Preoperative and Postoperative Segmental and Overall Range of Motion in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spinal Fusion Using HA-Infused PEEK and HA-Treated Titanium Alloy Interbody Cages.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational radiographic analysis. OBJECTIVE: Determine how single level lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) alters segmental range of motion (ROM) at adjacent levels and decreases overall ROM. METHODS: This study included 54 patients who underwent single-level anterior (ALIF, 39%), thoraco-LIF (TLIF, 26%), posterior LIF (PLIF, 22%), or lateral LIF (LLIF, 13%) (L2-3/L3-4/L4-5/L5-S1: 4%/13%/35%/48%). Segmental ROM from L1-2 to L5-S1 and the overall lumbar ROM (L1-S1) were assessed from preoperative and postoperative flexion-extension radiographs. K-means cluster analysis was used to identify ROM subgroups. RESULTS: The overall L1-S1 ROM decreased 14% (25.5 ± 20.4° to 22.0 ± 17.2°, P = .104) postoperatively. ROM at the fusion level decreased 77% (4.8 ± 5.0° to 1.1 ± 1.1°, P < .001). Caudal adjacent segment ROM decreased 12% (5.2 ± 5.7° to 4.6 ± 4.4°, P = .345) and cranially ROM increased 34% (4.3 ± 5.0° to 5.7 ± 5.7°, P = .05). K-cluster analysis identified 3 distinct clusters (P < .05). Cluster 1 lost more ROM and had less improvement in patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) than average. Cluster 2 had less ROM loss than average with worse PROMs improvement. Cluster 3 did not have changes in ROM and better improvement in PROMs than average. Successful fusion was verified in 96% of all instrumented segments with >6 months follow-up (ROM <4°). CONCLUSION: Following single-level L IF, patients should expect a loss of 3.3°, or 14% of overall lumbar motion with increases in ROM of the cranial segment. However, specific clusters of patients exist that experience different relative changes in ROM and PROMs.

Preoperative cross-sectional area of psoas muscle correlates with short-term functional outcomes after posterior lumbar surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal level for the measurement of psoas cross-sectional area and examine the correlation with short-term functional outcomes of posterior lumbar surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive posterior lumbar surgery were included in this study. The cross-sectional area of psoas muscle was measured at each intervertebral level on T2-weighted axial images of preoperative MRI. Normalized total psoas area (NTPA) (mm2/m2) was calculated as total psoas area normalized to patient height. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the analysis of inter-rater reliability. Patient reported outcome measures including Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), short form health survey (SF-12) and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system were collected. A multivariate analysis was performed to elucidate independent predictors associated with failure to reach minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in each functional outcome at 6 months. RESULTS: The total of 212 patients were included in this study. ICC was highest at L3/4 [0.992 (95% CI: 0.987-0.994)] compared to the other levels [L1/2 0.983 (0.973-0.989), L2/3 0.991 (0.986-0.994), L4/5 0.928 (0.893-0.952)]. Postoperative PROMs were significantly worse in patients with low NTPA. Low NTPA was an independent predictor of failure to reach MCID in ODI (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.26-5.67; p = 0.010) and VAS leg (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.13-5.20; p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Decreased psoas cross-sectional area on preoperative MRI correlated with functional outcomes after posterior lumbar surgery. NTPA was highly reliable, especially at L3/4.

The Role of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Modalities in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

