A clinical model to predict postoperative improvement in sub-domains of the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score for degenerative cervical myelopathy.

PURPOSE: The modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) score consists of six sub-domains and is used to quantify the severity of cervical myelopathy. The current study aimed to assess for predictors of postoperative mJOA sub-domains scores following elective surgical management for patients with cervical myelopathy and develop the first clinical prediction model for 12-month mJOA sub-domain scores.Please confirm if the author names are presented accurately and in the correct sequence (given name, middle name/initial, family name). Author 1 Given name: [Byron F.] Last name [Stephens], Author 2 Given name: [Lydia J.] Last name [McKeithan], Author 3 Given name: [W. Hunter] Last name [Waddell], Author 4 Given name: [Anthony M.] Last name [Steinle], Author 5 Given name: [Wilson E.] Last name [Vaughan], Author 6 Given name: [Jacquelyn S.] Last name [Pennings], Author 7 Given name: [Jacquelyn S.] Last name [Pennings], Author 8 Given name: [Scott L.] Last name [Zuckerman], Author 9 Given name: [Kristin R.] Last name [Archer], Author 10 Given name: [Amir M.] Last name [Abtahi] Also, kindly confirm the details in the metadata are correct.Last Author listed should be Kristin R. Archer METHODS: A multivariable proportional odds ordinal regression model was developed for patients with cervical myelopathy. The model included patient demographic, clinical, and surgery covariates along with baseline sub-domain scores. The model was internally validated using bootstrap resampling to estimate the likely performance on a new sample of patients. RESULTS: The model identified mJOA baseline sub-domains to be the strongest predictors of 12-month scores, with numbness in legs and ability to walk predicting five of the six mJOA items. Additional covariates predicting three or more items included age, preoperative anxiety/depression, gender, race, employment status, duration of symptoms, smoking status, and radiographic presence of listhesis. Surgical approach, presence of motor deficits, number of surgical levels involved, history of diabetes mellitus, workers' compensation claim, and patient insurance had no impact on 12-month mJOA scores. CONCLUSION: Our study developed and validated a clinical prediction model for improvement in mJOA scores at 12 months following surgery. The results highlight the importance of assessing preoperative numbness, walking ability, modifiable variables of anxiety/depression, and smoking status. This model has the potential to assist surgeons, patients, and families when considering surgery for cervical myelopathy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Clinical Effectiveness of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Tritanium C Anterior Cervical Cage vs. PEEK Cage.

Introduction: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has proven to be a clinically efficient and cost-effective method for treating patients with degenerative cervical spine conditions. New intervertebral implant products are being developed to improve fusion and stability while decreasing complications. This study assesses the effectiveness of Tritanium C (Tri-C) Anterior Cervical Cage (Stryker) in the treatment of degenerative disk disease (DDD) of the cervical spine compared with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using data prospectively collected from two institutions. Patients who underwent ACDFs for DDD using either the Tri-C cage or PEEK cage were identified. The patients' demographics, comorbidities, operative variables, and baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected. PROs included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and numeric rating scale (NRS) for neck and arm pain. The primary outcomes included 3- and 12-month PROs as well as the rates of 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation, and perioperative complication. The radiographic outcomes included rates of subsidence, cage movement, and successful fusion within 12 months. Multivariate linear regression models were run to identify variables predictive of 12-month PROs. Results: A total of 275 patients who underwent ACDF were included in this study and were divided into two groups: PEEK (n=213) and Tri-C (n=62). Both groups showed improvement in neck and arm pain and NDI postoperatively. When Tri-C and PEEK were compared, no significant differences were observed in the 3- or 12-month changes in neck or arm pain or NDI. Furthermore, there were no differences in the rates of 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation, and perioperative complication. Regression analysis revealed that Tri-C vs. PEEK was not a significant predictor of any outcome. Conclusions: Our results indicate that the use of porous titanium Tri-C cage during ACDFs is an effective method for managing cervical DDD in terms of PROs, perioperative morbidity, and radiologic parameters. No significant difference was observed in any clinical outcome between patients undergoing ACDF using the Tri-C cage and those in whom the PEEK cage was used. Level of Evidence: III.

