Practical Answers to Frequently Asked Questions in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery for Degenerative Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical counseling enables shared decision making and optimal outcomes by improving patients' understanding about their pathologies, surgical options, and expected outcomes. Here, we aimed to provide practical answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) from patients undergoing an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) for the treatment of degenerative conditions. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary one-level or two-level ACDF or CDR for the treatment of degenerative conditions with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Data were used to answer 10 FAQs that were generated from author's experience of commonly asked questions in clinic before ACDF or CDR. RESULTS: A total of 395 patients (181 ACDF, 214 CDR) were included. (1, 2, and 3) Will my neck/arm pain and physical function improve? Patients report notable improvement in all patient-reported outcome measures. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? 13% (ACDF) and 5% (CDR) reported worsening. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? Patients on average received a 3.7 (ACDF) and 5.5 mGy (CDR) dose during. (6) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one. (7) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 13% (8% minor and 5% major) experienced in-hospital complications (ACDF) and 5% (all minor) did (CDR). (8) Will I need another surgery? 2.2% (ACDF) and 2.3% (CDR) of patients required a revision surgery. (9 & 10) When will I be able to return to work/driving? Most patients return to working (median of 16 [ACDF] and 14 days [CDR]) and driving (median of 16 [ACDF] and 12 days [CDR]). CONCLUSIONS: The answers to the FAQs can assist surgeons in evidence-based patient counseling.

Clinical and Radiological Predictors of Slower and Non-Improvement Following Surgical Treatment of L4-5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Preliminary Results.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To identify the predictors of slower and non-improvement following surgical treatment of L4-5 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is limited evidence regarding clinical and radiological predictors of slower and non-improvement following surgery for L4-5 DLS. METHODS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were: (1) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (2) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and (3) global rating change (GRC). Clinical variables analyzed for predictors were age, gender, body mass index (BMI), surgery type, comorbidities, anxiety, depression, smoking, osteoporosis, and preoperative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale, VAS back and leg; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS). Radiological variables analyzed were slip percentage, translational and angular motion, facet diastasis/cyst/orientation, laterolisthesis, disc height, scoliosis, main and fractional curve Cobb angles, and spinopelvic parameters. RESULTS: 233 patients (37% decompression, 63% fusion) were included. At <3 months, high pelvic tilt (PT) (OR 0.92, P 0.02) and depression (OR 0.28, P 0.02) were predictors of MCID non-achievement and GRC non-betterment, respectively. Neither retained significance at >6 months and hence, were identified as predictors of slower improvement. At >6 months, low preoperative VAS leg (OR 1.26, P 0.01) and high facet orientation (OR 0.95, P 0.03) were predictors of MCID non-achievement, high L4-5 slip percentage (OR 0.86, P 0.03) and L5-S1 angular motion (OR 0.78, P 0.01) were predictors of GRC non-betterment, and high preoperative ODI (OR 0.96, P 0.04) was a predictor of PASS non-achievement. CONCLUSIONS: High PT and depression were predictors of slower improvement and low preoperative leg pain, high disability, high facet orientation, high slip percentage, and L5-S1 angular motion were predictors of non-improvement. However, these are preliminary findings and further studies with homogeneous cohorts are required to establish these findings.

Psoas Muscle Health is Correlated with Time to Achieve MCID in Patients with Predominant Axial Back Pain Following Decompression Surgery: Early Results.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of psoas muscle health (cross-sectional area, CSA) on achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following laminectomy for patients with predominant back pain (PBP) and leg pain (PLP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Psoas muscle health is linked to postoperative outcomes in decompression patients, with MRI-based grading of psoas CSA correlating with these outcomes. However, evidence on its impact on symptomatic recovery, measured by PROMs, is lacking. METHODS: 106 patients with PBP (VAS back >VAS leg) and 139 patients with PLP (VAS leg >VAS back) who underwent laminectomy from 2017-2021 were included. Axial T2 MRI images were analyzed for psoas CSA using a validated method. Based on the lowest-quartile normalized total psoas area (NTPA) thresholds, patients were divided into "Good" and "Poor" muscle health groups. The correlation analyses were performed between the psoas CSA and changes in PROMs. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted to determine the probability of achieving MCID as a function of time. RESULTS: Of 106 PBP patients, 83 (78.3%) had good muscle health, 23 (21.6%) had poor muscle health. Of 139 PLP patients, 54 (38.8%) had good muscle health, 85 (61.1%) had poor muscle health. In the PBP group, older age was associated with poor muscle health (69.70±9.26 vs. 59.92±15.01, P=0.0002). For both cohorts, there were no differences in the rate of MCID achievement for any PROMs between the good and poor muscle health groups. In the PBP group, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed patients with good psoas health achieved MCID-VAS back and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in median times of 14 and 42 days (P=0.045 and 0.015), respectively. CONCLUSION: Good psoas muscle health is linked to faster attainment of MCID, especially in patients with PBP compared to PLP after decompression surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Treatments and interventions addressing chronic somatic pain in torture survivors: A systematic review.