Background: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) is frequently used during spine surgery to mitigate the risk of neurological injuries. Yet, its role in anterior cervical spine surgery remains controversial. Without consensus on which anterior cervical spine surgeries would benefit the most from IONM, there is a lack of standardized guidelines for its use in such procedures. Purpose: We sought to assess the alerts generated by each IONM modality for 4 commonly performed anterior cervical spinal surgeries: anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF), cervical disk replacement (CDR), or anterior diskectomy. In doing so, we sought to determine which IONM modalities (electromyography [EMG], motor evoked potentials [MEP], and somatosensory evoked potentials [SSEP]) are associated with alert status when accounting for procedure characteristics (number of levels, operative level). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of IONM data collected by Accurate Neuromonitoring, LLC, a company that supports spine surgeries conducted by 400 surgeons in 8 states, in an internally managed database from December 2009 to September 2018. The database was queried for patients who underwent ACCF, ACDF, anterior CDR, or anterior diskectomy in which at least 1 IONM modality was used. The IONM modalities and incidence of alerts were collected for each procedure. The search identified 8854 patients (average age, 50.6 years) who underwent ACCF (n = 209), ACDF (n = 8006), CDR (n = 423), and anterior diskectomy (n = 216) with at least 1 IONM modality. Results: Electromyography was used in 81.3% (n = 7203) of cases, MEP in 64.8% (n = 5735) of cases, and SSEP in 99.9% (n = 8844) of cases. Alerts were seen in 9.3% (n = 671), 0.5% (n = 30), and 2.7% (n = 241) of cases using EMG, MEP and SSEP, respectively. In ACDF, a significant difference was seen in EMG alerts based on the number of spinal levels involved, with 1-level ACDF (6.9%, n = 202) having a lower rate of alerts than 2-level (10.0%, n = 272), 3-level (15.2%, n = 104), and 4-level (23.4%, n = 15). Likewise, 2-level ACDF had a lower rate of alerts than 3-level and 4-level ACDF. A significant difference by operative level was noted in EMG use for single-level ACDF, with C2-C3 having a lower rate of use than other levels. Conclusions: This retrospective review of anterior cervical spinal surgeries performed with at least 1 IONM modality found that SSEP had the highest rate of use across procedure types, whereas MEP had the highest rate of nonuse. Future studies should focus on determining the most useful IONM modalities by procedure type and further explore the benefit of multimodal IONM in spine surgery.

Cervical Steroid Injections Are Not Effective for Prevention of Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine how often patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and initially treated with cervical steroid injections (CSI) and to determine whether these injections provide any benefit in delaying ultimate surgical treatment. METHODS: All patients with a new diagnosis of DCM, without previous cervical spine surgery or steroid injections, were identified in PearlDiver, a large insurance database. Steroid injection and surgery timing was identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Multivariate logistic regression identified associations with surgical treatment. RESULTS: A total of 686 patients with DCM were identified. Pre-surgical cervical spine steroid injections were utilized in 244 patients (35.6%). All patients underwent eventual surgical treatment. Median time from initial DCM diagnosis to surgery was 75.5 days (mean 351.6 days; standard deviation 544.9 days). Cervical steroid injections were associated with higher odds of surgery within 1 year (compared to patients without injections, OR = 1.44, P < .001) and at each examined time point through 5 years (OR = 2.01, P < .001). In multivariate analysis comparing injection types, none of the 3 injection types were associated with decreased odds of surgery within 1 month of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: While cervical steroid injections continue to be commonly performed in patients with DCM, there is an overall increased odds of surgery after any type of cervical injection. Therefore injections should not be used to prevent surgical management of DCM.

Current treatment and decision-making factors leading to fusion vs decompression for one-level degenerative spondylolisthesis: survey results from members of the Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is one of the most common pathologies spine surgeons treat. While a number of potential factors have been identified, there is no current consensus on which variables most impact the decision to fuse vs. decompress alone in this population. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe current DS treatment practices and identify both the radiographic and clinical factors leading to the decision to fuse segments for one level DS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Descriptive cross-sectional survey. PATIENT SAMPLE: Surveys were administered to members of Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgeon demographics and treatment practices were reported. Radiographic and clinical parameters were ranked by each surgeon with regards to their importance. METHODS: The primary analysis was limited to completed surveys. Baseline characteristics were summarized. Clinical and radiographic parameters were ranked and compared. Ranking of each clinical and radiographic parameters was reported using best and worst rank, mean rank position, and percentiles. The most important, top 3 most important, and top 5 most important parameters were ordered given each parameter's ranking frequency. RESULTS: 381 surveys were returned completed. With regards to fusion vs. decompression, 19.9% fuse all cases, 39.1% fuse > 75%, 17.8% fuse 50%-75%, and 23.2% fuse <25%. The most common decompressive technique was a partial laminotomy (51.4%), followed by full laminectomy (28.9%). 82.2% of respondents instrument all fusion cases. Instability (93.2%), spondylolisthesis grade (59.8%), and laterolisthesis (37.3%) were the most common radiographic factors impacting the decision to fuse. With regards to the clinical factors leading to fusion, mechanical low back pain (83.2%), activity level (58.3%), and neurogenic claudication (42.8%) were the top 3 clinical parameters. CONCLUSIONS: There is little consensus on the treatment of DS, with society members showing substantial variation in treatment patterns with the majority utilizing fusion for treatment. The most common radiographic parameters impacting treatment are instability, spondylolisthesis grade, and laterolisthesis while mechanical low back pain, activity level, and neurogenic claudication are the most common clinical parameters.

