Complications of Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis in Lumbar Laminectomy With and Without Fusion.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of chemoprophylaxis (CPX) agents in preventing venous thromboembolism must be weighed against potential risks. Current literature regarding the efficacy of CPX after laminectomies with or without fusion is limited, with no clear consensus to inform guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the association between CPX and surgical complications after lumbar laminectomy with and without fusion. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of patients at a single large academic institution. METHODS: The medical records of patients who underwent lumbar laminectomies with or without lumbar fusion from 2018 to 2020 were reviewed for demographics, surgical characteristics, CPX agents, postoperative complications, epidural hematomas, and wound drainage. Patients receiving CPX (n = 316) were compared with patients not receiving CPX (n = 316) via t test following propensity score matching, and patients on CPX were further stratified by fusion status. RESULTS: The CPX group had higher body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists grades. Rates of venous thromboembolism, epidural hematomas, infections, postoperative incision and drainage, transfusions, wound dehiscence, and reoperation were not associated with CPX. Moist dressings were more frequent, and average days of drain duration were longer with CPX. Overall postoperative complication rate and length of stay (LOS) were greater with CPX. The fusion subgroup had a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, was younger, had more women, and underwent more minimally invasive laminectomies. While estimated blood loss, operative times, and LOS were significantly greater in the fusion group, there was no difference in rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: CPX after lumbar laminectomies with or without fusion was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation. Patients receiving CPX had more postoperative cardiac complications, but it is possible that surgeons were more likely to prescribe CPX for higher-risk patients. They also had higher rates of ileus and moist dressings, greater LOS, and longer length of drain duration. Patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy with fusion on CPX tended to be lower risk yet incurred greater blood loss, operative times, LOS, cardiac complications, and hematomas/seromas than patients not undergoing fusion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This retrospective study compared surgical complications of lumbar laminectomies in patients who received chemoprophylaxis vs patients who did not. Chemoprophylaxis was not associated with increased rates of epidural hematomas, wound complications, or reoperation, but it was associated with higher rates of postoperative cardiac complications and ileus.

Does Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use Reduce Pseudarthrosis Rates in Single-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries?

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2, or BMP for short) is a popular biological product used in spine surgeries to promote fusion and avoid the morbidity associated with iliac crest autograft. BMP's effect on pseudarthrosis in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates of pseudarthrosis in single-level TLIF with and without concurrent use of BMP. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a single academic institution. Adults undergoing primary single-level TLIF with a minimum of 1 year of clinical and radiographic follow-up were included. BMP use was determined by operative notes at index surgery. Non-BMP cases with iliac crest bone graft were excluded. Pseudarthrosis was determined using radiographic and clinical evaluation. Bivariate differences between groups were assessed by independent t test and χ 2 analyses, and perioperative characteristics were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight single-level TLIF patients were included. The mean age was 59.3 years, and 52.0% were women. There were no demographic differences between patients who received BMP and those who did not. Pseudarthrosis rates in patients treated with BMP were 6.2% vs 7.5% in the no BMP group (P = 0.756). There was no difference in reoperation for pseudarthrosis between patients who received BMP (3.7%) vs those who did not receive BMP (7.5%, P = 0.314). Patients who underwent revision surgery for pseudarthrosis more commonly had diabetes with end-organ damage (revised 37.5% vs not revised 1.4%, P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated no reduction in reoperation for pseudarthrosis related to BMP use (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-3.7, P = 0.269). Diabetes with end-organ damage (OR 112.6,95% CI 5.7-2225.8, P = 0.002) increased the risk of reoperation for pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSIONS: BMP use did not reduce the rate of pseudarthrosis or the number of reoperations for pseudarthrosis in single-level TLIFs. Diabetes with end-organ damage was a significant risk factor for pseudarthrosis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BMP is frequently used "off-label" in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; however, little data exists to demonstrate its safety and efficacy in this procedure.

