Evaluating 5-year outcomes of interlaminar devices as an adjunct to decompression for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

PURPOSE: To assess and compare 5-year outcomes following uninstrumented spinal decompression and decompression with interlaminar device (ILD). To determine whether improvement in clinical outcomes correlated with changes in the radiological indices studied. This is because comparative literature between the above two procedures is limited past the 2-year timeframe. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a single surgeon across 116-patients who underwent spinal decompression with or without ILD insertion between 2007 and 2015. Patients with symptomatic LSS who met the study criteria were offered spinal decompression with ILD insertion. Patients who accepted ILD were placed in the D + ILD group (n = 61); while those opting for decompression alone were placed in the DA group (n = 55). Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and up to 5-years postoperatively using the ODI, Eq. 5d, VAS back and leg pain, and SF-36. Radiological indices were assessed preoperatively and up to 5-years postoperatively. RESULTS: Both groups showed statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvement in all clinical outcome indicators at all timepoints as compared to their preoperative status. The D + ILD group achieved significant improvement in radiological parameters namely foraminal height and posterior disc height in the immediate postoperative period that was maintained while the DA group did not. CONCLUSION: Our study found that in the management of LSS, clinical outcomes between those patients undergoing decompression alone compared to decompression with ILD showed statistically significant improvement in VAS back pain and radiological parameters namely foraminal height and posterior disc height at the 5-year mark. ILD does not predispose to increased reoperation rates.

Readmission-Free Survival Analysis in Metastatic Spine Tumour Surgical Patients: A Novel Concept.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes commonly used to ascertain success of metastatic spine tumour surgery (MSTS) are 30-day complications/mortality and overall/disease-free survival. We believe a new, effective outcome indicator after MSTS would be the absence of unplanned hospital readmission (UHR) after index discharge. We introduce the concept of readmission-free survival (ReAFS), defined as 'the time duration between hospital discharge after index operation and first UHR or death'. The aim of this study is to identify factors influencing ReAFS in MSTS patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 266 consecutive patients who underwent MSTS between 2005 and 2016. Demographics, oncological characteristics, procedural, preoperative and postoperative details were collected. ReAFS of patients within 2 years or until death was reviewed. Perioperative factors predictive of reduced ReAFS were evaluated using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 266 patients, 230 met criteria for analysis. A total of 201 had UHR, whilst 1 in 8 (29/230) had no UHR. Multivariate analysis revealed that haemoglobin ≥ 12 g/dL, ECOG score of ≤ 2, primary prostate, breast and haematological cancers, comorbidities ≤ 3, absence of preoperative radiotherapy and shorter postoperative length of stay significantly prolonged the time to first UHR. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission-free survival is a novel concept in MSTS, which relies on patients' general condition, appropriateness of interventional procedures and underlying disease burden. Additionally, it may indicate the successful combination of a multi-disciplinary treatment approach. This information will allow oncologists and surgeons to identify patients who may benefit from increased surveillance following discharge to increase ReAFS. We envisage that ReAFS is a concept that can be extended to other surgical oncological fields.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and Retrolisthesis in the Thoracolumbar and Lumbar Spine - An EOS Study Using Updated Radiographic Parameters.

STUDY DESIGN: Single centre, cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to report the prevalence of spondylolisthesis and retrolisthesis, analyse both conditions in terms of the affected levels and severity, as well as identify their risk factors. METHODS: A review of clinical data and radiographic images of consecutive spine patients seen in outpatient clinics over a 1-month period is performed. Images are obtained using the EOS® technology under standardised protocol, and radiographic measurements were performed by 2 independent, blinded spine surgeons. The prevalence of both conditions were shown and categorised based on the spinal level involvement and severity. Associated risk factors were identified. RESULTS: A total of 256 subjects (46.1% males) with 2304 discs from T9/10 to L5/S1 were studied. Their mean age was 52.2(± 18.7) years. The overall prevalence of spondylolisthesis and retrolisthesis was 25.9% and 17.1% respectively. Spondylolisthesis occurs frequently at L4/5(16.3%), and retrolisthesis at L3/4(6.8%). Majority of the patients with spondylolisthesis had a Grade I slip (84.3%), while those with retrolisthesis had a Grade I slip. The presence of spondylolisthesis was found associated with increased age (P < .001), female gender (OR: 2.310; P = .005), predominantly sitting occupations (OR:2.421; P = .008), higher American Society of Anaesthesiology grades (P = .001), and lower limb radiculopathy (OR: 2.175; P = .007). Patients with spondylolisthesis had larger Pelvic Incidence (P < .001), Pelvic Tilt (P < .001) and Knee alignment angle (P = .011), but smaller Thoracolumbar junctional angle (P = .008), Spinocoxa angle (P = .007). Retrolisthesis was associated with a larger Thoracolumbar junctional angle (P =.039). CONCLUSION: This is the first study that details the prevalence of spondylolisthesis and retrolisthesis simultaneously, using the EOS technology and updated sagittal radiographic parameters. It allows better understanding of both conditions, their mutual relationship, and associated clinical and radiographic risk factors.

