Preoperative cross-sectional area of psoas muscle correlates with short-term functional outcomes after posterior lumbar surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal level for the measurement of psoas cross-sectional area and examine the correlation with short-term functional outcomes of posterior lumbar surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive posterior lumbar surgery were included in this study. The cross-sectional area of psoas muscle was measured at each intervertebral level on T2-weighted axial images of preoperative MRI. Normalized total psoas area (NTPA) (mm2/m2) was calculated as total psoas area normalized to patient height. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the analysis of inter-rater reliability. Patient reported outcome measures including Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), short form health survey (SF-12) and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system were collected. A multivariate analysis was performed to elucidate independent predictors associated with failure to reach minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in each functional outcome at 6 months. RESULTS: The total of 212 patients were included in this study. ICC was highest at L3/4 [0.992 (95% CI: 0.987-0.994)] compared to the other levels [L1/2 0.983 (0.973-0.989), L2/3 0.991 (0.986-0.994), L4/5 0.928 (0.893-0.952)]. Postoperative PROMs were significantly worse in patients with low NTPA. Low NTPA was an independent predictor of failure to reach MCID in ODI (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.26-5.67; p = 0.010) and VAS leg (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.13-5.20; p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Decreased psoas cross-sectional area on preoperative MRI correlated with functional outcomes after posterior lumbar surgery. NTPA was highly reliable, especially at L3/4.

Does robot-assisted navigation influence pedicle screw selection and accuracy in minimally invasive spine surgery?

OBJECTIVE: The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups. RESULTS: Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of "ideal" pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the "optimal screw," maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.

Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion?

OBJECTIVE: In an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1-2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°-8°, 10°-12°, and 15°-20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°-8° cages, 1.6° with 10°-12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°-20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs -0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1-2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.

Opioid-free anesthesia within an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: a retrospective matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVEEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and multimodal analgesia are established care models that minimize perioperative opioid consumption and promote positive outcomes after spine surgery. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is an emerging technique that may achieve similar goals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an OFA regimen within an ERAS pathway for lumbar decompressive surgery and to compare perioperative opioid requirements in a matched cohort of patients managed with traditional opioid-containing anesthesia (OCA).METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. They included 36 patients who underwent lumbar decompression under their ERAS pathway for spinal decompression between February and August 2018. Eighteen patients who received OFA were matched in a 1:1 ratio to a cohort managed with a traditional OCA regimen. The primary outcome was total perioperative opioid consumption. Postoperative pain scores (measured using the numerical rating scale [NRS]), opioid consumption (total morphine equivalents), and length of stay (time to readiness for discharge) were compared in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The authors also assessed compliance with ERAS process measures and compared compliance during 3 phases of care: pre-, intra-, and postoperative.RESULTSThere was a significant reduction in total perioperative opioid consumption in patients who received OFA (2.43 ± 0.86 oral morphine equivalents [OMEs]; mean ± SEM), compared to patients who received OCA (38.125 ± 6.11 OMEs). There were no significant differences in worst postoperative pain scores (NRS scores 2.55 ± 0.70 vs 2.58 ± 0.73) or opioid consumption (5.28 ± 1.7 vs 4.86 ± 1.5 OMEs) in the PACU between OFA and OCA groups, respectively. There was a clinically significant decrease in time to readiness for discharge from the PACU associated with OFA (37 minutes), although this was not statistically significantly different. The authors found high overall compliance with ERAS process measures (91.4%) but variation in compliance according to phase of care. The highest compliance occurred during the preoperative phase (94.71% ± 2.88%), and the lowest compliance occurred during the postoperative phase of care (85.4% ± 5.7%).CONCLUSIONSOFA within an ERAS pathway for lumbar spinal decompression represents an opportunity to minimize perioperative opioid exposure without adversely affecting pain control or recovery. This study reveals opportunities for patient and provider education to reinforce ERAS and highlights the postoperative phase of care as a time when resources should be focused to increase ERAS adherence.