Resolution of Radiculopathy Following Indirect Versus Direct Decompression in Single Level Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate resolution of radiculopathy in one-level lumbar fusion with indirect or direct decompression techniques. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with preoperative radiculopathy undergoing single-level lumbar fusion with up to 2-year follow-up were grouped by indirect and direct decompression. Direct decompression (DD) group included ALIF and LLIF with posterior DD procedure as well as all TLIF. Indirect decompression (ID) group included ALIF and LLIF without posterior DD procedure. Propensity score matching was used to control for intergroup differences in age. Intergroup outcomes were compared using means comparison tests. Logistic regressions were used to correlate decompression type with symptom resolution over time. Significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: 116 patients were included: 58 direct decompression (DD) (mean 53.9y, 67.2% female) and 58 indirect decompression (ID) (mean 54.6y, 61.4% female). DD patients experienced greater blood loss than ID. Additionally, DD patients were 4.7 times more likely than ID patients to experience full resolution of radiculopathy at 3 months post-op. By 6 months, DD patients demonstrated larger reductions in VAS score. With regard to motor function, DD patients had improved motor score associated with the L5 dermatome at 6 months relative to ID patients. CONCLUSIONS: Direct decompression was associated with greater resolution of radiculopathy in the near post-operative term, with no differences at long term follow-up when compared with indirect decompression. In particularly debilitated patients, these findings may influence surgeons to perform a direct decompression to achieve more rapid resolution of radiculopathy symptoms.

The Impact of Social Determinants of Health on Discharge Disposition Following One- and Two-Level Posterior Interbody Fusion.

Background Current research is limited in exploring the impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on the discharge location within elective spine surgery. Further understanding of the influence of SDOH on disposition is necessary to improve outcomes. This study explores how SDOH influence discharge disposition for patients undergoing one- or two-level posterior interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF). Methods This was a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study. Patients who underwent TLIF/PLIF between 2017 and 2020 at a single academic medical center were identified. The chart review gathered demographics, perioperative characteristics, intra/post-operative complications, discharge disposition, and 90-day outcomes. Discharge dispositions included subacute nursing facility (SNF), home with self-care (HSC), home with health services (HHS), and acute rehab facility (ARF). Demographic, perioperative, and disposition outcomes were analyzed by chi-square analysis and one-way ANOVA based on gender, race, and income quartiles. Results Propensity score matching for significant demographic factors isolated 326 patients. The rate of discharge to SNF was higher in females compared to males (25.00% vs 10.56%; p=0.001). Men were discharged to home at a higher rate than women (75.4% vs 61.95%; p=0.010). LatinX patients had the highest rate of home discharge, followed by Asians, Caucasians, and African Americans (83.33% vs 70.31% vs 66.45% vs 65.90%; p<0.001). The post hoc Tukey test demonstrated statistically significant differences between Asians and all other races in the context of age and BMI. Additionally, patients discharged to SNF showed the highest Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score, followed by those at ARF, HHS, and HSC (4.36 vs 4.05 vs 2.87 vs 2.37; p<0.001). The estimated median income for the cohort ranged from $52,000 to $250,001, with no significant differences in income seen across comparisons. Conclusion Discharge disposition following one- or two-level TLIF/PLIF shows significant association with gender and race. No association was seen when comparing discharge rates among zip code-level median income quartiles.

Post-Operative Physical Therapy Following Cervical Spine Surgery: Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Introduction Post-operative physical therapy (PT) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery is often performed to improve a patient's functional ability and reduce neck pain. However, current literature evaluating the benefits of post-operative PT using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is limited and remains inconclusive. Here we compare post-operative improvement between patients who did and did not undergo formal PT after ACDF using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. Methods A retrospective observational study examining patients who underwent one- or two-level primary ACDF or cervical disc replacement (CDR) at an academic orthopedic hospital and who had PROMIS scores recorded pre-operatively and through two-year follow-up. Patients were stratified according to whether or not they attended formal postoperative PT. PROMIS scores and patient demographics were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square test of independence, and Student's t-test within and between cohorts. Results Two hundred and twenty patients were identified. Demographic differences between PT and no PT groups include age (PT 54.1 vs. no PT 49.5, p=0.005) and BMI (PT 28.1 vs. no PT 29.8, p=0.028). The only significant difference in post-operative PROMIS scores was in physical health scores at three months post-operatively (no PT 43.9 vs. PT 39.1, p=0.008). Physical health scores improved from baseline to one-year follow-up in both cohorts (PT +3.5, p=0.025; no PT +6.6, p=0.008). There were no significant differences when comparing improvements in physical health scores between groups at six months and one year. Conclusion In conclusion, there was no significance to support the benefits of post-operative PT as measured by PROMIS scores. No significant differences in PROMIS were observed between groups from pre-operative baseline scores to six-month and one-year follow-ups.

