The Combined Influence of Sleep Disturbance and Depression on 12-month Outcomes after Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To examine the combined influence of preoperative sleep disturbance and depression on 12-month patient-reported outcomes after lumbar spine surgery (LSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Psychological and behavioral factors are considered major risk factors of poor outcome after LSS. However, there is a need to explore the combined effects of preoperative factors such as sleep disturbance and depression. Understanding the influence of sleep disturbance and depression can inform evidence-based preoperative assessment and shared-decision making of preoperative and postoperative treatment. METHODS: Data from 700 patients undergoing LSS were analyzed. Preoperative sleep disturbance and depression were assessed with PROMIS subscales. Established thresholds defined patients with moderate/severe symptoms. Outcomes for disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and back and leg pain (Numeric Rating Scales) were assessed preoperatively and at 12 months. Separate multivariable linear regressions examined the influence of each factor on 12-month outcomes with and without accounting for the other, and in combination as a 4-level variable: 1) moderate/severe sleep disturbance alone, 2) moderate/severe depression alone, 3) both moderate/severe sleep disturbance and depression, 4) no moderate/severe sleep disturbance or depression. RESULTS: Preoperative sleep disturbance and depression were associated with 12-month disability and pain (P<0.05). After accounting for depression, preoperative sleep disturbance remained associated with disability, while preoperative depression adjusting for sleep disturbance remained associated with all outcomes (P<0.05). Patients reporting both moderate/severe sleep disturbance and moderate/severe depression had 12.6 points higher disability and 1.5 points higher back and leg pain compared to patients without moderate/severe sleep disturbance or depression. CONCLUSION: The combination of sleep disturbance and depression impacts postoperative outcomes considerably. The high-risk group of patients with moderate/severe sleep disturbance and depression could benefit from targeted treatment strategies.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy With Fusion in Patients With Cervical Spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate preoperative differences in racial and socioeconomic factors in patients undergoing laminoplasty (LP) versus laminectomy and fusion (LF) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DCM is prevalent in the United States, requiring surgical intervention to prevent neurological degeneration. While LF is utilized more frequently, LP is an emerging alternative. Previous studies have demonstrated similar neurological outcomes for both procedures. However, treatment selection is primarily at the discretion of the surgeon and may be influenced by social determinants of health that impact surgical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Quality Outcome Database (QOD), a national spine registry, was queried for adult patients who underwent either LP or LF for the management of DCM. Covariates associated with socioeconomic status, pain and disability, and demographic and medical history were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess patient factors associated with undergoing LP versus LF. RESULTS: Of 1673 DCM patients, 157 (9.4%) underwent LP and 1516 (90.6%) underwent LF. A significantly greater proportion of LP patients had private insurance (P<0.001), a greater than high school level education (P<0.001), were employed (P<0.001), and underwent primary surgery (P<0.001). LP patients reported significantly lower baseline neck/arm pain and Neck Disability Index (P<0.001). In the multivariate regression model, lower baseline neck pain [odds ratio (OR)=0.915, P=0.001], identifying as non-Caucasian (OR=2.082, P<0.032), being employed (OR=1.592, P=0.023), and having a greater than high school level education (OR=1.845, P<0.001) were associated with undergoing LP rather than LF. CONCLUSIONS: In DCM patients undergoing surgery, factors associated with patients undergoing LP versus LF included lower baseline neck pain, non-Caucasian race, higher education, and employment. While symptomatology may influence the decision to choose LP over LF, there may also be socioeconomic factors at play. The trend of more educated and employed patients undergoing LP warrants further investigation.

Earlier Radiation Is Associated with Improved 1-Year Survival After Metastatic Spine Tumor Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: In patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery, we sought to: 1) report time to postoperative radiation therapy (RT), 2) describe the predictive factors of time to postoperative RT, and 3) determine if earlier postoperative RT is associated with improved local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was undertaken of all patients undergoing spine surgery for extradural metastatic disease and receiving RT within 3-months postoperatively between 02/2010-01/2021. Time to postoperative RT was dichotomized at <1month vs. 1-3months. The primary outcomes were LR, OS, and 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes were wound complication, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and Modified McCormick Scale (MMS). Regression analyses controlled for age, BMI, tumor size, preoperative RT, preoperative/postoperative chemotherapy, and type of RT. RESULTS: Of 76 patients undergoing spinal metastasis surgery and receiving postoperative RT within 3-months, 34(44.7%) received RT within 1month and 42(55.2%) within 1-3months. Patients with larger tumor size (ß=-3.58,95%CI=-6.59,-0.57,p=0.021) or new neurological deficits (ß=-16.21,95%CI=-32.21,-0.210,p=0.047) had a shorter time to RT. No significant association was found between time to RT and LR or OS on multivariable logistic/Cox regression. However, patients who received RT between 1-3month had a lower odd of 1-year survival compared to those receiving RT within 1month (OR=0.18,95%CI=0.04-0.74,p=0.022). Receiving RT within 1month vs. 1-3month was not associated with wound complications (7.1% vs. 2.9%,p=0.556)(OR=4.40,95%CI=0.40-118.0,p=0.266) or KPS/MMS. CONCLUSIONS: Spine surgeons, oncologists, and radiation oncologists should make every effort to start RT within 1 month to improve 1-year survival after metastatic spine tumor surgery.

