The 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) predicts adverse outcomes after elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a reliable procedure commonly performed in older patients with degenerative diseases of the cervical spine. Over 130,000 procedures are performed every year with an annual increase of 5%, and overall morbidity rates can reach as high as 19.3%, indicating a need for surgeons to gauge their patients' risk for adverse outcomes. Frailty is an age-associated decline in functioning of multiple organ systems and has been shown to predict adverse outcomes following various spine procedures. There have been several proposed frailty indices of various factors including the 11-factor modified frailty index (mFI-11), which has been shown to be an effective tool for predicting complications in patients undergoing ACDF. However, there is a paucity of literature assessing the utility of the 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) as a risk stratification tool for patients undergoing ACDF. The purpose of this study was to analyze the predictive capability of the mFI-5 score for 30-day postoperative adverse events following elective ACDF. Methods: A retrospective review was performed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2010 through 2019. Patients older than 50 years of age who underwent elective ACDF were identified using Current Procedural Terminology ([CPT] codes 22554, 22551, 22552, and 63075). Exclusion criteria removed patients under the age of 51, as well as those with fractures, sepsis, disseminated cancer, a prior operation in the last 30 days, ascites, wound infection, or an emergency surgery. Patients were grouped using mFI scores of 1, 2, and 3+. Univariate analysis, using chi-squared and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, was conducted to compare demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications across the varying cohorts based on mFI-5 scores. Multivariate logistic regression, including patient demographics and preoperative comorbidities as covariates, was performed to evaluate if mFI-5 scores were independent predictors of 30-day postoperative adverse events. Covariates including race, BMI, sex, ASA, and comorbidities were included in regression models. Results: The 45,991 patients were identified and allocated in cohorts based on mFI-5 score. Rates for superficial surgical site infection (SSI), organ/deep space SSI, pneumonia, progressive renal insufficiency, acute renal failure (ARF), urinary tract infection (UTI), stroke/cardiovascular accident (CVA), cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusions, deep vein thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, sepsis, septic shock, readmissions, reoperation, and mortality incrementally increased with mFI-5 scores from 0 to 3+. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that mFI-5 scores 1 to 3+ increased the odds, in a stepwise manner, of total complications, cardiac arrest requiring CPR, pneumonia and mortality. MFI-5 scores of 2 and 3+ were independent predictors of readmission (2: OR=1.5, p<.001; 3+: OR=2.0, p<.001) and myocardial infarction (2: OR=3.4, p=.001; 3+: OR=6.9, p<.001). A score of 3+ increased the odds of ARF (OR=9.7, p=.022), septic shock (OR=3.6, p=.036), UTI (OR=2.1, p=.007), bleeding requiring transfusions (OR=2.1, p=.016), and reoperations (OR=1.7, p=.004). Conclusion: mFI-5 score is a quick and viable option for surgeons to use as an assessment tool to stratify high risk patients undergoing elective ACDF, as increasing mFI-5 scores showed significantly higher rates of all adverse outcomes accounted for in this study, except for deep incisional SSI, wound disruption, and PE. Additionally, moderate to severe mFI-5 scores of 2 or 3+ were independent predictors for 30-day postoperative ARF, UTI, MI, bleeding requiring transfusions, septic shock, reoperation, and readmissions following elective ACDF surgery in adults over 50 years old.

The Impact of Patient Characteristics on Outcomes of Surgically Managed Vertebral Osteomyelitis in the United States: Insights from a National Database Study.

This study was conducted to assess the patient characteristics, types of treatment, and outcomes of patients who are surgically treated for vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) in the United States. VO can be treated with or without surgical intervention. Surgically treated cases of VO are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and incur major healthcare costs. There are few studies assessing the characteristics and outcomes of patients with VO who are treated surgically, as well as the overall impact of surgically managed VO on the healthcare system of the United States. Utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, 44,401 patients were identified who underwent surgical treatment for VO over a fifteen year period. Severity of comorbidity burden was calculated using the Deyo Index (DI). Surgical approach and comorbidities were analyzed in regard to their impact on complications, mortality rate, LOS, and hospitalization charges. The incidence of surgical intervention for patients who had VO increased from 0.6 to 1.1 per U.S. persons over the study period. Surgically treated patients had a mean age of 56 years, were 75.8% white, were 54.5% male, 37.9% carried Medicare insurance, and they had a mean DI of 0.88. Anterior/posterior approach (OR: 3.53), thoracolumbar fusion (OR: 2.69), thoracolumbar fusion (OR: 19.94), and anterior/posterior approach (OR: 64.73) were the surgical factors that most significantly predicted any complication, mortality, increased LOS, and increased hospital charges, respectively (P < 0.001). The mean inflation-adjusted total hospital cost increased from $20,355 to $39,991 per patient over the study period. VO has been steadily increasing in the United States. Incidence and inflation-adjusted costs nearly doubled. Anterior/posterior approach and thoracolumbar fusion most significantly predicted negative outcomes. VO is associated with lengthy and expensive hospital stays resulting in a significant burden to patients and the healthcare system.