Reoperation Rates Due to Adjacent Segment Disease Following Primary 1 to 2-Level Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the approach of the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF; open vs . minimally invasive (MIS)] on reoperation rates due to ASD at 2 to 4-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adjacent segment degeneration is a complication of lumbar fusion surgery, which may progress to adjacent segment disease (ASD) and cause debilitating postoperative pain potentially requiring additional operative management for relief. MIS TLIF surgery has been introduced to minimize this complication but the impact on ASD incidence is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For a cohort of patients undergoing 1 or 2-level primary TLIF between 2013 and 2019, patient demographics and follow-up outcomes were collected and compared among patients who underwent open versus MIS TLIF using the Mann-Whitney U test, Fischer exact test, and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference in revision rates due to ASD between MIS and open TLIFs at 2 (5.8% vs . 15.4%, P =0.021) and 3 (8% vs . 23.2%, P =0.03) year follow-up, with open TLIFs demonstrating significantly higher revision rates. The surgical approach was the only independent predictor of reoperation rates at both 2 and 3-year follow-ups (2 yr, P =0.009; 3 yr, P =0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Open TLIF was found to have a significantly higher rate of reoperation due to ASD compared with the MIS approach. In addition, the surgical approach (MIS vs . open) seems to be an independent predictor of reoperation rates.

Multidisciplinary conference for complex surgery leads to improved quality and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Complex surgery for adult spinal deformity has high rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Preoperative discussions of high-risk operative spine patients at a multidisciplinary conference may contribute to decreased rates of these adverse outcomes through appropriate patient selection and surgical plan optimization. With this goal, we implemented a high-risk case conference involving orthopedic and neurosurgery spine, anesthesia, intraoperative monitoring neurology, and neurological intensive care. METHODS: Included in this retrospective review were patients ≥ 18 years old meeting one of the following high-risk criteria: 8 + levels fused, osteoporosis with 4 + levels fused, three column osteotomy, anterior revision of the same lumbar level, or planned significant correction for severe myelopathy, scoliosis (> 75˚), or kyphosis (> 75˚). Patients were categorized as Before Conference (BC): surgery before 2/19/2019 or After Conference (AC): surgery after 2/19/2019. Outcome measures include intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperations. RESULTS: 263 patients were included (96 AC, 167 BC). AC was older than BC (60.0 vs 54.6, p = 0.025) and had lower BMI (27.1 vs 28.9, p = 0.047), but had similar CCI (3.2 vs 2.9 p = 0.312), and ASA Classification (2.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.790). Surgical characteristics, including levels fused (10.6 vs 10.7, p = 0.839), levels decompressed (1.29 vs 1.25, p = 0.863), 3 column osteotomies (10.4% vs 18.6%, p = 0.080), anterior column release (9.4% vs 12.6%, p = 0.432), and revision cases (53.1% vs 52.4%, p = 0.911) were similar between AC and BC. AC had lower EBL (1.1 vs 1.9L, p < 0.001) and fewer total intraoperative complications (16.7% vs 34.1%, p = 0.002), including fewer dural tears (4.2% vs 12.6%, p = 0.025), delayed extubations (8.3% vs 22.8%%, p = 0.003), and massive blood loss (4.2% vs 13.2%, p = 0.018). Length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups (7.2 vs 8.2 days, 0.251). AC had a lower incidence of deep surgical site infections (SSI, 1.0% vs 6.6%, p = 0.038), but a higher rate of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy (18.8% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). Other postoperative complications were similar between groups. AC had lower rates of reoperation at 30 (2.1% vs 8.4%, p = 0.040) and 90 days (3.1 vs 12.0%, p = 0.014) and lower readmission rates at 30 (3.1% vs 10.2%, p = 0.038) and 90 days (6.3 vs 15.0%, p = 0.035). On logistic regression, AC patients had higher odds of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy and lower odds of delayed extubation, intraoperative RBC, and intraoperative salvage blood. CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of a multidisciplinary high-risk case conference, 30- and 90-day reoperation and readmission rates, intraoperative complications, and postoperative deep SSIs decreased. Hypotensive events requiring vasopressors increased, but did not result in longer LOS or greater readmissions. These associations suggest a multidisciplinary conference may help improve quality and safety for high-risk spine patients. particularly through minimizing complications and optimizing outcomes in complex spine surgery.

