The attainment of a patient acceptable symptom state in patients undergoing revision spine fusion.

INTRODUCTION: Revision lumbar fusion is most commonly due to nonunion, adjacent segment disease (ASD), or recurrent stenosis, but it is unclear if diagnosis affects patient outcomes. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether patients achieved the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) or minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after revision lumbar fusion and assess whether this was influenced by the indication for revision. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all 1-3 level revision lumbar fusions at a single institution. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was collected at preoperative, three-month postoperative, and one-year postoperative time points. The MCID was calculated using a distribution-based method at each postoperative time point. PASS was set at the threshold of ≤ 22. RESULTS: We identified 197 patients: 56% with ASD, 28% with recurrent stenosis, and 15% with pseudarthrosis. The MCID for ODI was 10.05 and 10.23 at three months and one year, respectively. In total, 61% of patients with ASD, 52% of patients with nonunion, and 65% of patients with recurrent stenosis achieved our cohort-specific MCID at one year postoperatively with ASD (p = 0.78). At one year postoperatively, 33.8% of ASD patients, 47.8% of nonunion patients, and 37% of patients with recurrent stenosis achieved PASS without any difference between indication (p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience significant postoperative improvements regardless of the indication for revision. However, a large proportion of these patients do not achieve the patient acceptable symptom state. While revision spine surgery may offer substantial benefits, these results underscore the need to manage patient expectations.

An evaluation of fusion status following lumbar fusion surgery utilizing multi-planar computed tomography.

PURPOSE: To report the rate of fusion in a sample of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery and assess interrater reliability of computed tomography (CT)-based parameters for the assessment of fusion. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics were collected through chart review of the electronic medical records. CT scans were reviewed independently by two attending spine surgeons and two spine fellows. Fusion was defined as evidence of bone bridging in any one of (1) posterolateral gutters, (2) facets, or (3) interbody (when applicable) on any CT views. Evidence of screw haloing was indicative of nonunion. Interrater reliability was determined using cohen's kappa. Afterwards, a consensus agreement for each component of fusion was reached between participants. RESULTS: The overall fusion rate among all procedures was 63/69 (91.3%). Overall 22/25 (88.0%) TLIF, 16/19 (84.2%) PLDF, 3/3 (100%) LLIF, and 22/22 (100%) circumferential fusions experienced a successful fusion. Interrater reliability was good for interbody fusion (k = 0.734) and moderate for all other measures (k = 0.561 for posterolateral fusion; k = 0.471 for facet fusion; k = 0.458 for screw haloing). Overall, interrater reliability as to whether a patient had a fusion or nonunion was moderate (k = 0.510). CONCLUSION: There was only moderate interrater reliability across most radiographic measures used in assessing lumbar fusion status. Reliability was highest when evaluating the presence of interbody fusion. The majority of fusions occurred across the facet joints.

Relating preoperative MCS-12 to microdiscectomy outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine the impact of poor mental health on patient-reported and surgical outcomes after microdiscectomy. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years who underwent a single-level lumbar microdiscectomy from 2014 to 2021 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were collected at preoperative, three-month, and one-year postoperative time points. PROMs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale Back and Leg (VAS Back and VAS Leg, respectively), and the mental and physical component of the short form-12 survey (MCS and PCS). The minimum clinically important differences (MCID) were employed to compare scores for each PROM. Patients were categorized as having worse mental health or better mental health based on a MCS threshold of 50. RESULTS: Of 210 patients identified, 128 (61%) patients had a preoperative MCS score ≤ 50. There was no difference in 90-day surgical readmissions or spine reoperations within one year. At 3- and 12-month time points, both groups demonstrated improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05). At three months postoperatively, patients with worse mental health had significantly lower PCS (42.1 vs. 46.4, p = 0.004) and higher ODI (20.5 vs. 13.3, p = 0.006) scores. Lower mental health scores were associated with lower 12-month PCS scores (43.3 vs. 48.8, p < 0.001), but greater improvements in 12-month ODI (- 28.36 vs. - 18.55, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: While worse preoperative mental health was associated with lower baseline and postoperative PROMs, patients in both groups experienced similar improvements in PROMs. Rates of surgical readmissions and reoperations were similar among patients with varying preoperative mental health status.