Are Patients With Segmental Cervical Kyphosis Appropriate Candidates for Cervical Disc Arthroplasty (CDA)? A Clinical and Radiographic Analysis Compared to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF).

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) in patients with preoperative segmental kyphosis. METHODS: Patients with segmental cervical kyphosis at the operative levels undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDF or CDA from 2017 to 2020 with 2 years of follow were identified. Patient demographics, perioperative data, complication rates, radiographic findings and reported outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients met inclusion criteria and were included in our study (ACDF: n = 24, CDA: n = 24). Patient demographic data between the 2 cohorts was similar expect for proportion of males (ACDF: 62.5% vs CDA: 33.3%, P = .043). There was no statistical significance in the change of segmental lordosis (ACDF: +8.09° vs CDA: +5.88°, P = .075) between the preoperative and final postoperative period. Additionally, the change in cervical lordosis was similar between groups (ACDF:+ 9.86° vs CDA: +7.60°, P = .226). VAS scores were similar between the 2 groups at every follow-up interval. NDI scores were significantly different at the 6-month, 12 month and the final follow-up. Mean improvements between preoperative and final postoperative periods were statistically superior in the CDA cohort compared to the ACDF cohort (ACDF: 22.8 vs CDA: 24.1, P = .0375). CONCLUSION: CDA was superior to ACDF in regards to NDI scores following index procedure in patients with preoperative segmental cervical kyphosis. Those in the CDA cohort had similar complication rates, revision rates and radiographic outcomes as those who underwent ACDF.

Safety and Efficacy of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Disk Replacement (ACDR) in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Hospital Setting: A 2-year Retrospective Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcomes of outpatient anterior cervical disk replacements (ACDR) performed in free-standing private ambulatory surgery centers versus tertiary hospital centers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ACDR is an increasingly popular technique for treating various degenerative pathologies of the cervical spine. There has been an increase in the utilization of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) for outpatient cervical procedures due to economic and convenience benefits; however, a paucity of literature exists in evaluating long-term safety and efficacy of ACDRs performed in ASCs versus outpatient hospital centers. METHODS: A retrospective cohort review of all patients undergoing 1- or 2-level ACDRs at 2 outpatient ASCs and 4 tertiary care medical centers from 2012 to 2020, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months, was performed. Approval by each patient's insurance and patient preference determined distribution into an ASC or non-ASC. Demographics, perioperative data, length of follow-up, complications, and revision rates were analyzed. Functional outcomes were assessed using VAS and NDI at follow-up visits. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen patients were included (65 non-ASC and 52 ASC). There were no significant differences in demographics or length of follow-up between the cohorts. ASC patients had significantly lower operative times (ASC: 89.5 minutes vs. non-ASC: 110.5 minutes, P<0.001) and mean blood loss (ASC: 17.5 mL vs. non-ASC: 25.3 mL, P<0.001). No significant differences were observed in rates of dysphagia (ASC: 21.2% vs. non-ASC: 15.6%, P<0.001), infection (ASC: 0.0% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P=0.202), ASD (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 1.6%, P=0.202), or revision (ASC: 1.9% vs. non-ASC: 0.0%, P=0.262). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS and NDI scores (P<0.001), but no significant differences in the degree of improvement were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our 2-year results demonstrate that ACDRs performed in ASCs may offer the advantages of reduced operative time and blood loss without an increased risk of postoperative complications.