Do Iliac Screws Placed Close to the Sciatic Notch Have Greater Pullout Strength?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Optimal iliac screw position in relation to the sciatic notch remains unknown. In 12 cadavers undergoing S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screw placement, we tested the pullout strength of screws placed in proximity to the sciatic notch (≤5 mm) vs farther away from the sciatic notch (>5 mm). METHODS: A biomechanical, cadaver-based study was performed on 12 cadavers undergoing bilateral S2AI screw insertion. The position of the S2AI screw regarding the sciatic notch was dichotomized as ≤5 mm from the sciatic notch on the right side and >5 mm on the left side, confirmed using c-arm fluoroscopy. The primary outcome was the pullout strength of the screw (N). Secondary outcomes were stiffness (N/mm), yield force (N), and work to failure (N mm). Ischial tuberosity was embedded into polymethyl methacrylate and secured to a custom 3-axis vise grip mounted to a 14.5-kN load cell. Pullout testing was performed at 5 mm/min. Force and displacement data were collected at 100 Hz and evaluated using MATLAB. The Mann-Whitney test was performed. RESULTS: Of 24 S2AI screws, 3 screws could not be tested because of cement-bone interface failure. A positive though nonsignificant trend of screw pullout strength was found for screws close to the notch compared with those farther from the notch (861.8 ± 340.7 vs 778.7 ± 350.8 N, P = .859). Similarly, screws close to the notch demonstrated a higher trend of stiffness (149.4 ± 145.4 vs 111.34 ± 128.2 N/mm, P = .320) and force to yield (806.9 ± 352.0 vs 618.6 ± 342.9 N, P = .455). Conversely, screws farther from the notch had a higher but similarly nonsignificant area under the force-displacement curve (10 867.0 ± 9565.0 vs 14 196.6 ± 9578.3 N mm, P = .455), which might be due to excess sheer/translation force that could not be reliably quantified. CONCLUSION: Although placing S2AI screws ≤5 mm of the sciatic notch provided stronger fixation in 3 of 4 biomechanical testing categories, these results were not statistically significant. Therefore, placing S2AI screws ≤5 mm of the sciatic notch did not provide stronger fixation.

Who Can Be Discharged Home after Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery?

Introduction: After adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, patients often require postoperative rehabilitation at an inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) center or a skilled nursing facility (SNF). However, home discharge is often preferred by patients and hsas been shown to decrease costs. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we sought to (1) report the incidence of discharge to home, (2) determine the factors significantly associated with discharge to home in the form of a simple scoring system, and (3) evaluate the impact of discharge disposition on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was undertaken for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and at least 2-year follow-up. Exposure variables included preoperative, perioperative, and radiographic data. The primary outcome was discharge status (dichotomized as home vs. IPR/SNF). Secondary outcomes included PROMs, such as the numeric rating scales (NRSs) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. A subanalysis comparing IPR to SNF discharge was conducted. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: Of 221 patients undergoing ASD surgery with a mean age of 63.6 ± 17.6, 112 (50.6%) were discharged home, 71 (32.2%) were discharged to an IPR center, and 38 (17.2%) were discharged to an SNF. Patients discharged home were significantly younger (55.7 ± 20.1 vs. 71.8 ± 9.1, p < 0.001), had lower rate of 2+ comorbidities (38.4% vs. 45.0%, p = 0.001), and had less hypertension (57.1% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, patients who were discharged home had significantly fewer levels instrumented (10.0 ± 3.0 vs. 11.0 ± 3.4 levels, p = 0.030), shorter operative times (381.4 ± 139.9 vs. 461.6 ± 149.8 mins, p < 0.001), less blood loss (1101.0 ± 977.8 vs. 1739.7 ± 1332.9 mL, p < 0.001), and shorter length of stay (5.4 ± 2.8 vs. 9.3 ± 13.9 days, p < 0.001). Radiographically, preoperative SVA (9.1 ± 6.5 vs. 5.2 ± 6.8 cm, p < 0.001), PT (27.5 ± 11.1° vs. 23.4 ± 10.8°, p = 0.031), and T1PA (28.9 ± 12.7° vs. 21.6 ± 13.6°, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients who were discharged to an IPR center/SNF. Additionally, the operating surgeon also significantly influenced the disposition status (p < 0.001). A scoring system of the listed factors was proposed and was validated using univariate logistic regression (OR = 1.55, 95%CI = 1.34-1.78, p < 0.001) and ROC analysis, which revealed a cutoff value of > 6 points as a predictor of non-home discharge (AUC = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.68-0.80, p < 0.001, sensitivity = 63.3%, specificity = 74.1%). The factors in the scoring system were age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, TIL ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15°. When comparing IPR (n = 71) vs. SNF (n = 38), patients discharged to an SNF were significantly older (74.4 ± 8.6 vs. 70.4 ± 9.1, p = 0.029) and were more likely to be female (89.5% vs. 70.4%, p = 0.024). Conclusions: Approximately 50% of patients were discharged home after ASD surgery. A simple scoring system based on age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, total instrumented levels ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15° was proposed to predict non-home discharge. These findings may help guide postoperative expectations and resource allocation after ASD surgery.