An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway: association with rapid discharge and minimal complications after anterior cervical spine surgery.

OBJECTIVEEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are associated with improved outcomes, lower morbidity and complications, and higher patient satisfaction in multiple surgical subspecialties. Despite these gains, there are few data to guide the application of ERAS concepts to spine surgery. The authors report the development and implementation of the first ERAS pathway for patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA).METHODSThis was a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. The authors created a multidisciplinary pathway based on best available evidence for interventions that positively influence outcomes after anterior cervical spine surgery. Patients were followed prospectively up to postoperative day 90. Patient data were collected via electronic medical record review and included demographics, comorbidities, baseline and perioperative opioid use, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS). ERAS process measures and compliance with pathway elements were also tracked.RESULTSThirty-three patients were cared for under the pathway (n = 25 ACDF; n = 8 CDA). The median LOS was 416 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 210-1643 minutes). Eight patients required an extended stay-longer than 23 hours. Reasons for extended admission included pain (n = 4), dyspnea (n = 1), hypoxia (n = 1), hypertension (n = 1), and dysphagia (n = 1). The median LOS for the 8 patients who required extended monitoring prior to discharge was 1585 minutes (IQR 1423-1713 minutes). Overall pathway compliance with included process measures was 85.6%. The median number of ERAS process elements delivered to each patient was 18. There was no strong association between LOS and number of ERAS process elements provided (Pearson's r = -0.20). Twelve percent of the cohort was opioid tolerant on the day of surgery. There were no significant differences between total intraoperatively or postanesthesia care unit-administered opioid, or LOS, between opioid-tolerant and opioid-naïve patients. There were no complications requiring readmission.CONCLUSIONSAn ERAS pathway for anterior cervical spine surgery facilitates safe, prompt discharge. The ERAS pathway was associated with minimal complications, and no readmissions within 90 days of surgery. Pain and respiratory compromise were both linked with extended LOS in this cohort. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the potential benefits of ERAS for anterior cervical spine surgery, including longer-term complications, cost, and functional outcomes.

The Feasibility of 3D Intraoperative Navigation in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Perioperative Outcomes, Accuracy of Cage Placement and Radiation Exposure.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using 3D intraoperative navigation (ION), compared to conventional 2D fluoroscopy only. METHODS: The perioperative outcomes and accuracy of cage placement were examined in all patients who underwent LLIF using ION (ION group) or fluoroscopy only (non-ION group) by a single surgeon. The radiation exposure was examined in patients who underwent stand-alone LLIF. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients with 154 levels (ION 49 patients with 79 levels/ non-ION 38 patients with 75 levels) were included. There were no significant differences in operative time (ION 143.5 min vs. non-ION 126.0 min, P = .406), time from induction end to surgery start (ION 31.0 min vs. non-ION 31.0 min, P = .761), estimated blood loss (ION 37.5 ml vs. non-ION 50.0 ml, P = .351), perioperative complications (ION 16.3% vs. non-ION 7.9%, P = .335) and length of stay (ION 50.6 hours vs. non-ION 41.7 hours, P = .841). No significant difference was found in the accuracy of cage placement (P = .279). ION did not significantly increase total radiation dose (ION 51.0 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .237) and tended to reduce radiation dose during the procedure (ION 32.2 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .932). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in LLIF using ION were comparable to those using fluoroscopy only. The use of ION in LLIF was feasible, safe and accurate and may reduce radiation dose to the surgeon and surgical team.