Validation of the AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting.

PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and prospective validity of AO Spine CROST (Clinician Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) in the clinical setting. METHODS: Patients were included from four trauma centers. Two surgeons with substantial amount of experience in spine trauma care were included from each center. Two separate questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6-months and 1-year: one to surgeons (mainly CROST) and another to patients (AO Spine PROST-Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze patient characteristics and feasibility, Cronbach's α for internal consistency. Inter-rater reliability through exact agreement, Kappa statistics and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Prospective analysis, and relationships between CROST and PROST were explored through descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations. RESULTS: In total, 92 patients were included. CROST showed excellent feasibility results. Internal consistency (α = 0.58-0.70) and reliability (ICC = 0.52 and 0.55) were moderate. Mean total scores between surgeons only differed 0.2-0.9 with exact agreement 48.9-57.6%. Exact agreement per CROST item showed good results (73.9-98.9%). Kappa statistics revealed moderate agreement for most CROST items. In the prospective analysis a trend was only seen when no concerns at all were expressed by the surgeon (CROST = 0), and moderate to strong positive Spearman correlations were found between CROST at baseline and the scores at follow-up (rs = 0.41-0.64). Comparing the CROST with PROST showed no specific association, nor any Spearman correlations (rs = -0.33-0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The AO Spine CROST showed moderate validity in a true clinical setting including patients from the daily clinical practice.

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state.

PURPOSE: While patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) define value in spine surgery, several values such as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) help guide the interpretation of PROMs and identify thresholds of clinical significance. Significant variation exists in reported values and their calculation, so the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the spine surgery literature for metrics of clinical significance derived from PROMs. METHODS: We conducted a query of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to January 1, 2023, for studies that derived quantitative metrics (e.g., SCB, MCID, PASS) from PROMs in the setting of spine surgery with minimum 1-year follow-up. Details regarding the specific PROMs were collected including which PROM was measured, whether anchor- or distribution-based methods were utilized, the specific calculations, and the recommended value for a given PROM based on all evaluated calculations. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies of 21,780 patients were included. The most commonly evaluated PROM-derived value was the MCID (n = 28), followed by PASS (n = 6) and SCB (n = 4). Twenty-one studies only utilized anchor-based calculations, 15 utilized both anchor-based and distribution-based methods, and one only utilized distribution-based calculations. The most commonly evaluated legacy PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (N = 11, MCID range 4-20) and visual analog scale back pain (N = 5, MCID range 0.5-4.6). All 10 studies that derived SCB or PASS utilized the receiver operating characteristic methods. Among the six studies deriving a PASS value, four only evaluated ODI, identifying PASS ranging from 5 to 22. CONCLUSION: While calculated measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB exist, significant heterogeneity exists in the current literature. Current shortcomings include a wide variability of reported value thresholds across the literature, and limited applicability to more heterogenous patient populations than the targeted cohorts included in published investigations. Continued investigations that apply these methods to heterogenous, large-scale populations can help increase generalizability and validity of these measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

An international validation of the AO spine subaxial injury classification system.

PURPOSE: To validate the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System with participants of various experience levels, subspecialties, and geographic regions. METHODS: A live webinar was organized in 2020 for validation of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System. The validation consisted of 41 unique subaxial cervical spine injuries with associated computed tomography scans and key images. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System were calculated for injury morphology, injury subtype, and facet injury. The reliability and reproducibility of the classification system were categorized as slight (ƙ = 0-0.20), fair (ƙ = 0.21-0.40), moderate (ƙ = 0.41-0.60), substantial (ƙ = 0.61-0.80), or excellent (ƙ = > 0.80) as determined by the Landis and Koch classification. RESULTS: A total of 203 AO Spine members participated in the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System validation. The percent of participants accurately classifying each injury was over 90% for fracture morphology and fracture subtype on both assessments. The interobserver reliability for fracture morphology was excellent (ƙ = 0.87), while fracture subtype (ƙ = 0.80) and facet injury were substantial (ƙ = 0.74). The intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology and subtype were excellent (ƙ = 0.85, 0.88, respectively), while reproducibility for facet injuries was substantial (ƙ = 0.76). CONCLUSION: The AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology, substantial reliability and reproducibility for facet injuries, and excellent reproducibility with substantial reliability for injury subtype.