Comparing outcomes between anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) and minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) have emerged as two increasingly popular alternatives to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the management of cervical radiculopathy. Both techniques provide advantages of segmental motion preservation and lower rates of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) compared to ACDF. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing ACDR or MI-PCF for the treatment of unilateral cervical radiculopathy. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective Cohort Review. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 152 patients were included (86 ACDR and 66 MI-PCF). OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Patient demographics; (2) perioperative data; (3) rates of complications and revisions; (5) visual analogue scale (VAS) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. METHODS: A retrospective cohort review was performed to identify all patients at a single institution between 2012-2020 who underwent 1- or 2- level ACDR or MI-PCF from C3-C7 with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patient demographics, perioperative data, postoperative complications, and revisions were analyzed. Patient reported outcome measures including VAS and NDI scores were compared. RESULTS: The ACDR group had a significantly greater mean operative time (99.8 minutes vs 79.2 minutes, p<.001), but comparable estimated blood loss and length of stay following surgical intervention (p=.899). The overall complication rate was significantly greater in the ACDR group than the MI-PCF group (24.4% vs 6.2%; p=.003) but was largely driven by approach-related dysphagia in 20.9% of ACDR patients. The MI-PCF group had significantly greater revision rates (13.6% vs 1.2%; p=.002) with an average time to revision of 20.7 months in the MI-PCF group compared to 40.3 months in the ACDR group. The ACDR cohort had significantly greater improvements in NDI scores at the final follow-up (25.0 vs 21.3, p<.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that ACDR offer clinically relevant advantages over MI-PCF in terms of long-term revision rates despite an increased approach-related risk of transient postoperative dysphagia. Additionally, patients in the ACDR cohort achieved greater mean improvements in NDI scores but these results may have limited clinical significance due to inability to reach minimally clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds.

Should patient eligibility criteria for cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) be expanded? A retrospective cohort analysis of relatively contraindicated patients undergoing CDA.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) is a safe and effective alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of various degenerative pathologies with advantages of motion preservation and lower rates of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Absolute contraindications for CDA have been well outlined in order to prevent adverse outcomes in patients. However, in cases of patients with relative contraindications (kyphotic deformity, prior cervical surgery, etc.), there remains controversy. There is minimal literature evaluating long-term outcomes in this patient population. PURPOSE: To compare long-term clinical and functional outcomes of CDA in typical patients versus those with relative contraindications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Eighty-nine patients were included in the study: 55 (no contraindications) in Group 1 and 34 (relatively contraindicated) in Group 2 and 26 (preoperative segmental kyphosis) in Group 3. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Patient demographics; (2) perioperative data; (3) rates of complications and revisions; (5) visual analogue scale (VAS), and neck disability index (NDI) scores. METHODS: Patients were placed in the relatively contraindicated cohort if they possessed at least one of the following: (1) segmental kyphosis of 5° to 10°, (2) significant loss of disc height (between 50% and 75% of initial measurements or 1.5-3mm), (3) bridging osteophytes, and (4) prior cervical spine surgery based on preoperative cervical radiographs. The other cohort included patients without any relative contraindication who underwent CDA over the same time frame. Additionally, a subgroup analysis was used to compare those without any contraindications to those with only preoperative segmental kyphosis. Patients were included in this study if they met the following criteria: over 18 years of age, minimum follow-up of 24 months, and availability of complete medical records. Patient demographics, levels operated on, and perioperative outcomes were assessed between the two groups. Revision and complication rates were recorded. Functional outcomes scores were compared using VAS and NDI scores at 6-months, 12-months and final follow-up. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 40.8 months in Group 1 and 38.3 months in Group 2 (p=.569). Complication rates were 21.8% in Group 1 and 26.4% in Group 2 (p=.615). Complication rates in a comparison between Groups 1 and 3 were statistically insignificant (p=.383). The most common complication was transient approach-related postoperative dysphagia (Group 1: 20% vs Group 2: 23.5%, p=.693). No significant differences were observed in the rates of transient dysphonia (Group 1: 0.0% vs Group 2: 2.9%, p=.201), adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) (Group 1: 1.8% vs Group 2: 0.0%, p=.429), infection (Group 1: 1.8% vs Group 2: 2.9%, p=.712), heterotopic ossification (Group 1: 49.1% vs Group 2: 50.0%, p=.934) or spontaneous fusion (Group 1: 1.8% vs Group 2: 2.9%, p=.728). No revision surgeries were observed in either cohort. All three groups demonstrated significant improvements in their VAS and NDI scores compared with preoperative measurements (p<.001), but no significant differences were found in the degree of improvement between groups at any point in time. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no significant differences in clinical and functional outcomes between patients undergoing 1- and 2-level CDA with relative contraindications versus typical patients. These findings suggest that patient eligibility criteria for CDA may warrant expansion. However, future prospective studies over a longer period of follow-up are necessary to corroborate our results.