Impact of occupational characteristics on return to work for employed patients after elective cervical spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In a cohort of employed patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery with an uncomplicated postoperative course, the authors sought to determine the demographic, functional, and occupational characteristics associated with return to work (RTW) following surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was undertaken of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the Quality Outcomes Database. Study inclusion criteria were: 1) employed prior to surgery and planned to RTW, 2) no unplanned readmissions, 3) achieved 30% improvement on the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and 4) were satisfied with the surgical outcome at 3 or 12 months postoperatively. A multivariable Cox regression model was built using demographic, functional, operative, and occupational characteristic to predict time to RTW. RESULTS: Of 5110 included patients, 4788 (93.7%) returned to work within 12 months, with a median time of 35 (IQR 19-60) days. Patients who did RTW were significantly younger (51.3 ± 9.4 vs 55.8 ± 9.6 years, p < 0.001), more often underwent an anterior approach (85.8% vs 80.7%, p = 0.009), were significantly more privately insured (82.1% vs 64.0%, p < 0.001), and were less likely to have workers' disability insurance (6.7% vs 14.6%, p < 0.001) compared with patients who did not RTW. On multivariable Cox regression, demographic factors associated with a longer RTW were older age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p < 0.001) and Black race (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.81, p < 0.001). Male sex was associated with a shorter RTW time (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.26, p < 0.001). Regarding baseline functional status, worse preoperative NDI (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, p < 0.001) was associated with a longer RTW, whereas the absence of myelopathy was associated with a shorter RTW (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25, p < 0.001). Having a sedentary (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.65-1.99, p < 0.001), light-intensity (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.45-1.76, p < 0.001), and medium-intensity (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, p = 0.037) occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation at any time point. Heavy-intensity occupations were independently the strongest predictor of longer RTW. Similar predictors of shorter RTW were found in a subanalysis of occupation intensity and among operative approaches used. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective degenerative cervical spine surgery who had favorable surgical outcomes and planned to RTW before surgery, 94% had a successful RTW. Age was the strongest predictor of lower odds of RTW. Regarding time to RTW, having a sedentary, light-intensity, or medium-intensity occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation. These findings highlight the importance of considering the demographic and occupational characteristics when predicting postoperative RTW in patients with satisfactory surgical outcomes.

