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.

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.

Age, body mass index, and osteoporosis are more predictive than imaging for adjacent-segment reoperation after lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND: Adjacent-segment disease (ASD) is a well-described long-term complication after lumbar fusion. There is a lack of consensus about the risk factors for development of ASD, but identifying them could improve surgical outcomes. Our goal was to analyze the effect of patient characteristics and radiographic parameters on the development of symptomatic ASD requiring revision surgery after posterior lumbar fusion. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery and revision surgery from May 2012 to November 2018 using an institutional lumbar fusion registry. Patients having both pre- and post-operative upright radiographs were included in the study. Revision surgeries for which the index operation was performed at an outside hospital were excluded from analysis. Univariate analysis was conducted on candidate variables, and variables with P< 0.2 were selected for multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 106 patients identified, 21 required reoperation (29 months average follow-up). Age >65 years (OR 4.14, 95% CI 1.46-11.76, P= 0.008), body mass index (BMI) >34 (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.23, P = 0.004), and osteoporosis (OR 14, 95% CI 1.38-142.42, P = 0.03) were independent predictors of reoperation in the multivariate analysis. Increased facet diastasis at fusion levels (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85, P = 0.004) was associated with reduced reoperation rates. Change in segmental LL at the index operation level, rostral and caudal facet diastasis, vacuum discs, and T2 hyperintensity in the facets were not predictors of reoperation. CONCLUSION: Age >65, BMI >34, and osteoporosis were independent predictors of adjacent-segment reoperation after lumbar spinal fusion.

Predictive value of 3-month lumbar discectomy outcomes in the NeuroPoint-SD Registry.

OBJECT: The authors have established a multicenter registry to assess the efficacy and costs of common lumbar spinal procedures using prospectively collected outcomes. Collection of these data requires an extensive commitment of resources from each site. The aim of this study was to determine whether outcomes data from shorter-interval follow-up could be used to accurately estimate long-term outcome following lumbar discectomy. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study was completed at 13 academic and community sites. Patients undergoing single-level lumbar discectomy for treatment of disc herniation were included. SF-36 and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) data were obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) data were calculated using SF-6D utility scores. Correlations among outcomes at each follow-up time point were tested using the Spearman rank correlation test. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight patients were enrolled over 1 year. Their mean age was 46 years (49% female). Eleven patients (7.4%) required a reoperation by 1 year postoperatively. The overall 1-year follow-up rate was 80.4%. Lumbar discectomy was associated with significant improvements in ODI and SF-36 scores (p < 0.0001) and with a gain of 0.246 QALYs over the 1-year study period. The greatest gain occurred between baseline and 3-month follow-up and was significantly greater than improvements obtained between 3 and 6 months or 6 months and 1 year(p < 0.001). Correlations between 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year outcomes were similar, suggesting that 3-month data may be used to accurately estimate 1-year outcomes for patients who do not require a reoperation. Patients who underwent reoperation had worse outcomes scores and nonsignificant correlations at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: This national spine registry demonstrated successful collection of high-quality outcomes data for spinal procedures in actual practice. Three-month outcome data may be used to accurately estimate outcome at future time points and may lower costs associated with registry data collection. This registry effort provides a practical foundation for the acquisition of outcome data following lumbar discectomy.

Prospective outcomes evaluation after decompression with or without instrumented fusion for lumbar stenosis and degenerative Grade I spondylolisthesis.

OBJECT: There is considerable debate among spine surgeons regarding whether fusion should be used to augment decompressive surgery in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis involving Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. The authors prospectively evaluated the outcomes of patients treated between 2000 and 2002 at two institutions to determine whether fusion improves functional outcome 1 year after surgery. METHODS: Patients ranged in age from 50 to 81 years. They presented with degenerative Grade I (3- to 14-mm) spondylolisthesis and lumbar stenosis without gross instability (< 3 mm of motion at the level of subluxation). Those in whom previous surgery had been performed at the level of subluxation were excluded. Each patient completed Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires preoperatively and at 6 to 12 months postoperatively. Some patients underwent decompression alone (20 cases), whereas others underwent decompression and posterolateral instrumentation-assisted fusion (14 cases), at the treating surgeon's discretion. Baseline demographic data, radiographic features, and ODI and SF-36 scores were similar in both groups. The 1-year fusion rate was 93%. Both forms of surgery independently improved outcome compared with baseline status, based on ODI and SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) results (p < 0.001). Decompression combined with fusion led to an improvement in ODI scores of 27.5 points, whereas decompression alone was associated with a 13.6-point increase (p = 0.02). Analysis of the SF-36 PCS data also demonstrated a significant intergroup difference (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery substantially improved 1-year outcomes based on established outcomes instruments in patients with Grade I spondylolisthesis and stenosis. Fusion was associated with greater functional improvement.