The 5-Factor Modified Frailty Index is Associated With Increased Risk of Reoperations and Adjacent Level Disease Following Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: To determine the predictive capability between the 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) scores and adverse clinical and radiographic outcomes following single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS: All patients over the age of 50 undergoing single-level open or minimally invasive TLIF from 2012 to 2021 with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were identified. Deformity, trauma, emergency, and tumor cases were excluded as were patients undergoing revision surgeries. An mFI-5 score was computed for each patient using a set of five factors which included hypertension requiring medication, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, and partially or fully dependent functional status. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to evaluate the impact of mFI-5 scores on readmissions, reoperations, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: 156 patients were included and grouped according to their level of frailty: no-frailty (mFI = 0, n = 67), mild frailty (mFI = 1, n = 59), and severe frailty (mFI = 2+, n = 30). Multivariate analysis found high levels of frailty (mFI = 2+) to be independent predictors of reoperation (OR: 16.9, CI: 2.7 - 106.9, P = .003) and related readmissions (OR = 16.5, CI: 2.6 - 102.7, P = .003) as compared to the no-frailty group. An mFI-5 score of 2+ was also predictive of any complication (OR = 4.5, CI: 1.4 - 14.3, P = .01) and adjacent segment disease (ASD) (OR = 12.5, CI: 1.2 - 134.0, P = .037). CONCLUSION: High levels of frailty were predictive of related readmissions, reoperations, any complications, and ASD in older adult patients undergoing single-level TLIF.

Comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Context: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) are 2 popular minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques with unique approach-related complication profiles. Accordingly, patient-specific anatomical factors, such as vascular anatomy or iliac crest height, greatly influence which technique to use. Previous studies comparing these approaches do not account for the inability of XLIF to access the L5-S1 disc space and therefore do not exclude this level in their analysis. The purpose of this study was to compare radiological and clinical outcomes of these techniques in the L1-L5 region. Methods: A query of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL plus, and SCOPUS) was performed, without time restriction, to identify studies that evaluated outcomes of single-level OLIF and/or XLIF between L1 and L5. Based on heterogeneity, a random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the pooled estimation of each variable between the groups. An overlap of 95% confidence intervals suggests no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level. Results: A total of 1,010 patients (408 OLIF, 602 XLIF) were included from 24 published studies. Improvements in disc height (OLIF: 4.2 mm; XLIF: 5.3 mm), lumbar segmental (OLIF: 2.3°; XLIF: 3.1°), and lumbar lordotic angles (OLIF: 5.3°; XLIF: 3.3°) showed no significant difference. The rate of neuropraxia was significantly greater in the XLIF group at 21.2% versus 10.9% in the OLIF group (p<.05). However, the rate of vascular injury was higher in the OLIF cohort at 3.2% (95% CI:1.7-6.0) as compared to 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0-1.4) in the XLIF cohort. Improvements in VAS-b (OLIF: 5.6; XLIF: 4.5) and ODI (OLIF: 37.9; XLIF: 25.6) scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates similar clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF from L1 to L5. XLIF had significantly higher rates of neuropraxia, whereas OLIF had greater rates of vascular injury.

The 5-factor modified Frailty Index (mFI-5) predicts adverse outcomes after elective Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF).

Background: The 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) has been shown to be a concise and effective tool for predicting adverse events following various spine procedures. However, there have been no studies assessing its utility in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the predictive capabilities of the mFI-5 for 30-day postoperative adverse events following elective ALIF. Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried from 2010 through 2019 to identify patients who underwent elective ALIF using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in patients over the age of 50. The mFI-5 score was calculated using variables for hypertension, congestive heart failure, comorbid diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and partially or fully dependent functional status which were each assigned 1 point. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression models were utilized to identify the associations between mFI-5 scores, and 30-day rates of overall complications, readmissions, reoperations, and mortality. Results: 11,711 patients were included (mFI-5=0: 4,026 patients, mFI-5=1: 5,392, mFI-5=2: 2,102, mFI-5=3+: 187. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that mFI-5 scores of 1 (OR: 2.2, CI: 1.2-4.2, p=0.02), 2 (OR: 3.6, CI: 1.8-7.3, p<0.001), and 3+ (OR: 7.0, CI: 2.5-19.3, p<0.001) versus a score of 0 were significant predictors of pneumonia. An mFI-5 score of 2 (OR: 1.3; CI: 1.01-1.6, p=0.04), and 3+ (OR: 1.9; CI: 1.1-3.1; p=0.01) were both independent predictors of related readmissions. An mFI score of 3+ was an independent predictor of any complication (OR: 1.5, CI: 1.01-2.2, p=0.004), UTI (OR: 2.4, CI: 1.1-5.2, p=0.02), and unplanned intubation (OR: 4.5, CI: 1.3-16.1, p=0.02). Conclusions: The mFI-5 is an independent predictor for 30-day postoperative complications, readmissions, UTI, pneumonia, and unplanned intubations following elective ALIF surgery in adults over the age of 50.

Medical malpractice litigation after total shoulder arthroplasty: a comprehensive analysis based on the Westlaw legal database.