Health professionals' perspective on the applicability of AO Spine PROST (patient reported outcome Spine trauma) in people with a motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury.

PURPOSE: The AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) was developed for people with spine trauma and minor or no neurological impairment. The purpose is to investigate health professionals' perspective on the applicability of the AO Spine PROST for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), using a discussion meeting and international survey study. METHODS: A discussion meeting with SCI rehabilitation physicians in the Netherlands was performed, followed by a worldwide online survey among the AO Spine International community, involved in the care of people with SCI. Participants rated the comprehensibility, relevance, acceptability, feasibility and completeness of the AO Spine PROST on a 1-5 point scale (5 most positive). Comments could be provided per question. RESULTS: The discussion meeting was attended by 13 SCI rehabilitation physicians. The survey was completed by 196 participants. Comprehensibility (mean ± SD: 4.1 ± 0.8), acceptability (4.0 ± 0.8), relevance (3.9 ± 0.8), completeness (3.9 ± 0.8), and feasibility (4.1 ± 0.7) of the AO Spine PROST were rated positively for use in people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Only a few participants questioned the relevance of items on the lower extremities (e.g., walking) or missed items on pulmonary functioning and complications. Some recommendations were made for improvement in instructions, terminology and examples of the tool. CONCLUSION: Health professionals found the AO Spine PROST generally applicable for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. This study provides further evidence for the use of the AO Spine PROST in spine trauma care, rehabilitation and research, as well as suggestions for its further development.

The severity of preoperative anemia escalates risk of poor short-term outcomes after lumbar spine fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how preoperative anemia severity affects 90-day outcomes of spinal fusion surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult lumbar fusion patients at a tertiary medical center. Patients were classified by World Health Organization anemia severity definitions for comparisons. Multivariate regression models were created to control for confounding variables, for all primary outcomes of transfusion requirements, non-home discharge, readmissions, complications, and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 2582 patients were included: 2.7% with moderate-severe anemia, 11.0% with mild anemia, and 86.3% without anemia. Moderate-severe patients had the longest hospital stay (5.03 days vs 4.14 and 3.59 days, p < 0.001) and highest risk of transfusion (52.2% vs 13.0% vs 2.69%, p < 0.001), non-home discharge (39.1% vs 27.8% vs 15.4%, p < 0.001), readmission (7.25% vs 5.99% vs 3.36%, p = 0.023), and complications (13.0% vs 9.51% vs 6.20%, p = 0.012). On multivariable logistic regression, both patients with mild and moderate-severe anemia had an increased risk of transfusion (OR: 37.3, p < 0.001; OR: 5.25, p < 0.001, respectively) and non-home discharge (OR: 2.00, p = 0.021; OR: 1.71, p = 0.001, respectively) compared to patients without anemia. Anemia severity was not independently associated with complications or 90-day readmission. On multivariable linear regression, mild anemia (ß: 0.37, p = 0.001) and moderate-severe anemia (ß: 1.07, p < 0.001) were independently associated with length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate-severe preoperative anemia are at increased risk for longer length of stay, transfusions, and non-home discharge. Improved optimization of preoperative anemia may significantly reduce healthcare utilization, and surgeons should consider these risks in preoperative planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The impact of cage positioning on lumbar lordosis and disc space restoration following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate patient and surgical factors that predict increased overall lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis correction following a minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent one- or two-level LLIF. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and 6-month postoperative measurements of LL, segmental lordosis, anterior disc height, and posterior disc height were collected from standing lateral radiographs for each patient. Cage placement was measured utilizing the center point ratio (CPR) on immediate postoperative radiographs. Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between cage lordosis and radiographic parameters. Multivariate linear regression was performed to assess independent predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 106 levels in 78 unique patients were included. Most procedures involved fusion of one level (n = 50, 64.1%), most commonly L3-4 (46.2%). Despite no differences in baseline segmental lordosis, patients with anteriorly or centrally placed cages experienced the greatest segmental lordosis correction immediately (mean anterior 4.81° and central 4.46° vs posterior 2.47°, p = 0.0315) and at 6 months postoperatively, and patients with anteriorly placed cages had greater overall lordosis correction postoperatively (mean 6.30°, p = 0.0338). At the 6-month follow-up, patients with anteriorly placed cages experienced the greatest increase in anterior disc height (mean anterior 6.24 mm vs posterior 3.69 mm, p = 0.0122). Cages placed more posteriorly increased the change in posterior disc height postoperatively (mean posterior 4.91 mm vs anterior 1.80 mm, p = 0.0001) and at 6 months (mean posterior 4.18 mm vs anterior 2.06 mm, p = 0.0255). There were no correlations between cage lordotic angle and outcomes. On multivariate regression, anterior cage placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in segmental lordosis, while posterior placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in posterior disc height. Percutaneous screw placement, cage lordotic angle, and cage height did not independently predict any radiographic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF procedures reliably improve LL and increase intervertebral disc space. Anterior cage placement improves the lordosis angle greater than posterior placement, which better corrects sagittal alignment, but there is still a significant improvement in lordosis even with a posteriorly placed cage. Posterior cage placement provides greater restoration in posterior disc space height, maximizing indirect decompression, but even the anteriorly placed cages provided indirect decompression. Cage parameters including cage height, lordosis angle, and material do not impact radiographic improvement.

