COVID-19 and the rise of virtual medicine in spine surgery: a worldwide study.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many surgeons to adopt "virtual medicine" practices, defined as telehealth services for patient care and online platforms for continuing medical education. The purpose of this study was to assess spine surgeon reliance on virtual medicine during the pandemic and to discuss the future of virtual medicine in spine surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive survey addressing demographic data and virtual medicine practices was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide between March 27, 2020, and April 4, 2020. RESULTS: 902 spine surgeons representing seven global regions responded. 35.6% of surgeons were identified as "high telehealth users," conducting more than half of clinic visits virtually. Predictors of high telehealth utilization included working in an academic practice (OR = 1.68, p = 0.0015) and practicing in Europe/North America (OR 3.42, p < 0.0001). 80.1% of all surgeons were interested in online education. Dedicating more than 25% of one's practice to teaching (OR = 1.89, p = 0.037) predicted increased interest in online education. 26.2% of respondents were identified as "virtual medicine surgeons," defined as surgeons with both high telehealth usage and increased interest in online education. Living in Europe/North America and practicing in an academic practice increased odds of being a virtual medicine surgeon by 2.28 (p = 0.002) and 1.15 (p = 0.0082), respectively. 93.8% of surgeons reported interest in a centralized platform facilitating surgeon-to-surgeon communication. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has changed spine surgery by triggering rapid adoption of virtual medicine practices. The demonstrated global interest in virtual medicine suggests that it may become part of the "new normal" for surgeons in the post-pandemic era.

Telemedicine in research and training: spine surgeon perspectives and practices worldwide.

PURPOSE: To utilize a global survey to elucidate spine surgeons' perspectives towards research and resident education within telemedicine. METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous email survey was circulated to the members of AO Spine, an international organization consisting of spine surgeons from around the world. Questions were selected and revised using a Delphi approach. A major portion of the final survey queried participants on experiences with telemedicine in training, the utility of telemedicine for research, and the efficacy of telemedicine as a teaching tool. Responses were compared by region. RESULTS: A total of 485 surgeons completed the survey between May 15, 2020 and May 31, 2020. Though most work regularly with trainees (83.3%) and 81.8% agreed that telemedicine should be incorporated into clinical education, 61.7% of respondents stated that trainees are not present during telemedicine visits. With regards to the types of clinical education that telemedicine could provide, only 33.9% of respondents agreed that interpretation of physical exam maneuvers can be taught (mean score = - 0.28, SD = ± 1.13). The most frequent research tasks performed over telehealth were follow-up of imaging (28.7%) and study group meetings (26.6%). Of all survey responses provided by members, there were no regional differences (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Our study of spine surgeons worldwide noted high agreement among specialists for the implantation of telemedicine in trainee curricula, underscoring the global acceptance of this medium for patient management going forward. A greater emphasis towards trainee participation as well as establishing best practices in telemedicine are essential to equip future spine specialists with the necessary skills for navigating this emerging platform.

Provider confidence in the telemedicine spine evaluation: results from a global study.

PURPOSE: To utilize data from a global spine surgeon survey to elucidate (1) overall confidence in the telemedicine evaluation and (2) determinants of provider confidence. METHODS: Members of AO Spine International were sent a survey encompassing participant's experience with, perception of, and comparison of telemedicine to in-person visits. The survey was designed through a Delphi approach, with four rounds of question review by the multi-disciplinary authors. Data were stratified by provider age, experience, telemedicine platform, trust in telemedicine, and specialty. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-five surgeons participated in the survey. The global effort included respondents from Africa (19.9%), Asia Pacific (19.7%), Europe (24.3%), North America (9.4%), and South America (26.6%). Providers felt that physical exam-based tasks (e.g., provocative testing, assessing neurologic deficits/myelopathy, etc.) were inferior to in-person exams, while communication-based aspects (e.g., history taking, imaging review, etc.) were equivalent. Participants who performed greater than 50 visits were more likely to believe telemedicine was at least equivalent to in-person visits in the ability to make an accurate diagnosis (OR 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.03-5.43). Compared to in-person encounters, video (versus phone only) visits were associated with increased confidence in the ability of telemedicine to formulate and communicate a treatment plan (OR 3.88, 95% C.I. 1.71-8.84). CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are confident in the ability of telemedicine to communicate with patients, but are concerned about its capacity to accurately make physical exam-based diagnoses. Future research should concentrate on standardizing the remote examination and the development of appropriate use criteria in order to increase provider confidence in telemedicine technology.