INTRODUCTION: Orthopedic surgery is one of the most common subspecialties subject to medical malpractice claims. Although total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is associated with favorable patient outcomes and relatively low complication rates, surgeons performing this procedure may be subject to malpractice litigation leading to significant economic and psychological burden on the provider. The purpose of this study is to characterize and describe malpractice claims against orthopedic surgeons performing TSA using the Westlaw legal database. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was queried for all cases related to TSA using the terms "malpractice" AND "shoulder replacement" OR "shoulder arthroplasty." Cases were excluded if the defendant was not an orthopedic surgeon, the procedure involved was not a TSA, or if the patient was a minor. Patient demographics, causes cited for litigation, case outcomes, and indemnity payments were analyzed to determine common factors that lead plaintiffs to pursue legal action. RESULTS: Thirty-five TSA cases were identified that met inclusion criteria. The mean plaintiff age was 55 years with 63.6% female. The most common category of negligence alleged was intraoperative error, which occurred in 25 claims (71%). The most common types of damages incurred were nerve injury (23%), functional limitation (20%), and infection (17%). Overall, 27 cases (77%) resulted in a defense verdict. Four cases (11%) resulted in settlements and 4 cases (11%) resulted in plaintiff verdicts. The average inflation-adjusted monetary award in these cases was $1,619,919 (standard deviation, $1,689,452). DISCUSSION: This study provides a comprehensive summary of malpractice claims and associated outcomes in TSA. Given the rapidly increasing rate of TSA in the United States and the burden of associated malpractice claims, understanding potential legal implications of TSA is of great value to orthopedic surgeons. Intraoperative error was the category of negligence cited most commonly in TSA malpractice claims. Nerve injury, functional limitation, and infection were the most commonly cited specific damages. These findings highlight the need for orthopedic surgeons to educate patients regarding potential postoperative complications while continuing to focus on minimizing their occurrence.

Two-Attending Surgeon Teams Improve Outcomes of Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Given the shift toward value-based healthcare, strategies that decrease risk in commonly performed procedures such as anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are of interest. The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of a two-attending surgeon team on the outcomes of patients undergoing single-level ACDF. A retrospective matched-cohort study of patients undergoing single-level ACDF for degenerative cervical spondylosis, with minimum 2-year follow-up was performed. Patients were subdivided into two cohorts: cases with procedures performed by one attending surgeon assisted by a resident physician and cases with procedures performed by an attending surgeon with another attending surgeon as first-assist. Patients were matched by age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesia grade and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Perioperative data and complications were compared. Standard binomial and categorical comparative analysis were performed. Forty-two patients were included (21 in each group). There were 22 males and 20 females, with a mean age of 47.7 years and mean follow-up of 43.4 months. There were no differences in any demographic variable between groups, indicating successful matching. Cohort B had decreased anesthesia time (114.9 vs. 157.1 minutes, P < 0.001), operative time (58.1 vs. 98.9 minutes, P < 0.001) and blood loss (14.8 vs. 24.3 mL, P = 0.012). There were no significant differences in terms of post-operative complications including dysphagia, wound infection, neurologic or cardiovascular related complications. A two-attending surgeon team significantly reduces anesthesia time, surgical time, and blood loss in single-level ACDF procedures without an increase in complications or a decrease in fusion rates.

Obesity Does Not Adversely Affect Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is an established technique for the treatment of degenerative spine disease. The larger body habitus of obese patients increases the intraoperative complexity of MI-TLIF. Therefore, it is unclear whether this procedure is appropriate for this population. The goal of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes for obese patients vs nonobese patients undergoing MI-TLIF through a matched cohort analysis. A retrospective review was performed to identify patients who underwent MI-TLIF at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: nonobese (body mass index <30 kg/m2) and obese (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2). Each cohort was matched for age, sex, and levels operated. Perioperative data and patient-reported outcomes were compared. Radiographic outcomes were measured at final follow-up. Standard binomial and categorical comparative analyses were performed. A total of 148 patients were included. Of obese patients, 17.6% required revision surgery compared with 16.2% of nonobese patients (P=.826). Both cohorts had a similar proportion of pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch correction (P=.780). Mean change in functional outcome scores for each cohort did not differ significantly. Obese patients had clinically minor but statistically significantly greater blood loss and longer operative times than nonobese patients (P<.001). Obese and non-obese patients undergoing MI-TLIF showed no long-term differences in revision rate, radiologic outcome, or functional outcome after long-term follow-up. Obese patients had slightly greater blood loss and longer operative times. Our findings suggest that MI-TLIF is an appropriate alternative to traditional open lumbar fusion for obese patients. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(4):203-208.].