Evaluation of Health-related Quality of Life Improvement in Patients Undergoing Cervical Versus Shoulder Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of outcomes in cervical spine and shoulder arthroscopy patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess differential improvements in health-related quality of life for cervical spine surgery compared with shoulder surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An understanding of outcome differences between different types of orthopedic surgeries is helpful in counseling patients about expected postoperative recovery. This study compares outcomes in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with arthroscopic shoulder surgery using computer-adaptive Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing cervical spine surgery (1-level or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement) or arthroscopic shoulder surgery (rotator cuff repair±biceps tenodesis) were grouped. Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS: Cervical spine (n=127) and shoulder (n=91) groups were similar in sex (25.8% vs. 41.8% female, P =0.731) but differed in age (51.6±11.6 vs. 58.60±11.2, P <0.05), operative time (148.3±68.6 vs. 75.9±26.9 min, P <0.05), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.0±0.5, P =0.001), smoking status (15.7% vs. 4.4%, P =0.008), and length of stay (1.1±1.0 vs. 0.3±0.1, P =0.000). Spine patients had worse physical function (36.9 ±12.6 vs. 49.4±8.6, P <0.05) and greater pain interference (67.0±13.6 vs. 61.7±4.8, P =0.001) at baseline. Significant improvements were seen in all domains by 3 months for both groups, except for physical function after shoulder surgery. Spine patients had greater physical function improvements at all timepoints (3.33 vs. -0.43, P =0.003; 4.81 vs. 0.08, P =0.001; 6.5 vs. -5.24, P =<0.05). Conversely, shoulder surgery patients showed better 6-month improvement in pain intensity over spine patients (-8.86 vs. -4.46, P =0.001), but this difference resolved by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical spine patients had greater relative early improvement in physical function compared with shoulder patients, whereas pain interference and intensity did not significantly differ between the 2 groups after surgery. This will help in counseling patients about relative difference in recovery and improvement between the 2 surgery types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Comparative Analysis of Inpatient Opioid Consumption Between Different Surgical Approaches Following Single Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate inpatient MME administration associated with different lumbar spinal fusion surgeries. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of Grade I or II spondylolisthesis, stenosis, degenerative disc disease or pars defect who underwent one-level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) or one-level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) or Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) through traditional MIS, anterior-posterior position or single position approaches between L2-S1. Outcome measures included patient demographics, surgical procedure and approach, perioperative clinical characteristics, incidence of ileus and inpatient MME. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA with a post-hoc Tukey Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test with post-hoc Mann-Whitney test. MME was calculated as per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and previous literature. Significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: Mean age differed significantly between MIS TLIF (55.6 ± 12.5 years) and all other groups (Open TLIF 57.1 ± 12.5, SP ALIF/LLIF 57.9 ± 9.9, TP ALIF/LLIF 50.9 ± 12.7, Open ALIF/LLIF 58.4 ± 15.5). MIS TLIF had the shortest LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Total MME was significantly different between MIS TLIF and Open ALIF/LLIF (172.5 MME vs 261.1 MME, P = .044) as well as MIS TLIF and TP ALIF/LLIF (172.5 MME vs 245.4 MME, P = .009). There were no significant differences in MME/hour and incidence of ileus between all groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing MIS TLIF had lower inpatient opioid intake compared to TP and SP ALIF/LLIF, as well as shorter LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Thus, it appears that the advantages of minimally invasive surgery are seen in minimally invasive TLIFs.

Biologics in Spine Fusion.

Achieving fusion in spine surgery can be challenging because of patient factors such as smoking and diabetes. The consequences of pseudarthrosis can be severe, including pain, instability, and additional surgery. Autologous iliac crest bone graft is the historical standard for augmenting spine fusion, providing high rates of fusion throughout the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine. Harvest of autologous iliac crest bone can be associated with comorbidities and this has led to development of alternative biologic materials to enhance spine fusion. Substitutes include various forms of allograft products including decellularized allograft; demineralized bone matrix; synthetic materials including bioactive glass; and autologous and allograft mesenchymal stem cells. Bone morphogenetic proteins can be efficacious for fusion but have significant risks and are not suitable for all spine procedures. There is a wide variety of utilization of biologics for spine fusion that are influenced by spinal region, surgeon preference, surgical training, health system formulary, and cost.

