Postoperative Discharge to Acute Rehabilitation or Skilled Nursing Facility Compared With Home Does Not Reduce Hospital Readmissions, Return to Surgery, or Improve Outcomes Following Adult Spine Deformity Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity (ASD) study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate 30-day readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for matched ASD patients receiving nonhome discharge (NON), including acute rehabilitation (REHAB), and skilled nursing facility (SNF), or home (HOME) discharge following ASD surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative disposition following ASD surgery frequently involves nonhome discharge. Little data exists for longer term outcomes for ASD patients receiving nonhome discharge versus patients discharged to home. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study were assessed for NON or HOME disposition following hospital discharge. NON was further divided into REHAB or SNF. Propensity score matching was used to match for patient age, frailty, spine deformity, levels fused, and osteotomies performed at surgery. Thirty-day hospital readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and 1-year and minimum 2-year postoperative PROs were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 241 of 374 patients were eligible for the study. NON patients were identified and matched to HOME patients. Following matching, 158 patients remained for evaluation; NON and HOME had similar preoperative age, frailty, spine deformity magnitude, surgery performed, and duration of hospital stay ( P >0.05). Thirty-day readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, and postoperative complications were similar for NON versus HOME and similar for REHAB (N=64) versus SNF (N=42) versus HOME ( P >0.05). At 1-year and minimum 2-year follow-up, HOME demonstrated similar to better PRO scores including Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 36v2 questionnaire Mental Component Score and Physical Component Score, and Scoliosis Research Society scores versus NON, REHAB, and SNF ( P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Acute needs must be considered following ASD surgery, however, matched analysis comparing 30-day hospital readmissions, 90-day return to surgery, postoperative complications, and PROs demonstrated minimal benefit for NON, REHAB, or SNF versus HOME at 1- and 2-year follow-up, questioning the risk and cost/benefits of routine use of nonhome discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-prognostic.

Opioid use prior to surgery is associated with worse preoperative and postoperative patient reported quality of life and decreased surgical cost effectiveness for symptomatic adult spine deformity; A matched cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative opioid is associated with poor postoperative outcomes for several surgical specialties, including neurosurgical, orthopedic, and general surgery. Patients with symptomatic adult spinal deformity (SASD) are among the highest patient populations reporting opioid use prior to surgery. Surgery for SASD has been demonstrated to improve patient reported quality of life, however, little medical economic data exists evaluating impact of preoperative opioid use upon surgical cost-effectiveness for SASD. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact that preoperative opioid use has upon SASD surgery including duration of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, postoperative complications, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), and surgical cost-effectiveness using a propensity score matched analysis model. METHODS: Surgically treated SASD patients enrolled into a prospective multi-center SASD study were assessed for preoperative opioid use, and divided into two cohorts; preoperative opioid users (OPIOID) and preoperative opioid non-users (NON). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for patient age, medical comorbidities, spine deformity type and magnitude, and surgical procedures for OPIOID vs NON. Preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative PROMs, duration of ICU and hospital stay, postoperative complications, and opioid use at one and two years postoperative were compared for OPIOID vs NON. Preoperative, one year, and minimum two-year postoperative SF6D values were calculated, and one- and two-year postoperative QALYs were calculated using SF6D change from baseline. Hospital costs at the time of index surgery were calculated and cost/QALY compared at one and two years postop for OPIOID vs NON. RESULTS: 261/357 patients (mean follow-up 3.3 years) eligible for study were evaluated. Following the PSM control, OPIOID (n=97) had similar preoperative demographics, smoking and depression history, spine deformity magnitude, and surgery performed as NON (n=164; p>0.05). Preoperatively, OPIOID reported greater NRS back pain (7.7 vs 6.7) and leg pain (5.2 vs 3.9), worse ODI (50.8 vs 36.9), worse SF-36 PCS (28.8 vs 35.6), and worse SRS-22r self-image (2.3 vs 2.5) than NON, respectively (p<0.05). OPIOID had longer ICU (41.2 vs 21.4 hours) and hospital stay (10.6 vs 8.0 days) than NON, respectively (p<0.05). At last postoperative follow up, OPIOID reported greater NRS back pain (4.1 vs 2.3) and leg pain (2.9 vs 1.7), worse ODI (32.4 vs 19.4), worse SF-36 PCS (37.4 vs 47.0), worse SRS-22r self-image (3.5 vs 4.0), and lower SRS-22r treatment satisfaction score (2.5 vs 4.5) than NON, respectively (p<0.05). At last follow-up postoperative Cost/QALY was higher for OPIOID ($44,558.31) vs NON ($34,304.36; p<0.05). At last follow up OPIOID reported greater postoperative opioid usage than NON [41.2% vs. 12.9%, respectively; odds ratio =4.7 (95% CI=2.6-8.7; p<0.05)]. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective, multi-center, matched analysis demonstrated SASD patients using opioids prior to SASD surgery reported worse preoperative and postoperative quality of life, had longer ICU and hospital stay, had less cost effectiveness of SASD surgery. Preoperative opioid users also reported lower treatment satisfaction, and reported greater postoperative opioid use than non-users. These data should be used to council patients on the negative impact preoperative opioid use can have on SASD surgery.

