High-Impact Chronic Pain Transition in Lumbar Surgery Recipients.

OBJECTIVE: High-impact chronic pain (HICP) is a term that characterizes the presence of a severe and troubling pain-related condition. To date, the prevalence of HICP in lumbar spine surgery recipients and their HICP transitions from before to after surgery are unexplored. The purpose was to define HICP prevalence, transition types, and outcomes in lumbar spine surgery recipients and to identify predictors of HICP outcomes. METHODS: In total, 43,536 lumbar surgery recipients were evaluated for HICP transition. Lumbar spine surgery recipients were categorized as having HICP preoperatively and at 3 months after surgery if they exhibited chronic and severe pain and at least one major activity limitation. Four HICP transition groups (Stable Low Pain, Transition from HICP, Transition to HICP, and Stable High Pain) were categorized and evaluated for outcomes. Multivariate multinomial modeling was used to predict HICP transition categorization. RESULTS: In this sample, 15.1% of individuals exhibited HICP preoperatively; this value declined to 5.1% at 3 months after surgery. Those with HICP at baseline and 3 months had more comorbidities and worse overall outcomes. Biological, psychological, and social factors predicted HICP transition or Stable High Pain; some of the strongest involved social factors of 2 or more to transition to HICP (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.21-1.68), and baseline report of pain/disability (OR = 3.84; 95% CI = 3.20-4.61) and psychological comorbidity (OR = 1.78; 95% CI = 1.48-2.12) to Stable Stable High Pain. CONCLUSION: The percentage of individuals with HICP preoperatively (15.1%) was low, which further diminished over a 3-month period (5.1%). Postoperative HICP groups had higher levels of comorbidities and worse baseline outcomes scores. Transition to and maintenance of HICP status was predicted by biological, psychological, and social factors.

Three-level ACDF versus 3-level laminectomy and fusion: are there differences in outcomes? An analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database cervical spondylotic myelopathy cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to compare 3-level anterior with posterior fusion surgical procedures for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: The authors analyzed prospective data from the 14 highest enrolling sites of the Quality Outcomes Database CSM module. They compared 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCF) surgical procedures, excluding surgical procedures crossing the cervicothoracic junction. Rates of reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared at 24 months postoperatively. Multivariable analyses adjusted for potential confounders elucidated in univariable analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 199 patients met the inclusion criteria: 123 ACDF (61.8%) and 76 PCF (38.2%) patients. The 24-month follow-up rates were similar (ACDF 90.2% vs PCF 92.1%, p = 0.67). Preoperatively, ACDF patients were younger (60.8 ± 10.2 vs 65.0 ± 10.3 years, p < 0.01), and greater proportions were privately insured (56.1% vs 36.8%, p = 0.02), actively employed (39.8% vs 22.8%, p = 0.04), and independently ambulatory (14.6% vs 31.6%, p < 0.01). Otherwise, the cohorts had equivalent baseline modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS)-arm pain, NRS-neck pain, and EQ-5D scores (p > 0.05). ACDF patients had reduced hospitalization length (1.6 vs 3.9 days, p < 0.01) and a greater proportion had nonroutine discharge (7.3% vs 22.8%, p < 0.01), but they had a higher rate of postoperative dysphagia (13.5% vs 3.5%, p = 0.049). Compared with baseline values, both groups demonstrated improvements in all outcomes at 24 months (p < 0.05). In multivariable analyses, after controlling for age, insurance payor, employment status, ambulation status, and other potential clinically relevant confounders, ACDF was associated with a greater proportion of patients with maximum satisfaction on the North American Spine Society Patient Satisfaction Index (NASS) (NASS score of 1) at 24 months (69.4% vs 53.7%, OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.17-5.09, adjusted p = 0.02). Otherwise, the cohorts shared similar 24-month outcomes in terms of reaching the MCID for mJOA, NDI, NRS-arm pain, NRS-neck pain, and EQ-5D score (adjusted p > 0.05). There were no differences in the 3-month readmission (ACDF 4.1% vs PCF 3.9%, p = 0.97) and 24-month reoperation (ACDF 13.5% vs PCF 18.6%, p = 0.36) rates. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort limited to 3-level fusion surgical procedures, ACDF was associated with reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization length, and higher routine home discharge rates; however, PCF resulted in lower rates of postoperative dysphagia. The procedures yielded comparably significant improvements in functional status (mJOA score), neck and arm pain, neck pain-related disability, and quality of life at 3, 12, and 24 months. ACDF patients had significantly higher odds of maximum satisfaction (NASS score 1). Given comparable outcomes, patients should be counseled on each approach's complication profile to aid in surgical decision-making.