The Temporality of Deep Surgical Site Infection Rates Following Spinal Laminectomy and Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Deep surgical site infections (dSSI) following spinal laminectomy and fusion are serious complications associated with poor patient outcomes. The objective of this study is to investigate the monthly and seasonal variability of dSSI rates following common spinal surgeries to investigate the "July effect," which refers to the alleged increase in adverse health outcomes due to new hospital trainees at the beginning of the academic year. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who had a dSSI following laminectomy (without fusion) or spinal fusion (with or without laminectomy) at a single large urban academic medical center between January 2009 and August 2018. The change in dSSI rate over the entire study period was calculated. The monthly and seasonal variability of dSSI were assessed using a Poisson regression model to assess for the presence of the July effect. RESULTS: A total of 7931 laminectomies and 14,637 spinal fusions were reviewed. The average dSSI rates following laminectomy and spinal fusion were 0.46 (SD, 0.47) and 1.26 (SD, 0.86) per 100 patients, respectively. The rate of dSSI following spinal fusion significantly decreased over the study period (rate ratio [RR] = 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.94, P < 0.01). With summer as the reference season, there were significantly lower dSSI rates following spinal fusions performed in the fall (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.98, P = 0.04 ). With July as the reference month, there was a significantly higher dSSI rate in April following spinal fusions. CONCLUSION: The overall decrease in dSSI rate over the study period is consistent with previous reports. The monthly analysis revealed no significant differences in either procedure, calling into question the July effect. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study is relevant to practicing spinal surgeons and can inform surgeons about seasonal data regarding dSSIs.

Incidence of dysphagia following posterior cervical spine surgery.

Abundant literature exists describing the incidence of dysphagia following anterior cervical surgery; however, there is a paucity of literature detailing the incidence of dysphagia following posterior cervical procedures. Further characterization of this complication is important for guiding clinical prevention and management. Patients ≥ 18 years of age underwent posterior cervical fusion with laminectomy or laminoplasty between C1-T1. Pre- and post-operative dysphagia was assessed by a speech language pathologist. The patient cohort was categorized by approach: Laminectomy + Fusion (LF) and Laminoplasty (LP). Patients were excluded from radiographic analyses if they did not have both baseline and follow-up imaging. The study included 147 LF and 47 LP cases. There were no differences in baseline demographics. There were three patients with new-onset dysphagia in the LF group (1.5% incidence) and no new cases in the LP group (p = 1.000). LF patients had significantly higher rates of post-op complications (27.9% LF vs. 8.5% LP, p = 0.005) but not intra-op complications (6.1% LF vs. 2.1% LP, p = 0.456). Radiographic analysis of the entire cohort showed no significant changes in cervical lordosis, cSVA, or T1 slope. Both group comparisons showed no differences in incidence of dysphagia pre and post operatively. Based on this study, the likelihood of developing dysphagia after LF or LP are similarly low with a new onset dysphagia rate of 1.5%.

Reducing Postoperative Opioid-prescribing Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion Does Not Significantly Change Patient Satisfaction.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative; LOE-3. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, an institutional opioid reduction prescribing policy following one- or two-level lumbar fusion has on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous research has demonstrated that high levels of opioid-prescribing may be related, in part, to a desire to produce superior patient satisfaction. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted on patients who underwent one- or two-level lumbar fusions L3-S1 between October 2014 and October 2019 at a single institution. Patients with complete survey information were included in the analysis. Patients with a history of trauma, fracture, spinal deformity, fusions more than two levels, or prior lumbar fusion surgery L3-S1 were excluded. Cohorts were based on date of surgery relative to implementation of an institutional opioid reduction policy, which commenced in October 1, 2018. To better compare groups, opioid prescriptions were converted into milligram morphine equivalents (MME). RESULTS: A total of 330 patients met inclusion criteria: 259 pre-protocol, 71 post-protocol. There were 256 one-level fusions and 74 two-level fusions included. There were few statistically significant differences between groups with respect to patient demographics (P > 0.05) with the exception of number of patients who saw the pain management service, which increased from 36.7% (95) pre-protocol to 59.2% (42) post-protocol; P < 0.001. Estimated blood loss (EBL) decreased from 533 ±â€Š571 mL to 346 ±â€Š328 mL (P = 0.003). Percentage of patients who underwent concomitant laminectomy decreased from 71.8% to 49.3% (P < 0.001). Average opioids prescribed on discharge in the pre-protocol period was 534 ±â€Š425 MME, compared to after initiation of the protocol, that is 320 ±â€Š174 MME (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference with respect to satisfaction with pain control, 4.49 ±â€Š0.85 pre-protocol versus 4.51 ±â€Š0.82 post-protocol (P = 0.986). CONCLUSION: A reduction in opioids prescribed at discharge after one- or two-level lumbar fusion is not associated with any statistically significant change in patient satisfaction with pain management, as measured by the HCAHPS survey.Level of Evidence: 3.

