The severity of preoperative anemia escalates risk of poor short-term outcomes after lumbar spine fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how preoperative anemia severity affects 90-day outcomes of spinal fusion surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult lumbar fusion patients at a tertiary medical center. Patients were classified by World Health Organization anemia severity definitions for comparisons. Multivariate regression models were created to control for confounding variables, for all primary outcomes of transfusion requirements, non-home discharge, readmissions, complications, and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 2582 patients were included: 2.7% with moderate-severe anemia, 11.0% with mild anemia, and 86.3% without anemia. Moderate-severe patients had the longest hospital stay (5.03 days vs 4.14 and 3.59 days, p < 0.001) and highest risk of transfusion (52.2% vs 13.0% vs 2.69%, p < 0.001), non-home discharge (39.1% vs 27.8% vs 15.4%, p < 0.001), readmission (7.25% vs 5.99% vs 3.36%, p = 0.023), and complications (13.0% vs 9.51% vs 6.20%, p = 0.012). On multivariable logistic regression, both patients with mild and moderate-severe anemia had an increased risk of transfusion (OR: 37.3, p < 0.001; OR: 5.25, p < 0.001, respectively) and non-home discharge (OR: 2.00, p = 0.021; OR: 1.71, p = 0.001, respectively) compared to patients without anemia. Anemia severity was not independently associated with complications or 90-day readmission. On multivariable linear regression, mild anemia (ß: 0.37, p = 0.001) and moderate-severe anemia (ß: 1.07, p < 0.001) were independently associated with length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate-severe preoperative anemia are at increased risk for longer length of stay, transfusions, and non-home discharge. Improved optimization of preoperative anemia may significantly reduce healthcare utilization, and surgeons should consider these risks in preoperative planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

The impact of cage positioning on lumbar lordosis and disc space restoration following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate patient and surgical factors that predict increased overall lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis correction following a minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent one- or two-level LLIF. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and 6-month postoperative measurements of LL, segmental lordosis, anterior disc height, and posterior disc height were collected from standing lateral radiographs for each patient. Cage placement was measured utilizing the center point ratio (CPR) on immediate postoperative radiographs. Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between cage lordosis and radiographic parameters. Multivariate linear regression was performed to assess independent predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 106 levels in 78 unique patients were included. Most procedures involved fusion of one level (n = 50, 64.1%), most commonly L3-4 (46.2%). Despite no differences in baseline segmental lordosis, patients with anteriorly or centrally placed cages experienced the greatest segmental lordosis correction immediately (mean anterior 4.81° and central 4.46° vs posterior 2.47°, p = 0.0315) and at 6 months postoperatively, and patients with anteriorly placed cages had greater overall lordosis correction postoperatively (mean 6.30°, p = 0.0338). At the 6-month follow-up, patients with anteriorly placed cages experienced the greatest increase in anterior disc height (mean anterior 6.24 mm vs posterior 3.69 mm, p = 0.0122). Cages placed more posteriorly increased the change in posterior disc height postoperatively (mean posterior 4.91 mm vs anterior 1.80 mm, p = 0.0001) and at 6 months (mean posterior 4.18 mm vs anterior 2.06 mm, p = 0.0255). There were no correlations between cage lordotic angle and outcomes. On multivariate regression, anterior cage placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in segmental lordosis, while posterior placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in posterior disc height. Percutaneous screw placement, cage lordotic angle, and cage height did not independently predict any radiographic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF procedures reliably improve LL and increase intervertebral disc space. Anterior cage placement improves the lordosis angle greater than posterior placement, which better corrects sagittal alignment, but there is still a significant improvement in lordosis even with a posteriorly placed cage. Posterior cage placement provides greater restoration in posterior disc space height, maximizing indirect decompression, but even the anteriorly placed cages provided indirect decompression. Cage parameters including cage height, lordosis angle, and material do not impact radiographic improvement.

Triceps Tendon Reattachment Using Mini Plates and Screws After Failure of Olecranon Avulsion Fracture Fixation in Osteoporotic Bone: A Case Report.