In-hospital mortality rate in subaxial cervical spinal cord injury patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine existing trends concerning in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic subaxial cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) over the last four decades. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to assess the role of the following factors on in-hospital mortality over the last four decades: neurological deficit, age, surgical decompression, use of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), use of methylprednisolone in the acute post-injury period, and study location (developing versus developed countries). RESULTS: Among 3333 papers after deduplication, 21 studies met the eligibility criteria. The mortality rate was 17.88% [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.9-22.87%]. No significant trend in mortality rate was observed over the 42-year period (meta-regression coefficient = 0.317; p = 0.372). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant association between acute subaxial cervical SCI-related mortality when stratified by use of surgery, administration of methylprednisolone, use of MRI and CT imaging, study design (prospective versus retrospective study), and study location. The mortality rate was significantly higher in complete SCI (20.66%, p = 0.002) and American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale (AIS) A (20.57%) and B (9.28%) (p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: A very low level of evidence showed that in-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic subaxial cervical SCI did not decrease over the last four decades despite diagnostic and therapeutic advancements. The overall acute mortality rate following subaxial cervical SCI is 17.88%. We recommend reporting a stratified mortality rate according to key factors such as treatment paradigms, age, and severity of injury in future studies.

The Role of Intraspinal Administration of Self-Assembled Peptide on Locomotion Recovery After Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord injury (SCI) treatment is still a challenge and new treatments that help these patients are being considered. Recent studies showed that the use of self-assembled peptide (SAP) can be useful in SCI treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we investigated the effect of SAP administration on locomotion recovery after SCI. Records were obtained from a comprehensive search of data bases. Articles were scrutinized for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were analyzed and results were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. Subgroup analysis was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies and 17 separate experiments were included in the final analysis. Treatment with SAP structures after SCI resulted in a significant improvement in animal motor function (SMD = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.68-1.58; p < 0.0001). SAP treatment facilitated axon sprouting (SMD = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.33-1.18; p < 0.0001) and reduction of glial scar (SMD = -1.02; 95% CI: -1.94 to -0.09; p = 0.03). The difference in SAP type, its concentration, follow-up time, and SCI model had no effect on SAP effectiveness. In addition, SAP administration had a similar effect on improving locomotion in all three immediate, acute, and subacute phases which gives the good news of using this treatment for patients who are in the chronic phase. CONCLUSION: SAP treatment can be considered as a potential treatment to help the motor recovery of SCI and axon regeneration.