Characterizing the Effect of Perioperative Narcotic Consumption and Narcotic Prescription Dosing at Discharge on Satisfaction With Pain Control for Patients Undergoing Single-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs) between October 2014 and October 2019. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of perioperative narcotic consumption and amount of narcotic prescribed at discharge on patient satisfaction with pain control after single-level ACDF. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior research has demonstrated that opioid prescription habits may be related to physician desire to produce superior patient satisfaction with pain control. METHODS: Patients with complete Press-Ganey Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey information were analyzed. Inpatient opioid prescriptions were recorded and converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MME) and tablets of 5 mg oxycodone. HCAHPS scores were converted to a Likert-type 5-point scale. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Average age was 48.1±10.9 y. Average inpatient opioids prescribed was 102±106 MME. Average opioids prescribed at discharge was 437±342 MME. No statistically significant correlation was found between satisfaction with pain control and opioid consumption while in the hospital [r=-0.106, P=0.483]. Similarly, there was no statistically significant correlation between satisfaction with pain control and opioids prescribed upon discharge [r=-0.185, P=0.219]. No statistically significant correlation was found between date of surgery and inpatient MME consumption [r=-0.113, P=0.450]. Interestingly, more opioids were prescribed at discharge the earlier the date of surgery [r=-0.426, P=0.003]. For every additional month further along in the study period, the odds of a patient reporting a top box score for satisfaction with pain control increased by 5.5% [P=0.025]. CONCLUSION: Our study found no correlation between patient satisfaction with pain control and inpatient opioid dosage or outpatient prescription dosage after single-level ACDF. Moreover, satisfaction with pain control increased over time despite a decrease in MME prescribed at discharge. This suggests that factors other than narcotic consumption play a more important role in patient satisfaction with pain control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

COVID-19 pandemic and elective spinal surgery cancelations - what happens to the patients?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide suspensions of elective surgeries due to reallocation of resources to the care of COVID-19 patients. Following resumption of elective cases, a significant proportion of patients continued to delay surgery, with many yet to reschedule, potentially prolonging their pain and impairment of function and causing detrimental long-term effects. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients who have and have not rescheduled their spine surgery procedures originally cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to evaluate the reasons for continued deferment of spine surgeries even after the lifting of the mandated suspension of elective surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective case series at a single institution PATIENT SAMPLE: Included were 133 patients seen at a single institution where spine surgery was canceled due to a state-mandated suspension of elective surgeries from March to June, 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: The measures assessed included preoperative diagnoses and neurological dysfunction, surgical characteristics, reasons for surgery deferment, and PROMIS scores of pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function. METHODS: Patient electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients who had not rescheduled their canceled surgery as of January 31, 2021, and did not have a reason noted in their charts were called to determine the reason for continued surgery deferment. Patients were divided into three groups: early rescheduled (ER), late rescheduled (LR), and not rescheduled (NR). ER patients had a date of surgery (DOS) prior to the city's Phase 4 reopening on July 20, 2020; LR patients had a DOS on or after that date. Statistical analysis of the group findings included analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test, independent samples T-test, and chi-square analysis with significance set at p≤.05. RESULTS: Out of 133 patients, 47.4% (63) were in the ER, 15.8% (21) in the LR, and 36.8% (49) in the NR groups. Demographics and baseline PROMIS scores were similar between groups. LR had more levels fused (3.6) than ER (1.6), p= .018 on Tukey HSD. NR (2.1) did not have different mean levels fused than LR or ER, both p= >.05 on Tukey HSD. LR had more three column osteotomies (14.3%) than ER and (1.6%) and NR (2.0%) p=.022, and fewer lumbar microdiscectomies (0%) compared to ER (20.6%) and NR (10.2%), p=.039. Other surgical characteristics were similar between groups. LR had a longer length of stay than ER (4.2 vs 2.4, p=.036). No patients in ER or LR had a nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Of NR, 2.0% have a future surgery date scheduled and 8.2% (4) are acquiring updated exams before rescheduling. 40.8% (20; 15.0% total cohort) continue to defer surgery over concern for COVID-19 exposure and 16.3% (8) for medical comorbidities. 6.1% (3) permanently canceled for symptom improvement. 8.2% (4) had follow-up recommendations for non-surgical management. 4.1% (2) are since deceased. CONCLUSION: Over 1/3 of elective spine surgeries canceled due to COVID-19 have not been performed in the 8 months from when elective surgeries resumed in our institution to the end of the study. ER patients had less complex surgeries planned than LR. NR patients continue to defer surgery primarily over concern for COVID-19 exposure. The toll on the health of these patients as a result of the delay in treatment and on their lives due to their inability to return to normal function remains to be seen.