Adult versus adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: While the natural history of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and adult idiopathic scoliosis (AdIS) is well documented in the literature, the impact of age on postoperative outcomes remains an active area of research. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patients undergoing surgery for AIS and AdIS with respect to: (1) postoperative Cobb correction, (2) perioperative variables, and (3) postoperative complications. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. INCLUSION CRITERIA: studies published between 2002 and 2022, retrospective, and comparing AIS vs. AdIS patients undergoing deformity surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative Cobb correction. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, total instrumented levels, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Random-effects models were performed according to the method of DerSimonian and Laird. RESULTS: Of 190 identified articles, 14 fit the inclusion criteria. A total of 1788 patients were included, 1275(71.3%) with AIS, and 513(28.7%) with AdIS. There was a significant age difference between AIS and AdIS (15.3 vs. 36.7 years, mean difference (MD) = 21.3 years, 95%CI = 14.3-28.4,p < 0.001). Mean postoperative Cobb percentage correction was reported in 5 articles and was significantly higher in AIS (68.4%) vs. AdIS (61.4%) (MD = -7.2, 95%CI = -11.6,-2.7,p = 0.001). EBL was not significantly different between AIS and AdIS (695.6 mL vs 817.7 mL,p = 0.204). Furthermore, no difference was found in operative time (MD = 37.9 min,95%CI = -10.7;86.6,p = 0.127), total instrumented level (MD = 0.88,95%CI = -0.7,2.4,p = 0.273), and LOS (MD = 0.5, 95%CI = -0.2;1.2, p = 0.188). Four articles reported postoperative complications in AIS vs AdIS, with no difference in neurological deficit, instrumentation-related complications, and medical complications. CONCLUSION: AIS patients had better radiographic correction compared to AdIS. Though no difference was found in perioperative outcomes and complications, these findings emphasize the importance of counseling patients regarding the optimal timing of surgical correction.

Combined Anterior-Posterior vs. Posterior-Only Approach in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Which Strategy Is Superior?

Introduction: Whether a combined anterior-posterior (AP) approach offers additional benefits over the posterior-only (P) approach in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery remains unknown. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we compared the combined AP vs. the P-only approach in: (1) preoperative/perioperative variables, (2) radiographic measurements, and (3) postoperative outcomes. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. The primary exposure was the operative approach: a combined AP approach or P alone. Postoperative outcomes included mechanical complications, reoperation, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), defined as 30% of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Multivariable linear regression was controlled for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Results: Among 238 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 34 (14.3%) patients underwent the AP approach and 204 (85.7%) underwent the P-only approach. The AP group consisted mostly of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1 (73.5%) and/or L4/L5 (38.0%). Preoperatively, the AP group had more previous fusions (64.7% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001), higher pelvic tilt (PT) (29.6 ± 11.6° vs. 24.6 ± 11.4°, p = 0.037), higher T1 pelvic angle (T1PA) (31.8 ± 12.7° vs. 24.0 ± 13.9°, p = 0.003), less L1-S1 lordosis (-14.7 ± 28.4° vs. -24.3 ± 33.4°, p < 0.039), less L4-S1 lordosis (-25.4 ± 14.7° vs. 31.6 ± 15.5°, p = 0.042), and higher sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (102.6 ± 51.9 vs. 66.4 ± 71.2 mm, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, the AP approach had longer operative time (553.9 ± 177.4 vs. 397.4 ± 129.0 min, p < 0.001), more interbodies placed (100% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001), and longer length of stay (8.4 ± 10.7 vs. 7.0 ± 9.6 days, p = 0.026). Radiographically, the AP group had more improvement in T1PA (13.4 ± 8.7° vs. 9.5 ± 8.6°, p = 0.005), L1-S1 lordosis (-14.3 ± 25.6° vs. -3.2 ± 20.2°, p < 0.001), L4-S1 lordosis (-4.7 ± 16.4° vs. 3.2 ± 13.7°, p = 0.008), and SVA (65.3 ± 44.8 vs. 44.8 ± 47.7 mm, p = 0.007). These outcomes remained statistically significant in the multivariable analysis controlling for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found in mechanical complications, reoperations, or MCID of PROMs. Conclusions: Preoperatively, patients undergoing the combined anterior-posterior approach had higher PT, T1PA, and SVA and lower L1-S1 and L4-S1 lordosis than the posterior-only approach. Despite increased operative time and length of stay, the anterior-posterior approach provided greater sagittal correction without any difference in mechanical complications or PROMs.

Impact of Unplanned Readmission on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Cervical Spine Surgery: A National Study of 13 355 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although risk factors for unplanned readmission after cervical spine surgery have been widely reported, less is known about how readmission itself affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Using the Quality Outcomes Database registry of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the impact of unplanned readmission on PROMs and (2) compare the effect of specific readmission reasons on PROMs. METHODS: An observational study was performed using a multi-institution, retrospective registry for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. The occurrence of 90-day unplanned readmission classified into medical, surgical, pain only, and no readmissions was the exposure variable. Outcome variables included 12-month PROMs of Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-neck/arm pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and patient dissatisfaction. Multivariable models predicting each PROM were built using readmission reasons controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and preoperative PROMs. RESULTS: Data from 13 355 patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery (82% anterior approach and 18% posterior approach) were analyzed. Unplanned readmission within 90 days of surgery occurred in 3.8% patients, including medical (1.6%), surgical (1.8%), and pain (0.3%). Besides medical reasons, wound infection/dehiscence was the most common reason for unplanned readmission for the total cohort (0.5%), dysphagia in the anterior approach (0.6%), and wound infection/dehiscence in the posterior approach (1.5%). Based on multivariable regression, surgical readmission was significantly associated with worse 12-month NDI, NRS-neck pain, NRS-arm pain, EQ-5D, and higher odds of dissatisfaction. Pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month NDI and NRS-neck pain scores, and worse dissatisfaction. For specific readmission reasons, pain, surgical site infection/wound dehiscence, hematoma/seroma, revision surgery, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were significantly associated with worsened 12-month PROMs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, 90-day unplanned surgical and pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month PROMs compared with patients with medical readmissions and no readmissions.

