The Impact of the Preoperative Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) Score on Short-term Outcomes after Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to characterize the relationship between preoperative MCS and surgical outcomes after lumbar spine surgery including inpatient complications, length of stay, readmissions, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As the prevalence of mental health disorders in the United States increases, it is important to identify risks associated with poor mental health status in the surgical spine patient. The mental health component summary (MCS) of the Short Form-12 has been used extensively as an indication of a patient's mental health status and psychological well-being. METHODS: Adult patients older than or equal to 18 years who underwent primary one to three level lumbar fusion surgery at our academic medical institution from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Preoperative MCS score was used to analyze outcomes in patients based on a cutoff (<45.6). A score >45.6 indicated better preoperative mental health and a score <45.6 indicated worse preoperative mental health. RESULTS: Patients with lower preoperative MCS scores had longer hospital stays (3.86 + 2.16 vs. 3.55 + 1.42 days, P=0.010) and were more likely to have inpatient renal complications (3.09% vs. 7.19%, P=0.006). Patients with lower preoperative MCS scores also had lower Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) scores (17.1 + 2.85 vs. 17.6 + 2.49, P=0.030). Ninety-day surgical readmissions, medical readmissions, and reoperations were not significantly different between groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that patients with lower preoperative mental health scores (MCS < 45.6) were independently more likely to experience more renal complications and longer length of stay after primary lumbar fusion. Additionally, higher MCS scores may correlate with better postoperative mobility and daily activity scores. Nevertheless, long-term outcomes are not significantly different between patients of better or worse preoperative mental health.

The impact of robotic assistance for lumbar fusion surgery on 90-day surgical outcomes and 1-year revisions.

Objectives: To evaluate the (1) 90-day surgical outcomes and (2) 1-year revision rate of robotic versus nonrobotic lumbar fusion surgery. Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary lumbar fusion surgery at our institution were identified and propensity-matched in a 1:1 fashion based on robotic assistance during surgery. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and surgical outcomes, including 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revisions, were collected. Multivariable regression analysis was performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05. Results: Four hundred and fifteen patients were identified as having robotic lumbar fusion and were matched to a control group. Bivariant analysis revealed no significant difference in total 90-day surgical complications (P = 0.193) or 1-year revisions (P = 0.178). The operative duration was longer in robotic surgery (287 + 123 vs. 205 + 88.3, P ≤ 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that robotic fusion was not a significant predictor of 90-day surgical complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76 [0.32-1.67], P = 0.499) or 1-year revisions (OR = 0.58 [0.28-1.18], P = 0.142). Other variables identified as the positive predictors of 1-year revisions included levels fused (OR = 1.26 [1.08-1.48], P = 0.004) and current smokers (OR = 3.51 [1.46-8.15], P = 0.004). Conclusion: Our study suggests that robotic-assisted and nonrobotic-assisted lumbar fusions are associated with a similar risk of 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revision rates; however, robotic surgery does increase time under anesthesia.

Predictors of Academic Productivity Among Spine Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between research productivity in training and future productivity as an attending spine surgeon is not well-established in the literature nor has the effect of geographic location of training institutions on future academic success been investigated. The aim of our study was to (1) summarize characteristics of academically productive spine surgeons, (2) assess predictors of long-term academic productivity, and (3) establish the effect of geographic location on long-term academic productivity. METHODS: A query was conducted of the 2021 to 2022 North American Spine Society Spine Fellowship Directory of all orthopaedic and neurosurgical spine fellowship selection committee members for each institution participating in the spine fellowship match. The attending publication rate and h- index were determined. A multivariate linear regression model was developed. P value was set to <0.05. RESULTS: We identified 310 orthopaedic and neurosurgical spine surgeons, representing 76 fellowship programs. Multivariate linear regression analysis identified that the publications during residency ( P < 0.001) and during fellowship ( P < 0.001) were significant predictors of an increased publication rate as an attending surgeon. By contrast, the preresidency publication rate ( P = 0.729) was not significantly predictive of the attending publication rate. Multivariate analysis of h- index found that residency publication rate had a positive correlation ( P = 0.031) compared with preresidency ( P = 0.579) or fellowship ( P = 0.257) rates. Attendings who had attended residency in the Northeast and currently practicing in the Northeast had a higher publication rate ( P < 0.001 and P = 0.004, respectively). DISCUSSION: A higher number of publications in residency and fellowship were markedly predictive of an increased publication rate as an attending spine surgeon. By contrast, preresidency publications may not be indicative of future academic productivity as an attending. Location may also contribute to attending publication rate and favor those who undergo residency training and ultimately practice in the Northeast.

Does physical therapy impact clinical outcomes after lumbar decompression surgery?

Objectives: The objectives of our study were to (1) determine if physical therapy (PT) impacts patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after lumbar decompression surgery and (2) determine if PT impacts postsurgical readmissions or reoperations after lumbar decompression surgery. Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary one- or two-level lumbar decompression at our institution were identified. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, surgical outcomes (all-cause 90 days readmissions and 90 days surgical readmissions), and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared between the groups. Multivariate linear regression was utilized to determine the individual predictors of 90 days readmissions and PROMs at the 1-year postoperative point. Alpha was set at P < 0.05. Results: Of the 1003 patients included, 421 attended PT postoperatively. On univariate analysis, PT attendance did not significantly impact 90-day surgical reoperations (P = 0.225). Although bivariate analysis suggests that attendance of PT is associated with worse improvement in physical function (P = 0.041), increased preoperative Visual Analogue Scale leg pain (0 = 0.004), and disability (P = 0.006), as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index, our multivariate analysis, which accounts for confounding variables found there was no difference in PROM improvement and PT was not an independent predictor of 90-day all-cause readmissions (P = 0.06). Instead, Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 0.025) and discharge to a skilled nursing facility (P = 0.013) independently predicted greater 90-day all-cause readmissions. Conclusions: Postoperative lumbar decompression PT attendance does not significantly affect clinical improvement, as measured by PROMs or surgical outcomes including all-cause 90 days readmissions and 90-day surgical readmissions.

The Impact of Physical Therapy After Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine if outcomes varied between patients based on physical therapy (PT) attendance after lumbar fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The literature has been mixed regarding the efficacy of postoperative PT to improve disability and back pain, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures. Given the prevalence of PT referrals and lack of high-quality evidence, there is a need for additional studies investigating the efficacy of PT after lumbar fusion surgery to aid in developing robust clinical guidelines. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients receiving lumbar fusion surgery by current procedural terminology codes and separated them into 2 groups based on whether PT was prescribed. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient and surgical characteristics, PT utilization, and surgical outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were identified and compared preoperatively, at 90 days postoperatively and one year postoperatively. RESULTS: The two groups had similar patient characteristics and comorbidities and demonstrated no significant differences between readmission, complication, and revision rates after surgery. Patients that attended PT had significantly more fused levels (1.41 ± 0.64 vs. 1.32 ± 0.54, P =0.027), longer operative durations (234 ± 96.4 vs. 215 ± 86.1 min, P =0.012), and longer postoperative hospital stays (3.35 ± 1.68 vs. 3.00 ± 1.49 days, P =0.004). All groups improved similarly by Oswestry Disability Index, short form-12 physical and mental health subsets, and back and leg pain by Visual Analog Scale at 90-day and 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that physical therapy does not significantly impact PROMs after lumbar fusion surgery. Given the lack of data suggesting clear benefit of PT after lumbar fusion, surgeons should consider more strict criteria when recommending physical therapy to their patients after lumbar fusion surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-Ⅲ.