Multimodality Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of Alerts in 628 Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of private neuromonitoring databases. OBJECTIVES: To review neuromonitoring alerts in a large series of patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and determine whether alerts occurred more frequently when more lumbar levels were accessed or more frequently at particular lumbar levels. METHODS: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) databases were reviewed and patients were identified undergoing LLIF between L1 and L5. All cases in which at least one IONM modality was used (motor evoked potentials (MEP), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), evoked electromyography (EMG)) were included in this study. The type of IONM used and incidence of alerts were collected from each IONM report and analyzed. The incidence of alerts for each IONM modality based on number of levels at which at LLIF was performed and the specific level an LLIF was performed were compared. RESULTS: A total of 628 patients undergoing LLIF across 934 levels were reviewed. EMG was used in 611 (97%) cases, SSEP in 561 (89%), MEP in 144 (23%). The frequency of IONM alerts for EMG, SSEP and MEPs did not significantly increase as the number of LLIF levels accessed increased. No EMG, SSEP, or MEP alerts occurred at L1-L2. EMG alerts occurred in 2-5% of patients at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 and did not significantly vary by level (P = .34). SSEP and MEP alerts occurred more frequently at L4-L5 versus L2-L3 and L3-L4 (P < .03). CONCLUSIONS: IONM may provide the greatest utility at L4-L5, particularly MEPs, and may not be necessary for more cephalad LLIF procedures such as at L1-L2.

Computer-Assisted Navigation Is Associated With Decreased Rates of Hardware-Related Revision After Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To (1) define utilization trends for navigated instrumented posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), (2) compare reasons and rates of revision at 30-day, 60-day, 90-day, and 1-year follow-up, and (3) compare 90-day perioperative complications between navigated versus conventional instrumented PLF. METHODS: Patients who underwent navigated or conventional instrumented PLF were identified from the Humana insurance database using the PearlDiver Patient Records between 2007-2017. Usage of navigation was characterized. Patient demographics and operative characteristics (number of levels fused, interbody usage) were compared between the 2 treatment groups. Propensity score matching was done and comparisons were made for revision rates at different follow-up periods (categorized by reasons) and other 90-day perioperative complications. RESULTS: This study included 1,648 navigated and 23 429 conventional instrumented PLF. Navigated cases increased over the years studied to approximately 10% in 2017. Statistical analysis after propensity score matching revealed significantly lower rates of hardware-related revision at 90-day follow-up in the navigated cohort (0.49% versus 1.15%, P = .033). At 1-year follow-up, the navigated cohort continued to have significantly lower rates of hardware-related revision (1.70% versus 2.73%, P = .044) as well as all cause revision (2.67% versus 4.00%, P = .032). There were no statistical differences between the 2 cohorts in any of the 90-day perioperative complications studied, such as cellulitis and blood transfusion (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that navigation is associated with reductions in hardware-related revisions after instrumented PLF. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously in the setting of potential confounding by other unmeasured variables.

Opioid prescription trends after ambulatory anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Opioid utilization has been well studied for inpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the amount and type of opioids prescribed following ambulatory ACDF and the associated risk of persistent use are largely unknown. PURPOSE: To characterize opioid prescription filling following single-level ambulatory ACDF compared with inpatient procedures. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate, amount, and type of perioperative opioid prescription. METHODS: Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database. Perioperative opioids were defined as opioid prescriptions 30 days before and 14 days after the procedure. Rate, amount, and type of opioid prescription were characterized. Multivariable analyses controlling for any differences in demographics and comorbidities between the two treatment groups were utilized to determine any association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use (defined as the patient still filling new opioid prescriptions >90 days postoperatively). RESULTS: A total of 42,521 opioid-naive patients were identified, of which 2,850 were ambulatory and 39,671 were inpatient. Ambulatory ACDF was associated with slightly increased perioperative opioid prescription filling (52.7% vs 47.3% for inpatient procedures; p<.001). Among the 20,280 patients (47.7%) who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions, the average amount of opioids prescribed (in morphine milligram equivalents) was similar between ambulatory and inpatient procedures (550 vs 540, p=.413). There was no association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use in patients who filled a perioperative opioid prescription, even after controlling for comorbidities, (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15, p=.066). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory ACDF patients who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions were prescribed a similar amount of opioids as those undergoing inpatient procedures. Further, ambulatory ACDF does not appear to be a risk factor for persistent opioid use. These findings are important for patient counseling as well as support the safety profile of this new surgical pathway.

