequently, including those that prevent postoperative complications, predict surgical outcomes, and serve as motivational aids to patients. These areas represent key opportunities for future investigations. To maximize the potential of mHealth evaluations, several barriers must be overcome, including technical challenges, privacy and regulatory concerns, and questions related to reimbursement. Despite those obstacles, mHealth technology has the potential to transform many aspects of spine surgery research and practice, and its applications will only continue to grow in the years ahead.