Greater improvement in Neck Disability Index scores in women after surgery for cervical myelopathy: an analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: There is a high prevalence of cervical myelopathy that requires surgery; as such, it is important to identify how different groups benefit from surgery. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons launched the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospective longitudinal registry, that includes demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome data to measure the safety and quality of neurosurgical procedures. In this study, the authors assessed the impact of gender on patient-reported outcomes in patients who underwent surgery for cervical myelopathy. METHODS: The authors analyzed 1152 patients who underwent surgery for cervical myelopathy and were included in the QOD cervical module. Univariate comparison of baseline patient characteristics between males and females who underwent surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy was performed. Baseline characteristics that significantly differed between males and females were included in a multivariate generalized linear model comparing baseline and 1-year postoperative Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. RESULTS: This study included 546 females and 604 males. Females demonstrated significantly greater improvement in NDI score 1 year after surgery (p = 0.036). In addition to gender, the presence of axial neck pain and insurance status were also significantly predictive of improvement in NDI score after surgery (p = 0.0013 and p = 0.0058, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Females were more likely to benefit from surgery for cervical myelopathy compared with males. It is important to identify gender differences in postoperative outcomes after surgery in order to deliver more personalized and patient-centric care.

Which supervised machine learning algorithm can best predict achievement of minimum clinically important difference in neck pain after surgery in patients with cervical myelopathy? A QOD study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of different supervised machine learning algorithms to predict achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain after surgery in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database CSM cohort. The data set was divided into an 80% training and a 20% test set. Various supervised learning algorithms (including logistic regression, support vector machine, decision tree, random forest, extra trees, gaussian naïve Bayes, k-nearest neighbors, multilayer perceptron, and extreme gradient boosted trees) were evaluated on their performance to predict achievement of MCID in neck pain at 3 and 24 months after surgery, given a set of predicting baseline features. Model performance was assessed with accuracy, F1 score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, precision, recall/sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: In total, 535 patients (46.9%) achieved MCID for neck pain at 3 months and 569 patients (49.9%) achieved it at 24 months. In each follow-up cohort, 501 patients (93.6%) were satisfied at 3 months after surgery and 569 patients (100%) were satisfied at 24 months after surgery. Of the supervised machine learning algorithms tested, logistic regression demonstrated the best accuracy (3 months: 0.76 ± 0.031, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.044), followed by F1 score (3 months: 0.759 ± 0.019, 24 months: 0.777 ± 0.039) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (3 months: 0.762 ± 0.027, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.043) at predicting achievement of MCID for neck pain at both follow-up time points, with fair performance. The best precision was also demonstrated by logistic regression at 3 (0.724 ± 0.058) and 24 (0.780 ± 0.097) months. The best recall/sensitivity was demonstrated by multilayer perceptron at 3 months (0.841 ± 0.094) and by extra trees at 24 months (0.817 ± 0.115). Highest specificity was shown by support vector machine at 3 months (0.952 ± 0.013) and by logistic regression at 24 months (0.747 ± 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate selection of models for studies should be based on the strengths of each model and the aims of the studies. For maximally predicting true achievement of MCID in neck pain, of all the predictions in this balanced data set the appropriate metric for the authors' study was precision. For both short- and long-term follow-ups, logistic regression demonstrated the highest precision of all models tested. Logistic regression performed consistently the best of all models tested and remains a powerful model for clinical classification tasks.

Chief complaints and feedback from clinic satisfaction tool: Thematic analysis of a new outpatient communication tool.

OBJECTIVES: Up to half of all patients leave their outpatient clinic visit with an uncommunicated need. We designed the clinic satisfaction tool (CST) as a low-cost, highly utilised assessment of the spine clinic experience that improved communication in our multidisciplinary spine practice. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively analyse chief complaints and feedback from the CSTs to determine how spine clinic patients used the form, identify the most prevalent concerns and mark areas for improvement. METHODS: Institutional retrospective review of CSTs. Chief complaints and feedback were inductively coded to create a framework for patient complaints. RESULTS: 832 patients presented to clinic, and 100 sets of chief complaints coded before reaching thematic saturation. Patients used the chief complaint section of CST to canvas four themes: symptoms, questions about their disease, management and treatment. Twenty-nine patients left mostly positive feedback but also wrote additional concerns about care. CONCLUSION: Spine patients have a predictable pattern of chief complaints and with the CST were able to have all these complaints addressed. The CST efficiently collects practice-specific chief complaints that can be used to guide physician behaviour and design educational clinical tools that are useful for patients.