Combined application of neural stem/progenitor cells and scaffolds on locomotion recovery following spinal cord injury in rodents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This present study evaluates the pre-clinical evidence on the efficacy of NS/PC and scaffold (NS/PC + scaffold) transplantation on locomotor recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). METHOD: Two independent reviewers screened the records gathered through a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases. Studies on rats/mice evaluating the efficacy of simultaneous transplantation of NS/PCs and scaffold in the treatment of SCI were included. The results were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). RESULTS: Forty-seven articles were retrieved. Analyses showed that NS/PC + scaffold transplantation significantly improved locomotion in animals with SCI compared to that of the non-treatment group (SMD = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.89 to 3.54; I2 = 95.15%, p < 0.0001), scaffold alone (SMD = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.56 to 3.00; I2 = 94.38%; p < 0.0001), and NS/PCs alone (SMD = 1.74, 95% CI: 0.64 to 2.83; I2 = 92.02%, p < 0.0001). Moreover, the effectiveness of the treatment significantly increases when PLGA-based scaffolds and antibiotics are used. In addition, the NS/PC + scaffold transplantation during the first week after injury led to a significant improvement in locomotion, while concomitant transplantation of NS/PC + scaffold did not improve locomotion in cervical lesions. CONCLUSION: The findings showed that using NS/PCs with scaffold not only improves locomotion recovery, but also is superior to NS/PCs alone and scaffold alone. Future experiments and translational clinical studies are recommended to focus on the assessment of the safety and efficacy of the application of NS/PC + scaffold on SCI recovery.

Preoperative epidural steroid injections do not increase the risk of postoperative infection in patients undergoing lumbar decompression or fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESI) are a mainstay of nonoperative treatment for patients with lumbar spine pathology. Recent literature evaluating infection risk following ESI after elective orthopedic surgery has produced conflicting evidence. Our primary objective was to review the literature and provide a larger meta-analysis analyzing the temporal effects of steroid injections on the risk of infection following lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: We conducted a query of the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception until April 1, 2022 for studies evaluating the risk of infection in the setting of prior spinal steroid injections in patients undergoing lumbar spine decompression or fusion. Three meta-analyses were conducted, (1) comparing ESI within 30-days of surgery to control, (2) comparing ESI within 30-days to ESI between 1 and 3 months preoperatively, and (3) comparing any history of ESI prior to surgery to control. Tests of proportions were utilized for all comparisons between groups. Study heterogeneity was assessed via forest plots, and publication bias was assessed quantiatively via funnel plots and qualitatively with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Nine total studies were included, five of which demonstrated an association between ESI and postoperative infection, while four found no association. Comparison of weighted means demonstrated no significant difference in infection rates between the 30-days ESI group and control group (2.67% vs. 1.69%, p = 0.144), 30-days ESI group and the > 30-days ESI group (2.34% vs. 1.66%, p = 0.1655), or total ESI group and the control group (1.99% vs. 1.70%, p = 0.544). Heterogeneity was low for all comparisons following sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not implicate preoperative ESI in postoperative infection rates following lumbar fusion or decompression. Operative treatment should not be delayed due to preoperative steroid injections based on current evidence. There remains a paucity of high-quality data in the literature evaluating the impact of preoperative ESI on postoperative infection rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Overview of Traumatic Brain Injury in American Football Athletes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and treatment of traumatic brain injury in collision athletes, particularly those participating in American football. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases for publications between 1990 and 2019. The following search phrases were used: "concussion," "professional athletes," "collision athletes," "mild traumatic brain injury," "severe traumatic brain injury," "management of concussion," "management of severe traumatic brain injury," and "chronic traumatic encephalopathy." Publications that did not present epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathophysiology, radiological evaluation, or management were omitted. Classic articles as per senior author recommendations were retrieved through reference review. RESULTS: The results of the literature review yielded 147 references: 21 articles discussing epidemiology, 16 discussing clinical presentation, 34 discussing etiology and pathophysiology, 10 discussing radiological evaluation, 34 articles for on-field management, and 32 articles for medical and surgical management. CONCLUSION: Traumatic brain injuries are frequent in professional collision athletes, and more severe injuries can have devastating and lasting consequences. Although sport-related concussions are well studied in professional American football, there is limited literature on the epidemiology and management of severe traumatic brain injuries. This article reviews the epidemiology, as well as the current practices in sideline evaluation, acute management, and surgical treatment of concussions and severe traumatic brain injury in professional collision athletes. Return-to-play decisions should be based on individual patient symptoms and recovery.