Comparison of Plastic Surgeon and Spine Surgeon Closure in Revision Short Segment Thoracolumbar Spinal Fusions.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of plastic versus spine surgeon wound closure in revision 1 to 4 level thoracolumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Plastic surgeons perform layered musculocutaneous flap closures in high-risk spine patients such as revision posterior spinal fusion and complex deformity correction surgeries. Few studies have assessed outcomes of revision fusion performed with plastic surgical closures, particularly in nondeformity thoracolumbar spinal surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1 to 4 level revision thoracolumbar fusion performed by Orthopedic or Neurosurgical spine surgeons. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics and perioperative outcomes. Patients were divided into two cohorts: wound closures performed by spine surgeons and those closed by plastic surgeons. Outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score match for prior levels fused, iliac fixation, and levels fused at index surgery. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-seven (87.3%) spine surgeon (SS) and 52 (12.7%) plastic surgeon (PS) closures were identified. PS group had significantly higher number of levels fused at index (PS 2.7 ±â€Š1.0 vs. SS 1.8 ±â€Š0.9, P < 0.001) and at prior surgeries (PS 1.8 ±â€Š1.2 vs. SS 1.0 ±â€Š0.9, P < 0.001), and rate of iliac instrumentation (PS 17.3% vs. SS 2.8%, P < 0.001). Plastics closure was an independent risk factor for length of stay  > 5 days (odds ratio 2.3) and postoperative seroma formation (odds ratio 7.8). After propensity score match, PS had higher rates of seromas (PS 36.5% vs. SS 3.8%, P < 0.001). There were no differences between PS and SS groups in surgical outcomes, perioperative complication, surgical site infection, seroma requiring aspiration, or return to operating room at all time points until follow-up (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Plastic spinal closure for 1 to 4 level revision posterior thoracolumbar fusions had no advantage in reducing wound complications over spine surgeon closure but increased postoperative seroma formation.Level of Evidence: 4.

Clinical photographs in the assessment of adult spinal deformity: a comparison to radiographic parameters.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to reliably predict sagittal and coronal spinal alignment with clinical photographs by using markers placed at easily localized anatomical landmarks. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients with adult spinal deformity were enrolled from a single center. Full-length standing radiographs were obtained at the baseline visit. Clinical photographs were taken with reflective markers placed overlying C2, S1, the greater trochanter, and each posterior-superior iliac spine. Sagittal radiographic parameters were C2 pelvic angle (CPA), T1 pelvic angle (TPA), and pelvic tilt. Coronal radiographic parameters were pelvic obliquity and T1 coronal tilt. Linear regressions were performed to evaluate the relationship between radiographic parameters and their photographic "equivalents." The data were reanalyzed after stratifying the cohort into low-body mass index (BMI) (< 30) and high-BMI (≥ 30) groups. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was assessed for clinical measures via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were enrolled (mean age 61 years, mean BMI 27.4 kg/m2, 63% female). All regression models were significant, but sagittal parameters were more closely correlated to photographic parameters than coronal measurements. TPA and CPA had the strongest associations with their photographic equivalents (both r2 = 0.59, p < 0.001). Radiographic and clinical parameters tended to be more strongly correlated in the low-BMI group. Clinical measures of TPA and CPA had high intraobserver reliability (all ICC > 0.99, p < 0.001) and interobserver reliability (both ICC > 0.99, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The photographic measures of spinal deformity developed in this study were highly correlated with their radiographic counterparts and had high inter- and intraobserver reliability. Clinical photography can not only reduce radiation exposure in patients with adult spinal deformity, but also be used to assess deformity when full-spine radiographs are unavailable.

Age and Gender Confound PROMIS Scores in Spine Patients With Back and Neck Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center retrospective review. OBJECTIVES: To explore how age and gender affect PROMIS scores compared with traditional health-related quality of life (HRQL) in spine patients. METHODS: Patients presenting with a primary complaint of back pain (BP) or neck pain (NP) were included. Legacy HRQLs were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Intensity (Int), and Pain Interference (Inf) were also administered to patients in a clinical setting. Patients were grouped by chief complaint, age (18-44, 45-64, 65+ years) and gender. Two parallel analyses were conducted to identify the effects of age and gender on patient-reported outcomes. Age groups were compared after propensity-score matching by VAS-pain and gender. Separately, genders were compared after propensity-score matching by age and VAS-pain. RESULTS: A total of 484 BP and 128 NP patients were matched into gender cohorts (n = 201 in each BP group, 46 in each NP group). Among BP patients, female patients demonstrated worse disability by ODI (44.15 vs 38.45, P = .005); PROMIS-PF did not differ by gender. Among NP patients, neither legacy HRQLs nor PROMIS differed by gender when controlling for NP and age. BP and NP patients were matched into age cohorts (n = 135 in each BP group and n = 14 in each BP group). Among BP patients, ANOVA revealed differences between groups when controlling for BP and gender: ODI (P < .001), PROMIS-PF (P = .018), PROMIS-Int (P < .001) PROMIS-Inf (P < .001). Among NP patients, matched age groups differed significantly in terms of NDI (P = .032) and PROMIS-PF (P = .022) but not PROMIS-Int or PROMIS-Inf. CONCLUSIONS: Age and gender confound traditional HRQLs as well as PROMIS domains. However, PROMIS offers age and gender-specific scores, which traditional HRQLs lack.

