Does type of bone graft matter? A retrospective review of the use of biological bone grafts in patients undergoing elective 1-3 level spinal interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of strong evidence for use of expensive bone substitutes. This study compares perioperative data and patient reported quality-of-life outcomes across the varied types of bone graft extenders. The study analyzes the existing Quality and Outcomes Database and evaluates patient reported outcomes for 1-3 level lumbar fusion procedures comparing across different types of biologics bone graft. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected data registry. Bone graft implant data were collected and grouped into the following categories: (1) Autograft with basic allograft (2) Enhanced, synthetic, or cellular allograft (3) Use of BMP. Preoperative and 1 year patient reported outcomes and perioperative data from the prospective collected registry were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 384 patients included in this study. There were 168 (43.8%) patients in group 1, 133 (34.6%) patients in group 2, and 83 (21.6%) in group 3. There were no group differences in baseline or 1 year back pain, leg pain, ODI, or EQ-5D. The GLM Repeated Measures results indicate a significant difference within each of the three groups between the preoperative and postoperative measures for back pain, leg pain, ODI, and EQ-5D. The change over time was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bone graft extenders are a significant contributor to the cost of lumbar fusion. This study demonstrates no difference in preoperative, and 1 year patient reported outcomes between the three groups. There was no significant difference in rate of reoperations across the three groups.

Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Laminoforaminotomy for C4 Radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy (MELF) has been proven to be an effective, motion preserving procedure for the surgical treatment of cervical radiculopathy. Cervical 4 (C4) radiculopathies are often unrecognized by the initial evaluating physician and may be misdiagnosed as axial neck pain. In this study, we compare MELF to anterior cervical disk fusion (ACDF) for C4 radiculopathy in the largest series of minimally invasive foraminotomy for C4 radiculopathy to date. METHODS: This is a single-institution retrospective chart review of 42 cases for C4 radiculopathy, 21 MELF and 21 ACDF. Primary outcome measures were length of surgery, length of hospital stay, and time to return to work. Secondary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain and reoperation rate. RESULTS: All patients were diagnosed with a unilateral C4 radiculopathy using magnetic resonance imaging or steroid injections. The length of surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly decreased in the MELF group compared with ACDF. VAS neck pain significantly decreased for patients in both groups, but the difference between MELF and ACDF was not statistically significant. There were no major complications. No patient underwent revision at the index level or adjacent levels in the MELF group. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that C4 radiculopathy can be identified with appropriate history, physical examination, and targeted nerve root injections. When identified, these radiculopathies that fail conservative therapy can be effectively treated with cervical microendoscopic laminoforaminotomy, with comparable outcomes to ACDF. The length of surgery and length of stay are reduced when compared with ACDF.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy for Unilateral Cervical Radiculopathy: A 1-Year Cost-Utility Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are the most common surgical approaches for medically refractory cervical radiculopathy. Rigorous cost-effectiveness studies comparing ACDF and PCF are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-utility of ACDF vs PCF performed in the ambulatory surgery center setting for Medicare and privately insured patients at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: A total of 323 patients who underwent 1-level ACDF (201) or PCF (122) at a single ambulatory surgery center were compared. Propensity matching generated 110 pairs (220 patients) for analysis. Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures, and quality-adjusted life-years were assessed. Direct costs (1-year resource use × unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts) and indirect costs (missed workdays × average US daily wage) were recorded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. RESULTS: Perioperative safety, 90-day readmission, and 1-year reoperation rates were similar between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all patient-reported outcome measures at 3 months that was maintained at 12 months. The ACDF cohort had a significantly higher preoperative Neck Disability Index and a significantly greater improvement in health-state utility (ie, quality-adjusted life-years gained) at 12 months. ACDF was associated with significantly higher total costs at 1 year for both Medicare ($11 744) and privately insured ($21 228) patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ACDF was $184 654 and $333 774 for Medicare and privately insured patients, respectively, reflecting poor cost-utility. CONCLUSION: Single-level ACDF may not be cost-effective in comparison with PCF for surgical management of unilateral cervical radiculopathy.

