Does obesity and varying body mass index affect the clinical outcomes and safety of biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression? A comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic spine surgery has recently grown in popularity due to the potential benefits of reduced pain and faster recovery time as compared to open surgery. Biportal spinal endoscopy has been successfully applied to lumbar disc herniations and lumbar spinal stenosis. Obesity is associated with increased risk of complications in spine surgery. Few prior studies have investigated the impact of obesity and associated medical comorbidities with biportal spinal endoscopy. METHODS: This study was a prospectively collected, retrospectively analyzed comparative cohort design. Patients were divided into cohorts of normal body weight (Bone Mass Index (BMI)18.0-24.9), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9) and obese (BMI > 30.0) as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO). Patients underwent biportal spinal endoscopy by a single surgeon at a single institution for treatment of lumbar disc herniations and lumbar spinal stenosis. Demographic data, surgical complications, and patient-reported outcomes were analyzed. Statistics were calculated amongst treatment groups using analysis of variance and chi square where appropriate. Statistical significance was determined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were followed. 26 (30.1%) were normal BMI, 35 (41.7%) were overweight and 23 (27.4%) were obese. Patients with increasing BMI had correspondingly greater American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) scores. There were no significant differences in VAS Back, VAS Leg, and ODI scores, or postoperative complications among the cohorts. There were no cases of surgical site infections in the cohort. All cohorts demonstrated significant improvement up to 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that obesity is not a risk factor for increased perioperative complications with biportal spinal endoscopy and has similar clinical outcomes and safety profile as compared to patients with normal BMI. Biportal spinal endoscopy is a promising alternative to traditional techniques to treat common lumbar pathology.

Elevated Serum Alkaline Phosphatase is an Independent Predictor of Complications After Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is an enzyme which has been proven useful as a biomarker for bone turnover and inflammation. We hypothesized that high serum ALP levels are associated with increased complication rates following lumbar spinal fusion. METHODS: Lumbar spinal fusion procedures from 2005 to 2019 were queried from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Serum alkaline phosphatase levels were stratified into low <44 IU/L, normal 44-147 IU/L, and high >147 IU/L. A risk-adjusted multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze ALP as an independent risk factor for complications. RESULTS: A total of 16,441 patients who underwent lumbar fusion procedures were included. Adjusted multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that patients with a high serum ALP level had a significantly increased risk for developing septic shock (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.83-11.97), pneumonia (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.59-5.25), requiring a transfusion (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.68-2.59), reoperation within 30 days (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.12-2.52), readmission within 30 days (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.16-2.21), increased length of stay (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.49-2.36), and nonhome discharge (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.80-2.66). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated serum ALP in patients undergoing lumbar fusion procedures is associated with increased risk for multiple in-hospital complications as well as higher rates of readmission and reoperation.

Neurosurgery compared to orthopedic spine consultation: A single level I trauma center experience.

Introduction: Both Orthopedic Surgery (OS) and Neurosurgery (NS) perform spine surgery in the setting of trauma. However, it is unknown whether outcomes differ between these specialties. This study compares management and outcomes for vertebral fractures between NS and OS, hypothesizing similar operation rate, length of stay (LOS), and readmission. Research question: Do outcomes differ between NS and OS in the management of vertebral fractures following trauma? Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted on adult patients with cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral fractures treated at a single trauma center, where no standardized pathway exists across NS and OS. Patients were compared for injury profile, diagnostic imaging, and operative techniques as well as LOS, mortality, and complications. Results: A total of 630 vertebral fracture patients (OS:350 (55.6%); NS:280 (44.4%)) were included. NS utilized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) more commonly (36.4% vs. 22.6%, p < 0.001). NS patients more often underwent operation (13.2% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.016) despite similar fracture number and severity (p > 0.05). Post-operative complications, LOS, and readmission rates were similar between cohorts (p > 0.05). Discussion and conclusion: Despite similar injury profiles, NS had higher rates of MRI usage and operative interventions in the context of traumatic spine fractures. Despite differences in management, major clinical outcomes were similar between NS and OS. However, we do call for further standardization of evaluation and treatment of patients based on established algorithms from such as the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System (ATLICS).

The Role of Perioperative Nutritional Status and Supplementation in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Review of Postoperative Outcomes.

¼ Identification of malnourished and at-risk patients should be a standardized part of the preoperative evaluation process for every patient.¼ Malnourishment is defined as a disorder of energy, protein, and nutrients based on the presence of insufficient energy intake, weight loss, muscle atrophy, loss of subcutaneous fat, localized or generalized fluid accumulation, or diminished functional status.¼ Malnutrition has been associated with worse outcomes postoperatively across a variety of orthopaedic procedures because malnourished patients do not have a robust metabolic reserve available for recovery after surgery.¼ Screening assessment and basic laboratory studies may indicate patients' nutritional risk; however, laboratory values are often not specific for malnutrition, necessitating the use of prognostic screening tools.¼ Nutrition consultation and perioperative supplementation with amino acids and micronutrients are 2 readily available interventions that orthopaedic surgeons can select for malnourished patients.