Spine surgeon perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine: an international study.

INTRODUCTION: While telemedicine usage has increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains little consensus about how spine surgeons perceive virtual care. The purpose of this study was to explore international perspectives of spine providers on the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. METHODS: Responses from 485 members of AO Spine were analyzed, covering provider perceptions of the challenges and benefits of telemedicine. All questions were optional, and blank responses were excluded from analysis. RESULTS: The leading challenges reported by surgeons were decreased ability to perform physical examinations (38.6%), possible increased medicolegal exposure (19.3%), and lack of reimbursement parity compared to traditional visits (15.5%). Fewer than 9.0% of respondents experienced technological issues. On average, respondents agreed that telemedicine increases access to care for rural/long-distance patients, provides societal cost savings, and increases patient convenience. Responses were mixed about whether telemedicine leads to greater patient satisfaction. North Americans experienced the most challenges, but also thought telemedicine carried the most benefits, whereas Africans reported the fewest challenges and benefits. Age did not affect responses. CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons are supportive of the benefits of telemedicine, and only a small minority experienced technical issues. The decreased ability to perform the physical examination was the top challenge and remains a major obstacle to virtual care for spine surgeons around the world, although interestingly, 61.4% of providers did not acknowledge this to be a major challenge. Significant groundwork in optimizing remote physical examination maneuvers and achieving legal and reimbursement clarity is necessary for widespread implementation.

Correction to: Learning from the past: did experience with previous epidemics help mitigate the impact of COVID-19 among spine surgeons worldwide?

Unfortunately, the 13th author name has been incorrectly published in the original publication. The complete correct name is given below.

Learning from the past: did experience with previous epidemics help mitigate the impact of COVID-19 among spine surgeons worldwide?

PURPOSE: Spine surgeons around the world have been universally impacted by COVID-19. The current study addressed whether prior experience with disease epidemics among the spine surgeon community had an impact on preparedness and response toward COVID-19. METHODS: A 73-item survey was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide via AO Spine. Questions focused on: demographics, COVID-19 preparedness, response, and impact. Respondents with and without prior epidemic experience (e.g., SARS, H1NI, MERS) were assessed on preparedness and response via univariate and multivariate modeling. Results of the survey were compared against the Global Health Security Index. RESULTS: Totally, 902 surgeons from 7 global regions completed the survey. 24.2% of respondents had prior experience with global health crises. Only 49.6% reported adequate access to personal protective equipment. There were no differences in preparedness reported by respondents with prior epidemic exposure. Government and hospital responses were fairly consistent around the world. Prior epidemic experience did not impact the presence of preparedness guidelines. There were subtle differences in sources of stress, coping strategies, performance of elective surgeries, and impact on income driven by prior epidemic exposure. 94.7% expressed a need for formal, international guidelines to help mitigate the impact of the current and future pandemics. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to note that prior experience with infectious disease crises did not appear to help spine surgeons prepare for the current COVID-19 pandemic. Based on survey results, the GHSI was not an effective measure of COVID-19 preparedness. Formal international guidelines for crisis preparedness are needed to mitigate future pandemics.