Reoperations after primary and revision lumbar discectomy: study of a national-level cohort with eight years follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Published rates for disc reherniation following primary discectomy are around 6%, but the ultimate reoperation outcomes in patients after receiving revision discectomy are not well understood. Additionally, any disparity in the outcomes of subsequent revision discectomy (SRD) versus subsequent lumbar fusion (SLF) following primary/revision discectomy remains poorly studied. PURPOSE: To determine the 8-year SRD/SLF rates and time until SRD/SLF after primary/revision discectomy respectively. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary or revision discectomy, with records in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database from the years 2010 to 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subsequent surgery type and time to subsequent surgery. METHODS: Patients were grouped into primary or revision discectomy cohorts based off of the nature of "index" procedure (primary or revision discectomy) using ICD9/10 and CPT procedure codes from 2010 to 19 insurance data sets in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database. Preoperative demographic data was collected. Outcome measures such as subsequent surgery type (fusion or discectomy) and time to subsequent surgery were collected prospectively in PearlDiver Mariner database. Statistical analysis was performed using BellWeather statistical software. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of time to SLF/SRD was performed on each cohort, and log-rank test was used to compare the rates of SLF/SRD between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 20,147 patients were identified (17,849 primary discectomy, 2,298 revision discectomy). The 8-year rates of SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01) and SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) were higher after revision versus primary discectomy. Time to SLF was shorter after revision versus primary discectomy (709 vs. 886 days, p<.01). After both primary and revision discectomy, the 8-year rate of SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) is greater than SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to primary discectomy, revision discectomy has higher rates of SLF (10.4% vs. 6.2%), and faster time to SLF (2.4 vs. 1.9 years) at 8-year follow up.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Replacement in Patients With Significant Cervical Spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with significant cervical spondylosis treated with cervical disc replacement (CDR) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As CDR utilization has increased over the past decade, recent studies have investigated the outcomes of CDR in patients with more significant spondylotic changes and demonstrated improved postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). However, no prior study has investigated clinical outcomes of patients with significant spondylotic changes treated with CDR in comparison to ACDF. METHODS: Patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level CDR or ACDF with significant cervical spondylosis, quantified using a validated grading scale, were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. The following PROs were analyzed: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale-Neck, visual analog scale-Arm, and PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) Computer Adaptive Test Score. Demographic, operative, and radiographic variables, and achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for each PRO were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were included in the present study, of which 35 (53%) were treated with CDR and 31 (47%) with ACDF. The preoperative cervical spondylotic grade was similar between the 2 groups (1.8 vs. 2.2, P=0.27). At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the absolute value for each PRO between the 2 groups (P>0.19) and both groups demonstrated significant improvement in each PRO compared with preoperative values (P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO when comparing CDR to ACDF (P>0.09). CONCLUSIONS: A similar percentage of patients with significant degenerative cervical spondylosis achieved the MCID across multiple PROs when treated with CDR or ACDF. Patients in both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in all PROs assessed when compared with preoperative values. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

