Formal Radiologist Interpretations of Intraoperative Spine Radiographs Have Low Clinical Value.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical relevance, usefulness, and financial implications of intraoperative radiograph interpretation by radiologists in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Due to rising health care costs, spine surgery is under scrutiny to maximize value-based care. Formal radiographic analysis remains a potential source of unnecessary health care costs, especially for intraoperative radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on all adult elective spine surgeries at a single institution between July 2020 and July 2021. Demographic and radiographic data were collected, including intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs. Financial data were obtained through the institution's price estimator. Radiographic characteristics included time from radiographic imaging to completion of radiologist interpretation report, completion of radiologist interpretation report before the conclusion of surgical procedure, clinical relevance, and clinical usefulness. Reports were considered clinically relevant if the spinal level of the procedure was described and clinically useful if completed before the conclusion of the procedure and deemed clinically relevant. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-one intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs from 360 patients revealed a median delay of 128 minutes between imaging and completion of the interpretive report. Only 38.9% of reports were completed before the conclusion of surgery. There were 79.4% deemed clinically relevant and only 33.5% were clinically useful. Localization reports were completed more frequently before the conclusion of surgery (67.2% vs. 34.4%) but with lower clinical relevance (90.1% vs. 98.5%) and clinical usefulness (60.3% vs. 33.6%) than post-instrumentation reports. Each patient was charged $32 to $34 for the interpretation fee, cumulating a minimum total cost of $15,392. CONCLUSIONS: Formal radiographic interpretation of intraoperative spine radiographs was of low clinical utility for spine surgeons. Institutions should consider optimizing radiology workflows to improve timeliness and clinical relevance or evaluate the necessity of reflexive consultation to radiology for intraoperative imaging interpretation to ensure that value-based care is maximized during spine surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Characterizing Negative Online Reviews of Spine Surgeons.

DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: Characterize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States. SUMMARY: Physician rating websites significantly influence the selection of doctors by other patients. Negative experiences are impacted by various factors, both clinical and nonclinical, geography, and practice structure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and categorize negative reviews of spine surgeons in the United States, with a focus on surgical versus nonsurgical reviewers. METHODS: Spine surgeons were selected from available online professional society membership directories. A search for reviews was performed on Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.com for the past 10 years. Free response reviews were coded by complaint, and qualitative analysis was performed. χ 2 and Fisher exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and multiple comparisons were adjusted with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. A binary logistic regression model was performed for the top three most mentioned nonclinical and clinical complaint labels. A P -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 16,695 online reviews were evaluated, including 1690 one-star reviews (10.1%). Among one-star reviews, 64.7% were written by nonsurgical patients and 35.3% by surgical patients. Nonclinical and clinical comments constituted 54.9% and 45.1% of reviews, respectively. Surgeons in the South had more "bedside manner" comments (43.3%, P <0.0001), while Northeast surgeons had more "poor surgical outcome" remarks compared with all other geographic regions (14.4%, P <0.001). Practicing in the South and Northeast were independent predictors of having complaints about "bedside manner" and "poor surgical outcome," respectively. CONCLUSION: Most one-star reviews of spine surgeons were attributed to nonsurgical patients, who tended to be unsatisfied with nonclinical factors, especially "bedside manner." However, there was substantial geographic variation. These results suggest that spine surgeons could benefit from focusing on nonclinical factors (bedside manner), especially among nonoperative patients, and that regional nuances should be considered in delivering spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level- 5.