Determining the Effect of Intraoperative TXA on Postoperative Blood Loss in ACDF.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of intraoperative tranexamic acid (TXA) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) on postoperative blood loss. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TXA has been proven to be a safe and effective agent in reducing blood loss after cervical surgery; however, its efficacy when used intraoperatively for ACDF surgeries had yet to be researched. Currently, there are few studies examining the effects of intraoperative TXA in cervical spinal fusion, and none specifically examining TXA use in ACDF. METHODS: A tertiary medical center's prospectively collected spine registry was queried between 1/1/18 and 12/1/21 for all patients who underwent elective ACDF surgery and received a drain postoperatively. Patients were separated into 2 groups; those who had received intraoperative TXA and those who did not. Baseline demographic and operative variables were collected from the registry. The primary outcome was postoperative blood loss over a 24-hour period. Secondary outcomes included total drain output, intraoperative estimated blood loss, operative duration, drain duration, changes in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, and rate of transfusions, complications, revisions, and reoperations. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients were included. One hundred ninety patients underwent ACDF and did not receive intraoperative TXA, whereas 96 patients underwent ACDF and did receive TXA. There were no differences in any demographic or baseline variables. Multivariate analysis showed intraoperative TXA was associated with shorter drain duration (ß=-5.74, 95% CI: -10.9 to -0.53, P =0.031) and reduction in 24-hour drain output (ß=-12.2, 95% CI: -19.4 to -4.89, P =0.001) and total drain output (ß=-14.0, 95% CI: -22.9 to -5.05, P =0.002). CONCLUSIONS: TXA use during ACDF procedures leads to a decrease in perioperative blood loss and faster drain removal. TXA is an effective and safe agent for reducing perioperative blood loss in ACDF surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes, Complications, Readmissions, and Revisions in Posterior Lumbar Fusion With, Versus Without, an Interbody Device.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare posterior lumbar fusions with versus without an interbody in: (1) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 1 year and (2) postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Elective lumbar fusion is commonly used to treat various lumbar pathologies. Two common approaches for open posterior lumbar fusion include posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody and with an interbody through techniques, like transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Whether fusion with or without an interbody leads to better outcomes remains an area of active research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Lumbar Module of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for adults undergoing elective primary posterior lumbar fusion with or without an interbody. Covariates included demographic variables, comorbidities, primary spine diagnosis, operative variables, and baseline PROs, including Oswestry Disability Index, North American Spine Society satisfaction index, numeric rating scale-back/leg pain, and Euroqol 5-dimension. Outcomes included complications, reoperations, readmissions, return to work/activities, and PROs. Propensity score matching and linear regression modeling were used to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated to assess the impact of interbody use on patient outcomes. RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1044 patients with interbody and 215 patients undergoing PLF. The average treatment effect on the treated analysis showed that having an interbody or not had no significant impact on any outcome of interest, including 30-day complications and reoperations, 3-month readmissions, 12-month return to work, and 12-month PROs. CONCLUSION: There were no discernible differences in outcomes between patients undergoing PLF alone versus with an interbody in elective posterior lumbar fusion. These results add to the growing body of evidence that posterior lumbar fusions with and without an interbody seem to have similar outcomes up to 1 year postoperatively when treating degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

Effect of Cervicothoracic Junction LIV Selection on Posterior Cervical Fusion Mechanical Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Analyze and summarize literature evaluating the role of C7, T1, and T2 lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection in posterior cervical fusion (PCF) and if this affects the progression of mechanical failure and revision surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Literature evaluating mechanical failure and adjacent segment disease in the setting of PCF at or nearby the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) remains limited with studies reporting conflicting results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers conducted a detailed systematic review using EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar on June 28, 2021, for primary research articles comparing revision and complication rates for posterior fusions ending in the lower cervical spine (C7) and upper thoracic spine (T1-T2). The initial systematic database yielded 391 studies, of which 10 met all inclusion criteria. Random effects meta-analyses compared revision and mechanical failure rates between patients with an LIV above the CTJ and patients with an LIV below the CTJ. RESULTS: Data from 10 studies (total sample=2001, LIV above CTJ=1046, and LIV below CTJ=955) were meta-analyzed. No differences were found between the 2 cohorts for all-cause revision [odds ratio (OR)=0.75, 95% CI=0.42-1.34, P<0.0001] and construct-specific revision (OR=0.62, 95% CI=0.25-1.53, P<0.0001). The odds of total mechanical failure in the LIV below CTJ cohort compared with the LIV above CTJ cohort were significantly lower (OR=0.38, 95% CI=0.18-0.81, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results show patients with PCFs ending below the CTJ have a lower risk of undergoing total mechanical failure compared with fusions ending above the CTJ. This is important information for both physicians and patients to consider when planning for operative treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

The postoperative course of mechanical complications in adult spinal deformity surgery.