Twenty-Year Radiographic Outcomes Following Single-Level Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: Results From a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: Compare range of motion (ROM) and adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) following cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) at 20-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is the standard of treatment for single-level cervical disc degeneration causing radiculopathy. CDA is claimed to reduce shear strain, and adjacent-level ROM changes are hypothesized to hasten ASD with ACDF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study collected data on 47 patients randomized to ACDF or CDA. Lateral cervical spine radiographs were evaluated preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 20 years for alignment, ROM, ASD, and heterotopic ossification. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent (18/22) of CDA patients and 84% (21/25) of ACDF patients followed up at 20 years. At 20 years, total cervical (C2-C7) ROM was statistically different between the CDA and fusion groups (47.8° vs . 33.4°, P =0.005). Total cervical ROM was not significantly different between preoperative and 20-year periods following CDA (45.6° vs . 47.4°, P =0.772) or ACDF (40.6° vs . 33.0°, P =0.192). Differences in postoperative and 20-year index-level ROM following CDA were not significant (10.1° vs . 10.2°, P =0.952). Final ASD grading was statistically lower following CDA versus ACDF at both adjacent levels ( P <0.005). Twenty-year adjacent-level ossification development was increased following ACDF versus CDA ( P <0.001). Polyethylene mean thickness decreased from 9.4 mm immediately postoperatively to 9.1 mm at 20-year follow up ( P =0.013). Differences in adjacent-level ROM from preoperative to 20-year follow-up in both the ACDF and CDA groups did not meet statistical significance ( P >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cervical disc arthroplasty maintains index-level and total cervical ROM with very long-term follow-up. Total cervical ROM was higher at 20 years in CDA relative to ACDF. CDA results in lower rates of ASD and adjacent-level ossification development than ACDF.

Telemedicine in Spine Surgery: Global Perspectives and Practices.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, anonymous, international survey. OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid adoption of telemedicine in spine surgery. This study sought to determine the extent of adoption and global perspectives on telemedicine in spine surgery. METHODS: All members of AO Spine International were emailed an anonymous survey covering the participant's experiences with and perceptions of telemedicine. Descriptive statistics were used to depict responses. Responses were compared among regions. RESULTS: 485 spine surgeons participated in the survey. Telemedicine usage rose from <10.0% to >39.0% of all visits. A majority of providers (60.5%) performed at least one telemedicine visit. The format of "telemedicine" varied widely by region: European (50.0%) and African (45.2%) surgeons were more likely to use phone calls, whereas North (66.7%) and South American (77.0%) surgeons more commonly used video (P < 0.001). North American providers used telemedicine the most during COVID-19 (>60.0% of all visits). 81.9% of all providers "agreed/strongly agreed" telemedicine was easy to use. Respondents tended to "agree" that imaging review, the initial appointment, and postoperative care could be performed using telemedicine. Almost all (95.4%) surgeons preferred at least one in-person visit prior to the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: Our study noted significant geographical differences in the rate of telemedicine adoption and the platform of telemedicine utilized. The results suggest a significant increase in telemedicine utilization, particularly in North America. Spine surgeons found telemedicine feasible for imaging review, initial visits, and follow-up visits although the vast majority still preferred at least one in-person preoperative visit.

Spine Surgery and COVID-19: The Influence of Practice Type on Preparedness, Response, and Economic Impact.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate preparation, response, and economic impact of COVID-19 on private, public, academic, and privademic spine surgeons. METHODS: AO Spine COVID-19 and Spine Surgeon Global Impact Survey includes domains on surgeon demographics, location of practice, type of practice, COVID-19 perceptions, institutional preparedness and response, personal and practice impact, and future perceptions. The survey was distributed by AO Spine via email to members (n = 3805). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify differences between practice settings. RESULTS: A total of 902 surgeons completed the survey. In all, 45.4% of respondents worked in an academic setting, 22.9% in privademics, 16.1% in private practice, and 15.6% in public hospitals. Academic practice setting was independently associated with performing elective and emergent spine surgeries at the time of survey distribution. A majority of surgeons reported a >75% decrease in case volume. Private practice and privademic surgeons reported losing income at a higher rate compared with academic or public surgeons. Practice setting was associated with personal protective equipment availability and economic issues as a source of stress. CONCLUSIONS: The current study indicates that practice setting affected both preparedness and response to COVID-19. Surgeons in private and privademic practices reported increased worry about the economic implications of the current crisis compared with surgeons in academic and public hospitals. COVID-19 decreased overall clinical productivity, revenue, and income. Government response to the current pandemic and preparation for future pandemics needs to be adaptable to surgeons in all practice settings.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Spine Surgeons Worldwide: A One Year Prospective Comparative Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey. OBJECTIVE: In March of 2020, an original study by Louie et al investigated the impact of COVID-19 on 902 spine surgeons internationally. Since then, due to varying government responses and public health initiatives to the pandemic, individual countries and regions of the world have been affected differently. Therefore, this follow-up study aimed to assess how the COVID-19 impact on spine surgeons has changed 1 year later. METHODS: A repeat, multi-dimensional, 90-item survey written in English was distributed to spine surgeons worldwide via email to the AO Spine membership who agreed to receive surveys. Questions were categorized into the following domains: demographics, COVID-19 observations, preparedness, personal impact, patient care, and future perceptions. RESULTS: Basic respondent demographics, such as gender, age, home demographics, medical comorbidities, practice type, and years since training completion, were similar to those of the original 2020 survey. Significant differences between groups included reasons for COVID testing, opinions of media coverage, hospital unemployment, likelihood to be performing elective surgery, percentage of cases cancelled, percentage of personal income, sick leave, personal time allocation, stress coping mechanisms, and the belief that future guidelines were needed (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Compared to baseline results collected at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, significant differences in various domains related to COVID-19 perceptions, hospital preparedness, practice impact, personal impact, and future perceptions have developed. Follow-up assessment of spine surgeons has further indicated that telemedicine and virtual education are mainstays. Such findings may help to inform and manage expectations and responses to any future outbreaks.