Should we bridge the cervicothoracic junction in long cervical fusions? A meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Long posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCF) is commonly performed to surgically treat patients with multilevel cervical pathology. In cases in which constructs may necessitate crossing the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ), recommendations for appropriate caudal fusion level vary in the literature. The aim of this study was to report the clinical and radiological outcomes of multilevel PCFs ending at C7 versus those crossing the CTJ. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus was conducted to identify articles that evaluated clinical and radiological outcomes of long PCFs that ended at C7 (cervical group) or crossed the CTJ (thoracic group). Based on heterogeneity, random-effects models of a meta-analysis were used to estimate the pooled estimates and the 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: PCF outcome data of 1120 patients from 10 published studies were included. Compared with the cervical group, the thoracic group experienced greater mean blood loss (453.0 ml [95% CI 333.6-572.5 ml] vs 303.5 ml [95% CI 203.4-403.6 ml]), longer operative times (235.5 minutes [95% CI 187.7-283.3 minutes] vs 198.5 minutes [95% CI 157.9-239.0 minutes]), and a longer length of stay (6.7 days [95% CI 3.3-10.2 days] vs 6.2 days [95% CI 3.8-8.7 days]); however, these differences were not statistically significant. None of the included studies specifically investigated factors that led to the decision of whether to cross the CTJ. The cervical group had a mean fusion rate of 86% (95% CI 71%-94%) compared with the thoracic group with a rate of 90% (95% CI 81%-95%). Of patients in the cervical group, 17% (95% CI 10%-28%) required revision surgery compared with 7% (95% CI 4%-13%) of those in the thoracic group, but this difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of patients who experienced complications in the cervical group was found to be 28% (95% CI 12%-52%) versus 14% (95% CI 7%-26%) in the thoracic group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference (no overlap of 95% CIs) in the incidence of adjacent-segment disease, pseudarthrosis, or wound-related complications between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests similar clinical and radiographic outcomes in multilevel PCF, regardless of inclusion of the CTJ. The lowest instrumented level did not significantly affect revision rates or complications. The ideal stopping point must be tailored to each patient on an individualized basis.

Comparing Mid-Term Outcomes Between ACDF and Minimally Invasive Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in the Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive posterior cervical foraminotomy (MI-PCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the treatment of unilateral cervical radiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MI-PCF has been shown to be equally effective as ACDF in treating cervical radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis and similar pathologies. Additionally, it has been hypothesized that preserving motion and avoiding fusion reduces risk for adjacent segment disease, but potentially increases risk for subsequent revision to an ACDF. With similar short-term outcomes and substantial advantages, MI-PCF may be an effective alternative to ACDF for addressing appropriate cervical pathology. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify patients between 2009 and 2013 who underwent ACDF or MI-PCF with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. Demographic data was recorded. Revision rates and average time to revision between cohorts were compared. Clinical outcomes were assessed at each follow-up visit with Neck Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale for neck and Visual Analog Scale for arm pain scores. All complications were reviewed. Standard binomial and categorical comparative analysis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 251 consecutive patients were included (205 ACDF, 46 MI-PCF). Mean follow-ups for the ACDF and MI-PCF groups were 98.3 and 95.9 months, respectively. Complication rates were 2.9% and 2.2% for the ACDF and MI-PCF cohorts, respectively (P = 0.779). Revision rates were 7.8% for the ACDF cohort and 8.7% for the MI-PCF cohort (P = 0.840). Both cohorts experienced significant improvements in their clinical scores compared with their preoperative values. Final Visual Analog Scale for neck pain (ACDF: 2.6; MI-PCF: 1.6) and Visual Analog Scale for arm pain (ACDF: 1.1; MI-PCF: 0.4) scores differed significantly at final follow-up (P =  < 0.001; P =  < 0.001). CONCLUSION: MI-PCF is a safe and effective alternative to ACDF in the treatment of cervical radiculopathy, demonstrating substantial benefit. After final follow-up, MI-PCF demonstrated superior improvements in Visual Analog Scale scores, without increased complication or revision rates.Level of Evidence: 3.