Patient-Reported Allergies Do Not Affect Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: A gap in the literature exists regarding the association between number of allergies and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS: Consecutive cervical or lumbar spine surgery patients were identified from a prospective registry from April 2017 to July 2020. Patients were grouped into those with 0, 1, 2, or ≥3 allergies. Demographics were compared between the groups. PROMs included Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain, VAS arm pain, VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, short form 12 (SF-12) physical component score, SF-12 mental component score, and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function (PROMIS-PF), and outcomes were compared between the groups through multivariable analysis at up to 1-year follow-up. Associations between number of allergies and achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the 9 aforementioned PROMs at 1-year follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: This study included 148 cervical and 517 lumbar patients. After controlling for demographic differences, a higher number of allergies was associated with less improvement in VAS neck pain, SF-12 physical component score, and PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks following cervical surgery and less improvement in PROMIS-PF at 2 weeks following lumbar surgery (P < 0.05). However, these associations failed to persist after 6 months and 12 weeks following surgery in cervical and lumbar patients, respectively (P > 0.05). No association was identified between number of allergies and achievement of MCID in any of the 9 studied PROMs at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The higher number of allergies was associated with less improvement in PROMs in the early postoperative period but not at longer-term follow-up. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings provide data that can be utilized while counseling patients and setting postoperative expectations.

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding. PURPOSE: To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy). CONCLUSIONS: These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