Impact of subsidence on clinical outcomes and radiographic fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of published literature on the impact of subsidence on clinical outcomes and radiographic fusion rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plates or without plates. BACKGROUND: Subsidence of interbody implants is common after anterior cervical spine fusions. The impact of subsidence on fusion rates and clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Systematic literature review on published articles on anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, which objectively measured graft subsidence, radiographic fusion rates, and clinical outcomes between April 1966 and December 2010. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles that measured subsidence and provided fusion rates and/or clinical outcomes were selected for inclusion. The mean subsidence rate ranged from 19.3% to 42.5%. The rate of subsidence based on the type of implant ranged from 22.8% to 35.9%. The incidence of subsidence was not impacted by the type of implant (P=0.98). The overall fusion rate of the combined studies was 92.8% and was not impacted by subsidence irrespective of subsidence definition or the measurement technique used (P=0.19). Clinical outcomes were evaluated in 27 of 35 studies with all studies reporting an improvement in patient outcomes postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Subsidence irrespective of the measurement technique or definition does not appear to have an impact on successful fusion and/or clinical outcomes. A validated definition and standard measurement technique for subsidence is needed to determine the actual incidence of subsidence and its impact on radiographic and clinical outcomes.

Initial experience with extreme angle cervical screw for treatment of trauma and cervical spondylosis.

In this study, we have described our initial experience and surgical technique of extreme angle screw placement in the cervical and upper thoracic spine of a cohort of patients undergoing posterior fusion. This extreme angle screw facilitates rod placement without need for any coronal contouring of the rod or offset connectors despite the varied entry site locations for posterior instrumentation and the different trajectories and pathways of these screws. From ruary 2011 to July 2011, extreme angle screws were placed in twenty consecutive adult patients who underwent posterior cervical, occipital-cervical or cervical-thoracic fusions. The primary diagnosis was cervical spondylotic myelopathy (13), trauma (4), and pseudoarthrosis with stenosis (3). Eight patients had gross instability. A total of 196 screws were placed; half of the cases involved instrumentation at or within the C3-7 segments (10) and the others included constructs extending to occipital bone, C2, T1, or T2 (10). Of all twenty cases, there were no perioperative hardware complications. At long-term follow-up, two patients required reoperation, one for hardware failure and the other for single level symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. We conclude that extreme angle screw use in the posterior cervical spine provides an evolution in posterior instrumentation that maximizes the biomechanical strength of a construct, allows for easy rod placement, and may improve the restoration of sagittal alignment. Overall, extreme angle screws facilitate rod placement even for screws offset from the natural plane of the rod, thereby avoiding the need for coronal contouring or placement of offset connectors.

Machine learning in the diagnosis, management, and care of patients with low back pain: a scoping review of the literature and future directions.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Low back pain (LBP) remains the leading cause of disability globally. In recent years, machine learning (ML) has emerged as a potentially useful tool to aid the diagnosis, management, and prognostication of LBP. PURPOSE: In this review, we assess the scope of ML applications in the LBP literature and outline gaps and opportunities. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A scoping review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. METHODS: Articles were extracted from the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and IEEE Xplore databases. Title/abstract and full-text screening was performed by two reviewers. Data on model type, model inputs, predicted outcomes, and ML methods were collected. RESULTS: In total, 223 unique studies published between 1988 and 2023 were identified, with just over 50% focused on low-back-pain detection. Neural networks were used in 106 of these articles. Common inputs included patient history, demographics, and lab values (67% total). Articles published after 2010 were also likely to incorporate imaging data into their models (41.7% of articles). Of the 212 supervised learning articles identified, 168 (79.4%) mentioned use of a training or testing dataset, 116 (54.7%) utilized cross-validation, and 46 (21.7%) implemented hyperparameter optimization. Of all articles, only 8 included external validation and 9 had publicly available code. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rapid application of ML in LBP research, a majority of articles do not follow standard ML best practices. Furthermore, over 95% of articles cannot be reproduced or authenticated due to lack of code availability. Increased collaboration and code sharing are needed to support future growth and implementation of ML in the care of patients with LBP.

Pushing the Limits of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery-From Preoperative to Intraoperative to Postoperative Management.