The Impact of Prior Bariatric Surgery on Outcomes After Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing bariatric surgery (BS) prior to spine surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines comparing the outcomes of spine surgery between subjects with prior bariatric surgery to those who were considered obese with no prior bariatric surgery. RESULTS: A total of 183, 570 patients were included in the 4 studies meeting inclusion criteria. The mean patient age was 52.9 years, and the majority were female (68%). The two groups consisted of a total of 36, 876 patients with prior BS and 146, 694 obese patients without prior BS. The overall rate of complications in the prior BS group was 6.4% (4.5%-38.7%) compared to 11.9% (11.2%-55.4%) in the non-prior BS obese group with a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The prior BS group had lower rates of renal, neurological, and thromboembolic complications, with a lower mortality and readmission rate. In a subgroup undergoing cervical spine surgery, patients with prior BS had fewer cardiac, GI, and total complications. For patients undergoing thoracolumbar spine surgery, patients with prior BS had fewer thromboembolic and total complications. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing bariatric surgery prior to spine surgery had fewer renal, neurological, and thromboembolic complications as well as a decreased mortality and readmission rate.

Preoperative opioids before adult spinal deformity surgery associated with increased reoperations and high rates of chronic postoperative opioid use at 3-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To determine the association of preoperative opioid prescriptions with reoperations and postoperative opioid prescriptions after adult spina deformity (ASD) surgery. With the current opioid crisis, patients undergoing surgery for ASD are at particular risk for opioid-related complications due to significant preoperative disability and surgical morbidity. No previous studies consider preoperative opioids in this population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion (7 or more levels) for ASD was performed. All patients had at least 3 years of postoperative follow-up 3 years postoperatively. Prescriptions for 4 different opioid medications (hydromorphone, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and tramadol) were identified within 3 months preoperatively and up to 3 years postoperatively. Multivariate regression was utilized to determine the association of preoperative use with reoperations and with postoperative opioid use, controlling for both patient and surgery-related confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 743 patients were identified and 59.6% (443) had opioid prescriptions within 3 months preoperatively. Postoperative opioid prescriptions were identified in 66.9% of patients at 12 months postoperatively, and in 54.8% at 36 months postoperatively. The 3-year reoperation rate was 11.0% in patients without preoperative prescriptions, 16.0% in patients with preoperative any opioid prescriptions (P = 0.07), and 34.8% in patients with preoperative hydromorphone prescriptions (P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, preoperative opioid prescriptions were associated with increased reoperations (odds ratio [OR]: 1.62, P = 0.04), and chronic postoperative opioid use (OR: 4.40, P < 0.01). Preoperative hydromorphone prescriptions had the strongest association with both reoperations (OR: 4.96; P < 0.01) and chronic use (OR: 5.19: P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In the ASD population, preoperative opioids are associated with both reoperations and chronic opioid use, with hydromorphone having the strongest association. Further investigation of the benefits of preoperative weaning programs is warranted.

Indirect Lumbar Decompression Combined With or Without Additional Direct Posterior Decompression: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: Indirect decompression via lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) can ameliorate central and foraminal lumbar stenosis. In severe central stenosis, additional posterior direct decompression is utilized. The aim of this review is to synthesize existing literature on these 2 techniques and identify significant differences in outcomes between isolated indirect decompression via LLIF and combined indirect decompression supplemented with direct posterior decompression. METHODS: A database search algorithm was utilized to query MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE to identify literature reporting adult decompression study groups that involved an oblique or lateral fusion approach through September 2020. Improvement in outcomes measures and complication rates were pooled and tested for significance. RESULTS: A total of 110 publications were assessed with 15 studies meeting inclusion criteria, including 557 patients and 1008 levels. Mean age was 63.1 years with BMI of 27.5 kg/m2. For the combined indirect and direct decompression cohort, lumbar lordosis (LL) increased 133.9%, from 22.8o to 48.7o, while the indirect decompression cohort LL increased 8.9%, from 41.9o to 45.5o. Difference in LL improvement between cohorts was insignificant (P > .05). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) decreased from 36.5 to 19.4 in the combined indirect and direct decompression cohort, and from 44.4 to 23.1 in the indirect decompression cohort. ODI reduction was insignificant (P = .053). CONCLUSIONS: Prior studies of both indirect decompression as well as combined indirect and direct decompression of lumbar spine stenosis are limited by small samples, heterogeneous populations, and lack of direct comparisons. Both procedures result in improved function and pain postoperatively with direct decompression restoring more lordosis in patients with worse preoperative alignment.