Does Preoperative Bilsky Score Predict Outcome Following Surgical Resection of Primary Tumors of the Spine?

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing surgery for primary bone tumors of the spine, we sought to compare Bilsky score 0-1 versus 2-3 in: 1) preoperative presentation, 2) perioperative variables, and 3) long-term outcomes. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was undertaken of patients undergoing surgery for extradural, primary bone tumors of the spine between January 2010 and January 2021. The primary exposure variable was Bilsky score, dichotomized as 0-1 versus 2-3. Survival analysis was performed to assess local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 38 patients undergoing resection of primary spinal tumors, 19 (50.0%) patients presented with Bilsky 0-1 and 19 (50.0%) Bilsky 2-3 grades. The most common diagnosis was chondrosarcoma (33.3%), followed by chordoma (16.7%). There were 15 (62.5%) malignant tumors. Preoperatively, there was no significant difference in demographics, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) (P > 0.999), or motor deficit (P > 0.999). Perioperatively, no difference was found in operative time (P = 0.954), blood loss (P = 0.416), length of stay (P = 0.641), neurologic deficit (P > 0.999), or discharge disposition (P = 0.256). No difference was found in Enneking resection status (69.2% vs. 54.5%, P = 0.675). Long-term, no differences were found regarding reoperation (P = 0.327), neurologic deficit (P > 0.999), postoperative KPS (P = 0.605) and modified McCormick Scale (MMS) (P = 0.870). No difference was observed in KPS (P = 0.418) and MMS (P = 0.870) at last follow-up. However, patients with Bilsky 2-3 had shorter time to LR (1715.0 vs. 513.0 ± 633.4 days, log-rank; P = 0.002) and shorter OS (2025.0 ± 1165.3 vs. 794.0 ± 952.6 days, log-rank; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Bilsky 2-3 lesions were associated with shorter time to LR and shorter OS. Patients harboring primary spinal tumors with higher grade Bilsky score appear to be at a higher risk for worse outcomes.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes, Complications, Readmissions, and Revisions in Posterior Lumbar Fusion With, Versus Without, an Interbody Device.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare posterior lumbar fusions with versus without an interbody in: (1) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 1 year and (2) postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Elective lumbar fusion is commonly used to treat various lumbar pathologies. Two common approaches for open posterior lumbar fusion include posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody and with an interbody through techniques, like transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Whether fusion with or without an interbody leads to better outcomes remains an area of active research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Lumbar Module of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for adults undergoing elective primary posterior lumbar fusion with or without an interbody. Covariates included demographic variables, comorbidities, primary spine diagnosis, operative variables, and baseline PROs, including Oswestry Disability Index, North American Spine Society satisfaction index, numeric rating scale-back/leg pain, and Euroqol 5-dimension. Outcomes included complications, reoperations, readmissions, return to work/activities, and PROs. Propensity score matching and linear regression modeling were used to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated to assess the impact of interbody use on patient outcomes. RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1044 patients with interbody and 215 patients undergoing PLF. The average treatment effect on the treated analysis showed that having an interbody or not had no significant impact on any outcome of interest, including 30-day complications and reoperations, 3-month readmissions, 12-month return to work, and 12-month PROs. CONCLUSION: There were no discernible differences in outcomes between patients undergoing PLF alone versus with an interbody in elective posterior lumbar fusion. These results add to the growing body of evidence that posterior lumbar fusions with and without an interbody seem to have similar outcomes up to 1 year postoperatively when treating degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