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery ushered in a new era of spine surgery by minimizing the undue iatrogenic injury, recovery time, and blood loss, among other complications, of traditional open procedures. Over time, technological advancements have further refined the care of the operative minimally invasive spine patient. Moreover, pre-, and postoperative care have also undergone significant change by way of artificial intelligence risk stratification, advanced imaging for surgical planning and patient selection, postoperative recovery pathways, and digital health solutions. Despite these advancements, challenges persist necessitating ongoing research and collaboration to further optimize patient care in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Is Upper Extremity or Lower Extremity Function More Important for Patient Satisfaction? An Analysis of 24-Month Outcomes from the QOD Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Cohort.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicenter registry. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether upper or lower limb mJOA improvement more strongly associates with patient satisfaction after surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) is commonly used to assess functional status in patients with CSM. Patients present with upper and/or lower extremity dysfunction, and it is unclear whether improvement in one and/or both symptoms drives postoperative patient satisfaction. METHODS: This study utilizes the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM data set. Clinical outcomes included mJOA and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction. The upper limb mJOA score was defined as upper motor plus sensory mJOA, and the lower limb mJOA as lower motor plus sensory mJOA. Ordered logistic regression was used to determine whether upper or lower limb mJOA was more closely associated with NASS satisfaction, adjusting for other covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 1141 patients were enrolled in the QOD CSM cohort. In all, 780 had both preoperative and 24-month mJOA scores, met inclusion criteria, and were included for analysis. The baseline mJOA was 12.1±2.7, and postoperatively, 85.6% would undergo surgery again (NASS 1 or 2, satisfied). Patients exhibited mean improvement in both upper (baseline:3.9±1.4 vs. 24 mo:5.0±1.1, P<0.001) and lower limb mJOA (baseline:3.9±1.4 vs. 24 mon:4.5±1.5, P<0.001); however, the 24-month change in the upper limb mJOA was greater (upper:1.1±1.6 vs. lower:0.6±1.6, P<0.001). Across 24-month NASS satisfaction, the baseline upper and lower limb mJOA scores were similar (pupper=0.28, plower=0.092). However, as satisfaction decreased, the 24-month change in upper and lower limb mJOA decreased as well (pupper<0.001, plower<0.001). Patients with NASS scores of 4 (lowest satisfaction) did not demonstrate significant differences from baseline in upper or lower limb mJOA (P>0.05). In ordered logistic regression, NASS satisfaction was independently associated with upper limb mJOA improvement (OR=0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.97; P=0.019) but not lower limb mJOA improvement (OR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.70-1.0; P=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: As the magnitude of upper and lower mJOA improvement decreased postoperatively, so too did patient satisfaction with surgical intervention. Upper limb mJOA improvement was a significant independent predictor of patient satisfaction, whereas lower limb mJOA improvement was not. These findings may aid preoperative counseling, stratified by patients' upper and lower extremity treatment expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-III.

Impact of educational background on preoperative disease severity and postoperative outcomes among patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis: a Quality Outcomes Database study.

OBJECTIVE: Deficiency in patient education has been correlated with increased disease-related morbidity and decreased access to care. However, the associations between educational level, preoperative disease severity, and postoperative outcomes in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis have yet to be explored. METHODS: The spondylolisthesis dataset of the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD)-a cohort with prospectively collected data by the SpineCORe study team of the 12 highest enrolling sites with an 81% follow-up at 5 years -was utilized and stratified for educational level. Patients were classified into three categories (high school or less, graduate, or postgraduate). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) documented at baseline and follow-up included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, EQ-5D in quality-adjusted life years, and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain. Disease severity was measured with PROMs. Postoperatively, patients also completed the North American Spine Society assessment to measure their satisfaction with surgery. Multivariable regression analysis was used to compare education level with disease severity and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent analysis, with 260 individuals (42.8%) at an educational level of high school or less. On univariate analysis, baseline disease severity was worse among patients with lower levels of education. On multivariable regression analysis, patients with postgraduate level of education had significantly lower ODI scores (ß = -3.75, 95% CI -7.31 to -0.2, p = 0.039) compared to graduates, while the other PROMs were not associated with significant differences at baseline. Five years postoperatively, patients from various educational backgrounds exhibited similar rates of minimal clinically important differences in PROMs. Nevertheless, patients with the lowest educational level had higher ODI scores (27.1, p < 0.01), lower EQ-5D scores (0.701, p < 0.01), and higher NRS leg pain (3.0, p < 0.01) and back pain (4.0, p < 0.01) scores compared to those with graduate or postgraduate levels of education. The odds for postoperative satisfaction were also comparable between cohorts at 5 years (reference, graduate level; high school or less, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46-1.64, p = 0.659; postgraduate, OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.7-3.65, p = 0.262). CONCLUSIONS: Lower patient education level was associated with a greater baseline disease severity in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Surgery demonstrated similar benefits irrespective of educational background; however, individuals with lower educational level reported lower outcomes overall. This emphasizes the need for enhanced health literacy to mitigate disparities for reported outcomes.