Inferior Articular Process Fracture in a Collegiate Athlete Causing Back Pain: A Case Report of Surgical Treatment.

CASE: A 20-year-old male athlete presented with 8 months of low back pain. Conservative management had been unsuccessful. He noted lumbar spine pain with extension, and imaging showed features of an L4-5 inferior articular facet tip fracture. The fragment was excised, he returned to college lacrosse and is without symptoms at the 9-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: In similar cases with facet fragments, we would recommend a full workup and attempt nonoperative therapy. If not improved and a diagnostic injection provides near-complete relief, then resection of the facet fragment can be discussed as a potentially effective and conservative surgical option.

Early Failures After Lumbar Discectomy Surgery: An Analysis of 62 690 Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of early failures (readmission or reoperation for new or recurrent pain/neurological symptoms) within 30 days after lumbar discectomy and identify associated risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients undergoing lumbar discectomy in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database between 2013 and 2017. Rates of readmission for new or recurrent symptoms or reoperation for revision discectomy or fusion within 30 days postoperatively were measured and correlated with risk factors. RESULTS: In total 62 690 patients were identified; overall rate of readmission within 30 days was 3.3%, including 1.2% for pain or neurological symptoms. Populations at increased risk of readmission were those with 3 or more levels of treatment (2.0%, odds ratio [OR] 2.8%, P < .01), age >70 years (1.8%, OR 1.6, P < .01), class 3 obesity (1.5%, OR 1.4, P = .04), and female gender (1.4%, OR 1.2, P = .02). The overall rate of reoperation within 30 days was 2.2%, including 1.2% for revision decompression or lumbar fusion surgery. Populations at increased risk of reoperation were revision discectomies (1.4%, OR 1.7, P < .01) and females (1.1%, OR 1.4, P < 0.01). Extraforaminal discectomies were associated with lower rates of readmission (0.7%, OR 0.6, P = 0.02) and reoperation (0.4%, OR 0.4, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Early failures after lumbar discectomy surgery are rare. However, certain subpopulations are associated with increased rates of early failure: obesity, multilevel surgery, females, and revision discectomies.

Use of Higher-strength Opioids has a Dose-Dependent Association With Reoperations After Lumbar Decompression and Interbody Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify an association between preoperative opioid use and reoperations rates. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Chronic opioid use is a public health crisis in the United States and has been linked to worse outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. However, no studies have identified an association between preoperative opioid use and reoperations rates. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using patients from one private insurance database who underwent primary lumbar decompression/discectomy (LDD) or posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF). Preoperative use of five specific opioid medications (tramadol, hydromorphone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and extended-release oxycodone) was categorized as acute (within 3 months), subacute (acute use and use between 3 and 6 months), or chronic (subacute use and use before 6 months). Multivariate regression, controlling for multilevel surgery, age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, was used to determine the association of each medication on reoperations within 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 11,551 patients undergoing LDD and 3291 patients undergoing PLIF/TLIF without previous lumbar spine surgery were identified. In the LDD group, opioid-naïve patients had a 5-year reoperation rate of 2.8%, compared with 25.0% and 8.0 with chronic preoperative use of hydromorphone and oxycodone, respectively. In multivariate analysis, any preoperative use of oxycodone was associated with increased reoperations (odds ratios [OR] = 1.4, 2.0, and 2.3, for acute, subacute, and chronic use; P < 0.01). Chronic use of hydromorphone was also associated with increased reoperations (OR = 7.5, P < 0.01).In the PLIF/TLIF group, opioid-naïve patients had a 5-year reoperation rate of 11.3%, compared with 66.7% and 16.8% with chronic preoperative use of hydromorphone and oxycodone, respectively. In multivariate analysis, any preoperative use of hydromorphone was associated with increased reoperations (OR = 2.9, 4.0, and 14.0, for acute, subacute, and chronic use; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Preoperative use of the higher-potency opioid medications is associated with increased reoperations after LDD and PLIF/TLIF in a dose-dependent manner. Surgeons should use this data for preoperative opioid cessation counseling and individualized risk stratification.Level of Evidence: 3.