Cervical Spine Surgery Following COVID-19 Infection: When is it Safe to Proceed?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. OBJECTIVE: We utilized the NIH National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) database to characterize the risk profile of patients undergoing spine surgery during multiple time windows following the COVID-19 infection. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: While the impact of COVID-19 on various organ systems is well documented, there is limited knowledge regarding its effect on perioperative complications following spine surgery or the optimal timing of surgery after an infection. METHODS: We asked the National COVID Cohort Collaborative for patients who underwent cervical spine surgery. Patients were stratified into those with an initial documented COVID-19 infection within 3 time periods: 0-2 weeks, 2-6 weeks, or 6-12 weeks before surgery. RESULTS: A total of 29,449 patients who underwent anterior approach cervical spine surgery and 46,379 patients who underwent posterior approach cervical spine surgery were included. Patients who underwent surgery within 2 weeks of their COVID-19 diagnosis had a significantly increased risk for venous thromboembolic events, sepsis, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality, irrespective of the anterior or posterior approach. Among patients undergoing surgery between 2 and 6 weeks after COVID-19 infection, the 30-day mortality risk remained elevated in patients undergoing a posterior approach only. Patients undergoing surgery between 6 and 12 weeks from the date of the COVID-19 infection did not show significantly elevated rates of any complications analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing either anterior or posterior cervical spine surgery within 2 weeks from the initial COVID-19 diagnosis are at increased risk for perioperative venous thromboembolic events, sepsis, and mortality. Elevated perioperative complication risk does not persist beyond 2 weeks, except for 30-day mortality in posterior approach surgeries. On the basis of these results, it may be warranted to postpone nonurgent spine surgeries for at least 2 weeks following a COVID-19 infection and advise patients of the increased perioperative complication risk when urgent surgery is required.

A Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes after Surgical Treatment of Multilevel Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy in the Geriatric Patient Population: An Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database 2010-2020.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2010 to 2020. PURPOSE: To compare the short-term complication rates of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), posterior cervical laminoplasty (LP), and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) in a geriatric population. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The geriatric population in the United States has increased significantly. Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is caused by cervical spinal stenosis, and its prevalence increases with age. Therefore, the incidence of multilevel DCM requiring surgical intervention is likely to increase. ACDF, LP, and PCF are the most commonly used surgical techniques for treating multilevel DCM. However, there is uncertainty regarding the optimal surgical technique for the decompression of DCM in geriatric patients. METHODS: Patients aged 65 years who had undergone either multilevel ACDF, LP, or PCF for the treatment of DCM were analyzed. Additional analysis was performed by standardizing the data for the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification scores and preoperative functional status. RESULTS: A total of 23,129 patients were identified. Patients with ACDF were younger, more often female, and preoperatively healthier than those in the other two groups. The estimated postoperative mortality and morbidity, mean operation time, and length of hospital stay were the lowest for ACDF, second lowest for LP, and highest for PCF. The readmission and reoperation rates were comparable between ACDF and LP; however, both were significantly lower than PCF. CONCLUSIONS: PCF is associated with the highest risk of mortality, morbidity, unplanned reoperation, and unplanned readmission in the short-term postoperative period in patients aged 65 years. In contrast, ACDF carries the lowest risk. However, some disease-specific factors may require posterior treatment. For these cases, LP should be included in the preoperative discussion when determining the ideal surgical approach for geriatric patients.

Effect of the administration route on the hemostatic efficacy of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing short-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an FDA-approved antifibrinolytic that is seeing increased popularity in spine surgery owing to its ability to reduce intraoperative blood loss (IOBL) and allogeneic transfusion requirements. The present study aimed to summarize the current literature on these formulations in the context of short-segment instrumented lumbar fusion including ≥ 1-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were queried for all full-text English studies evaluating the use of topical TXA (tTXA), systemic TXA (sTXA), or combined tTXA+sTXA in patients undergoing PLIF. The primary endpoints of interest were operative time, IOBL, and total blood loss (TBL); secondary endpoints included venous thromboembolic complication occurrence, and allogeneic and autologous transfusion requirements. Outcomes were compared using random effects. Comparisons were made between the following treatment groups: sTXA, tTXA, and sTXA+tTXA. Given that sTXA is arguably the standard of care in the literature (i.e., the most common route of administration that to this point has been studied the most), the authors compared sTXA versus tTXA and sTXA versus sTXA+tTXA. Study heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test, and grouped analysis using the Hedge's g test was performed for measurement of effect size. RESULTS: Forty-five articles were identified, of which 17 met the criteria for inclusion with an aggregate of 1008 patients. TXA regimens included sTXA only, tTXA only, and various combinations of sTXA and tTXA. There were no significant differences in operative time, TBL, or postoperative drainage between the sTXA and tTXA groups or between the sTXA and sTXA+tTXA groups. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggested clinical equipoise between isolated sTXA, isolated tTXA, and combinatorial tTXA+sTXA formulations as hemostatic adjuvants/neoadjuvants in short-segment fusion including ≥ 1-level PLIF. Given the theoretically lower venous thromboembolism risk associated with tTXA, additional investigations using large cohorts comparing these two formulations within the posterior fusion population are merited. Although TXA has been shown to be effective, there are insufficient data to support topical or systemic administration as superior within the open PLIF population.