Does diabetes affect outcome or reoperation rate after lumbar decompression or arthrodesis? A matched analysis of the Quality Outcomes Database data set.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a known risk factor for postsurgical and systemic complications after lumbar spinal surgery. Smaller studies have also demonstrated diminished improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), with increased reoperation and readmission rates after lumbar surgery in patients with DM. The authors aimed to examine longer-term PROs in patients with DM undergoing lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression and/or arthrodesis for degenerative pathology. Patients were grouped into DM and non-DM groups and optimally matched in a 1:1 ratio on 31 baseline variables, including the number of operated levels. Outcomes of interest were readmissions and reoperations at 30 and 90 days after surgery in addition to improvements in Oswestry Disability Index, back pain, and leg pain scores and quality-adjusted life-years at 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: The matched decompression cohort comprised 7836 patients (3236 [41.3] females) with a mean age of 63.5 ± 12.6 years, and the matched arthrodesis cohort comprised 7336 patients (3907 [53.3%] females) with a mean age of 64.8 ± 10.3 years. In patients undergoing lumbar decompression, no significant differences in nonroutine discharge, length of stay (LOS), readmissions, reoperations, and PROs were observed. In patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, nonroutine discharge (15.7% vs 13.4%, p < 0.01), LOS (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.0 ± 3.5 days, p < 0.01), 30-day (6.5% vs 4.4%, p < 0.01) and 90-day (9.1% vs 7.0%, p < 0.01) readmission rates, and the 90-day reoperation rate (4.3% vs 3.2%, p = 0.01) were all significantly higher in the DM group. For DM patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis, subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly higher risk of poor surgical outcomes with the open approach. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with and without DM undergoing lumbar spinal decompression alone have comparable readmission and reoperation rates, while those undergoing arthrodesis procedures have a higher risk of poor surgical outcomes up to 90 days after surgery. Surgeons should target optimal DM control preoperatively, particularly for patients undergoing elective lumbar arthrodesis.

What factors influence surgical decision-making in anterior versus posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy? A QOD analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the preoperative patient characteristics that affect surgical decision-making when selecting an anterior or posterior operative approach in patients diagnosed with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective study of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy module. Patients aged 18 years or older diagnosed with primary CSM who underwent multilevel (≥ 2-level) elective surgery were included. Demographics and baseline clinical characteristics were collected. RESULTS: Of the 841 patients with CSM in the database, 492 (58.5%) underwent multilevel anterior surgery and 349 (41.5%) underwent multilevel posterior surgery. Surgeons more often performed a posterior surgical approach in older patients (mean 64.8 ± 10.6 vs 58.5 ± 11.1 years, p < 0.001) and those with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (class III or IV: 52.4% vs 46.3%, p = 0.003), a higher rate of motor deficit (67.0% vs 58.7%, p = 0.014), worse myelopathy (mean modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score 11.4 ± 3.1 vs 12.4 ± 2.6, p < 0.001), and more levels treated (4.3 ± 1.3 vs 2.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). On the other hand, surgeons more frequently performed an anterior surgical approach when patients were employed (47.2% vs 23.2%, p < 0.001) and had intervertebral disc herniation as an underlying pathology (30.7% vs 9.2%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The selection of approach for patients with CSM depends on patient demographics and symptomology. Posterior surgery was performed in patients who were older and had worse systemic disease, increased myelopathy, and greater levels of stenosis. Anterior surgery was more often performed in patients who were employed and had intervertebral disc herniation.