New Evaluation and Management Code Level Selection Trends in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Patients.

BACKGROUND: On January 1, 2021, the American Medical Association implemented changes regarding the outpatient Evaluation and Management (E/M) criteria dictating Current Procedural Terminology code level selection to help diminish administrative burden and emphasize medical decision-making as the primary determinant in E/M level of service (EML). The goal of this study was to describe EML coding trends in outpatient visits for hip and knee osteoarthritis after the 2021 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services changes to the E/M system. METHODS: All outpatient visits for primary hip and knee osteoarthritis within the divisions of Joint Replacement, Operative Sports Medicine, and Nonoperative Sports Medicine at a single orthopaedic practice were retrospectively analyzed during 2 separate 10-month timeframes in 2019 and 2021. The primary endpoint was the visit EML (1 through 5) based on Current Procedural Terminology E/M codes. RESULTS: In 2019, 7.8% of all visits were billed as level 2, 85.8% of all visits were billed as level 3, and 6.3% of all visits were billed as level 4. In 2021, 2.8% of visits were billed as level 2, 54% of visits were billed as level 3, and 41.3% of visits were billed as level 4. Level 1 and Level 5 visits did not exceed 2% in either year. Across all 3 divisions, level 2 and 3 visits decreased significantly (P < .05), while level 4 visits increased significantly (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Since the E/M coding criteria overhaul in 2021, there has been a significant trend towards higher level of service code selection across multiple divisions in our orthopaedic practice.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is more effective than cervical arthroplasty in relieving atypical symptoms in patients with cervical spondylosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with cervical spondylosis often present with concurrent 'atypical symptoms' of unknown etiology that have been associated with cervical spondylotic disease, including dizziness, headache, nausea, tinnitus, blurred vision, palpitations, and memory and gastrointestinal disturbances. Few studies have addressed whether surgical intervention to treat classic symptoms of cervical spondylosis can also effectively alleviate atypical symptoms. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to compare the ability of cervical arthroplasty (CA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) to alleviate atypical symptoms associated with cervical spondylosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 140 patients with cervical spondylosis and associated atypical symptoms was performed. Atypical symptoms were defined vertigo, headache, nausea and vomiting, tinnitus, blur vision, palpitation, hypomnesia, and gastroenteric disturbances not otherwise explained by medical comorbidities. Seventy-eight patients (55.7%) underwent ACDF and 62 (44.3%) patients underwent CA. Demographics, surgical characteristics, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographs, complication rates, and resolution in atypical symptoms were recorded and compared between groups. Atypical symptoms were assessed using a 20-point system. All the patients had a minimum of five years follow-up. RESULTS: VAS, SF-36, JOA, and NDI scores improved significantly in all the patients (p < 0.001). At the last follow-up, the fusion rate was 97% in the ACDF group. Atypical symptoms improved in both groups (p < 0.001), although the ACDF group demonstrated greater improvement in headache and vertigo resolution compared to the CA group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While both ACDF and CA are effective in alleviating atypical symptoms associated with cervical spondylosis, ACDF demonstrated greater improvements in atypical symptoms.

The role of electrical stimulation for rehabilitation and regeneration after spinal cord injury.

Electrical stimulation is used to elicit muscle contraction and can be utilized for neurorehabilitation following spinal cord injury when paired with voluntary motor training. This technology is now an important therapeutic intervention that results in improvement in motor function in patients with spinal cord injuries. The purpose of this review is to summarize the various forms of electrical stimulation technology that exist and their applications. Furthermore, this paper addresses the potential future of the technology.