PURPOSE: (a) Describe the time course of each mechanical complication, and (b) compare radiographic measurements and preoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) among each mechanical complication type. METHODS: A single-institution case-control study was undertaken of patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery from 2009-2017. Exposure variables included patient demographics, operative variables, radiographic measurements, and preoperative PROMs, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale Back/Leg-pain scores (NRS-Back/Leg), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). The primary outcomes were occurrence of a mechanical complication and time to complication. Due to overlapping occurrence, rod fracture and pseudarthrosis were grouped into one composite category. RESULTS: 145 patients underwent ASD surgery and were followed for at least 2 years. 30/47 (63.8%) patients with proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) required reoperation, whereas 27/31 (87.1%) patients with pseudarthrosis/rod fracture required reoperation (63.8% vs. 87.1%, Χ2 = -0.23, 95% CI -0.41, -0.05, p = 0.023). Cox regression showed no significant difference in time to reoperation between PJK and rod fracture/pseudarthrosis (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.85-1.11, p = 0.686). Distal junctional kyphosis (DJK) (N = 3; 2 reoperation) and implant failures (N = 4; 0 reoperations) were rare. Patients with PJK had significantly lower Hounsfield Units preoperatively compared to those with pseudarthrosis/rod fracture (138.2 ± 43.8 vs. 160.3 ± 41.0, mean difference (MD) = -22.1, 95% CI -41.8, -2.4, p = 0.028), more prior fusions (51.1% vs. 25.8%, Χ2 = 0.253, 95% CI 0.41, 0.46, p = 0.026), fewer instrumented vertebrae (9.2 ± 2.6 vs. 10.7 ± 2.5, MD = -1.5, 95% CI -2.7, -0.31, p = 0.013), and higher postoperative thoracic kyphosis (TK) (46.3 ± 12.7 vs. 34.9 ± 10.6, MD = 11.4, 95% CI 5.9, 16.9, p < 0.001). Higher postoperative C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) did not achieve a significant difference (80.7 ± 72.1 vs. 51.9 ± 57.3, MD = 28.8, 95% CI -1.9, 59.5, p = 0.066). No differences were seen in preoperative PROMs. CONCLUSION: Patients with pseudarthrosis/rod fracture had a higher reoperation rate compared to those with PJK with similar time to reoperation. Moreover, patients with PJK had higher postoperative TK, lower Hounsfield Units, more prior fusions, and fewer instrumented levels compared to those with pseudarthrosis/rod fracture. The results of this single-institution study suggest that even though mechanical complications are often analyzed as a single group, important differences may exist between them. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

In Single-Level, Open, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Posterolateral Fusion Lead to Better Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Two common approaches for open, one-level, posterior lumbar fusions include transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody. OBJECTIVE: To compare TLIF vs PLF alone in (1) discharge disposition, (2) return to work (RTW), and (3) patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was undertaken between October 2010 and May 2021, all with a 1-year follow-up and excluding patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. Minimum clinically important difference for each PRO was used, which included Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Logistic/linear regression controlled for age, body mass index, disc height, flexion-extension movement, amount of movement on flexion-extension, and spondylolisthesis grade. RESULTS: Of 850 patients undergoing open, 1-level, posterior lumbar fusion, 591 (69.5%) underwent a TLIF and 259 (30.5%) underwent a PLF alone. Patients undergoing TLIF were younger (59.0 ± 11.3 vs 63.3 ± 12.6, P < .001), had higher body mass index (31.3 ± 6.6 vs 30.2 ± 12.6, P = .019), and more often had private insurance (50.3% vs 39.0%, P < .001). Regarding discharge disposition, no significance was found in multivariate regression (odds ratio = 2.07, 95% CI = 0.39-10.82, P = .385) with similar RTW between TLIF and PLF alone (80.8% vs 80.4%, P = .645) (odds ratio = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.19-6.81, P = .873). Regarding PROs, patients undergoing a TLIF had higher preoperative (6.7 ± 2.3 vs 6.4 ± 2.5, P = .046) and 3-month NRS-back pain (3.4 ± 2.6 vs 2.9 ± 2.5, P = .036), with similar 12-month NRS-back pain. Regarding NRS-leg pain, no differences were observed preoperatively ( P = .532) and at 3 months ( P = .808). No other significant differences were observed in ODI. CONCLUSION: TLIF patients had slightly higher NRS-back pain at baseline and 3 months, but similar NRS-leg pain, despite the added risk of placing an interbody. No differences were seen in discharge disposition, RTW, and 12-month pain scores and ODI.

Which Approach Leads to More Reoperations in Single-Level, Open, Posterior Lumbar Fusion: Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Posterolateral Fusion Alone?