The Effects of Cervical Orthoses on Head and Intervertebral Range of Motion.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: Quantify and compare the effectiveness of cervical orthoses in restricting intervertebral kinematics during multiplanar motions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies evaluating the efficacy of cervical orthoses measured global head motion and did not evaluate individual cervical motion segment mobility. Prior studies focused only on the flexion/extension motion. METHODS: Twenty adults without neck pain participated. Vertebral motion from the occiput through T1 was imaged using dynamic biplane radiography. Intervertebral motion was measured using an automated registration process with validated accuracy better than 1 degree. Participants performed independent trials of maximal flexion/extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending in a randomized order of unbraced, soft collar (foam), hard collar (Aspen), and cervical thoracic orthosis (CTO) (Aspen) conditions. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to identify differences in the range of motion (ROM) among brace conditions for each motion. RESULTS: Compared with no collar, the soft collar reduced flexion/extension ROM from occiput/C1 through C4/C5, and reduced axial rotation ROM at C1/C2 and from C3/C4 through C5/C6. The soft collar did not reduce motion at any motion segment during lateral bending. Compared with the soft collar, the hard collar reduced intervertebral motion at every motion segment during all motions, except for occiput/C1 during axial rotation and C1/C2 during lateral bending. The CTO reduced motion compared with the hard collar only at C6/C7 during flexion/extension and lateral bending. CONCLUSIONS: The soft collar was ineffective as a restraint to intervertebral motion during lateral bending, but it did reduce intervertebral motion during flexion/extension and axial rotation. The hard collar reduced intervertebral motion compared with the soft collar across all motion directions. The CTO provided a minimal reduction in intervertebral motion compared with the hard collar. The utility in using a CTO rather than a hard collar is questionable, given the cost and little or no additional motion restriction.

Residual Motion and Graft Type Do Not Influence Patient-reported Outcomes Following One- or Two-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of graft type on residual motion and the relationship among residual motion, smoking, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although most patients develop solid fusion based on static imaging following ACDF, dynamic imaging has revealed that many patients continue to have residual motion at the arthrodesis. METHODS: Forty-eight participants performed dynamic neck flexion/extension and axial rotation within a biplane radiography system 1 year following ACDF (21 one-level, 27 two-level). PRO scores included the Short Form-36, Neck Disability Index, and Cervical Spine Outcomes Questionnaire. An automated model-based tracking process matched subject-specific bone models to the biplane radiographs with sub-millimeter accuracy. Residual motion was measured across the entire arthrodesis site for both one- and two-level fusions in patients who received either allograft or autograft. Patients were divided into "pseudarthrosis" (>3° of flexion/extension residual motion) and "solid fusion" groups. Residual motion and PROs were compared between groups using Student t tests. RESULTS: Patients who received allograft showed more total flexion/extension residual motion (4.1° vs. 2.8°, P = 0.12), although this failed to reach significance. No differences were noted in PROs based on graft type (all P > 0.08) or the presence of pseudarthrosis (all P > 0.13). No differences were noted in residual motion between smokers and nonsmokers (all P > 0.15); however, smokers who received allograft reported worse outcomes than nonsmokers who received allograft and smokers who received autograft. CONCLUSION: Allograft may result in slightly more residual motion at the arthrodesis site 1 year after ACDF. However, there is minimal evidence that PROs are adversely affected by slightly increased residual motion, suggesting that the current definition of pseudarthrosis correlates poorly with clinically significant findings. Additionally, autograft appears to result in superior outcomes in patients who smoke.Level of Evidence: 2.

Surgery-related Factors Do Not Affect Short-term Adjacent Segment Kinematics After Anterior Cervical Arthrodesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify surgical factors that affect adjacent segment kinematics after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) as measured by biplane radiography. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies investigated the effect of surgical factors on spine kinematics as a potential etiology for adjacent segment disease (ASD). Those studies used static flexion-extension radiographs to evaluate range of motion. However, measurements from static radiographs are known to be unreliable. Furthermore, those studies were unable to evaluate the effect of ACDF on adjacent segment axial rotation. METHODS: Patients had continuous cervical spine flexion/exten- sion and axial rotation movements captured at 30 images per second in a dynamic biplane radiography system preoperatively and 1 year after ACDF. Digitally reconstructed radiographs generated from subject-specific CT scans were matched to biplane radiographs using a previously validated tracking process. Dynamic kinematics, postoperative segmental kyphosis, and disc distraction were calculated from this tracking process. Plate-to-disc distance was measured on postoperative radiographs. Graft type was collected from the medical record. Multivariate linear regression was performed to identify surgical factors associated with 1-year post-surgery changes in adjacent segment kinematics. A secondary analysis was also performed to compare adjacent segment kinematics between each of the surgical factors and previously defined thresholds believed to be associated with adjacent segment degeneration. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients completed preoperative and postoperative testing. No association was found between any of the surgical factors and change in adjacent segment flexion/exten- sion or axial rotation range of motion (all P > 0.09). The secondary analysis also did not identify differences between adjacent segment kinematics and surgical factors (all P > 0.07). CONCLUSION: Following ACDF for cervical spondylosis, factors related to surgical technique were not associated with short-term changes in adjacent segment kinematics that reflect the hypermobility hypothesized to lead to the development of ASD.Level of Evidence: 2.

Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Is Prevalent in Spine Literature.

STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of accurate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure within three prominent subspecialty Spine journals during a 4-year period. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Industry-physician relationships are crucial for technological advancement in spine surgery but serve as a source of bias in biomedical research. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was established after 2010 to increase financial transparency. METHODS: All research articles published from 2014 to 2017 in Spine, The Spine Journal (TSJ), and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (JNS) were reviewed in this study. In these articles, all author's COI statements were recorded. The OPD was queried for all author entries within the disclose period of the journal. Discrepancies between the author's self-reported COIs and the documented COIs from OPD were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 6816 articles meeting inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2017 in Spine, TSJ, and JNS with 39,869 contributing authors. Overall, 15.8% of all authors were found to have an OPD financial relationship. Of 2633 authors in Spine with financial disclosures, 77.1% had accurate financial disclosures; 42.5% and 41.0% of authors with financial relationships in the OPD had accurate financial disclosures in TSJ and JNS, respectively. The total value of undisclosed conflicts of interest between 2014 and 2017 was $421 million with $1.48 billion in accurate disclosures. Of undisclosed payments, 68.7% were <$1000 and only 7.2% were >$10,000. Undisclosed payments included $180 million in research funding and $188 million in royalties. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that undisclosed COI is highly prevalent for authors in major Spine journals. This study indicates that there remains a need to standardize definitions and financial thresholds for significant COI as well as to shift the reporting burden for COI to journals who actively review potential COIs instead of relying on self-reporting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Cervical Spine Fractures: Who Really Needs CT Angiography?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Compare a novel two-step algorithm for indicating a computed tomography angiography (CTA) in the setting of a cervical spine fracture with established gold standard criteria. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As CTA permits the rapid detection of blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI), screening criteria for its use have broadened. However, more recent work warns of the potential for the overdiagnosis of BCVI, which must be considered with the adoption of broad criteria. METHODS: A novel two-step metric for indicating CTA screening was compared with the American College of Surgeons guidelines and the expanded Denver Criteria using patients who presented with cervical spine fractures to a tertiary-level 1 trauma center from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2016. The ability for each metric to identify BCVI and posterior circulation strokes that occurred during this period was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 721 patients with cervical fractures were included, of whom 417 underwent CTAs (57.8%). Sixty-eight BCVIs and seven strokes were diagnosed in this cohort. All algorithms detected an equivalent number of BCVIs (52 with the novel metric, 54 with the ACS and Denver Criteria, P = 0.84) and strokes (7/7, 100% with the novel metric, 6/7, 85.7% with the ACS and Denver Criteria, P = 1.0). However, 63% fewer scans would have been needed with the proposed screening algorithm compared with the ACS or Denver Criteria (261/721, 36.2% of all patients with our criteria vs. 413/721, 57.3% with the ACS standard and 417/721, 57.8%) with the Denver Criteria, P < 0.0002 for each). CONCLUSION: A two-step criterion based on mechanism of injury and patient factors is a potentially useful guide for identifying patients at risk of BCVI and stroke after cervical spine fractures. Further prospective analyses are required prior to widespread clinical adoption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.