Cervical spondylotic myelopathy and driving abilities: defining the prevalence and long-term postoperative outcomes using the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) can cause significant difficulty with driving and a subsequent reduction in an individual's quality of life due to neurological deterioration. The positive impact of surgery on postoperative patient-reported driving capabilities has been seldom explored. METHODS: The CSM module of the Quality Outcomes Database was utilized. Patient-reported driving ability was assessed via the driving section of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) questionnaire. This is an ordinal scale in which 0 represents the absence of symptoms while driving and 5 represents a complete inability to drive due to symptoms. Patients were considered to have an impairment in their driving ability if they reported an NDI driving score of 3 or higher (signifying impairment in driving duration due to symptoms). Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate mediators of baseline impairment and improvement at 24 months after surgery, which was defined as an NDI driving score < 3. RESULTS: A total of 1128 patients who underwent surgical intervention for CSM were included, of whom 354 (31.4%) had baseline driving impairment due to CSM. Moderate (OR 2.3) and severe (OR 6.3) neck pain, severe arm pain (OR 1.6), mild-moderate (OR 2.1) and severe (OR 2.5) impairment in hand/arm dexterity, severe impairment in leg use/walking (OR 1.9), and severe impairment of urinary function (OR 1.8) were associated with impaired driving ability at baseline. Of the 291 patients with baseline impairment and available 24-month follow-up data, 209 (71.8%) reported postoperative improvement in their driving ability. This improvement seemed to be mediated particularly through the achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain and improvement in leg function/walking. Patients with improved driving at 24 months noted higher postoperative satisfaction (88.5% vs 62.2%, p < 0.01) and were more likely to achieve a clinically significant improvement in their quality of life (50.7% vs 37.8%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one-third of patients with CSM report impaired driving ability at presentation. Seventy-two percent of these patients reported improvements in their driving ability within 24 months of surgery. Surgical management of CSM can significantly improve patients' driving abilities at 24 months and hence patients' quality of life.

What predicts the best 24-month outcomes following surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A QOD prospective registry study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of the best 24-month improvements in patients undergoing surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). For this purpose, the authors leveraged a large prospective cohort of surgically treated patients with CSM to identify factors predicting the best outcomes for disability, quality of life, and functional status following surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM dataset (1141 patients) at 14 top enrolling sites was used. Baseline and surgical characteristics were compared for those reporting the top and bottom 20th percentile 24-month Neck Disability Index (NDI), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) change scores. A multivariable logistic model was constructed and included candidate variables reaching p ≤ 0.20 on univariate analyses. Least important variables were removed in a stepwise manner to determine the significant predictors of the best outcomes (top 20th percentile) for 24-month NDI, EQ-5D, and mJOA change. RESULTS: A total of 948 (83.1%) patients with 24-month follow-up were included in this study. For NDI, 204 (17.9%) had the best NDI outcome and 200 (17.5%) had the worst NDI outcome. Factors predicting the best NDI outcomes included symptom duration less than 12 months (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-1.9; p = 0.01); procedure other than posterior fusion (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.03-2.1; p = 0.03); higher preoperative visual analog scale neck pain score (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.3; p < 0.001); and higher baseline NDI (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.05-1.07; p < 0.001). For EQ-5D, 163 (14.3%) had the best EQ-5D outcome and 169 (14.8%) had the worst EQ-5D outcome. Factors predicting the best EQ-5D outcomes included arm pain-only complaints (compared to neck pain) (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9; p = 0.002) and lower baseline EQ-5D (OR 167.7 per unit lower, 95% CI 85.0-339.4; p < 0.001). For mJOA, 222 (19.5%) had the best mJOA outcome and 238 (20.9%) had the worst mJOA outcome. Factors predicting the best mJOA outcomes included lower BMI (OR 1.03 per unit lower, 95% CI 1.004-1.05; p = 0.02; cutoff value of ≤ 29.5 kg/m2); arm pain-only complaints (compared to neck pain) (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-2.5; p = 0.02); and lower baseline mJOA (OR 1.6 per unit lower, 95% CI 1.5-1.7; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the worst outcomes for EQ-5D, the best outcomes were associated with patients with arm pain-only complaints. For mJOA, lower BMI and arm pain-only complaints portended the best outcomes. For NDI, those with the best outcomes had shorter symptom durations, higher preoperative neck pain scores, and less often underwent posterior spinal fusions. Given the positive impact of shorter symptom duration on outcomes, these data suggest that early surgery may be beneficial for patients with CSM.

Does the number of social factors affect long-term patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction in those with cervical myelopathy? A QOD study.