Classification system for cervical spine deformity morphology: a validation study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to initially validate a recent morphological classification of cervical spine deformity pathology. METHODS: The records of 10 patients for each of the 3 classification subgroups (flat neck, focal deformity, and cervicothoracic), as well as for 8 patients with coronal deformity only, were extracted from a prospective multicenter database of patients with cervical deformity (CD). A panel of 15 physicians of various training and professional levels (i.e., residents, fellows, and surgeons) categorized each patient into one of the 4 groups. The Fleiss kappa coefficient was utilized to evaluate intra- and interrater reliability. Accuracy, defined as properly selecting the main driver of deformity, was reported overall, by morphotype, and by reviewer experience. RESULTS: The overall classification demonstrated a moderate to substantial agreement (round 1: interrater Fleiss kappa = 0.563, 95% CI 0.559-0.568; round 2: interrater Fleiss kappa = 0.612, 95% CI 0.606-0.619). Stratification by level of training demonstrated similar mean interrater coefficients (residents 0.547, fellows 0.600, surgeons 0.524). The mean intrarater score was 0.686 (range 0.531-0.823). A substantial agreement between rounds 1 and 2 was demonstrated in 81.8% of the raters, with a kappa score > 0.61. Stratification by level of training demonstrated similar mean intrarater coefficients (residents 0.715, fellows 0.640, surgeons 0.682). Of 570 possible questions, reviewers provided 419 correct answers (73.5%). When considering the true answer as being selected by at least one of the two main drivers of deformity, the overall accuracy increased to 86.0%. CONCLUSIONS: This initial validation of a CD morphological classification system reiterates the importance of dynamic plain radiographs for the evaluation of patients with CD. The overall reliability of this CD morphological classification has been demonstrated. The overall accuracy of the classification system was not impacted by rater experience, demonstrating its simplicity.

Narrative review of intraoperative image guidance for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Recent advancements in imaging technology have changed the landscape of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with the objective of improving safety and efficacy for the patient and surgical team. Spine surgery, and specifically TLIFs, involve challenging anatomy and command precise surgical accuracy, creating an essential role for intraoperative imaging, navigation, and robotics. Traditionally, surgeons have relied upon fluoroscopy for pedicle screw and interbody placement. More recently, intraoperative 3-dimensional navigation (ION) has risen in popularity in TLIF surgery. This technology utilizes intra-operative advanced imaging, such as computed tomography (CT) and 3D-fluroscopy, to accurately track instruments and implants in relation to the patient's anatomy. ION has demonstrated improved accuracy of pedicle screw placement, decreased operating room times, and lower radiation exposure to the surgeon and staff. However, conventional fluoroscopy, 3D fluoroscopy, intraoperative CT, image-guided navigation, and robot-assisted surgery all have a role in TLIF surgery. Numerous studies have been published regarding the benefits and pitfalls of these intraoperative tools in spine surgery, but there is a relative lack of research regarding some of the newer technologies surrounding TLIF. As future studies are published, and technology continues to evolve, surgeons must stay abreast of novel techniques to maximize patient safety and outcomes. Over the coming decade, we can expect intraoperative navigation and robotics to play a more significant role in spine surgery.