Determining the Effect of Intraoperative TXA on Postoperative Blood Loss in ACDF.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of intraoperative tranexamic acid (TXA) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) on postoperative blood loss. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TXA has been proven to be a safe and effective agent in reducing blood loss after cervical surgery; however, its efficacy when used intraoperatively for ACDF surgeries had yet to be researched. Currently, there are few studies examining the effects of intraoperative TXA in cervical spinal fusion, and none specifically examining TXA use in ACDF. METHODS: A tertiary medical center's prospectively collected spine registry was queried between 1/1/18 and 12/1/21 for all patients who underwent elective ACDF surgery and received a drain postoperatively. Patients were separated into 2 groups; those who had received intraoperative TXA and those who did not. Baseline demographic and operative variables were collected from the registry. The primary outcome was postoperative blood loss over a 24-hour period. Secondary outcomes included total drain output, intraoperative estimated blood loss, operative duration, drain duration, changes in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, and rate of transfusions, complications, revisions, and reoperations. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients were included. One hundred ninety patients underwent ACDF and did not receive intraoperative TXA, whereas 96 patients underwent ACDF and did receive TXA. There were no differences in any demographic or baseline variables. Multivariate analysis showed intraoperative TXA was associated with shorter drain duration (ß=-5.74, 95% CI: -10.9 to -0.53, P =0.031) and reduction in 24-hour drain output (ß=-12.2, 95% CI: -19.4 to -4.89, P =0.001) and total drain output (ß=-14.0, 95% CI: -22.9 to -5.05, P =0.002). CONCLUSIONS: TXA use during ACDF procedures leads to a decrease in perioperative blood loss and faster drain removal. TXA is an effective and safe agent for reducing perioperative blood loss in ACDF surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Comparison of Outcomes in Patients with Cervical Spine Metastasis After Different Surgical Approaches: A Single-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing cervical spine surgery for metastatic spine disease, we sought to 1) compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes among 3 different operative approaches, 2) report fusion rates, and 3) compare different types of anterior vertebral body replacement. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing extradural cervical/cervicothoracic spine metastasis surgery between February 2010 and January 2021 was conducted. Operative approaches were anterior-alone, posterior-alone, or combined anterior-posterior, and the grafts/cages used in the anterior fusions were cortical allografts, static cages, or expandable cages. All cages were filled with autograft/allograft. Outcomes included perioperative/postoperative variables, along with fusion rates, functional status, local recurrence (LR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent cervical spine surgery for metastatic disease, including 11 anterior (18.0%), 28 posterior (45.9%), and 22 combined (36.1%). New postoperative neurologic deficit was the highest in the anterior approach group (P = 0.038), and dysphagia was significantly higher in the combined approach group (P = 0.001). LR (P > 0.999), OS (P = 0.655), and time to both outcomes (log-rank test, OS, P = 0.051, LR, P = 0.187) were not significantly different. Of the 51 patients alive at 3 months, only 19 (37.2%) obtained imaging ≥3 months. Fusion was seen in 11/19 (57.8%) at a median of 8.3 months (interquartile range, 4.6-13.7). Among the anterior corpectomies, the following graft/cage was used: 6 allografts (54.5%), 4 static cages (36.3%), and 1 expandable cage (9.0%), with no difference found in outcomes among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The only discernible differences between operative approaches were that patients undergoing an anterior approach had higher rates of new postoperative neurologic deficit, and the combined approach group had higher rates of postoperative dysphagia.

Impact of unplanned readmissions on lumbar surgery outcomes: a national study of 33,447 patients.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Unplanned readmissions following lumbar spine surgery have immense clinical and financial implications. However, little is known regarding the impact of unplanned readmissions on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following lumbar spine surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of unplanned readmissions, including specific readmission reasons, on patient reported outcomes 12 months after lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was conducted using patients included in the lumbar module of the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter spine registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 33,447 patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative diseases were included. Mean age was 59.8 (SD=14.04), 53.6% were male, 89.5% were white, 45.9% were employed, and 47.5% had private insurance. OUTCOME MEASURES: Unplanned 90-day readmissions and 12-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores, and North American Spine Society (NASS) patient-satisfaction scores. METHODS: The lumbar module of the QOD was queried for adults undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease. Unplanned 90-day readmissions were classified into 4 groups: medical, surgical, pain-only, and no readmissions. Medical and surgical readmissions were further categorized into primary reason for readmission. 12-month PROs assessing patient back and leg pain (NRS), disability (ODI), quality of life (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction were collected. Multivariable models predicting 12-month PROs were built controlling for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 31,430 patients (94%) had no unplanned readmission while 2,017 patients (6%) had an unplanned readmission within 90 days following lumbar surgery. Patients with readmissions had significantly worse 12-month PROs compared with those with no unplanned readmissions in covariate-adjusted models. Using Wald-df as a measure of predictor importance, surgical readmissions were associated with the worst 12-month outcomes, followed by pain-only, then medical readmissions. In separate covariate adjusted models, we found that readmissions for pain, SSI/wound dehiscence, and revisions were among the most important predictors of worse outcomes at 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned 90-day readmissions were associated with worse pain, disability, quality of life, and greater dissatisfaction at 12-months, with surgical readmissions having the greatest impact, followed by pain-only readmissions, then medical readmissions. Readmissions for pain, SSI/wound dehiscence, and revisions were the most important predictors of worse outcomes. These results may help providers better understand the factors that impact outcomes following lumbar spine surgery and promote improved patient counseling and perioperative management.