Counseling Guidelines for Anticipated Postsurgical Improvements in Pain, Function, Mental Health, and Self-image for Different Types of Adult Spinal Deformity.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a multicenter prospective adult spinal deformity (ASD) database. OBJECTIVE: Quantify postoperative improvements in pain, function, mental health, and self-image for different ASD types. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medical providers are commonly requested to counsel patients on anticipated improvements in specific health domains including pain, function, and self-image following surgery. ASD is a heterogeneous condition; therefore, health domain improvements may vary according to deformity type. Few studies have quantified outcomes for specific ASD types. METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients (≥4 levels fused) prospectively enrolled into a multicenter database, minimum 2-year follow-up, were categorized into ASD types according to Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab ASD classification (THORACIC, LUMBAR, DOUBLE, SAGITTAL, MIXED). Demographic, radiographic, operative, and patient reported outcome measures (NRS back and leg pain, SRS-22r, SF-36) data were evaluated. Preoperative and last postoperative values for pain, physical and social function, mental health, and self-image were evaluated, improvements in each domain were quantified, and domain scores compared to generational normative values. Postoperative improvements were also calculated for three age cohorts (<45 yr, 45-65 yr, and >65 yr) within each deformity type. RESULTS: 359 of 564 patients eligible for study (mean age 57.9 yr, mean scoliosis 43.4°, mean SVA 63.3 mm, mean 11.7 levels fused) had ≥2 yr follow-up. Domain improvements for the entire ASD population were 45.1% for back pain, 41.3% for leg pain, 27.1% for physical function, 35.9% for social function, 62.0% for self-image, and 22.6% for mental health (P < 0.05). LUMBAR, SAGITTAL, and MIXED had greatest improvements in pain and function, while THORACIC and DOUBLE had greatest improvements in self-image. Self-image was the most impacted preoperative domain and demonstrated the greatest postoperative improvement for all ASD types. CONCLUSION: ASD patients demonstrated quantifiable postoperative improvements in pain, self-image, physical and social function, and mental health; however, improvements differed between ASD types. Further research is needed to understand specific patient expectations for ASD treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Adaptation of the frailty index for brazilian portuguese in adult spine deformity surgery / Adaptação para o português do Brasil do índice de fragilidade em cirurgia de deformidade da coluna vertebral do adulto / Adaptación para portugués de Brasil del índice de fragilidad en cirugía de deformidad de la columna vertebral del adulto

