Effect of Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Classification on Patient-reported Outcomes and Spinopelvic Parameters for Patients With Single-level L4-L5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis After Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether preoperative clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification is associated with differences in patient-reported outcomes and spinopelvic parameters after posterior decompression and fusion for L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). SUMMARY: The CARDS classification for lumbar DS, an alternative to the Meyerding system, considers additional radiographic findings such as disc space collapse and segmental kyphosis and stratifies DS into 4 radiographically distinct classes. Although CARDS has been shown to be a reliable and reproducible method for classifying DS, very few studies have assessed whether the CARDS types represent distinct clinical entities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients with L4-L5 DS who underwent posterior lumbar decompression and fusion. Changes in spinopelvic alignment and patient-reported outcomes measures, including recovery ratios and percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference, were compared among patients in each CARDS classification 1-year postoperatively using analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis H with Dunn post hoc analysis. Multiple linear regression determined whether CARDS groups significantly predicted patient-reported outcomes measures, lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) while controlling for demographic and surgical characteristics. RESULTS: Preoperative type B spondylolisthesis predicted decreased improvement in "physical component and mental component score of the short form-12" compared with type A spondylolisthesis (ß-coefficient = -5.96, P = 0.031) at 1 year. Significant differences were found between CARDS groups with regards to ΔLL (A: -1.63 degrees vs B: -1.17 degrees vs C: 2.88 degrees vs D: 3.19 degrees, P = 0.010) and ΔPI-LL (A: 1.02 degrees vs B: 2.09 degrees vs C: -2.59 degrees vs D: -3.70 degrees, P = 0.012). Preoperative type C spondylolisthesis was found to predict increased LL (ß-coefficient = 4.46, P = 0.0054) and decreased PI-LL (ß-coefficient = -3.49, P = 0.025) at 1 year compared with type A spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and radiographic outcomes differed significantly by preoperative CARDS classification type for patients undergoing posterior decompression and fusion for L4-L5 DS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Freehand Pedicle Screw Placement After One-to Three-Level Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing one-to three-level lumbar fusion using robotically assisted vs freehand pedicle screw placement. METHODS: Patients who underwent either robotically assisted or freehand pedicle screw placement for one-to three-level lumbar fusion surgery from January 1, 2014 to August 31, 2020 at a single academic institution were identified. Propensity score matching was performed based on demographic variables. Clinical and surgical outcomes were compared between groups. Recovery Ratios (RR) and the proportion of patients achieving the minimally clinically important difference (%MCID) were calculated for Oswestry Disability Index, PCS-12, MCS-12, VAS Back, and VAS Leg at 1 year. Surgical outcomes included complication and revision rates. RESULTS: A total of 262 patients were included in the study (85 robotic and 177 freehand). No significant differences were found in ΔPROM scores, RR, or MCID between patients who underwent robotically assisted vs freehand screw placement. The rates of revision (1.70% freehand vs 1.18% robotic, P = 1.000) and complications (.57% freehand vs 1.18% robotic, P = .546) were not found to be statically different between the 2 groups. Controlling for demographic factors, procedure type (robotic vs freehand) did not emerge as a significant predictor of ΔPROM scores on multivariate linear regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Robotically assisted pedicle screw placement did not result in significantly improved clinical or surgical outcomes compared to conventional freehand screw placement for patients undergoing one-to three-level lumbar fusion.