Effect of Cervicothoracic Junction LIV Selection on Posterior Cervical Fusion Mechanical Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and Meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: Analyze and summarize literature evaluating the role of C7, T1, and T2 lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) selection in posterior cervical fusion (PCF) and if this affects the progression of mechanical failure and revision surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Literature evaluating mechanical failure and adjacent segment disease in the setting of PCF at or nearby the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) remains limited with studies reporting conflicting results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two reviewers conducted a detailed systematic review using EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar on June 28, 2021, for primary research articles comparing revision and complication rates for posterior fusions ending in the lower cervical spine (C7) and upper thoracic spine (T1-T2). The initial systematic database yielded 391 studies, of which 10 met all inclusion criteria. Random effects meta-analyses compared revision and mechanical failure rates between patients with an LIV above the CTJ and patients with an LIV below the CTJ. RESULTS: Data from 10 studies (total sample=2001, LIV above CTJ=1046, and LIV below CTJ=955) were meta-analyzed. No differences were found between the 2 cohorts for all-cause revision [odds ratio (OR)=0.75, 95% CI=0.42-1.34, P<0.0001] and construct-specific revision (OR=0.62, 95% CI=0.25-1.53, P<0.0001). The odds of total mechanical failure in the LIV below CTJ cohort compared with the LIV above CTJ cohort were significantly lower (OR=0.38, 95% CI=0.18-0.81, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results show patients with PCFs ending below the CTJ have a lower risk of undergoing total mechanical failure compared with fusions ending above the CTJ. This is important information for both physicians and patients to consider when planning for operative treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Longer Screws Decrease the Risk of Radiographic Pseudarthrosis Following Elective Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: In patients undergoing elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), we sought to determine the impact of screw length on: (1) radiographic pseudarthrosis, (2) pseudarthrosis requiring reoperation, and (3) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was undertaken from 2010-21. The primary independent variables were: screw length (mm), screw length divided by the anterior-posterior vertebral body diameter (VB%), and the presence of any screw with VB% < 75% vs all screws with VB% ≥ 75%. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for age, BMI, gender, smoking, American Society of Anesthesiology grade, number of levels fused, and whether a corpectomy was performed. RESULTS: Of 406 patients undergoing ACDF, levels fused were: 1-level (39.4%), 2-level (42.9%), 3-level (16.7%), and 4-level (1.0%). Mean screw length was 14.3 ± 2.3 mm, and mean VB% was 74.4 ± 11.2. A total of 293 (72.1%) had at least one screw with VB% < 75%, 113 (27.8%) had all screws with VB% ≥ 75%, and 141 (34.7%) patients had radiographic pseudarthrosis at 1-year. Patients who had any screw with VB% < 75% had a higher rate of radiographic pseudarthrosis compared to those had all screws with VB% ≥ 75% (39.6% vs 22.1%, P < .001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed that a higher VB% (OR = .97, 95%CI = .95-.99, P = .035) and having all screws with VB% ≥ 75% (OR = .51, 95%CI = .27-.95, P = .037) significantly decreased the odds of pseudarthrosis at 1-year, with no difference in reoperation or PROMs (all P > .05). CONCLUSION: Longer screws taking up ≥75% of the vertebral body protected against radiographic pseudarthrosis at 1-year. Maximizing screw length in ACDF is an easily modifiable factor directly under the surgeon's control that may mitigate the risk of pseudarthrosis.

Impact of Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy Before or After Cervical Disk Replacement: Current Evidence.