A Novel Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Lumbar Muscle Grade to Predict Health-related Quality of Life Scores Among Patients Requiring Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional cohort. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this sudy was to determine whether muscle health measurements are associated with health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs) for patients with lumbar spine pathology. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Poor muscle health has been implicated as a source of pain/dysfunction for patients with lumbar spine pathology. Our aim was to quantify the relationship using muscle health measurements and HRQOLs. METHODS: Three hundred and eight patients were included (mean age 57.7 ±â€Šstandard deviation 18.2 years' old). We randomly selected patients into a derivation cohort (200) and validation cohort (108) to create our muscle health grade. We measured muscle health by the lumbar indentation value (LIV), goutallier classification (GC), and ratio of paralumbar muscle cross-sectional area over body mass index (PL-CSA/BMI). A muscle health grade was derived based on whether a measurement showed a statistically significant impact on visual analog scale back and leg pain (VAS-leg and VAS-leg), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), short-form 12 physical health score (SF-12 PHS), short-form 12 mental health score (SF-12 MHS) and Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). A variety of statistical tools were used to determine whether there was a relationship between a measurement and HRQOLs. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, a muscle health grade was created based on the GC and PL-CSA/BMI ratio. For patients with a GC ≤2, one point was given. For patients with a PL-CSA/BMI ≥130, one point was given. Patients with 2 points were graded as "A" and 0 or 1 point were graded "B." Within the validation cohort of patients, there was a statistically significant higher PROMIS (mean 34.5 ±â€Šstandard deviation 12.6 vs. 27.6 ±â€Š14.0, P = 0.002), ODI (38.8 ±â€Š18.3 vs. 45.8 ±â€Š18.1, P = 0.05) and SF-12 PHS (34.7 ±â€Š11.3 vs. 29.1 ±â€Š6.3, P = 0.002) for patients with a good muscle health grade of "A." CONCLUSION: This study offers an objective measurement of muscle health that correlates with HRQOLs for patients with lumbar spine pathology.Level of Evidence: 3.

Impact of Nonlordotic Sagittal Alignment on Short-term Outcomes of Cervical Disc Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of cervical disc replacement (CDR) in patients with nonlordotic alignment. METHODS: Patients who underwent CDR were retrospectively reviewed and divided into 3 cohorts: (1) neutral/lordotic segmental and C2-7 Cobb angle (L), (2) nonlordotic segmental Cobb angle, lordotic C2-7 Cobb angle (NL-S), and (3) nonlordotic segmental and C2-7 Cobb angle (NL-SC). Radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared. RESULTS: One-hundred five patients were included (L: 37, NL-S: 30, NL-SC: 38). A significant gain in segmental lordosis was seen in all cohorts at < 6 months (L: -1.90° [p = 0.007]; NL-S: -5.16° [p < 0.0001]; NL-SC: -6.00° [p < 0.0001]) and ≥ 6 months (L: -2.07° [p = 0.031; NL-S: -6.04° [p < 0.0001]; NL-SC: -6.74° [p < 0.0001]), with greater lordosis generated in preoperatively nonlordotic cohorts (p < 0.0001). C2-7 lordosis improved in the preoperatively nonlordotic cohort (NL-SC: 8.04°) at follow-up of < 6 months (-4.15°, p = 0.003) and ≥ 6 months (-6.40°, p = 0.003), but not enough to create lordotic alignment (< 6 months: 3.89°; ≥ 6 months: 4.06°). All cohorts showed improvement in Neck Disability Index, visual analogue scale (VAS) neck, and VAS arm, without significant difference among groups in the amount of improvement ( ≥ 6-month PROMs follow-up = 69%). CONCLUSION: In patients without major kyphotic deformity, CDR has the potential to generate and maintain lordosis and improve PROMs in the short-term, and can be an effective treatment option for patients with nonlordotic alignment.

Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion?

OBJECTIVE: In an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1-2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°-8°, 10°-12°, and 15°-20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°-8° cages, 1.6° with 10°-12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°-20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs -0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1-2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.

How do high preoperative pain scores impact the clinical course and outcomes for patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy?