Analysis of Short-Term versus Long-Term Readmission-Free Survival After Metastatic Spine Tumor Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Readmission-free survival (ReAFS) is a novel clinical and quality metric after metastatic spine tumor surgery (MSTS). We believe that factors influencing ReAFS after index MSTS vary based on time. We considered 2 time frames and defined short-term ReAFS as survival without an unplanned hospital readmission up to 90 days and long-term ReAFS as survival without unplanned hospital readmission up to 1 year after MSTS. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 266 patients who underwent MSTS between 2005 and 2016. All relevant oncologic, surgical and follow-up data were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze prognostic factors associated with higher probability of short-term ReAFS and long-term ReAFS. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score ≤2 (P = 0.011), preoperative hemoglobin (Hb) level >12 g/dL (P = 0.008), ≤3 comorbidities (P = 0.052), shorter index length of stay ≤10 days (P = 0.007), and absence of neurologic/hematologic complications during index stay (P = 0.015) significantly increased the probability of short-term ReAFS, whereas preoperative Hb level >12 g/dL (P = 0.003) or tumor primaries with advanced treatment modalities such as breast (P = 0.012), hematologic (P = 0.006), prostate (P = 0.004), and renal/thyroid (P = 0.038) as opposed to aggressive lung tumor primaries were associated with significantly higher probability of long-term ReAFS. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and treatment factors predominantly influence ReAFS up to 90 days, whereas primary tumor-related factors alongside general health influence ReAFS beyond 90 days after index MSTS. Awareness of these factors may help oncologists and surgeons optimize treatment planning. The clinical significance of this study will continue to evolve, because we have been witnessing over the past decade that patients are becoming more involved in both their general health and understanding the natural history of the diseases that affect them.

Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine: do we know enough for successful surgery?

Over the past decade, there has been growing interest in the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine and its correlation to clinical outcomes. It is now known that cervical lordosis is not universally physiological and should not be pursued in all patients undergoing surgery. Rather, it is increasingly understood that it is how these angular parameters (lordosis or kyphosis) interact with translational parameters that is reflective of overall cervical spine and whole spine balance, which in turn impacts patient outcomes. This review synthesises currently available evidence relating to the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine. Radiographic assessment of the cervical spine including horizontal gaze is discussed and alignment in physiological and pathological states analysed. The interdependence of spinal segments is reviewed, with cervical alignment correction influencing the adjacent thoracic spine, and similarly lumbar lordosis (LL) and global balance correction changing cervical spine alignment. Cervical kyphosis with associated cervical sagittal imbalance is known to lead to poorer post-operative outcomes, and this dichotomy in outcomes has not been shown to improve even with alignment correction. Further work is required to uncover the extent to which cervical spine alignment correction should be attempted toward improved patient outcomes, in order to plan and deliver patient-specific surgical realignment targets.

Evaluation of Scoring Systems and Prognostic Factors in Patients With Spinal Metastases From Lung Cancer.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study of 180 patients with lung cancer spinal metastases, wherein prognostic score-predicted survival was compared with actual survival. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of prognostic scoring systems in lung cancer spinal metastases. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The modified Tokuhashi, Tomita, modified Bauer, and Oswestry scores are currently used to guide decisions regarding operative treatment of patients with spinal metastases. The best system for predicting survival in patients with lung cancer spinal metastases remains undetermined. The high incidence of spinal metastases from lung cancer and improved survival of patients treated with systemic therapy warrants evaluation of these scoring systems in this particular context. METHODS: Patients with lung cancer spinal metastases treated at our institution between May 2001 and August 2012 were studied. Fifty-one patients were treated surgically. The primary outcome measure was survival from the time of diagnosis. Scoring-predicted survival was compared with actual survival. Potential prognostic factors were investigated using Cox regression analyses. Predictive values of each scoring system for 3- and 6-month survival were measured via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Histological subtype (P = 0.015), sex (P = 0.001), Karnofsky performance scale (P = 0.001), extent of neurological palsy (P = 0.002), and visceral metastases (P = 0.037) are significant predictors of survival. Besides the Oswestry spinal risk index, no significant differences were found between different prognostic subgroups within the individual scoring systems. Although the modified Bauer score was most accurate, all four scoring systems had areas under the ROC curve 0.5 or less. CONCLUSION: Although better prognostic scores correlated with longer survival, all four scoring systems are inaccurate in prognosticating patients with lung cancer spinal metastases. Specific lung cancer histology appears prognostic and should be considered, especially given the increased survival of patients receiving new targeted therapies appropriate to their disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.