Predictors of Subsidence and its Clinical Impact After Expandable Cage Insertion in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected multisurgeon data. OBJECTIVE: Examine the rate, clinical impact, and predictors of subsidence after expandable minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) cage. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Expandable cage technology has been adopted in MI-TLIF to reduce the risks and optimize outcomes. Although subsidence is of particular concern when using expandable technology as the force required to expand the cage can weaken the endplates, its rates, predictors, and outcomes lack evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level MI-TLIF using expandable cages for degenerative lumbar conditions and had a follow-up of >1 year were included. Preoperative and immediate, early, and late postoperative radiographs were reviewed. Subsidence was determined if the average anterior/posterior disc height decreased by >25% compared with the immediate postoperative value. Patient-reported outcomes were collected and analyzed for differences at the early (<6 mo) and late (>6 mo) time points. Fusion was assessed by 1-year postoperative computed tomography. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight patients were included (mean age, 61 yr, 86% 1-level, 14% 2-level). Twenty-two (14.9%) demonstrated subsidence. Although statistically not significant, patients with subsidence were older, had lower bone mineral density, and had higher body mass index and comorbidity burden. Operative time was significantly higher ( P = 0.02) and implant width was lower ( P < 0.01) for subsided patients. Visual analog scale-leg was significantly lower for subsided patients compared with nonsubsided patients at a >6 months time point. Long-term (>6 mo) patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rate was lower for subsided patients (53% vs . 77%), although statistically not significant ( P = 0.065). No differences existed in complication, reoperation, or fusion rates. CONCLUSIONS: Of the patients, 14.9% experienced subsidence predicted by narrower implants. Although subsidence did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported outcome measures and complication, reoperation, or fusion rates, patients had lower visual analog scale-leg and patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rates at the >6-month time point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Time-demand, Radiation Exposure and Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery With the Use of Skin-Anchored Intraoperative Navigation: The Effect of the Learning Curve.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the learning curve of skin-anchored intraoperative navigation (ION) for minimally invasive lumbar surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ION is increasingly being utilized to provide better visualization, improve accuracy, and enable less invasive procedures. The use of noninvasive skin-anchored trackers for navigation is a novel technique, with the few reports on this technique demonstrating safety, feasibility, and significant reductions in radiation exposure compared with conventional fluoroscopy. However, a commonly cited deterrent to wider adoption is the learning curve. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing 1-level minimally invasive lumbar surgery was performed. Outcomes were: (1) time for ION set-up and image-acquisition; (2) operative time; (3) fluoroscopy time; (4) radiation dose; (5) operative complications; (6) need for repeat spin; (7) incorrect localization.Chronologic case number was plotted against each outcome. Derivative of the nonlinear curve fit to the dataset for each outcome was solved to find plateau in learning. RESULTS: A total of 270 patients [114 microdiscectomy; 79 laminectomy; 77 minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF)] were included. (1) ION set-up and image-acquisition: no learning curve for microdiscectomy. Proficiency at 23 and 31 cases for laminectomy and MI-TLIF, respectively. (2) Operative time: no learning curve for microdiscectomy. Proficiency at 36 and 31 cases for laminectomy and MI-TLIF, respectively. (3) Fluoroscopy time: no learning curve. (4) Radiation dose: proficiency at 42 and 33 cases for microdiscectomy and laminectomy, respectively. No learning curve for MI-TLIF. (5) Operative complications: unable to evaluate for microdiscectomy and MI-TLIF. Proficiency at 29 cases for laminectomy. (6) Repeat spin: unable to evaluate for microdiscectomy and laminectomy. For MI-TLIF, chronology was not associated with repeat spins. (7) Incorrect localization: none. CONCLUSIONS: Skin-anchored ION did not result in any wrong level surgeries. Learning curve for other parameters varied by surgery type, but was achieved at 25-35 cases for a majority of outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Surface Navigation and the Influence of Navigation on MIS Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for surface-based navigation in minimally-invasive spine surgery (MIS), provide an outline for its workflow, and present a wide range of MIS case examples in which surface-based navigation may be advantageous. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings related to surface-based navigation in MIS was performed. Workflow and case examples utilizing surface-based navigation were described. RESULTS: The nascent literature regarding surface-based intraoperative navigation (ION) in spine surgery is encouraging and initial studies have shown that surface-based navigation can allow for accurate pedicle screw placement and decreased operative time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation exposure when compared to traditional fluoroscopic imaging. Surface-based navigation may be particularly useful in MIS cervical and lumbar decompressions and MIS lumbar instrumentation cases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, it is possible that surface-based ION will become a mainstay in the armamentarium of enabling technologies utilized by minimally-invasive spine surgeons, but further studies are needed assessing its accuracy, complications, and cost-effectiveness.

Advanced Technologies for Outpatient Lumbar Fusion: Barriers and Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been increasing interest in outpatient spine surgery. Minimally invasive techniques have created an opportunity for ambulatory lumbar fusion, and these techniques increasingly involve advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers, advantages, and future predictions for such technology in the context of outpatient lumbar fusions. METHODS: This is a narrative review of studies examining the advantages, limitations, and cost-effectiveness of navigation and spinal robotics in conjunction with the outcomes and costs of outpatient lumbar fusion. RESULTS: Outpatient lumbar fusion is a growing trend with ample evidence of its safety, favorable patient outcomes, and cost savings. Navigation and spinal robotics are associated with improved instrumentation accuracy and fewer complications, and the long-term cost savings can make these technologies financially practical in the outpatient setting. Future capabilities with robotics will only increase their value. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics are strategic long-term investments in the context of outpatient lumbar fusion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The favorable outcomes and costs associated with navigation and robotics will be relevant to any spine surgeon interested in developing an outpatient lumbar fusion program.