OBJECTIVE: Preoperative pain assessment is often used to gauge the amount of disability in patients with lumbar disc herniation. How high preoperative pain scores impact the clinical course and outcomes of patients after lumbar microdiscectomy is not always clear. Here, the authors aimed to determine whether patients reporting higher preoperative pain scores have worse outcomes after lumbar microdiscectomy than those reporting lower preoperative scores. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of patients with symptomatic lumbar disc herniations that had failed to improve with nonsurgical methods and who had undergone tubular lumbar microdiscectomy. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores had been collected in the preoperative and postoperative period. The anatomical severity of disease was graded based on lumbar disc health (Pfirrmann classification), facet degeneration, thecal sac cross-sectional area, and disc herniation grade. Data on each patient's narcotic consumption and length of stay were collected. A Student t-test and chi-square test were used to compare patients with high preoperative pain scores (HP cohort) and those with lower preoperative scores (non-HP cohort). RESULTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients were included in this analysis. The 47 patients in the HP cohort had taken more preoperative opioids (12.0 ± 21.2 vs 3.6 ± 11.1 morphine equivalent doses, p = 0.01). However, there was no statistically significant difference in Pfirrmann classification (p > 0.15), facet grade (p > 0.11), thecal sac cross-sectional area (p = 0.45), or disc herniation grade (p = 0.39) between the HP and non-HP cohorts. The latter cohort had statistically significant higher preoperative PROMIS scores (36.5 ± 7.0 vs 29.9 ± 6.4, p < 0.001), SF-12 mental component summary scores (48.7 ± 11.5 vs 38.9 ± 16.1, p < 0.001), and SF-12 physical component summary scores (PCS; 32.4 ± 8.6 vs 27.5 ± 10.0, p = 0.005), but a lower Oswestry Disability Index (56.4 ± 22.1 vs 35.4 ± 15.5, p < 0.001). There were only two time points after microdiscectomy when the HP cohort had worse HRQOL scores: at the 2-week follow-up for SF-12 PCS scores (32.4 ± 8.6 vs 29.3 ± 7.1, p = 0.03) and the 12-week follow-up for PROMIS scores (45.2 ± 9.5 vs 39.5 ± 7.1, p = 0.01). All other postoperative HRQOL measurements were similar between the two cohorts (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A patient's perceived severity of disease often does not correlate with the actual clinical pathology on imaging. Although patients who report high pain and have a symptomatic lumbar disc herniation may describe their pain as more extreme, they should be counseled that the outcomes of microdiscectomy are positive.

Psychometric Evaluation of Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Computer Adaptive Testing in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Analysis of Responsiveness, Coverage, Discriminant Validity, and Concurrent Validity.

INTRODUCTION: Although the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is increasingly being used, there are few studies assessing the psychometric properties of PROMIS in minimally invasive spine (MIS) surgery. Thus, the purpose of this study was to perform a psychometric evaluation of PROMIS Physical Function Computer Adaptive Testing (PROMIS-PF CAT) in MIS lumbar surgery. METHODS: The patient-reported outcome measures collected preoperatively and postoperatively of patients undergoing MIS lumbar surgery were retrospectively analyzed to assess responsiveness, coverage, discriminant validity, and concurrent validity of PROMIS-PF CAT. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-one patients were included. The responsiveness of PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) was lower than that of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in the decompression subgroup. Although the ODI had a ceiling effect of 16.7% at 1 year, the Short-Form 12 physical health score and PROMIS-PF did not show floor or ceiling effects. PROMIS-PF demonstrated discriminant validity preoperatively and postoperatively and convergent validity with the ODI, as evidenced by a significant strong negative correlation but not with the Short-Form 12 Physical Health Score, as evidenced by the variability in strength of correlation. CONCLUSIONS: Although the PROMIS-PF showed lower responsiveness than the ODI, particularly in the decompression subgroup, it demonstrated discriminant validity preoperatively and postoperatively, convergent validity with ODI, and better coverage than ODI. These findings suggest that the PROMIS-PF CAT demonstrates reasonable psychometric properties and may be a good surrogate for the ODI.