This is a case report of an 85-year-old woman with osteopenia who underwent olecranon avulsion fracture repair with supplemental triceps tendon repair following a fall on an outstretched arm. The initial procedure failed due to osteoporotic bone quality and an atraumatic disruption of the olecranon fracture fixation. The patient subsequently underwent further surgical intervention with an olecranon avulsion fracture excision and a novel triceps tendon repair technique using plate augmentation and fiber tape. Surgeons may consider this novel approach as an initial treatment for elderly patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis undergoing olecranon avulsion fracture fixation, to prevent the failure and consequent revision surgery.

Pickleball- and Paddleball-Related Injuries in the Lower Extremity: Description, Treatment Options, and Return to Play.

Background Pickleball and paddleball are the fastest-growing sports in the United States. However, there are limited studies on the types of lower extremity injuries and treatment options in an outpatient clinic setting. Hypothesis/purpose This study reports the incidence rate, treatments, and return-to-play (RTP) outcomes for patients presenting to a single orthopedic outpatient center with pickleball- and paddleball-related lower extremity injuries. Study design This study is a retrospective case series, with level IV evidence. Methods A database search of our multispecialty electronic medical record (EMR) system from 2015 to 2023 identified 166 patients with outpatient pickleball- and paddleball-related lower extremity injuries. The retrospective data were reviewed for patient demographics, injury type, mechanism of injury, surgical or non-surgical treatment, and return-to-play recommendations. Results We observed that the majority of the patients with pickleball- and paddleball-related injuries in the lower extremities were over 60 years of age, with more males. Additionally, most injuries encountered were ankle sprain/strain from a twisting mechanism, which was treated non-surgically. Additionally, a significant number of patients suffered an Achilles tendon rupture (12.0%), which was treated surgically with an Achilles tendon repair (88.1%), accounting for the most common surgical treatment performed in this study. Of the 166 patients who were seen and treated, 68 (40.9%) returned to play, and 93 (56.3%) were lost to follow-up. Conclusion Most of these injuries were seen in the older population and caused by a sprain or strain due to sudden changes in direction, which were treated non-surgically. The most common surgical treatment was an Achilles tendon repair due to an Achilles tendon rupture. Although a relatively good number of patients were cleared to return to play, some patients were lost to follow-up. Meanwhile, some patients were advised to stop playing pickleball or paddleball due to the severity of their injuries. As this sport continues to rise in popularity and with the incidence rate of lower extremity injuries increasing over time, orthopedic surgeons should be aware of the types of injuries, treatment options, and outcomes, as well as ways to advise patients on prevention. Therefore, further research on the standard treatments and outcomes of pickleball- and paddleball-related injuries in the lower extremities is encouraged.

The Role of L1PA in Patient Reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Single Level Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the L1 pelvic angle (L1PA) can be used to predict quality of life outcomes for adults one year after L4-L5 fusion to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: L1PA is beneficial in the evaluation of pre and postoperative quality of life outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for spinal deformity. No studies have examined its utility in surgical patients with degenerative spinal disease. METHODS: Patients undergoing L4-L5 posterolateral decompression and fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were grouped by preoperative and postoperative L1PA, and further stratified by cut offs of>7.2° and <7.2° based on previous literature. We also stratified patients by presence of an ideal calculated L1PA, defined as (0.5xPelvic Incidence)-21 +/- 5°, as proposed by prior literature. Preoperative, one year postoperative and Δ (postoperative minus preoperative) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic measurements were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were identified with preoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 132 with L1PAs>7.2°. Eighteen patients were identified with postoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 138 with L1PAs>7.2°. Sixty-five and fifty-seven patients were identified as having ideal calculated pre and postoperative L1PAs, respectively. When using absolute cutoffs, L1PA correlated with pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). When using calculated L1PAs, L1PA correlated with lumbar lordosis, PI-LL, pelvic tilt and sacral slope. With respect to PROMs, no statistically significant differences existed between cohorts both preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively on either univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: L1PA may be a helpful radiographic consideration that translates to clinically relevant outcomes in spinal deformity. However, it does not appear as predictive of patient outcomes after single level fusion for patients with L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Further studies are warranted to investigate the role of L1PA in degenerative spine patients.