Cervical Disc Replacement for Radiculopathy Versus Myeloradiculopathy: An MCID Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) across multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing cervical disc replacement (CDR) for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To date, a limited number of studies have demonstrated mostly similar results in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy undergoing CDR. However, each of these previous studies have focused on statistically significant differences, which may not correlate with patient perceived improvements in outcomes or success. METHODS: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level CDR with radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic variables, preoperative diagnosis, and operative variables were collected for each patient. The following PROs were prospectively collected: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS)-Neck, VAS-Arm, Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS), PROMIS Physical Function (PF). An MCID analysis of PROs for each diagnosis group was performed and the percentage of patients achieving the MCID was compared between the two diagnosis groups. RESULTS: Eight-five patients, of which 56% had radiculopathy and 44% had myeloradiculopathy. MCID analysis demonstrated that at 6-week, 12-week, and final postoperative follow-up there was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy achieving the MCID for each PRO assessed. In both diagnosis groups the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO continued to increase from the 6-week to final postoperative follow-up except for the SF-12 MCS in patients with myeloradiculopathy. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients achieving the MCID was not significantly different at each postoperative period assessed in the radiculopathy and myeloradiculopathy groups treated with CDR. In addition, the percentage of patients achieving the MCID continued to increase from 6 weeks to final follow-up in both groups for almost all PROs assessed.

Preoperative opioids before adult spinal deformity surgery associated with increased reoperations and high rates of chronic postoperative opioid use at 3-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To determine the association of preoperative opioid prescriptions with reoperations and postoperative opioid prescriptions after adult spina deformity (ASD) surgery. With the current opioid crisis, patients undergoing surgery for ASD are at particular risk for opioid-related complications due to significant preoperative disability and surgical morbidity. No previous studies consider preoperative opioids in this population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion (7 or more levels) for ASD was performed. All patients had at least 3 years of postoperative follow-up 3 years postoperatively. Prescriptions for 4 different opioid medications (hydromorphone, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and tramadol) were identified within 3 months preoperatively and up to 3 years postoperatively. Multivariate regression was utilized to determine the association of preoperative use with reoperations and with postoperative opioid use, controlling for both patient and surgery-related confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 743 patients were identified and 59.6% (443) had opioid prescriptions within 3 months preoperatively. Postoperative opioid prescriptions were identified in 66.9% of patients at 12 months postoperatively, and in 54.8% at 36 months postoperatively. The 3-year reoperation rate was 11.0% in patients without preoperative prescriptions, 16.0% in patients with preoperative any opioid prescriptions (P = 0.07), and 34.8% in patients with preoperative hydromorphone prescriptions (P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, preoperative opioid prescriptions were associated with increased reoperations (odds ratio [OR]: 1.62, P = 0.04), and chronic postoperative opioid use (OR: 4.40, P < 0.01). Preoperative hydromorphone prescriptions had the strongest association with both reoperations (OR: 4.96; P < 0.01) and chronic use (OR: 5.19: P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In the ASD population, preoperative opioids are associated with both reoperations and chronic opioid use, with hydromorphone having the strongest association. Further investigation of the benefits of preoperative weaning programs is warranted.

Technique, Time Demand, Radiation Exposure, and Outcomes of Skin-anchored Intraoperative 3D Navigation in Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Laminoforaminotomy.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe our technique and evaluate the time demand, radiation exposure, and outcomes of minimally invasive posterior cervical laminoforaminotomy (MI-PCLF) using skin-anchored intraoperative navigation (ION). BACKGROUND: Although bone-anchored trackers are most commonly used for ION, a novel technique utilizing noninvasive skin-anchored trackers has recently been described for lumbar surgery and has shown favorable results. There are currently no reports on the use of this technology for cervical surgery. METHODS: Time demand, radiation exposure, and perioperative outcomes of MI-PCLF using skin-anchored ION were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with 36 operative levels were included. Time for ION setup and operative time were a median of 34 and 62 minutes, respectively. Median radiation to the patient was 2.5 mGy from 10 seconds of fluoroscopy time. Radiation exposure to operating room personnel was negligible because they are behind a protective lead shield during ION image acquisition. There were no intraoperative complications or wrong-level surgeries. One patient required a repeat ION spin, and in 2 patients, ION was abandoned and standard fluoroscopy was used. CONCLUSIONS: Skin-anchored ION for MI-PCLF is feasible, safe, and accurate. It results in short operative times, minimal complications, low radiation to the patient, and negligible radiation to operating room personnel.