Intraoperative image guidance for lateral position surgery.

Recent advances in minimally invasive spine surgery techniques have precipitated the popularity of lateral position spine surgery, such as lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Lateral position surgery offers a unique, minimally invasive approach to the lumbar spine that allows for preservation of anterior and posterior spinal elements. Traditionally, surgeons have relied upon fluoroscopy for triangulation and implant placement. Over the last decade, intraoperative 3-dimensional navigation (ION) has risen to the forefront of innovation in LLIF and OLIF. This technology utilizes intra-operative advanced imaging, such as comminuted tomography (CT), to map the patient's 3D anatomy and allows the surgeon to accurately visualize instruments and implants in spatial relationship to the patient's anatomy in real time. ION has the potential to improve accuracy during instrumentation, decrease operating room times, lower radiation exposure to the surgeon and staff, and increase feasibility of single-position surgery during which the spine is instrumented both laterally and posteriorly while the patient remains in the lateral decubitus position. Despite the advantages of ION, the intra-operative radiation exposure risk to patients is controversial. Future directions include continued innovation in ultra low radiation imaging (ULRI) techniques and image enhancement technology and in uses of robot-assisted navigation in single-position spine surgery.

Assessing the Early Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Spine Surgery Fellowship Education.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to report the impact of COVID-19 on spine surgery fellow education and readiness for practice. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: COVID-19 has emerged as one of the most devastating global health crises of our time. To minimize transmission risk and to ensure availability of health resources, many hospitals have cancelled elective surgeries. There may be unintended consequences of this decision on the education and preparedness of current surgical trainees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multidimensional survey was created and distributed to all current AO Spine fellows and fellowship directors across the United States and Canada. RESULTS: Forty-five spine surgery fellows and 25 fellowship directors completed the survey. 62.2% of fellows reported >50% decrease in overall case volume since cancellation of elective surgeries. Mean hours worked per week decreased by 56.2%. Fellows reported completing a mean of 188.4±64.8 cases before the COVID-19 crisis and 84.1% expect at least an 11%-25% reduction in case volume compared with previous spine fellows. In all, 95.5% of fellows did not expect COVID-19 to impact their ability to complete fellowship. Only 2 directors were concerned about their fellows successfully completing fellowship; however, 32% of directors reported hearing concerns regarding preparedness from their fellows and 25% of fellows were concerned about job opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has universally impacted work hours and case volume for spine surgery fellows set to complete fellowship in the middle of 2020. Nevertheless, spine surgery fellows generally feel ready to enter practice and are supported by the confidence of their fellowship directors. The survey highlights a number of opportunities for improvement and innovation in the future training of spine surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Strategies to Achieve Spinal Fusion in Multilevel Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: An Overview.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical fusion offers surgeons a safe and reliable surgical option for single-level and multilevel pathology; however, multilevel fusions pose a higher risk of complications than single-level fusions, including possible pseudoarthrosis, adjacent segment disease, sagittal imbalance, and construct subsidence. Various techniques can be used to mitigate risk in multilevel anterior cervical fusion. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We reviewed the literature to determine the best surgical strategies in multilevel anterior cervical fusion. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for articles published from January 1980 through July 2019. Two authors identified relevant articles and then manually screened them for others to include in this review. RESULTS: We initially identified 1936 articles and included 48 in our review. We found that clinical outcomes of multilevel anterior cervical fusion can be optimized through the use of biologics and graft selection, the evaluation of pre-existing deformity, the assessment of comorbidities, and the selection of fusion levels. Meticulous surgical technique in conjunction with modern surgical tools, such as instrumentation and biologics, allow surgeons to address complex cervical problems while limiting morbidity and enhancing clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel anterior cervical fusions offer a relatively safe and reliable treatment option for both single-level and multilevel pathology.

Reaching for Peak Performance During Surgical Training: The Value in Assessment Tools and Critical Performance Measures.