Macrophage migration inhibitory factor as a therapeutic target after traumatic spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Macrophages play an important role in mediating damage after Spinal cord injury (SCI) by secreting macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MMIF) as a secondary injury mediator. We aimed to systematically review the role of MMIF as a therapeutic target after traumatic SCI. METHODS: Our systematic review has been performed according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist. A systematic search in the scientific databases was carried out for studies published before 20 February 2019 from major databases. Two researchers independently screened titles. The risk of bias of eligible articles was assessed, and data were extracted. Finally, we systematically analyzed and interpreted related data. RESULTS: 785 papers were selected for the title and abstract screening. 12 papers were included for data extraction. Eight animal studies were of high quality and the remaining two were of medium quality. One of the two human studies was of poor quality and the other was of fair quality. MMIF as a pro-inflammatory mediator can cause increased susceptibility to glutamate-related neurotoxicity, increased nitrite production, increased ERK activation, and increased COX2/PGE2 signaling pathway activation and subsequent stimulation of CCL5-related chemotaxis. Two human studies and six animal studies demonstrated that MMIF level increases after SCI. MMIF inhibition might be a potential therapeutic target in SCI by multiple different mechanisms (6/12 studies). CONCLUSION: Most animal studies demonstrate significant neurologic improvement after administration of MMIF inhibitors, but these inhibitors have not been studied in humans yet. Further clinical trials are need to further understand MMIF inhibitor utility in acute or chronic SCI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of the AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma).

PURPOSE: To validate the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma). METHODS: Patients were recruited from two level-1 trauma centers from the Netherlands. Next to the AOSpine PROST, patients also filled out SF-36 for concurrent validity. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics. Content validity was assessed by evaluating the number of inapplicable or missing questions. Also floor and ceiling effects were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach's α and item-total correlation coefficients (itcc). Spearman correlation tests were performed within AOSpine PROST items and in correlation with SF-36. Test-retest reliability was analyzed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by calculating effect sizes (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM). Factor analysis was performed to explore any dimensions within AOSpine PROST. RESULTS: Out of 179 enrolled patients, 163 (91.1%) were included. Good results were obtained for content validity. No floor or ceiling effects were seen. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.96, itcc 0.50-0.86), with also good Spearman correlations (0.25-0.79). Compared to SF-36, the strongest correlation was seen for physical functioning (0.79; p < .001). Also test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92). Concerning responsiveness analysis, very good results were seen with ES = 1.81 and SRM = 2.03 (p < 0.001). Factor analysis revealed two possible dimensions (Eigenvalues > 1), explaining 65.4% of variance. CONCLUSIONS: Very satisfactory results were obtained for reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Dutch version of AOSpine PROST. Treating surgeons are encouraged to use this novel and validated tool in clinical setting and research to contribute to evidence-based and patient-centered care.

Variation in global treatment for subaxial cervical spine isolated unilateral facet fractures.

PURPOSE: To determine the variation in the global treatment practices for subaxial unilateral cervical spine facet fractures based on surgeon experience, practice setting, and surgical subspecialty. METHODS: A survey was sent to 272 members of the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System Validation Group worldwide. Questions surveyed surgeon preferences with regard to diagnostic work-up and treatment of fracture types F1-F3, according to the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System, with various associated neurologic injuries. RESULTS: A total of 161 responses were received. Academic surgeons use the facet portion of the AO Spine classification system less frequently (61.6%) compared to hospital-employed and private practice surgeons (81.1% and 81.8%, respectively) (p = 0.029). The overall consensus was in favor of operative treatment for any facet fracture with radicular symptoms (N2) and for any fractures categorized as F2N2 and above. For F3N0 fractures, significantly less surgeons from Africa/Asia/Middle East (49%) and Europe (59.2%) chose operative treatment than from North/Latin/South America (74.1%) (p = 0.025). For F3N1 fractures, significantly less surgeons from Africa/Asia/Middle East (52%) and Europe (63.3%) recommended operative treatment than from North/Latin/South America (84.5%) (p = 0.001). More than 95% of surgeons included CT in their work-up of facet fractures, regardless of the type. No statistically significant differences were seen in the need for MRI to decide treatment. CONCLUSION: Considerable agreement exists between surgeon preferences with regard to unilateral facet fracture management with few exceptions. F2N2 fracture subtypes and subtypes with radiculopathy (N2) appear to be the threshold for operative treatment.