Metal-on-metal versus metal-on-plastic artificial discs in two-level anterior cervical disc replacement: a meta-analysis with follow-up of 5 years or more.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although highlighted in joint arthroplasty studies, long-term outcomes between differing biomaterial composites, such as metal-on-metal (MoM) and metal-on-plastic (MoP) in anterior cervical disc replacement (ACDR) have not been thoroughly investigated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported clinical outcomes, overall reoperation rates, complications, and rates of ASD of MoM versus MoP artificial discs in two-level ACDR for the treatment of cervical DDD. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Meta-analysis and systematic review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Nine hundred eighty patients (442 MoM, 538 MoP) across seven studies. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient reported clinical outcomes (NDI, VAS-n, VAS-a), overall reoperation rates, complications, and rates of ASD. METHODS: A systematic search strategy of three electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and SCOPUS) was conducted utilizing terms related to two-level ACDR. All studies included had a sample size of >10 patients, had a minimum 5-year follow-up, and reported data on adjacent segment disease. Cadaver studies, non-English manuscripts, articles with less than 5-year follow-up and studies in which only single-level ACDR was investigated were excluded. A total of seven studies were included in this analysis. Studies were analyzed for demographic data, clinical outcome scores (NDI, VAS-neck, and VAS-arm), overall reoperation rates, complications, and rates of ASD. A random-effects model of meta-analysis was used for groups that were determined to be heterogenous and a fixed-effects model was utilized for groups that were not. An overlap of 95% confidence intervals suggests no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level. RESULTS: Seven studies were included with data on 980 patients (442 MoM, 538 MoP). The study population was 52.84% female, with a mean age of 48.01 years, and a mean follow-up of 85.66 months. The mean improvement in NDI was 34.42 (95% CI, 32.49-36.36) and 29.72 (95% CI, 27.15-32.29) for the MoM and MoP groups, respectively. The mean improvement in VAS-neck was 11.20 (95% CI, 10.69-11.70) and 8.78 (95% CI, 7.81-9.74) for the MoM and MoP groups, respectively. The mean improvement in VAS-arm was 10.73 (95% CI, 9.83-11.63) and 8.49 (95% CI, 7.59-9.39) for the MoM and MoP groups, respectively. 3.85% (95% CI, 2.40-6.10) of patients who underwent ACDR with a MoM implant required reoperation compared to 5.33% (95% CI, 3.68-7.65) of patients with a MoP implant. Heterotopic ossification and dysphagia were the most common complications in both groups. The MoM cohort showed a higher incidence of HO (72.62% vs. 21.07%), but a lower incidence of dysphagia (0.96% vs. 16.31%) compared to the MoP cohort. The MoM cohort had a larger proportion of patients with ASD who underwent subsequent surgery at an adjacent level (7.89% MoM versus 1.91% MoP). CONCLUSIONS: Our present meta-analysis suggests that the use of MoM artificial discs in two-level ACDR results in superior clinical outcome score improvement, but higher rates of ASD requiring secondary surgery compared to MoP discs after a follow-up period of 5 years or more.

Does obesity affect long-term outcomes of extreme lateral interbody fusion with posterior stabilization?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Obese patients can pose significant challenges to spine surgeons in lumbar fusion procedures. The increased risk of complications has led surgeons to be wary in pursing operative interventions in these patients. Since the advent of minimally-invasive techniques in lumbar fusion, surgeons are turning to these procedures in an attempt to minimize operative time, blood loss and overall cost. With an increased proportion of obese patients in the population, it is imperative to understand the long-term outcomes in these minimally-invasive approaches. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) in the obese. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 115 patients (53 nonobese and 62 obese) who underwent XLIF with a minimum of 5-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Patient reported outcome scores: Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), (2) Reoperation rate, (3) Pelvic incidence (PI)- Lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch correction, (4) Graft subsidence and fusion rate METHODS: A retrospective review was performed to identify patients who underwent XLIF with percutaneous posterior stabilization since 2007 with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Demographics including BMI were recorded and patients were subdivided into 2 cohorts: nonobese (BMI <30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2). Functional outcomes were assessed by comparing pre- and postoperative VAS and ODI scores. Reoperation rates were compared between cohorts. PI-LL mismatch was calculated from both pre- and postoperative radiographs. Rates of graft subsidence and fusion were measured at final follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 115 consecutive patients were included (53 nonobese and 62 obese) with a mean follow up of 95.3 months. Mean BMI was 25.3 in the nonobese group and 35.3 in the obese group (p<.001). There were more females in nonobese cohort. VAS scores decreased by a mean of 5.7 in the nonobese cohort, and 5.4 in the obese cohort (p=.213). ODI improvement was also similar between the groups. 5.6% of nonobese patients required reoperation compared to 9.6% of obese patients (p=.503). Graft subsidence rates at final follow-up were 5.66% and 8.06% for the nonobese and obese groups, respectively (p=.613). Rates of successful fusion were 96.23% and 98.39% for the nonobese and obese groups, respectively (p=.469). Both cohorts achieved a similar proportion of PI-LL mismatch correction, 85% in obese versus 78% in nonobese patients (p=.526). CONCLUSION: Obese patients have similar surgical outcomes to nonobese patients with respect to functional outcome scores, reoperation rates, graft subsidence and correction of PI-LL mismatch after long-term follow-up. With similar outcome and reoperation profiles, minimally-invasive approaches to the spine, such as XLIF, may be an acceptable alternative to traditional open procedures in obese patients.