The Effect of L5-S1 Degenerative Disc Disease on Outcomes of L4-L5 Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate the clinical relevance of preoperative caudal adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) in patients undergoing isolated L4-5 fusion to determine a threshold of degeneration at which a primary L4-S1 fusion would be warranted. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Increased motion and biomechanical forces across the adjacent caudal segment in isolated L4-L5 fusion leads to concerns regarding the increased incidence of revision surgery because of the development of ASD. METHODS: Patients who underwent isolated L4-L5 fusion between 2014 and 2019 were reviewed. Pfirrmann grading and the disc heights of the caudal level relative to the rostral level were used to quantify preoperative adjacent degenerative disc disease. To assess the influence of preoperative caudal degenerative disc disease, preoperative disc height ratios (DHRs) were compared for patients who reported minimal, moderate, and severe Oswestry disability index (ODI) sores on postoperative assessment. For each patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), adjacent DDD was compared for those who did and did not meet MCID. An area under curve analysis was used to identify a threshold of degeneration impacting outcomes from the preoperative DHR. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were studied with an average follow-up of 2.11 years. All patients demonstrated a significant improvement in all PROMs after surgery. When categorizing patients based on the severity of postoperative ODI scores, there were no preoperative differences in the L5-S1 Pfirrmann grading or DHRs. There was a significant association between greater preoperative anterior DHR and an increased number patients who met MCID for visual analog scale back. There were no radiographic differences in preoperative L5-S1 Pfirrmann grade or DHR for ODI, visual analog scale leg, MCS-12, or PCS-12. area under curve analysis was not able to identify a preoperative DHR threshold that reflected worse MCID for any PROM. CONCLUSION: No preoperative radiographic indicators of caudal ASD were predictive of worse clinical outcomes after isolated L4-5 fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Effect of a Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program on Patient-initiated Phone Calls After Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of a statewide, government-mandated prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) on patient-initiated phone calls after lumbar and cervical spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior studies have examined the most common reasons for a postoperative phone calls, most of which pertain to pain or prescription medications. However, no studies have investigated the effects of mandatory opioid prescription reporting on these calls. METHODS: Patients who underwent lumbar decompression, lumbar fusion, or posterior cervical fusion were retrospectively identified. Patients were sorted into 1 of 2 cohorts based on their procedure date's relation to the initiation of the state's PDMP: "pre-PDMP" and "post-PDMP." All clinical and demographic data were obtained from electronic health records. Telephone communications from or on behalf of patients were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine independent factors associated with a postoperative phone call. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-five patients (2689 phone calls) were included in the study. Average number of phone calls per patient increased significantly after PDMP implementation among lumbar (3.27 vs. 5.18, P<0.001), cervical (5.08 vs. 11.67, P<0.001), and all (3.59 vs. 6.30, P<0.001) procedures. Age [odds ratio (OR): 1.05 (1.01, 1.09), P=0.02], cervical procedure [OR: 4.65 (1.93, 11.21), P=0.001], and a post-PDMP date of surgery [OR: 6.35 (3.55, 11.35), P<0.001] were independently associated with an increased likelihood of a postoperative phone call. A higher percentage of calls were in reference to postoperative care (4.6% vs. 2.4%, P=0.01) and wound care (4.3% vs. 1.4%, P<0.001) in the post-PDMP cohort compared with the pre-PDMP cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-initiated telephone calls increased significantly after implementation of a mandatory statewide PDMP. Increasing age, operation involving the cervical spine, and surgery occurring after implementation of the state's PDMP were independently associated with an increased likelihood of postoperative phone call to health care providers.

Reimbursement of Lumbar Decompression at an Orthopedic Specialty Hospital Versus Tertiary Referral Center.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in Medicare reimbursement for one- to three-level lumbar decompression procedures performed at a tertiary referral center versus an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar decompression surgery is one of the most commonly performed spinal procedures. Lumbar decompression also comprises the largest proportion of spinal surgery that has transitioned to the outpatient setting. METHODS: Patients who underwent a primary one- to three- level lumbar decompression were retrospectively identified. Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an OSH were compiled through Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Demographic data, surgical characteristics, and time cost data were collected through chart review. Multivariate regression models were used to determine independent factors associated with total episode of care cost, operating room (OR) time, procedure time, and length of stay (LOS), and to determine independent predictors of having the decompression performed at the OSH. RESULTS: Total episode of care, facility, and non-facility payments were significantly greater at the tertiary referral center than the OSH, as were OR time for one- to three-level procedures, procedure time of all pooled levels, and LOS for one- and two-level procedures. Three-level procedure was independently associated with increased OR time, procedure time, and LOS. Age and two-level procedure were also associated with increased LOS. Procedure at the OSH was associated with decreased OR time and LOS. Charlson Comorbidity Index was a negative predictor of decompression being performed in the OSH setting. CONCLUSION: Significant financial savings to health systems can be expected when performing lumbar decompression surgery at a specialty hospital as opposed to a tertiary referral center. Patients who are appropriate candidates for surgery in an OSH can in turn expect faster perioperative times and shorter LOS.Level of Evidence: 3.

Timing of Preoperative Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Primary One-Level to Three-Level Lumbar Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between timing of preoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) among patients with 1-level to 3-level lumbar fusion. METHODS: Patients having undergone a primary 1-level to 3-level lumbar fusion at a single institution were allocated into 5 groups based on the time from preoperative antibiotic administration to incision (group A, 0-15 minutes; group B, 16-30 minutes; group C, 31-45 minutes; group D, 46-60 minutes; and group E, 61+ minutes). Timing of antibiotic administration as a continuous variable was also analyzed. All patients received irrigation with 3 L of normal saline containing bacitracin as well as local administration of vancomycin powder. SSIs were identified by the definition set forth by the 2017 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. RESULTS: Among 1131 patients, 27 (2.4%) were found to have an SSI. Compared with patients with antibiotic administration within 0-15 minutes before incision, patients with administration 61+ minutes before incision (group 4) had significantly higher odds of developing an SSI (P < 0.001). Patients had a 1.05-fold higher likelihood of infection for each additional minute delay of administration before incision (P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis reported an area under the curve of 0.733 and 0.776 for time as a continuous and categorical variable, respectively. Age (P = 0.02), body mass index (P = 0.03), diabetes mellitus diagnosis (P = 0.04), and type of antibiotic (P = 0.004) were significant predictors of SSI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that preoperative antibiotic administration beyond 1 hour in patients who have undergone lumbar fusion is associated with higher rates of SSI.