Peak performance is the ability to achieve optimal outcomes or performance of a given task in a consistent manner. Commonly studied in athletes and musicians, this topic is less often studied in medicine and rarely broached for trainees. However, residency is a crucial period of training where foundations for future success are sewn into habit and daily practice. As educators, we should aim to equip trainees with the tools necessary to achieve peak performance. Studies in athletes and musicians focus on achieving peak performance by setting goals, mastering skills through deliberate practice, perseverance, grit, and discipline. Mentorship is also an important element to streamline efforts for the trainee and help them to focus. In the following article, we review the current literature on applying these principles to surgical trainees to achieve peak performance.

Can the American College of Surgeons Risk Calculator Predict 30-day Complications After Spine Surgery?

MINI: It is unclear whether the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator can predict 30-day complications after lumbar and cervical spinal fusions. This study shows that the Risk Calculator is only of marginal benefit in predicting outcomes in cervical fusion and unlikely to be of benefit in lumbar fusions. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Risk Calculator's ability to predict 30-day complications after spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgical risk calculators may identify patients at increased risk for complications, improve outcomes, enhance the informed consent process, and help modify risk factors. The ACS NSQIP Risk Calculator was developed from a cohort of >1.4 million patients, using 2805 unique CPT codes. It uses 21 patient predictors and the planned procedure to predict the risk of 12 different outcomes within 30 days following surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent primary lumbar and cervical fusions with at least 30-day postoperative follow-up between 2009 and 2015 at a single-institution. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the overall sample, anterior versus posterior fusion (cervical only), and single versus multilevel fusion. Logistic regression models were fit with actual complication occurrence as the dependent variable in each model and ACS estimated risk as the independent variable. The c-statistic was used as the measure of concordance for each model. Receiver-operating charateristic curves depicted the predictive ability of the estimated risks. Acceptable concordance was set at c >0.80. RESULTS: A total of 237 lumbar and 404 cervical patients were included in the study. The Risk Calculator risk estimates significantly predicted (P < 0.001) "any complication" and "discharge to skilled nursing facility" among the cervical cohort and demonstrated no significant outcome prediction the lumbar cohort. CONCLUSION: The ACS Risk-Calculator accurately predicted complications in the categories of "any complication" and "discharge to skilled nursing facility" for our cervical cohort and failed to demonstrate benefit for our lumbar cohort. Although the ACS Risk-Calculator may be useful in general surgery, our findings demonstrate that it does not necessarily provide accurate information for patients undergoing spinal surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Retrospective cohort study. The aim of this study was to assess the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Risk Calculator's ability to predict 30-day complications after spine surgery. Surgical risk calculators may identify patients at increased risk for complications, improve outcomes, enhance the informed consent process, and help modify risk factors. The ACS NSQIP Risk Calculator was developed from a cohort of >1.4 million patients, using 2805 unique CPT codes. It uses 21 patient predictors and the planned procedure to predict the risk of 12 different outcomes within 30 days following surgery. A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent primary lumbar and cervical fusions with at least 30-day postoperative follow-up between 2009 and 2015 at a single-institution. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the overall sample, anterior versus posterior fusion (cervical only), and single versus multilevel fusion. Logistic regression models were fit with actual complication occurrence as the dependent variable in each model and ACS estimated risk as the independent variable. The c-statistic was used as the measure of concordance for each model. Receiver-operating charateristic curves depicted the predictive ability of the estimated risks. Acceptable concordance was set at c >0.80. A total of 237 lumbar and 404 cervical patients were included in the study. The Risk Calculator risk estimates significantly predicted (P < 0.001) "any complication" and "discharge to skilled nursing facility" among the cervical cohort and demonstrated no significant outcome prediction the lumbar cohort. The ACS Risk-Calculator accurately predicted complications in the categories of "any complication" and "discharge to skilled nursing facility" for our cervical cohort and failed to demonstrate benefit for our lumbar cohort. Although the ACS Risk-Calculator may be useful in general surgery, our findings demonstrate that it does not necessarily provide accurate information for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Level of Evidence: 3.

The perceived efficacy and utility of spine bioskills curricula for resident and fellow education.