Do preoperative clinical and radiographic characteristics impact patient outcomes following one-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion based upon presenting symptoms?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) frequently present with lower extremity neurologic symptoms with or without associated lower back pain. While symptomatic improvement of leg and back pain has been reported, the resolution of back pain when it is a predominant presenting symptom remains underreported following MI-TLIF. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes at 1 year of patients undergoing MI-TLIF with lower extremity neurologic symptoms with and without a significant component of back pain. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a single surgeon surgical database from 2017 to 2019 was performed. PATIENT SAMPLE: Fifty one patients undergoing MI-TLIF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual analog scale back pain (VAS-back), and VAS leg pain (VAS-leg). METHODS: Patients were divided into two groups: Leg Pain Predominant (patients reported greater than 50% leg pain upon presentation) and Back Pain Predominant (patients reported 50% or greater back pain). Multivariate analysis was performed to determine differences between groups based upon any significantly baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Preoperative demographic and radiographic outcomes were similar between the two groups. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in ODI, VAS-Back and VAS-leg at 1-year postoperatively. On multivariate analysis, there were differences in ODI at 1-year, 1-year back pain, and 1-year leg pain between groups with those who initially presented with leg pain having a lower ODI, VAS Back, and VAS leg. Patients who presented with predominantly leg pain were more likely to meet minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria for ODI and VAS-back compared to those with predominantly back pain. CONCLUSION: Following MI-TLIF, patients with lower extremity neurologic symptoms with and without a significant component of back pain have improvements in back pain, leg pain, and ODI regardless of their primary presenting pain complaint; however, patients who presented with predominantly leg pain were more likely to meet MCID criteria for improvement in their back pain and ODI score.

Current treatment and decision-making factors leading to fusion vs decompression for one-level degenerative spondylolisthesis: survey results from members of the Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is one of the most common pathologies spine surgeons treat. While a number of potential factors have been identified, there is no current consensus on which variables most impact the decision to fuse vs. decompress alone in this population. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe current DS treatment practices and identify both the radiographic and clinical factors leading to the decision to fuse segments for one level DS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Descriptive cross-sectional survey. PATIENT SAMPLE: Surveys were administered to members of Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgeon demographics and treatment practices were reported. Radiographic and clinical parameters were ranked by each surgeon with regards to their importance. METHODS: The primary analysis was limited to completed surveys. Baseline characteristics were summarized. Clinical and radiographic parameters were ranked and compared. Ranking of each clinical and radiographic parameters was reported using best and worst rank, mean rank position, and percentiles. The most important, top 3 most important, and top 5 most important parameters were ordered given each parameter's ranking frequency. RESULTS: 381 surveys were returned completed. With regards to fusion vs. decompression, 19.9% fuse all cases, 39.1% fuse > 75%, 17.8% fuse 50%-75%, and 23.2% fuse <25%. The most common decompressive technique was a partial laminotomy (51.4%), followed by full laminectomy (28.9%). 82.2% of respondents instrument all fusion cases. Instability (93.2%), spondylolisthesis grade (59.8%), and laterolisthesis (37.3%) were the most common radiographic factors impacting the decision to fuse. With regards to the clinical factors leading to fusion, mechanical low back pain (83.2%), activity level (58.3%), and neurogenic claudication (42.8%) were the top 3 clinical parameters. CONCLUSIONS: There is little consensus on the treatment of DS, with society members showing substantial variation in treatment patterns with the majority utilizing fusion for treatment. The most common radiographic parameters impacting treatment are instability, spondylolisthesis grade, and laterolisthesis while mechanical low back pain, activity level, and neurogenic claudication are the most common clinical parameters.