Intraoperative CT for lumbar fusion is not associated with improved short- or long-term complication profiles.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The use of intraoperative CT has continued to grow in recent years, as various techniques leverage the promise of improved instrumentation accuracy and the hope for decreased complications. Nonetheless, the literature regarding the short- and long-term complications associated with such techniques remains scant and/or confounded by indication and selection bias. PURPOSE: To use causal inference techniques to determine whether intraoperative CT use is associated with an improved complication profile as compared to conventional radiography for single-level lumbar fusions, an increasingly commonplace application for this technology. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Inverse probability weighted retrospective cohort study carried out within a large integrated health care network. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients who underwent surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis via lumbar fusion from January 2016 to December 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was the incidence rate of revision surgery. Our secondary outcome was the incidence of composite 90-day complications (deep and superficial surgical site infection, venous thromboembolic events, and unplanned readmissions). METHODS: Demographics, intraoperative information, and postoperative complications were abstracted from electronic health records. A propensity score was developed utilizing a parsimonious model to account for covariate interaction with our primary predictor, intraoperative imaging technique. This propensity score was utilized in the creation of inverse probability weights to adjust for indication and selection bias. The rate of revisions within 3 years as well as the rate of revisions at any time-point were compared between cohorts using Cox regression analysis. The incidence of composite 90-day complications were compared using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Our patient population consisted of 583 patients, with 132 who underwent intraoperative CT and 451 who underwent conventional radiographic techniques. There were no significant differences between cohorts following inverse probability weighting. No significant differences were detected in 3-year revision rates (HR, 0.74 [95% CI 0.29, 1.92]; p=.5), overall revision rates (HR, 0.54 [95% CI 0.20, 1.46]; p=.2), or 90-day complications (RC -0.24 [95% CI -1.35, 0.87]; p=.7). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative CT use was not associated with an improved complication profile in either the short- or long-term for patients undergoing single-level instrumented fusion. This observed clinical equipoise should be weighed against resource and radiation-related costs when considering intraoperative CT for low complexity fusions.

Projected lifetime cancer risk for patients undergoing spine surgery for isthmic spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Radiographs, fluoroscopy, and computed tomography (CT) are increasingly utilized in the diagnosis and management of various spine pathologies. Such modalities utilize ionizing radiation, a known cause of carcinogenesis. While the radiation doses such studies confer has been investigated previously, it is less clear how such doses translate to projected cancer risks, which may be a more interpretable metric. PURPOSE: (1) Calculate the lifetime cancer risk and the relative contributions of preference-sensitive selection of imaging modalities associated with the surgical management of a common spine pathology, isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS); (2) Investigate whether the use of intraoperative CT, which is being more pervasively adopted, increases the risk of cancer. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cross-sectional study carried out within a large integrated health care network. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients who underwent surgical treatment of IS via lumbar fusion from January 2016 through December 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Effective radiation dose and lifetime cancer risk associated with each exposure to ionizing radiation; (2) Difference in effective radiation dose (and lifetime cancer risk) among patients who received intraoperative CT compared to other intraoperative imaging techniques. METHODS: Baseline demographics and differences in surgical techniques were characterized. Radiation exposure data were collected from the 2-year period centered on the operative date. Projected risk of cancer from this radiation was calculated utilizing each patient's effective radiation dose in combination with age and sex. Generalized linear modeling was used to adjust for covariates when determining the comparative risk of intraoperative CT as compared to alternative imaging modalities. RESULTS: We included 151 patients in this cohort. The range in calculated cancer risk exclusively from IS management was 1.3-13 cases of cancer per 1,000 patients. During the intraoperative period, CT imaging was found to significantly increase radiation exposure as compared to alternate imaging modalities (adjusted risk difference (ARD) 12.33mSv; IQR 10.04, 14.63mSv; p<.001). For a standardized 40 to 49-year-old female, this projects to an additional 0.72 cases of cancer per 1,000. For the entire 2-year perioperative care episode, intraoperative CT as compared to other intraoperative imaging techniques was not found to increase total ionizing radiation exposure (ARD 9.49mSv; IQR -0.83, 19.81mSv; p=.072). The effect of intraoperative imaging choice was mitigated in part due to preoperative (ARD 13.1mSv, p<.001) and postoperative CTs (ARD 22.7mSv, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Preference-sensitive imaging decisions in the treatment of IS impart substantial cancer risk. Important drivers of radiation exposure exist in each phase of care, including intraoperative CT and/or CT scans during the perioperative period. Knowledge of these data warrant re-evaluation of current imaging protocols and suggest a need for the development of radiation-sensitive approaches to perioperative imaging.