OBJECTIVE: It is not clear whether there is an additive effect of social factors in keeping patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) from achieving both a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in outcomes and satisfaction after surgery. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of multiple social factors on postoperative outcomes and satisfaction. METHODS: This was a multiinstitutional, retrospective study of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) CSM cohort, which included patients aged 18 years or older who were diagnosed with primary CSM and underwent operative management. Social factors included race (White vs non-White), education (high school or below vs above), employment (employed vs not), and insurance (private vs nonprivate). Patients were considered to have improved from surgery if the following criteria were met: 1) they reported a score of 1 or 2 on the North American Spine Society index, and 2) they met the MCID in patient-reported outcomes (i.e., visual analog scale [VAS] neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index [NDI], and EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D]). RESULTS: Of the 1141 patients included in the study, 205 (18.0%) had 0, 347 (30.4%) had 1, 334 (29.3%) had 2, and 255 (22.3%) had 3 social factors. The 24-month follow-up rate was > 80% for all patient-reported outcomes. After adjusting for all relevant covariates (p < 0.02), patients with 1 or more social factors were less likely to improve from surgery in all measured outcomes including VAS neck pain (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.99) and arm pain (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96); NDI (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.98); and EQ-5D (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97) (all p < 0.05) compared to those without any social factors. Patients with 2 social factors (outcomes: neck pain OR 0.86, arm pain OR 0.81, NDI OR 0.84, EQ-5D OR 0.81; all p < 0.05) or 3 social factors (outcomes: neck pain OR 0.84, arm pain OR 0.84, NDI OR 0.84, EQ-5D OR 0.84; all p < 0.05) were more likely to fare worse in all outcomes compared to those with only 1 social factor. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to those without any social factors, patients who had at least 1 social factor were less likely to achieve MCID and feel satisfied after surgery. The effect of social factors is additive in that patients with a higher number of factors are less likely to improve compared to those with only 1 social factor.

Comparative analysis of patient-reported outcomes in myelopathy and myeloradiculopathy: a Quality Outcomes Database study.

OBJECTIVE: Myelopathy in the cervical spine can present with diverse symptoms, many of which can be debilitating for patients. Patients with radiculopathy symptoms demonstrate added complexity because of the overlapping symptoms and treatment considerations. The authors sought to assess outcomes in patients with myelopathy presenting with or without concurrent radiculopathy. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database, a prospectively collected multi-institutional database, was used to analyze demographic, clinical, and surgical variables of patients presenting with myelopathy or myeloradiculopathy as a result of degenerative pathology. Outcome measures included arm (VAS-arm) and neck (VAS-neck) visual analog scale (VAS) scores, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale score, EuroQol VAS (EQ-VAS) score, and Neck Disability Index (NDI) at 3, 12, and 24 months compared with baseline. RESULTS: A total of 1015 patients were included in the study: 289 patients with myelopathy alone (M0), 239 with myeloradiculopathy but no arm pain (MRAP-), and 487 patients with myeloradiculopathy and arm pain (MRAP+). M0 patients were older than the myeloradiculopathy cohorts combined (M0 64.2 vs MRAP- + MRAP+ 59.5 years, p < 0.001), whereas MRAP+ patients had higher BMI and a greater incidence of current smoking compared with the other cohorts. There were more anterior approaches used in in MRAP+ patients and more posterior approaches used in M0 patients. In severely myelopathic patients (mJOA scale score ≤ 10), posterior approaches were used more often for M0 (p < 0.0001) and MRAP+ (p < 0.0001) patients. Patients with myelopathy and myeloradiculopathy both exhibited significant improvement at 1 and 2 years across all outcome domains. The amount of improvement did not vary based on surgical approach. In comparing cohort outcomes, postoperative outcome differences were associated with patient-reported scores at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with myelopathy and those with myeloradiculopathy demonstrated significant and similar improvement in arm and neck pain scores, myelopathy, disability, and quality of life at 3 months that was sustained at 1- and 2-year follow-up intervals. More radicular symptoms and arm pain increased the likelihood of a surgeon choosing an anterior approach, whereas more severe myelopathy increased the likelihood of approaching posteriorly. Surgical approach itself was not an independent predictor of outcome.