Feasibility and Safety of Microendoscopic Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy in an Ambulatory Surgery Center: A Longitudinal Experience with 1000 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have become an increasingly attractive setting for spine surgery in recent decades. Although posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) is widely performed in ASCs, there are no studies supporting the safety of this practice. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of microendoscopic (MED)-PCF in a large cohort of patients at a freestanding ASC. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing MED-PCF for unilateral cervical radiculopathy at a single freestanding ASC from January 2013 to December 2020 were queried. Standard demographic and perioperative data were collected. Outcomes included need for inpatient transfer, perioperative complications, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, and clinical improvement according to the Odom criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1106 patients underwent MED-PCF during the study period. Mean age was 53.3 ± 10.3 years. Most patients underwent decompression at C5-6 (31.4%) or C6-7 (51.9%). Approximately 10% underwent surgery at multiple levels. Mean operative time was 40.0 ± 16.4 minutes. There were no intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications. All patients were discharged home within a few hours of surgery. The rates of 30-day readmission (0.81%) and reoperation (0.36%) were exceedingly low. Nearly 3 quarters of patients (73.7%) achieved a good or excellent clinical outcome (73.7%) according to the Odom criteria. CONCLUSIONS: MED-PCF can be performed in a freestanding ASC with exceedingly low rates of perioperative complications and short-term readmission or reoperation. Our findings support the ongoing migration of PCF from the hospital to the ambulatory setting. Future studies assessing patient-reported outcomes and long-term reoperation rates are necessary.

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement-NeuroPoint Alliance collaboration to decrease length of stay and readmission after lumbar spine fusion: using national registries to design quality improvement protocols.

OBJECTIVE: National databases collect large amounts of clinical information, yet application of these data can be challenging. The authors present the NeuroPoint Alliance and Institute for Healthcare Improvement (NPA-IHI) program as a novel attempt to create a quality improvement (QI) tool informed through registry data to improve the quality of care delivered. Reducing the length of stay (LOS) and readmission after elective lumbar fusion was chosen as the pilot module. METHODS: The NPA-IHI program prospectively enrolled patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level lumbar fusions across 8 institutions. A three-pronged approach was taken that included the following phases: 1) Research Phase, 2) Development Phase, and 3) Implementation Phase. Primary outcomes were LOS and readmission. From January to June 2017, a learning system was created utilizing monthly conference calls, weekly data submission, and continuous refinement of the proposed QI tool. Nonparametric tests were used to assess the impact of the QI intervention. RESULTS: The novel QI tool included the following three areas of intervention: 1) preoperative discharge assessment (location, date, and instructions), 2) inpatient changes (LOS rounding checklist, daily huddle, and pain assessments), and 3) postdischarge calls (pain, primary care follow-up, and satisfaction). A total of 209 patients were enrolled, and the most common procedure was a posterior laminectomy/fusion (60.2%). Seven patients (3.3%) were readmitted during the study period. Preoperative discharge planning was completed for 129 patients (61.7%). A shorter median LOS was seen in those with a known preoperative discharge date (67 vs 80 hours, p = 0.018) and clear discharge instructions (71 vs 81 hours, p = 0.030). Patients with a known preoperative discharge plan also reported significantly increased satisfaction (8.0 vs 7.0, p = 0.028), and patients with increased discharge readiness (scale 0-10) also reported higher satisfaction (r = 0.474, p < 0.001). Those receiving postdischarge calls (76%) had a significantly shorter LOS than those without postdischarge calls (75 vs 99 hours, p = 0.020), although no significant relationship was seen between postdischarge calls and readmission (p = 0.342). CONCLUSIONS: The NPA-IHI program showed that preoperative discharge planning and postdischarge calls have the potential to reduce LOS and improve satisfaction after elective lumbar fusion. It is our hope that neurosurgical providers can recognize how registries can be used to both develop and implement a QI tool and appreciate the importance of QI implementation as a separate process from data collection/analysis.

Creating Leverage to Counter Threats to Neurosurgical Practice.

This article describes guiding principles utilized in practice. It is descriptive of the evolution of one of the largest neurosurgical practices in the United States. The objective is to identify and effectively create leverage in neurosurgical practice and to describe principles instrumental in the growth of this practice.Methods included data collection, responsiveness, recruitment, and innovation. Results demonstrate important strategies for creating and maintaining leverage, as well as principles that have enabled the practice to remain independent and continue to provide high-quality care.In conclusion, it is important to stay focused on potential sources of leverage, to gain advantage for the future, and maintain stability as healthcare changes occur. Quality data and outcomes will allow practice to continue to grow strategically.