ABSTRACT Objectives To adapt the adult spinal deformity frailty index (ASD-FI), which was presented as an instrument for stratification of risk of surgical complications, for application in the Brazilian population. Methods This is a consensus-building study, following the Delphi method, in which a team of six Brazilian spine surgery specialists worked alongside the International Spine Study Group (ISSG), the group responsible for preparing the original version of the ASD-FI, in order to adapt the index for the Brazilian population. The variables to be included in the new version, as well as the translation of the terminology into Portuguese, were evaluated and a consensus was considered to have been reached when all (100%) of the Brazilian experts were in agreement. Results A version of the ASD-FI was created, composed of 42 variables, with the inclusion of two new variables that were not included in the original version. The new version was then back translated into English and approved by the ISSG members, resulting in the adapted version of the ASD-FI for the Brazilian population. Conclusion This study presents an adapted version of the adult spinal deformity frailty index for the Brazilian population, for the purpose of risk stratification in the surgical treatment of these complex deformities. Level of evidence II; Study of adaptation of a valid score.

RESUMO Objetivos Adaptar o Índice de Fragilidade para Deformidade da Coluna Vertebral do Adulto (IF-DCVA), apresentado como instrumento para estratificação de risco para complicações cirúrgicas, para aplicação na população brasileira. Métodos Trata-se de um estudo de criação de consenso, seguindo o método Delphi, em que uma equipe de seis especialistas brasileiros em cirurgia da coluna trabalhou em conjunto com o International Spine Study Group (ISSG), grupo responsável pelo desenvolvimento da versão original do IF-DCVA, a fim de adaptar o índice para a população brasileira. As variáveis a serem incluídas na nova versão, assim como a tradução da terminologia para o português foram avaliadas e foi considerado consenso quando todos (100%) os especialistas brasileiros chegaram a um acordo. Resultados Uma versão do IF-DCVA foi criada, composta por 42 variáveis, com a inclusão de duas novas variáveis que não faziam parte da versão original. A nova versão foi, então, retrotraduzida para o inglês e aprovada pelos membros do ISSG, resultando na versão adaptada do IF-DCVA para a população brasileira. Conclusões O presente estudo apresenta uma versão adaptada do Índice de Fragilidade para Deformidade da Coluna Vertebral do Adulto para a população brasileira com o objetivo de avaliar a estratificação de risco no tratamento cirúrgico dessas deformidades complexas. Nível de evidência II; Estudo de adaptação de um escore válido.

RESUMEN Objetivos Adaptar el Índice de Fragilidad para Deformidad de la Columna Vertebral del Adulto (IF-DCVA), presentado como instrumento para estratificación de riesgo para complicaciones quirúrgicas, para aplicación en la población brasileña. Métodos Se trata de un estudio de creación de consenso, siguiendo el método Delphi, en el que un equipo de seis especialistas brasileños en cirugía de columna trabajó junto con el International Spine Study Group (ISSG), grupo responsable por el desarrollo de la versión original de IF-DCVA, a fin de adaptar el índice para la población brasileña. Las variables a ser incluidas en la nueva versión, así como la traducción de la terminología para el portugués de Brasil fueron evaluadas y se consideró consenso cuando todos (100%) los especialistas brasileños llegaron a un acuerdo. Resultados Fue creada una versión del IF-DCVA, compuesta por 42 variables, con la inclusión de dos nuevas variables que no formaban parte de la versión original. La nueva versión fue entonces retrotraducida al inglés y aprobada por los miembros del ISSG, lo que resultó en la versión adaptada del IF-DCVA para la población brasileña. Conclusiones El presente estudio presenta una versión adaptada para la población brasileña del Índice de Fragilidad para la Deformidad de la Columna Vertebral del Adulto, con el objetivo de evaluar la estratificación de riesgo en el tratamiento quirúrgico de esas deformidades complejas. Nivel de evidencia II; Estudio de adaptación de una escala válida.

Effective Prevention of Proximal Junctional Failure in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Requires a Combination of Surgical Implant Prophylaxis and Avoidance of Sagittal Alignment Overcorrection.