Utilization and reimbursement of diagnostic cerebral angiograms: A Medicare trends analysis from 2013 to 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing life expectancy has caused growing concern about maintaining viable neurointerventional practices due to altered Medicare payment structures. This study analyzes the financial trends of three common diagnostic tests for cerebrovascular disease: cerebral digital subtraction angiography (DSA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). METHODS: Medicare Part B National Summary Data files from 2013 to 2020 were queried by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for DSA (36221-36228), CTA (70496, 70498), and MRA (70544-70547, 70549). Inflation-adjusted charges and reimbursement were calculated using the U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index for Medical Services. Regression analysis was performed on charges, reimbursement, and volume. RESULTS: A total of 1,519,245 diagnostic procedures were conducted between 2013 and 2020 (782,370 angiograms, 246,603 CTAs, and 490,272 MRAs). A total of $41.005 million was reimbursed by Medicare in 2020 for these diagnostic procedures. The annual percent change in volume for all procedures was -2.90%. From 2013 to 2020, inflation-adjusted: Medicare total physician reimbursement decreased for cerebral angiograms (-4.12%, p = 0.007), CTAs (-2.77%, p = 0.458), and MRAs (-9.06%, p < 0.001). Procedural volume billed to Medicare decreased for cerebral angiograms (-4.63%, p = 0.007) and MRAs (-2.94%, p = 0.0.81) and increased for CTAs (+3.15%, p = 0.004). The greatest increase in Medicare reimbursement (+66.75%) came from CPT code 36224, "place catheter carotid artery", and the greatest decrease in Medicare reimbursement (-8.66%) came from CPT code 36226, "place catheter vertebral artery." CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an analysis of Medicare reimbursement trends for routine cerebrovascular angiogram techniques. The findings highlight a decline in Medicare reimbursements for neurointerventionalists.

Does Paraspinal Muscle Mass Predict Lumbar Lordosis before and after Decompression for Degenerative Spinal Stenosis?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if muscle mass and quality of the lumbar paraspinal muscles was associated with improvements in lumbar lordosis and other sagittal parameters after isolated posterior lumbar decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Over time, either due to degenerative changes or other spinal conditions, individuals may develop sagittal imbalance. In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, sagittal imbalance can further exacerbate symptoms of pain and radiculopathy. Sarcopenia of paraspinal muscles has been implicated in previous spine research as a variable with influence on surgical outcomes. METHODS: Sagittal parameters were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral lumbar radiographs and included lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Preoperative MRI images were evaluated at the base of the L4 vertebral body to assess muscles mass of the psoas muscle and paravertebral muscles (PVM) and Goutallier grade of the PVM. Patients were divided into 3 muscle size groups based on PVM normalized for body size (PVM/BMI): Group A (smallest), Group B, and Group C (largest). RESULTS: Patients in Group C had greater LL preoperatively (51.5° vs. 47.9° vs. 43.2, P=0.005) and postoperatively (52.2° vs. 48.9° vs. 45.7°, P=0.043). There was no significant difference in the ∆LL values between groups (P>0.05). Patients in Group C had larger SS preoperatively (35.2° vs. 32.1° vs. 30.0°, P=0.010) and postoperatively (36.1° vs. 33.0° vs. 31.7°, P=0.030). Regression analysis showed that PVM/BMI was a significant predictor of LL preoperatively (P=0.039) and postoperatively (P=0.031), as well as SS preoperatively (P=0.001) and postoperatively (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Muscle mass of the paravertebral muscles significantly impacts lumbar lordosis and sacral slope in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis before and after posterior lumbar decompression. These findings highlight a need to address risk factors for poor muscle quality in patients with sagittal imbalance.