Biologics and Minimally Invasive Approach to TLIFs: What Is the Risk of Radiculitis?

BACKGROUND: Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and allograft containing mesenchymal stem cells (live cell) are popular biologic substitutes for iliac crest autograft used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Use of these agents in the pathogenesis of postoperative radiculitis remains controversial. Recent studies have independently linked minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF with increased radiculitis risk compared to open TLIF. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of postoperative radiculitis in open and MIS TLIF patients along with its relationship to concurrent biologic adjuvant use. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years undergoing single-level TLIF from June 2012 to December 2018 with minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were rate of radiculitis, intra- and postoperative complications, revision surgery; length of stay (LOS), and estimated blood loss (EBL). RESULTS: There were 397 patients: 223 with open TLIFs, 174 with MIS TLIFs. One hundred and fifty-nine surgeries used bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), 26 live cell, 212 neither. Open TLIF: higher mean EBL, LOS, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) than MIS. Postoperative radiculitis in 37 patients (9.32% overall): 16 cases MIS BMP (15.69% of their cohort), 6 MIS without BMP (8.33%), 5 open BMP (8.77%), 10 open without BMP (6.02%). MIS TLIF versus open TLIF: no differences in 1-year reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. BMP versus non-BMP: no differences in reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. Multivariate logistic regression found that neither BMP (P = .109) nor MIS (P = .314) was an independent predictor for postoperative radiculitis when controlled for age, gender, body mass index, and CCI. Using paired open and MIS groups (N = 168 each) with propensity score matching, these variables were still not independently associated with radiculitis (P = .174 BMP, P = .398 MIS). However, the combination of MIS with BMP was associated with increased radiculitis risk in both the entire patient cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 2.259 [1.117-4.569], P = .023, N = 397) and PSM cohorts (OR: 2.196 [1.045-4.616], P = .038, N = 336) compared to other combinations of surgical approach and biologic use. CONCLUSION: Neither the MIS approach nor BMP use is an independent risk factor for post-TLIF radiculitis. However, risk of radiculitis significantly increases when they are used in tandem. This should be considered when selecting biological adjuvants for MIS TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Complication Risk in Primary and Revision Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparable Alternative to Conventional Open Techniques?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of prospective patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar fusion at a single academic institution. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in perioperative outcomes between primary and revision MIS (minimally invasive surgical) lumbar interbody fusion patients and compare with those undergoing corresponding open procedures. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old undergoing lumbar interbody fusion were grouped by surgical technique: MIS or open. Patients within each group were propensity score matched for comorbidities and levels fused. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and perioperative complication incidences were compared between primary and revision cases using means comparison tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 214 lumbar interbody fusion patients included after propensity score matching, 44 (21%) cases were MIS, and 170 (79%) were open. For MIS patients, there were no significant differences between primary and revision cases in estimated blood loss (EBL; 344 vs 299 cm3, P = .682); however, primary cases had longer operative times (301 vs 246 minutes, P = .029). There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, readmission, and intraoperative or postoperative complications (all P > .05). For open patients, there were no differences between primary and revision cases in EBL (P > .05), although revisions had longer operative times (331 vs 278 minutes, P = .018) and more postoperative complications (61.7% vs 23.8%, P < .001). MIS revision procedures were shorter than open revisions (182 vs 213 minutes, P = .197) with significantly less EBL (294 vs 965 cm3, P < .001), shorter inpatient and intensive care unit LOS, and fewer postoperative complications (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes of revision MIS lumbar interbody fusion were similar to those of primary surgery. Additionally, MIS techniques were associated with less EBL, shorter LOS, and fewer perioperative complications than corresponding open revisions.