STUDY DESIGN: Propensity score matched analysis of a multi-center prospective adult spinal deformity (ASD) database. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate if surgical implant prophylaxis combined with avoidance of sagittal overcorrection more effectively prevents proximal junctional failure (PJF) than use of surgical implants alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PJF is a severe form of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). Efforts to prevent PJF have focused on use of surgical implants. Less information exists on avoidance of overcorrection of age-adjusted sagittal alignment to prevent PJF. METHODS: Surgically treated ASD patients (age ≥18 yrs; ≥5 levels fused, ≥1 year follow-up) enrolled into a prospective multi-center ASD database were propensity score matched (PSM) to control for risk factors for PJF. Patients evaluated for use of surgical implants to prevent PJF (IMPLANT) versus no implant prophylaxis (NONE), and categorized by the type of implant used (CEMENT, HOOK, TETHER). Postoperative sagittal alignment was evaluated for overcorrection of age-adjusted sagittal alignment (OVER) versus within sagittal parameters (ALIGN). Incidence of PJF was evaluated at minimum 1 year postop. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty five of 834 eligible for study inclusion were evaluated. Following PSM to control for confounding variables, analysis demonstrated the incidence of PJF was lower for IMPLANT (n = 235; 10.6%) versus NONE (n = 390: 20.3%; P < 0.05). Use of transverse process hooks at the upper instrumented vertebra (HOOK; n = 115) had the lowest rate of PJF (7.0%) versus NONE (20.3%; P < 0.05). ALIGN (n = 246) had lower incidence of PJF than OVER (n = 379; 12.0% vs. 19.2%, respectively; P < 0.05). The combination of ALIGN-IMPLANT further reduced PJF rates (n = 81; 9.9%), while OVER-NONE had the highest rate of PJF (n = 225; 24.2%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Propensity score matched analysis of 625 ASD patients demonstrated use of surgical implants alone to prevent PJF was less effective than combining implants with avoidance of sagittal overcorrection. Patients that received no PJF implant prophylaxis and had sagittal overcorrection had the highest incidence of PJF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Comparison of fatigue strength of C2 pedicle screws, C2 pars screws, and a hybrid construct in C1-C2 fixation.

STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study comparing the fatigue strength of different types of C2 fixation in a C1-C2 construct. OBJECTIVE: To determine the pullout strength of a C2 pedicle screw and C2 pars screw after cyclical testing and differentiate differences in stiffness pre- and post-cyclical loading of 3 different C1-C2 fixations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Some surgeons use a short C2 pars screw in a C1-C2 construct, because it is less technically demanding and/or when the vertebral artery is high riding. Difference in construct stiffness between use of bilateral C2 pedicle screws, bilateral C2 pars screws, or a hybrid construct is unknown. METHODS: Biomechanical testing was performed on 15 specimens. A bicortical C1 lateral mass screw was used in combination with 1 of 3 methods of C2 fixation: (1) bilateral long C2 pedicle screws (LL), (2) bilateral 14-mm C2 pars screws (SS), and (3) unilateral long C2 pedicle screw with a contralateral 14-mm C2 pars screw (LS). Each construct was subject to 16,000 cycles to simulate the immediate postoperative period. Changes in motion in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were calculated. This was followed by pullout testing. RESULTS: The ability to limit range of motion significantly decreased after cyclical testing in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation for all 3 groups. After loading, the LL and LS groups had less percentage of increase in motion in flexion-extension and lateral bending than the SS group. Overall, the average pullout strength of a pedicle screw was 92% stronger than a pars screw. CONCLUSION: C2 pedicle screws have twice the pullout strength of C2 pars screws after cyclical loading. In cases in which the anatomy limits placement of bilateral C2 pedicle screws, a construct using a unilateral C2 pedicle screw with a contralateral short pars screw is a viable option and compares favorably with a bilateral C2 pedicle screw construct. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.