Postoperative opioid consumption patterns diverge between propensity matched patients undergoing traumatic and elective cervical spine fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prolonged opioid therapy following spine surgery is an ongoing postoperative concern. While prior studies have investigated postoperative opioid use patterns in the elective cervical surgery patient population, to our knowledge, opioid use patterns in patients undergoing surgery for traumatic cervical spine injuries have not been elucidated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare opioid use and prescription patterns in the postoperative pain management of patients undergoing traumatic and elective cervical spine fusion surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with traumatic cervical injuries who underwent primary anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) during their initial hospital admission. The propensity matched, control group consisted of adult elective cervical fusion patients who underwent primary ACDF or PCDF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic data, surgical characteristics, spinal disease diagnosis, location of cervical injury, procedure type, operative levels fused, and Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data. PDMP data included the number of opioid prescriptions filled, preoperative opioid use, postoperative opioid use, and use of perioperative benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or gabapentin. Opioid consumption data was collected in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and standardized per day. METHODS: A 1:1 propensity match was performed to match traumatic injury patients undergoing cervical fusion surgery with elective cervical fusion patients. Traumatic injury patients were matched based on age, sex, CCI, procedure type, and cervical levels fused. Pre- and postoperative opioid, benzodiazepine, muscle relaxant, and gabapentin use were assessed for the traumatic injury and elective patients. T- or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare continuous data and Chi-Squared or Fisher's Exact were used to compare categorical data. Multivariate stepwise regression using MME per day 0 - 30 days following surgery as the dependent outcome was performed to further evaluate associations with postoperative opioid use. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients underwent fusion surgery for a traumatic cervical spine injury and 48 elective cervical fusion with complete PDMP data were assessed. Elective patients were found to fill more prescriptions (3.19 vs. 0.65, p=.023) and take more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day (0.60 vs. 0.04, p=.014) within 1 year prior to surgery in comparison to traumatic patients. Elective patients were also more likely to use opioids (29.2% vs. 10.4%, p=.040) and take more MMEs per day (0.70 vs. 0.05, p=.004) within 30 days prior to surgery. Within 30 days postoperatively, elective patients used opioids more frequently (89.6% vs. 52.1%, p<.001) and took more MMEs per day (3.73 vs. 1.71, p<.001) than traumatic injury patients. Multivariate stepwise regression demonstrated preoperative opioid use (Estimate: 1.87, p=.013) to be correlated with higher postoperative MME per day within 30 days of surgery. Surgery after traumatic injury was correlated with lower postoperative MME use per day within 30 days of surgery (Estimate: -1.63 p=.022). CONCLUSION: Cervical fusion patients with a history of traumatic spine injury consume fewer opioids in the early postoperative period in comparison to elective cervical fusion patients, however both cohorts consumed a similar amount after the initial 30-day postoperative period. Preoperative opioid use was also a risk factor for higher consumption in the short-term postoperative period. These results may aid physicians in further understanding patients' postoperative care needs based on presenting injury characteristics and highlights the need for enhanced follow-up care for traumatic cervical spine injury patients after fusion surgery.

Preoperative Electrodiagnostic Study Findings Differ Between Patients With Double-crush Syndrome and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Propensity Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Double-crush syndrome (DCS) represents a condition that involves peripheral nerve compression in combination with spinal nerve root impingement. The purpose of this study was to compare electrodiagnostic study (EDS) results in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release (CTR) for carpal tunnel syndrome with those undergoing both CTR and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion for DCS. METHODS: Patients receiving an isolated CTR were compared with those undergoing CTR and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion within two years of CTR. The latter group was defined as our DCS cohort. Electrodiagnostic study results were collected which included sensory and motor nerve conduction data as well as electromyogram (EMG) findings. All electrodiagnostic studies were done before CTR in both sets of patients. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with DCS and 137 CTR-only patients were included. Patients with DCS were found to have decreased sensory onset latency (3.51 vs 4.01; P = 0.015) and peak latency (4.25 vs 5.17; P = 0.004) compared with the CTR-only patients. Patients with DCS had slower wrist motor velocity (30.5 vs 47.7; P = 0.012), decreased elbow motor latency (9.62 vs 10.6; P = 0.015), and faster elbow motor velocity (56.0 vs 49.4; P = 0.031). EMG results showed that patients with DCS were more likely to have positive findings in the biceps (31.9% vs 1.96%; P < 0.001) and triceps (24.4% vs 2.97%; P < 0.001), but not abductor pollicis brevis (APB) (45.7% vs 37.9%; P = 0.459). CONCLUSION: We identified changes on EDS between patients with and without DCS. In patients with DCS, sensory nerve studies showed shorter peak and onset latency than in CTR-only patients. Interestingly, DCS and CTR-only patients had different patterns of wrist and elbow motor nerve conduction. Providers observing positive EMG findings proximal to the APB should raise their suspicion for possible cervical radiculopathy and when present with carpal tunnel syndrome-like symptoms, should also consider DCS in their diagnostic differential.