Pigmented villonodular synovitis of the thoracic spine.

Pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) is a proliferative lesion of the synovial membranes. Knees, hips, and other large weight-bearing joints are most commonly affected. PVNS rarely presents in the spine, in particular the thoracic segments. We present a patient with PVNS in the thoracic spine and describe its clinical presentation, radiographic findings, pathologic features, and treatment as well as providing the first comprehensive meta-analysis and review of the literature on this topic, to our knowledge. A total of 28 publications reporting 56 patients were found. The lumbar and cervical spine were most frequently involved (40% and 36% of patients, respectively) with infrequent involvement of the thoracic spine (24% of patients). PVNS affects a wide range of ages, but has a particular predilection for the thoracic spine in younger patients. The mean age in the thoracic group was 22.8 years and was significantly lower than the cervical and lumbar groups (42.4 and 48.6 years, respectively; p=0.0001). PVNS should be included in the differential diagnosis of osteodestructive lesions of the spine, especially because of its potential for local recurrence. The goal of treatment should be complete surgical excision. Although the pathogenesis is not clear, mechanical strain may play an important role, especially in cervical and lumbar PVNS. The association of thoracic lesions and younger age suggests that other factors, such as neoplasia, derangement of lipid metabolism, perturbations of humoral and cellular immunity, and other undefined patient factors, play a role in the development of thoracic PVNS.

Postoperative cervical sagittal imbalance negatively affects outcomes after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine if postoperative cervical sagittal balance is an independent predictor of health-related quality of life outcome after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Both ventral and dorsal fusion procedures for CSM are effective at reducing the symptoms of myelopathy. The importance of cervical sagittal balance in predicting overall health-related quality of life outcome after ventral versus dorsal surgery for CSM has not been previously explored. METHODS: A prospective, nonrandomized cohort of 49 patients undergoing dorsal and ventral fusion surgery for CSM was examined. Preoperative and postoperative C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis was measured on standing lateral cervical spine radiographs. Outcome was assessed with 2 disease-specific measures-the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale and the Oswestry Neck Disability Index and 2 generalized outcome measures-the Short-Form 36 physical component summary (SF-36 PCS) and Euro-QOL-5D. Assessments were performed preoperatively, and at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute). RESULTS: Most patients experienced improvement in all outcome measures regardless of approach. Both preoperative and postoperative C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis measurements were independent predictors of clinically significant improvement in SF-36 PCS scores (P = 0.03 and P = 0.02). The majority of patients with C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis values greater than 40 mm did not improve from an overall health-related quality of life perspective (SF-36 PCS) despite improvement in myelopathy. The postoperative sagittal balance value was inversely correlated with a clinically significant improvement of SF-36 PCS scores in patients undergoing dorsal surgery but not ventral surgery (P = 0.03 vs. P = 0.93). CONCLUSION: Preoperative and postoperative sagittal balance measurements independently predict clinical outcomes after surgery for CSM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Radiographic predictors of delayed instability following decompression without fusion for degenerative grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECT: It is not known whether adding fusion to lumbar decompression is necessary for all patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with symptomatic stenosis. Determining specific radiographic traits that might predict delayed instability following decompression surgery might guide clinical decision making regarding the utility of up-front fusion in patients with degenerative Grade I spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Patients with Grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (3-14 mm) with symptomatic stenosis were prospectively enrolled from a single site between May 2002 and September 2009 and treated with decompressive laminectomy without fusion. Patients with mechanical back pain or with gross motion (> 3 mm) on flexion-extension lumbar radiographs were excluded. The baseline radiographic variables measured included amount of slippage, disc height, facet angle, motion at spondylolisthesis (flexion-extension), and sagittal rotation angle. Data were analyzed using multivariate forward selection stepwise logistic regression, chi-square tests, Student t-test, and ANOVA. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled and treated with laminectomy without fusion, and all patients had complete radiographic data sets that were available for analysis. Reoperation was performed in 15 (37.5%) of 40 patients, with a mean follow-up duration of 3.6 years. Reoperation was performed for pain caused by instability at the index level in all 15 cases. Using multivariate stepwise logistic regression with a threshold p value of 0.35, motion at spondylolisthesis, disc height, and facet angle were predictors of reoperation following surgery. Facet angle > 50° was associated with a 39% rate of reoperation, disc height > 6.5 mm was associated with a 45% rate of reoperation, and motion at spondylolisthesis > 1.25 mm was associated with a 54% rate of reoperation. Patients with all 3 risk factors for instability had a 75% rate of reoperation, whereas patients with no risk factors for instability had a 0% rate of reoperation (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with motion at spondylolisthesis > 1.25 mm, disc height > 6.5 mm, and facet angle > 50° are more likely to experience instability following decompression surgery for Grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. Identification of key risk factors for instability might improve patient selection for decompression without fusion surgery.