Static Versus Expandable Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) Interbody Cages: A Comparison of One-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for One-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of static versus expandable polyether ether ketone (PEEK) cages on both clinical and radiographic outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with either a static or expandable PEEK cage. Patient outcomes were obtained from chart review and radiographic outcomes were measured using standing, lateral radiographs. Recovery ratios and the proportion of patients achieving the minimally clinically important difference were calculated for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Physical Component Score-12, Mental Component Score-12, visual analogue scale for back, and visual analogue scale for leg at 1 year and compared between groups. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of cage type on the change in patient-reported outcome measures, controlling for demographic factors. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients (137 static, 103 expandable) were included in the final analysis. ΔPhysical Component Score-12 scores at 3 months were significantly greater for the static group (16.0 vs. 10.0, P = 0.043) compared with the expandable group. Multivariate regression demonstrated that use of an expandable cage was associated with greater improvements in ΔODI (ß: -7.82, P = 0.048) at 1 year. No differences were found in the perioperative change in sagittal spinal alignment within or between groups at 1 year. Subsidence rates failed to show any statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with an expandable PEEK cage is an independent predictor of improved ODI scores at 1 year. Our study showed no significant differences in subsidence rates or changes in sagittal spinal alignment between static and expandable PEEK cages.

Comparison Between Three- and Four-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: Patient-Reported and Radiographic Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes after 3- and 4-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in a retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients who had undergone primary 3- or 4-level ACDF were retrospectively identified. The demographic data and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected through a review of the medical records. PROM surveys were administered preoperatively for baseline measurements and at 1 year postoperatively. The surveys included the Neck Disability Index, 12-item short-form physical component summary, 12-item short-form mental component summary, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for neck and arm pain. The cervical sagittal alignment parameters included C2-C7 lordosis, segmental lordosis, the sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and the T1 slope. Multivariate regression models were used to compare the changes in the PROMs and radiographic measurements over time between 3- and 4-level ACDF. Correlation coefficients were calculated to compare the delta scores for the PROMs and radiographic measurements. RESULTS: The VAS scores for neck and arm pain had significantly improved from baseline in both cohorts. Only the 3-level group showed significant improvements perioperatively in the Neck Disability Index and 12-item short-form physical component summary. No significant differences were found in the improvement in clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. The pooled results demonstrated a significant negative correlation between the perioperative changes in segmental lordosis and VAS scores for arm pain. A significant negative correlation was also found between the perioperative changes in the SVA and 12-item short-form mental component summary and VAS scores for neck pain. C2-C7 lordosis significantly increased postoperatively only in the 3-level ACDF group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing both 3- and 4-level ACDF experienced significant clinical improvement without significant differences between the 2 groups. The radiographic measures of segmental lordosis and SVA also correlated with the changes in clinical outcomes.

Updated Review: The Steroid Controversy for Management of Spinal Cord Injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute spinal cord injury (ASCI) is a devastating event that can have a profound impact on the lives of patients and their families. While no definitive medical treatment exists, the role of methylprednisolone (MP) in the management of ASCI and other spinal cord pathologies has been investigated in depth; however, its use remains contentious. While MP initially showed promise in the efficacy of ASCI treatment, more recent studies have questioned its use citing numerous systemic adverse effects. Pharmacologic treatments in this area are poorly understood due to the scarcity of knowledge surrounding the pathophysiology and heterogeneity of patients presenting with these conditions. Despite these shortcomings and due to the lack of alternative treatment options, MP is still widely used by physicians. METHODS: We review prior and current literature on the use of MP treatment for ASCI patients with a discussion of novel drug delivery systems that have demonstrated the potential to improve MP's bioavailability at the site of injury while minimizing systemic side effects. In addition, current views on the role of MP and dexamethasone in metastatic spinal cord compression and postoperative infection are reviewed. RESULTS: While some data support benefits in the use of steroids on spinal cord pathology, extensive research suggests at best limited effects and an unresolvable risk/benefit problem. CONCLUSIONS: At present, evidence regarding use of dexamethasone for MSCC is contentious, especially regarding dose regiments. Ultimately, further investigation into the use of steroids is required to determine its utility in treating patients with spinal cord pathology.