Perioperative Dexamethasone Does Not Reduce Postoperative Opioid Use Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if dexamethasone administration reduced narcotic consumption during hospitalization and to evaluate if patients who received dexamethasone refilled fewer opioid prescriptions postoperatively. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent primary elective 1- to 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a single center were retrospectively identified. Prescription opioid use was collected from governmental online prescription drug monitoring programs, and in-hospital opioid use was collected from each patient's medication administration record and recorded as morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Patients were categorized by whether or not intravenous dexamethasone was administered perioperatively. Dexamethasone protocols were considered high dose if weight-based dosing was >0.20 mg/kg and low dose if <0.20 mg/kg. Multivariable linear regression was conducted to assess the relationship between dexamethasone administration and MMEs prescribed at each time point while accounting for confounders. RESULTS: Of 249 included patients, 167 (67%) were administered dexamethasone. Patients in both groups used a similar quantity of opioids while hospitalized (no dexamethasone: 56.7 MMEs/day vs. dexamethasone: 39.4 MMEs/day, P = 0.350). Patients in both groups refilled a similar quantity of opioids in all postoperative time periods: 0-3 weeks (3.38 vs. 4.07 MMEs/day, P = 0.528), 3-6 weeks (0.36 vs. 0.75 MMEs/day, P = 0.198), 6-12 weeks (0.53 vs. 0.75 MMEs/day, P = 0.900), and 3 months to 1 year (0.28 vs. 0.43 MMEs/day, P = 0.531). On multivariable linear regression, dexamethasone was not associated with a reduction in opioid volume at any time point (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of perioperative dexamethasone does not reduce in-hospital or home opioid usage regardless of weight-based dose. Analgesia should not be the primary driver of dexamethasone administration for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Comparison of Postoperative Opioid Use After Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion or Posterior Cervical Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) are two main surgical management options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Although ACDF is less invasive than PCF which should theoretically reduce postoperative pain, it is still unknown whether this leads to reduced opioid use. Our objective was to evaluate whether PCF increases postoperative opioid use compared with ACDF. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing 2-level to 4-level ACDF or PCF at a single center from 2017 to 2021. Our state's prescription drug-monitoring program was queried for filled opioid prescriptions using milligrams morphine equivalents (MMEs) up to 1 year postoperatively. In-hospital opioid use was collected from the electronic medical record. Bivariate statistics compared ACDF and PCF cohorts. Multivariate linear regression was done to assess independent predictors of in-hospital opioid use and short-term (0 to 30 days), subacute (30 to 90 days), and long-term (3 to 12 months) opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: We included 211 ACDF patients and 91 PCF patients. Patients undergoing PCF used more opioids during admission (126.7 vs. 51.0 MME, P < 0.001) and refilled more MMEs in the short-term (118.2 vs. 86.1, P = 0.001) but not subacute (33.6 vs. 19.7, P = 0.174) or long-term (85.6 vs. 47.8, P = 0.310) period. A similar percent of patients in both groups refilled at least one prescription after 90 days (39.6% vs. 33.2%, P = 0.287). PCF (ß = 56.7, P = 0.001) and 30-day preoperative MMEs (ß = 0.28, P = 0.041) were associated with greater in-hospital opioid requirements. PCF (ß = 26.7, P = 0.039), C5 nerve root irritation (ß = 51.4, P = 0.019), and a history of depression (ß = 40.9, P < 0.001) were independently associated with 30-day postoperative MMEs. CONCLUSIONS: PCF is initially more painful than ACDF but does not lead to persistent opioid use. Surgeons should optimize multimodal analgesia protocols to reduce long-term narcotic usage rather than change the surgical approach.Level of Evidence:III.

Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes: Anteriorly Placed Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage vs. Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Posterior Instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in anteriorly placed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) and anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TLIF and ALIF are surgical techniques that have become more prevalent in recent years. Although studies have compared the two, none have considered TLIFs with anteriorly placed cages, which may serve as a better comparison to ALIFs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing TLIF or ALIF with posterior instrumentation from 2010-2020 at a tertiary care institution were retrospectively identified. TLIF cage position was assessed and those with anterior placement were included. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes. Radiographic outcomes included posterior disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). Statistical analysis was performed to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 351 patients, 108 had ALIF with posterior instrumentation and 207 had a TLIF. Preoperatively, TLIF patients had less LL (53.7° vs. 60.6°, P<0.001), SS (38.3° vs. 43.7°, P<0.001), and PI (60.1° vs. 66.1°, P<0.001), all of which remained significant at one-year and long-term follow-up (P<0.001). The TLIF group had less ∆DH (1.51° vs. 5.43°, P<0.001), ∆LL (1.8° vs. 2.97°, P=0.038), and ∆SL (0.18° vs. 4.40°, P<0.001) at one year postoperatively. At two to three years, ∆DH (P<0.001) and ∆SL (P=0.001) remained significant, but ∆LL (P=0.695) did not. Patients in the TLIF group had higher VAS-Back scores one year postoperatively (3.68 vs. 2.16, P=0.008) and experienced less improvement in ODI (-17.1 vs. -28.6, P=0.012) and VAS-Back (-2.67 vs. -4.50, P=0.008) compared to ALIF patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ALIF with posterior instrumentation performed superiorly in radiographic outcomes and PROMs compared to anteriorly placed TLIFs. Anteriorly placed TLIF cages may not achieve the same results as those of ALIF cages.

Trends in Single-Level Lumbar Fusions Over the Past Decade Using a National Database.

OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of different fusion techniques using a nationwide database over the last decade and identify differences in complications and readmissions based on fusion technique. METHODS: All elective, single-level lumbar fusions performed by orthopaedic surgeons from 2011 to 2020 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Rates of lumbar fusion technique posterolateral decompression and fusion [PLDF], combined transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and PLDF, anterior lumbar or lateral lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF/LLIF], and combined ALIF/LLIF and PLDF were recorded, and 30-day complications and readmissions were compared. Secondary analysis included multiple logistic regression to determine independent predictors of each outcome. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 28,413 fusions: 8749 (30.8%) PLDFs, 11,973 (42.1%) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions, 4769 (16.8%) ALIF/LLIFs, and 2922 (10.3%) combined ALIF/LLIF and PLDFs. The number of fusions increased over time with 1227 fusions performed in 2011 and 3958 fusions performed in 2019. Interbody fusions also increased over time with a subsequent decrease in PLDFs (39.0% in 2011, 25.2% in 2020). Patients were more likely to be discharged home over the course of the decade (85.4% in 2011, 95.0% in 2020). No difference was observed between the techniques regarding complications or readmissions. The modified 5-item frailty index was predictive of complications (odds ratio, 2.05; P = 0.001) and readmissions (odds ratio, 2.61; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar fusions have continued to increase over the last decade with an increasing proportion of interbody fusions. Complications and readmissions appear to be driven by patient comorbidity and not fusion technique.

Soft Cervical Orthosis Use Does Not Improve Fusion Rates After One-Level and Two-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if postoperative soft cervical orthosis use affects arthrodesis rates on a per-level or construct basis after 1-level and 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Electronic medical records were queried for 1-level and 2-level primary ACDF between 2016 and 2019 at a single academic center. Surgeons prescribed either a soft cervical orthosis or no orthosis. Pseudarthrosis rates were evaluated by dynamic cervical spine radiographs with arthrodesis defined by <1 mm of interspinous motion. Continuous and categorical data were compared using analysis of variance or χ2 tests. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to examine independent predictors of pseudarthrosis. RESULTS: A total of 316 unique patients (504 instrumented levels) met the inclusion criteria. Eighty-four percent of patients were prescribed a soft cervical orthosis. Overall, arthrodesis occurred at 344 (80.9%) and 62 (78%) levels in patients with and without cervical orthosis, respectively. When evaluating patients placed in a cervical orthosis versus those who were not, there were no differences in pseudarthrosis or revision rates. Further, there were no differences in pseudarthrosis on a per-level basis. Further, cervical orthosis use was not an independent predictor of pseudarthrosis (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-1.57; P =0.623) on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative placement of soft cervical orthoses after 1-level or 2-level ACDF was not associated with improved arthrodesis or reduced rate of revision surgery.