Caudal Lumbar Disc Herniations Are More Likely to Require Surgery for Symptom Resolution.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: We examined the impact that location of a lumbar disc herniation has on the likelihood that a patient will require surgery after at least 6 weeks of nonoperative management. METHODS: Using ICD-10 codes M51.26 and M51.27, we identified patients at a single academic institution from 2015 to 2016 who received a diagnosis of primary lumbar radicular pain, had magnetic resonance imaging confirming a lumbar disc herniation, and underwent at least 6 weeks of nonoperative management. Patients experiencing symptoms suggesting cauda equina syndrome or progressive motor deficits were excluded. RESULTS: Five hundred patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Twenty-nine (5.8%) had L3-L4 herniations, 245 (49.0%) had L4-L5 herniations, and 226 (45.2%) had L5-S1 herniations. Overall, 451 (90.2%) patients did not undergo surgery within 1 year of diagnosis. Nonsurgical patients had an average herniation size occupying 31.2% of the canal, compared with 31.5% in patients who underwent surgery. While herniation size, age, sex, and race failed to demonstrate a statistical association with the likelihood for surgery, location of disc herniation demonstrated a strong association. L3-L4 and L4-L5 herniations had odds ratios of 0.19 and 0.45, respectively, relative to L5-S1 herniations (P = .0047). Patients were more than twice as likely to require a surgery on an L5-S1 herniation in comparison with an L4-L5 herniation (P < .05). L3-L4 herniations rarely required surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with caudal lumbar disc herniations were more likely to require surgery after at least 6 weeks of conservative management than those with disc herniations in the mid-lumbar spine.

Does Size Matter? An Analysis of the Effect of Lumbar Disc Herniation Size on the Success of Nonoperative Treatment.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examined whether the size of a lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is predictive of the need for surgical intervention within 2 years after obtaining an initial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. We hypothesized that a fragment that occupied a larger percentage of the spinal canal would not predict which patients failed conservative management. METHODS: Using the ICD-10 code M51.26, we identified patients at a single academic institution, across the 2-year period from 2015 to 2016, who received a diagnosis of primary lumbar radicular pain, had MRI showing a disc herniation, and underwent at least 6 weeks of nonoperative management. Patients experiencing symptoms suggesting cauda equina syndrome and those with progressive motor neurological deficits were excluded from analysis, as were patients exhibiting "hard" disc herniations. Within the axial view of an MRI, the following measurements were made on AGFA-IMPACS for a given disc herniation: the length of both the canal and the herniated disc along the anterior-posterior axis, the average width of the disc within the canal; the total canal area, and the area of the disc herniation. Data analysis was conducted in SPSS and a 2-tailed reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha as a measure of reliability was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 368 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study. Of these, 14 (3.8%) had L3-L4 herniations, 185 had L4-L5 herniations (50.3%), and 169 had L5-S1 herniations (45.9%). Overall, 336 (91.3%) patients did not undergo surgery within 1 year of the LDH diagnosis. Patients who did not receive surgery had an average herniation size that occupied 31.2% of the canal, whereas patients who received surgery had disc herniations that occupied 31.5% of the canal on average. A Cronbach's alpha of .992 was observed overall across interobserver measurements. After controlling for age, race, gender, and location of herniation through a logistic regression, it was found that the size of the herniation and the percentage of the canal that was occupied had no predictive value with regard to failure of conservative management, generating an odds ratio for surgery of 1.00. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of the spinal canal occupied by a herniated disc does not predict which patients will fail nonoperative treatment and require surgery within 2 years after undergoing a lumbar spine MRI scan.

Disk Area Is a More Reliable Measurement Than Anteroposterior Length in the Assessment of Lumbar Disk Herniations: A Validation Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to identify and validate the reliability and accuracy of 2 methods used to assess lumbar disk herniations (LDHs): anteroposterior length and cross-sectional area. BACKGROUND: Many clinicians characterize LDHs through the measurement of the anteroposterior length in the axial plane. Radiologists, on the other hand, have utilized software to measure the disk and canal areas to define the injury. In this study, the authors consider the reliability and accuracy of anteroposterior length in comparison with the area. METHODS: Using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code M51.26, patients at a single academic medical center who received a diagnosis of primary lumbar radicular pain with subsequent magnetic resonance imaging documentation of a single-level disk herniation in 2015 and 2016 were identified. AGFA-IMPACS software was utilized to make the following measurements: anterior-posterior canal length; anterior-posterior disk length; mid-canal width; mid-disk width; total canal area; total disk area. Data analysis was conducted in SPSS and a 2-tailed reliability analysis using Cronbach alpha as a measure of reliability was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 408 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study. Sixteen (3.9%) had L3-L4 herniation, 208 had L4-L5 herniation (51.0%), and 184 had L5-S1 herniation (47.5%). The least reliable interobserver metrics, with respective Cronbach alpha values of 0.381 and 0.659, were the linear measurements of mid-disk width and anterior-posterior canal length. Area measurements of the disk and canal areas generated Cronbach alpha values of 0.707 and 0.863. Intraobserver Cronbach alpha values for all measurements, including all areas and lengths, met or exceeded 0.982. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-sectional area provides a more reliable measurement modality for diskLDHs in comparison to linear measurements. Unlike anteroposterior length, cross-sectional area incorporates the shape of a herniation or canal in its measurement. Thus, it is superior in its characterization LDH particularly in light of its stronger reproducibility. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective study.