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to provide a review of the current evidence on the impact of posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) performed before or after cervical disk replacement (CDR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The impact of PCF on outcomes in the setting of CDR is an evolving field, given the recent widespread adoption of CDR and the relative rarity of patients who have undergone both procedures. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed to determine current evidence regarding the indications, outcomes, and biomechanical effects of CDR and PCF when performed alone or in combination. RESULTS: When radicular symptoms persist following PCF, a CDR can be safely performed to provide further decompression. Conversely, a PCF can be safely performed following CDR for these same indications. The biomechanical effects of these procedures in combination demonstrate maintained stability when the facetectomy is less than 50% of the facet joint. Studies demonstrate that stability is not significantly decreased by the presence, amount, or level of posterior foraminotomies in the setting of CDR. CONCLUSIONS: A PCF can be safely performed before or after cervical disk arthroplasty for recurrent radicular symptoms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

L1-pelvic angle: a convenient measurement to attain optimal deformity correction.

PURPOSE: (1) Evaluate the associations between L1-pelvic angle (L1PA) and both sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and T1-pelvic angle (T1PA), and (2) assess the clinical impact of L1PA. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective cohort study was undertaken for patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery from 2013 to 2017. Ideal L1PA was defined as (0.5xPelvic Incidence)-21. Pearson correlation was performed to compare L1PA, SVA, and T1PA. Univariate/multivariate regression was performed to assess the effect of L1PA on mechanical complications, controlling for age, BMI, and postoperative pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI/LL). Due to the overlapping nature of patients with pseudarthrosis and rod fracture, these patients were analyzed together. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients were included. Mean preoperative L1PA, SVA, and T1PA were 15.5 ± 8.9°, 90.7 ± 66.8 mm, and 27.1 ± 13.0°, respectively. Mean postoperative L1PA, SVA, and T1PA were 15.0 ± 8.9°, 66.7 ± 52.8 mm, and 22.3 ± 11.1°, respectively. Thirty-six (24.8%) patients achieved ideal L1PA. Though the correlation was modest, preoperative L1PA was linearly correlated with preoperative SVA (r2 = 0.16, r = 0.40, 95%CI = 0.22-0.60, p < 0.001) and T1PA (r2 = 0.41, r = 0.62, 95%CI = 0.46-0.76, p < 0.001). Postoperative L1PA was linearly correlated with postoperative SVA (r2 = 0.12, r = 0.37, 95%CI = 0.18-0.56, p < 0.001) and T1PA (r2 = 0.40, r = 0.62, 95%CI = 0.45-0.74, p < 0.001). Achieving ideal L1PA ± 5° was associated with a decreased risk of rod fracture/pseudarthrosis on univariate and multivariate regression (OR = 0.33, 95%CI = 0.12-0.86, p = 0.024). No association between achieving ideal L1PA and patient-reported outcomes was observed. CONCLUSION: L1PA was modestly correlated with SVA and T1PA, and achieving ideal L1PA was associated with lower rates of rod fracture/pseudarthrosis. Future studies are warranted to better define the clinical implications of achieving a normal L1PA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Leveraging web-based prediction calculators to set patient expectations for elective spine surgery: a qualitative study to inform implementation.

BACKGROUND: Prediction calculators can help set outcomes expectations following orthopaedic surgery, however effective implementation strategies for these tools are unknown. This study evaluated provider and patient perspectives on clinical implementation of web-based prediction calculators developed using national prospective spine surgery registry data from the Quality Outcomes Database. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews in two health systems, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) and Duke University Health System (DUHS) of orthopedic and neurosurgery health care providers (VUMC: n = 19; DUHS: n = 6), health care administrators (VUMC: n = 9; DUHS: n = 9), and patients undergoing elective spine surgery (VUMC: n = 16). Qualitative template analysis was used to analyze interview data, with a focus on end-user perspectives regarding clinical implementation of web-based prediction tools. RESULTS: Health care providers, administrators and patients overwhelmingly supported the use of the calculators to help set realistic expectations for surgical outcomes. Some clinicians had questions about the validity and applicability of the calculators in their patient population. A consensus was that the calculators needed seamless integration into clinical workflows, but there was little agreement on best methods for selecting which patients to complete the calculators, timing, and mode of completion. Many interviewees expressed concerns that calculator results could influence payers, or expose risk of liability. Few patients expressed concerns over additional survey burden if they understood that the information would directly inform their care. CONCLUSIONS: Interviewees had a largely positive opinion of the calculators, believing they could aid in discussions about expectations for pain and functional recovery after spine surgery. No single implementation strategy is likely to be successful, and strategies vary, even within the same healthcare system. Patients should be well-informed of how responses will be used to deliver better care, and concerns over how the calculators could impact payment and liability should be addressed prior to use. Future research is necessary to determine whether use of calculators improves management and outcomes for people seeking a surgical consult for spine pain.