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) without an interbody device are two common approaches for single-level, open posterior fusion. Presently, it is unknown whether one of these operations leads to better outcomes. We sought to compare reoperation, complication, and readmission rates between TLIF and PLF for patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar fusion. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study utilizing prospectively collected data was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar decompression and fusion between October 2010 and April 2021 with at least 1-year follow-up. The two comparison groups were TLIF vs PLF alone without interbody. The primary outcome was need for reoperation at most recent follow-up. Secondary outcomes included 90-day complication and readmission rates. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients were included, 591 (69.5%) of whom underwent TLIF and 259 (30.5%) of whom underwent PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (interquartile range 3.7-8.9). No significant difference was found in overall reoperation rates (12.4% vs 13.9%, P = 0.534). When stratified by <5-year follow-up (n = 231 TLIF, n = 85 PLF; 37.2%) and ≥5-year follow-up (n = 360 TLIF, n = 174 PLF; 62.8%), no significant differences were seen in either cohort (<5 years: n = 24 TLIF vs n = 9 PLF, P = 0.959; 5+ years: n = 49 TLIF vs n = 27 PLF, P = 0.555). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the presence of interbody fusion was not associated with reoperation (OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.66-7.74, P = 0.194). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For patients undergoing elective single-level, open, posterior lumbar fusion without isthmic spondylolisthesis, no differences were seen in reoperation rates at long-term follow-up. Similar 90-day complication and readmission rates were seen. These results suggest that in degenerative lumbar spine disease without isthmic spondylolisthesis, TLIF and PLF achieved similar outcomes.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Presentation of Patients With Spinal Metastases.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine if preoperative spinal instability neoplastic scores (SINSs) and Tokuhashi prognostication scores differed in patients receiving surgical care before and during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused delays in scheduling nonemergent surgeries. Delay in presentation and/or surgical treatment for oncology patients with metastatic spinal disease could result in progression of the disease, which can complicate surgical care and worsen patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of electronic medical records between March 1, 2019 and March 1, 2021 at a tertiary medical center was performed to identify patients who underwent surgery for metastatic spine disease. Primary spinal tumors were excluded. Patients were separated into two groups base on their surgery date: before the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2019-February 29, 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, 2020-March 1, 2021). Primary outcomes included SINS and Tokuhashi scores. A variety of statistical tests were performed to compare the groups. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients who underwent surgery before the COVID-19 pandemic were compared to 41 patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant difference between the before and during groups with respect to SINS (9.31±2.39 vs . 11.00±2.74, P =0.002) and Tokuhashi scores (9.27±2.35 vs . 7.88±2.85, P =0.012). Linear regression demonstrated time of surgery (before or during COVID-19 restrictions) was a significant predictor of SINS (ß=1.55, 95% CI: 0.42-2.62, P =0.005) and Tokuhashi scores (ß=-1.41, 95% CI: -2.49 to -0.34, P =0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic spinal disease who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic had higher SINS, lower Tokuhashi scores and similar Skeletal Oncology Research Group scores compared to patients who underwent surgery before the pandemic. This suggests the pandemic has impacted the instability of disease at presentation in patients with spinal metastases, but has not impacted surgical prognosis, as there were no differences in Skeletal Oncology Research Group scores and the difference in Tokuhashi scores is most likely not clinically significant.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion Alone in the Treatment of Grade 1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone are two operations performed to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. To date, it is unclear which operation leads to better outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare TLIF vs PLF alone regarding long-term reoperation rates, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with degenerative grade 1 spondylolisthesis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data between October 2010 and May 2021 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 years or older with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing elective, single-level, open posterior lumbar decompression and instrumented fusion with ≥1-year follow-up. The primary exposure was presence of TLIF vs PLF without interbody fusion. The primary outcome was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included complications, readmission, discharge disposition, return to work, and PROMs at 3 and 12 months postoperatively, including Numeric Rating Scale-Back/Leg and Oswestry Disability Index. Minimum clinically important difference of PROMs was set at 30% improvement from baseline. RESULTS: Of 546 patients, 373 (68.3%) underwent TLIF and 173 underwent (31.7%) PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (IQR = 3.6-9.0), with 339 (62.1%) >5-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression showed that patients undergoing TLIF had a lower odds of reoperation compared with PLF alone (odds ratio = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99, P = .048). Among patients with >5-year follow-up, the same trend was seen (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.95, P = .045). No differences were observed in 90-day complications ( P = .487) and readmission rates ( P = .230) or minimum clinically important difference PROMs. CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively maintained registry, patients with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing TLIF had significantly lower long-term reoperation rates than those undergoing PLF.