DEXA sensitivity analysis in patients with adult spinal deformity.

BACKGROUND: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a debilitating condition that commonly requires surgical intervention. However, ASD patients may also present with osteoporosis, predisposing them to surgical complications and failure of instrumentation. As a result, proper detection of low bone mineral density (BMD) is critical in order to ensure proper patient care. Typically dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans are performed on the hip and spine. Unfortunately, in ASD patients, the latter is often inaccurate PURPOSE: In this study, we consider the value of obtaining a forearm DEXA scan in addition to a hip scan in patients suffering from ASD and osteoporosis in order to accurately detect low BMD. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patient data between 2016 and 2018 from a single academic medical center was utilized. Two hundred eighty-six patients met the initial search criteria. OUTCOME MEASURES: No outcomes measures related to self-reporting, physiology, or functionality were evaluated in this study. Primary outcome measures analyzed included T-scores across various anatomic locations and diagnoses relating to low bone density (ie, osteopenia and osteoporosis). METHODS: This retrospective study examines patients that underwent DEXA studies between 2016 and 2018 and were previously diagnosed with both osteoporosis and adult spinal deformity. For each patient, age, gender, body mass index, and smoking history were noted, as well as whether there was long-term prednisone use. T-scores from both the forearm and hip were recorded and analyzed. Diagnoses from hip DEXA scans were compared with those obtained from forearm scans to identify which region was more sensitive in detecting low BMD. From this data, the frequency of a missed diagnosis, due to reliance on hip or spine T-scores for detection of low BMD, was extrapolated. No external funding source was received in support of this study. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients matched the initial search criteria. Only 68% had one T-score value. However, 24.8% of patients had data for both the hip and forearm, whereas 7.1% had data for the forearm, hip, and spine. Among the 85 patients with more than one anatomical site of study, the forearm was more sensitive than the hip in its ability to detect osteopenia or osteoporosis 41.2% of the time. A two-tailed t test showed no statistically significant difference between hip T-scores and forearm T-scores. However, for more than 17% of patients, the forearm allowed clinicians to detect osteoporosis or osteopenia in a setting where using only the hip data would have missed such a diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians need to ensure they survey at least two locations when conducting DEXA studies before precluding a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis. All ASD patients being evaluated for low bone density should receive DEXA scans that survey at least the hip and the forearm. Misdiagnoses can be costly in the setting of ASD. They occur frequently when only a single hip scan is relied upon to assess BMD.

Agreement between orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons regarding a new algorithm for the treatment of thoracolumbar injuries: a multicenter reliability study.

INTRODUCTION: Considerable variability exists in the management of thoracolumbar (TL) spine injuries. Although there are many influences, one significant factor may be the treating surgeon's specialty and training (ie, orthopedic surgery vs. neurosurgery). Our objective was to assess the agreement between spinal orthopedic and neurologic surgeons in rating the severity of TL spine injuries with a new treatment algorithm. This information could be important in establishing consensus-based protocols for managing these challenging injuries. METHODS: Twenty-eight spinal surgeons (8 neurosurgeons and 20 orthopedic surgeons) reviewed 56 TL injury case histories. Each case was classified and scored according to the TL injury severity score (TLISS). The case histories were reordered and the physicians repeated the exercise 3 months later. At both intervals the surgeons were asked if they agreed with the final treatment recommendation of the TLISS algorithm. The reliability and decision validity of the TLISS was compared. RESULTS: Between-group interrater reliability was similar to within group reliabilities. Intrarater reliability was also similar between groups. The between speciality interrater reliability of the TLISS management recommendation was moderate (74% agreement, kappa=0.532). Orthopedic and neurosurgeons agreed with the TLISS management recommendation 91.4% and 94.4% of the time, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TLISS demonstrated good reliability in terms of intraobserver and interobserver agreement on the algorithmic treatment recommendations. The recommendation for operation seems to be consistent between fellowship-trained orthopedic and neurosurgical spine surgeons. This type of classification system may reduce the existing variability and initial management decision for treatment of TL injuries.