Evaluating the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials Related to Orthopedic Oncology.

The internet is increasingly used to access patient education materials. The average American reading level has been found to be that of a 7th- to 8th-grade student, prompting the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA) to advise that patient education materials be written between the 4th- to 6th-grade reading level. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reading level of current patient education materials for the most common musculoskeletal oncological tumors. A Google search was performed with all location filters off to account for geographic variability for patient education materials related to 28 orthopedic primary or secondary tumors. All patient education articles from the first 10 website hits for each tumor type were analyzed. Patient education materials from these websites were evaluated using 8 validated readability scales. Patient resources were found to be written at an average grade level nearly double the NIH and AMA recommendation. Patient education materials for soft tissue chondromas were written at the highest level (14.8±1.9), whereas education materials for chordomas (10.1±1.0) most closely approached national recommendations, despite still being written at a readability level nearly 4 grade levels higher than has been recommended. The Flesch Reading Ease assessment provided a mean score of 46.5±7.7, corresponding with a "difficult to read" result. Current patient education materials regarding oncological musculoskeletal-related patient education materials are written significantly above the recommended reading level. Further modification of these resources is warranted to ensure adequate comprehension and informed decision making in the clinical setting. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(1):38-42.].

An Analysis of Trends in National Residency Matching Program Match Data for Orthopedic Surgery.

Due to electronic residency applications, US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores are frequently used by orthopedic surgery program directors to screen applicants. Prospective applicants therefore often use Step 1 scores as a proxy for specialty competitiveness. The goal of this investigation was two-fold: (1) to determine whether trends in Step 1 scores are indicative of trends in competitiveness of orthopedic surgery and (2) to report the characteristics that optimize a US medical student's match success. A retrospective review of published National Resident Matching Program data from 2009 to 2018 was performed for orthopedic surgery residency applicants. Additional data from the Charting Outcomes reports were used for specific analyses of applicant characteristics. From 2009 to 2018, the number of orthopedic surgery residency positions grew at an annual rate of 1.51% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37% to 1.64%; P<.001), accommodating the 1.26% (95% CI, 0.63% to 1.90%; P=.006) annual increase in the number of applicants who ranked orthopedic surgery as their preferred specialty choice (only choice or first choice). There were no significant changes in the applicant-to-position ratio (95% CI, -0.85% to 0.37%; P=.483) or the match rate for US seniors who ranked orthopedic surgery as their preferred choice (95% CI, -0.23% to 0.87%; P=.313). Increases in mean Step 1 scores of matched orthopedic surgery applicants parallel national Step 1 growth trends (0.49% vs 0.44%, respectively). Although orthopedic surgery is currently a competitive specialty to match into, this has been the case since 2009. Increasing Step 1 scores of matched applicants is not unique to orthopedic surgery and should not be misinterpreted as a proxy for increasing competitiveness of the specialty. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(6):e616-e622.].

Medical Malpractice in Orthopedic Surgery: A Westlaw-Based Demographic Analysis.

A recent study that evaluated the risk of facing a malpractice claim by physician specialty found that orthopedic surgeons were at a significantly greater risk of being sued than other medical specialists. To date, no studies have characterized trends in orthopedic surgery malpractice claims. The Westlaw legal database was used to locate state and federal jury verdicts and settlements related to medical malpractice and orthopedic surgery from 2010 to 2016. Eighty-one cases were analyzed. The mean age of the affected patients and/or plaintiffs was 53.4 years. Spine surgery (21 cases; 25.9%), knee surgery (17 cases; 21.0%), and hip surgery (11 cases; 13.6%) were litigated most often. Procedural error (71 cases; 87.7%) and negligence (58 cases; 71.6%) were the 2 most commonly cited reasons for litigation. The jury found in favor of the defendant in most (50 cases; 61.7%) of the cases. The mean plaintiff (17 cases; 21.0%) verdict payout was $3,015,872, and the mean settlement (13 cases; 16.0%) value was $1,570,833. Unnecessary surgery (odds ratio [OR], 12.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.91-108.46; P=.040) and surgery resulting in death (OR, 26.26; 95% CI, 2.55-497.42; P=.040) were significant predictors of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Patient death (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.38; P=.021) and male patient sex (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71; P=.033) were significant negative predictors of a verdict in favor of the defendant. The jury found in favor of the defendant orthopedic surgeon in most cases. Procedural error and/or negligence were cited most commonly by the plaintiffs as the bases for the claims. Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs resulted in payouts nearly double those of settlements. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(5):e615-e620.].