The efficacy of lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis: results from the NeuroPoint-SD registry: clinical article.

OBJECT: There is significant practice variation and considerable uncertainty among payers and other major stakeholders as to whether many surgical treatments are effective in actual US spine practice. The aim of this study was to establish a multicenter cooperative research group and demonstrate the feasibility of developing a registry to assess the efficacy of common lumbar spinal procedures using prospectively collected patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study was conducted at 13 US academic and community sites. Unselected patients undergoing lumbar discectomy or single-level fusion for spondylolisthesis were included. Patients completed the 36-item Short-Form Survey Instrument (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Power analysis estimated a sample size of 160 patients: 125 patients with lumbar disc herniation, and 35 with lumbar spondylolisthesis. All patient data were entered into a secure Internet-based data management platform. RESULTS: Of 249 patients screened, there were 198 enrolled over 1 year. The median age of the patients was 45.0 years (49% female) for lumbar discectomy (n = 148), and 58.0 years (58% female) for lumbar spondylolisthesis (n = 50). At 30 days, 12 complications (6.1% of study population) were identified. Ten patients (6.8%) with disc herniation and 1 (2%) with spondylolisthesis required reoperation. The overall follow-up rate for the collection of patient-reported outcome data over 1 year was 88.3%. At 30 days, both lumbar discectomy and single-level fusion procedures were associated with significant improvements in ODI, VAS, and SF-36 scores (p ≤ 0.0002), which persisted over the 1-year follow-up period (p < 0.0001). By the 1-year follow-up evaluation, more than 80% of patients in each cohort who were working preoperatively had returned to work. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to build a national spine registry for the collection of high-quality prospective data to demonstrate the effectiveness of spinal procedures in actual practice. Clinical trial registration no.: 01220921 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Comparative effectiveness of ventral vs dorsal surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a randomized clinical trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and costs of ventral vs dorsal decompression with fusion surgery for treating CSM. METHODS: A nonrandomized, prospective, clinical pilot trial was conducted. Patients ages 40 to 85 years with degenerative CSM were enrolled at 7 sites over 2 years (2007-2009). Outcome assessments were obtained preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. A hospital-based economic analysis used costs derived from hospital charges and Medicare cost-to-charge ratios. RESULTS: The pilot study enrolled 50 patients. Twenty-eight were treated with ventral fusion surgery and 22 with dorsal fusion surgery. The average age was 61.6 years. Baseline demographics and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) scores were comparable between groups; however, dorsal surgery patients had significantly more severe myelopathy (P<.01). Comprehensive 1-year follow-up was obtained in 46 of 50 patients (92%). Greater HR-QOL improvement (Short-Form 36 Physical Component Summary) was observed after ventral surgery (P=.05). The complication rate (16.6% overall) was comparable between groups. Significant improvement in the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scale score was observed in both groups (P<.01). Dorsal fusion surgery had significantly greater mean hospital costs ($29 465 vs $19 245; P<.01) and longer average length of hospital stay (4.0 vs 2.6 days; P<.01) compared with ventral fusion surgery. CONCLUSION: Surgery for treating CSM was followed by significant improvement in disease-specific symptoms and in HR-QOL. Greater improvement in HR-QOL was observed after ventral surgery. Dorsal fusion surgery was associated with longer length of hospital stay and higher hospital costs. The pilot study demonstrated feasibility for a larger randomized clinical trial.