The purpose of this study is to assess the role of bioskills in orthopaedic and neurosurgical resident education. A survey of the utilization and perceived efficacy of bioskills was submitted to Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS) members. 36/104 surgeons responded, including 25 orthopaedic, 7 neurosurgical, and 4 integrated respondents. 63% of orthopaedic and 83% of neurosurgery faculty, reported using bioskills. When asked if completion of bioskills modules would encourage advancing trainees' participation (1-10 scale, 10 greatly increase), neurosurgical faculty reported 4.00 versus orthopaedics 6.43. Although orthopaedic faculty perceive greater efficacy of bioskills, the clinical impact of this difference remains uncertain.

Burden of Sciatica on US Medicare Recipients.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the disease burden of sciatica on the US Medicare cohort. BACKGROUND DATA: Sciatica is a common disability that has important physical, mental, and economic effects. The Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (HOS) is a demographic and outcomes survey used to monitor the performance of Medicare Advantage health plans in the United States. The HOS includes data on demographics, chronic medical conditions, and patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Medicare HOS data for cohorts from 2007 to 2013 were obtained. Patients were placed into two categories based on the survey results: with or without a history of sciatica. Baseline demographics, chronic medical conditions, and physical health symptoms were aggregated. In addition, average VR-12 physical component summary and mental component summary scores were calculated for each group at baseline and at 2-year follow-up. A Fisher exact test was used to assess significance for categorical variables, and a t-test was used for continuous variables. VR-12 changes as small as 1 to 2 units have been found to be clinically and socially relevant. RESULTS: The baseline cohort data of 1,000,952 patients yielded 250,869 patients (25%) who reported the diagnosis of sciatica, compared with 750,083 patients (75%) without sciatica. Patients with a history of sciatica tended to be younger, less educated, and notably with more medical comorbidities. Physical component summary outcomes were approximately 8 units lower in the sciatica group at baseline and 7 units lower at 2-year follow-up. Mental component summary outcomes were 6 units lower in the sciatica group at baseline and 5 units lower at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: A large percentage of the US Medicare cohort suffers from symptomatic sciatica. Our study identified a 25% prevalence in the Medicare cohort. In addition, sciatica is associated with an increased incidence of comorbid medical conditions and poor health-related quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III STUDY DESIGN:: Observational-Cohort Study.

Radiographic Evaluation of Cervical Disk Replacement: The Impact of Preoperative Arthrosis and Implant Positioning on Patient-report Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: Provide a validated method of radiographic evaluation of cervical disk replacement (CDR) patients linked to outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Preoperative radiographic criteria for CDRs and the impact of intraoperative positioning remain without formalized guidelines. The association between preexisting degenerative changes, optimal implant positioning, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are not well understood. Our study establishes a systematic radiographic evaluation of preoperative spondylosis, implant placement, and associated clinical outcomes. METHODS: Preoperative radiographs for CDR patients were evaluated for disk height, facet arthrosis, and uncovertebral joint degeneration. Postoperative radiographs were scored based on the position of the CDR implant on anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral radiographs. PROMs including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) arm pain, VAS neck pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Short Form 12 physical health (SF12-PCS) and mental health (SF12-M) were collected preoperatively, at early follow, and at late follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients were included. Preoperative disk height had the highest reliability, intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.798). Facet arthrosis had the lowest intraclass correlation coefficient at 0.563. Preoperative disk height scores showed a significant correlation with AP radiographs and implant positioning score. Patients with more advanced uncovertebral degenerative changes showed less improvement 6 months postoperatively, based on SF-12 PCS scores (R=0.446, P=0.025). Postoperative implant position on lateral radiograph showed a significant correlation with SF-12 MCS scores at follow-up beyond 6 months (R=0.385, P=0.011). Overall postoperative implant position scores demonstrated significant correlation with SF-12 PCS (R=0.350, P=0.046) scores. CONCLUSION: This study provides a systematic method of evaluation of preoperative and intraoperative radiographs that can optimize outcomes. On the basis of our study, spine surgeons performing cervical disk replacement surgery should consider: (a) the presence of preexisting uncovertebral joint degeneration can negatively impact outcomes, (b) achieving optimal implant positioning can be increasingly difficult with more severe loss of disk height, and (c) overall implant position as judged on AP and lateral fluoroscopy can impact outcomes.