Do class III obese patients achieve similar outcomes and satisfaction to nonobese patients following surgery for cervical myelopathy? A QOD study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the rate of achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction between cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) patients with and without class III obesity who underwent surgery. METHODS: The authors analyzed patients from the 14 highest-enrolling sites in the prospective Quality Outcomes Database CSM cohort. Patients were dichotomized based on whether or not they were obese (class III, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2). PROs including visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA), EQ-5D, and North American Spine Society patient satisfaction scores were collected at baseline and 24 months after cervical spine surgery. RESULTS: Of the 1141 patients with CSM who underwent surgery, 230 (20.2%) were obese and 911 (79.8%) were not. The 24-month follow-up rate was 87.4% for PROs. Patients who were obese were younger (58.1 ± 12.1 years vs 61.2 ± 11.6 years, p = 0.001), more frequently female (57.4% vs 44.9%, p = 0.001), and African American (22.6% vs 13.4%, p = 0.002) and had a lower education level (high school or less: 49.1% vs 40.8%, p = 0.002) and a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (2.7 ± 0.5 vs 2.5 ± 0.6, p < 0.001). Clinically at baseline, the obese group had worse neck pain (VAS score: 5.7 ± 3.2 vs 5.1 ± 3.3), arm pain (VAS score: 5.4 ± 3.5 vs 4.8 ± 3.5), disability (NDI score: 42.7 ± 20.4 vs 37.4 ± 20.7), quality of life (EQ-5D score: 0.54 ± 0.22 vs 0.56 ± 0.22), and function (mJOA score: 11.6 ± 2.8 vs 12.2 ± 2.8) (all p < 0.05). At the 24-month follow-up, however, there was no difference in the change in PROs between the two groups. Even after accounting for relevant covariates, no significant difference in achievement of MCID and satisfaction was observed between the two groups at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the class III obese group having worse baseline clinical presentations, the two cohorts achieved similar rates of satisfaction and MCID in PROs. Class III obesity should not preclude and/or delay surgical management for patients who would otherwise benefit from surgery for CSM.

Comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in radiculopathic patients: an analysis from the Quality Outcomes Database.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between posterior foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in patients presenting with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients who had undergone ACDF or posterior foraminotomy for radiculopathy. To create two highly homogeneous groups, optimal individual matching was performed at a 5:1 ratio between the two groups on 29 baseline variables (including demographic characteristics, comorbidities, symptoms, patient-reported scores, underlying pathologies, and levels treated). Outcomes of interest were length of stay, reoperations, patient-reported satisfaction, increase in EQ-5D score, and decrease in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores for arm and neck pain as long as 1 year after surgery. Noninferiority analysis of achieving patient satisfaction and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in PROs was performed with an accepted risk difference of 5%. RESULTS: A total of 7805 eligible patients were identified: 216 of these underwent posterior foraminotomy and were matched to 1080 patients who underwent ACDF. The patients who underwent ACDF had more underlying pathologies, lower EQ-5D scores, and higher NDI and neck pain scores at baseline. Posterior foraminotomy was associated with shorter hospitalization (0.5 vs 0.9 days, p < 0.001). Reoperations within 12 months were significantly more common among the posterior foraminotomy group (4.2% vs 1.9%, p = 0.04). The two groups performed similarly in PROs, with posterior foraminotomy being noninferior to ACDF in achieving MCID in EQ-5D and neck pain scores but also having lower rates of maximal satisfaction at 12 months (North American Spine Society score of 1 achieved by 65.2% posterior foraminotomy patients vs 74.6% of ACDF patients, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The two procedures were found to be offered to different populations, with ACDF being selected for patients with more complicated pathologies and symptoms. After individual matching, posterior foraminotomy was associated with a higher reoperation risk within 1 year after surgery compared to ACDF (4.2% vs 1.9%). In terms of 12-month PROs, posterior foraminotomy was noninferior to ACDF in improving quality of life and neck pain. The two procedures also performed similarly in improving NDI scores and arm pain, but ACDF patients had higher maximal satisfaction rates.

Impact of Educational Background on Preoperative Disease Severity and Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients With Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. OBJECTIVE: Assess differences in preoperative status and postoperative outcomes among patients of different educational backgrounds undergoing surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patient education level (EL) has been suggested to correlate with health literacy, disease perception, socioeconomic status (SES), and access to health care. METHODS: The CSM data set of the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing surgical management of CSM. EL was grouped as high school or below, graduate-level, and postgraduate level. The association of EL with baseline disease severity (per patient-reported outcome measures), symptoms >3 or ≤3 months, and 24-month patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 1141 patients with CSM, 509 (44.6%) had an EL of high school or below, 471 (41.3%) had a graduate degree, and 161 (14.1%) had obtained postgraduate education. Lower EL was statistically significantly associated with symptom duration of >3 months (odds ratio=1.68), higher arm pain numeric rating scale (NRS) (coefficient=0.5), and higher neck pain NRS (coefficient=0.79). Patients with postgraduate education had statistically significantly lower Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores (coefficient=-7.17), lower arm pain scores (coefficient=-1), and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) scores (coefficient=0.06). Twenty-four months after surgery, patients of lower EL had higher NDI scores, higher pain NRS scores, and lower QALY scores ( P <0.05 in all analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing surgical management for CSM, those reporting a lower educational level tended to present with longer symptom duration, more disease-inflicted disability and pain, and lower QALY scores. As such, patients of a lower EL are a potentially vulnerable subpopulation, and their health literacy and access to care should be prioritized.