Torture survivors experience chronic, somatic pain that may be exacerbated by environmental, social, and structural factors that extend beyond immediate traumatic events and diagnoses. We conducted a systematic review of research describing the types and efficacy of treatments for chronic somatic pain in a global population of torture survivors. In this systematic review, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE (1974 to present), and PubMed. We used all appropriate controlled vocabulary and keywords for interventions and treatments for chronic somatic pain in torture survivors. The population included survivors of torture of any age and in any country. Outcomes included pain relief, pain intensity, distress level, and quality of life. Four authors participated in screening, full-text review, and quality assessment, with each title and abstract being independently reviewed by two authors. This study is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. We included six pre-post intervention studies and four pilot or modified randomized controlled trials (RCTs), for a total of ten studies included in the analysis. Different combinations of interventions targeted pain reduction in refugees, the majority of whom were torture survivors as the primary (n = 1) or secondary (n = 9) outcome. Sample sizes varied from eight to 470 participants. We identified three main types of interventions: multimodal combined, manual therapy, and specific types of talk therapy. Five studies demonstrated positive outcomes on pain and its intensity, three reported no effect, and two had mixed outcomes. Pain in torture survivors is often considered a symptom secondary to mental health illness and not targeted directly. Instead, combined interventions are mainly directed at posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Most studies noted promising preliminary results and plans to conduct RCTs to increase the reproducibility and quality of their pilot data.

Ninety Percent of Patients Are Satisfied With Their Decision to Undergo Spine Surgery for Degenerative Conditions.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To explore how patients perceive their decision to pursue spine surgery for degenerative conditions and evaluate factors correlated with decisional regret. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior research shows that one-in-five older adults regret their decision to undergo spinal deformity surgery. However, no studies have investigated decisional regret in patients with degenerative conditions. METHODS: Patients who underwent cervical or lumbar spine surgery for degenerative conditions (decompression, fusion, or disk replacement) between April 2017 and December 2020 were included. The Ottawa Decisional Regret Questionnaire was implemented to assess prevalence of decisional regret. Questionnaire scores were used to categorize patients into low (<40) or medium/high (≥40) decisional regret cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back/Leg/Arm, and Neck Disability Index at preoperative, early postoperative (<6 mo), and late postoperative (≥6 mo) timepoints. Differences in demographics, operative variables, and PROMs between low and medium/high decisional regret groups were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients were included (mean follow-up: 18.2 mo). Overall, 92% of patients agreed that having surgery was the right decision, and 90% would make the same decision again. In contrast, 6% of patients regretted the decision to undergo surgery, and 7% noted that surgery caused them harm. In-hospital complications (P=0.02) and revision fusion (P=0.026) were significantly associated with higher regret. The medium/high decisional regret group also exhibited significantly worse PROMs at long-term follow-up for all metrics except VAS-Arm, and worse achievement of minimum clinically important difference for Oswestry Disability Index (P=0.007), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (P<0.0001), and VAS-Leg (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Higher decisional regret was encountered in the setting of need for revision fusion, increased in-hospital complications, and worse PROMs. However, 90% of patients overall were satisfied with their decision to undergo spine surgery for degenerative conditions. Current tools for assessing patient improvement postoperatively may not adequately capture the psychosocial values and patient expectations implicated in decisional regret.

Impact of Metabolic Syndrome on Early Postoperative Outcomes After Cervical Disk Replacement: A Propensity-matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following cervical disk replacement (CDR) among patients with and without metabolic syndrome (MetS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The prevalence of MetS-involving concurrent obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia-has increased in the United States over the last 2 decades. Little is known about the impact of MetS on early postoperative outcomes and complications following CDR. METHODS: The 2005-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients with and without MetS were divided into 2 cohorts. MetS was defined, according to other National Surgical Quality Improvement Program studies, as concurrent diabetes mellitus, hypertension requiring medication, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, complications, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition were compared using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. One to 2 propensity-matching was performed, matching for demographics, comorbidities, and number of operative levels. RESULTS: A total of 5395 patients were included for unmatched analysis. Two hundred thirty-six had MetS, and 5159 did not. The MetS cohort had greater rates of 30-day readmission (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P=0.023), morbidity (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P=0.032), nonhome discharges (3% vs. 0.6%; P=0.002), and longer hospital stays (1.35±4.04 vs. 1±1.48 days; P=0.029). After propensity-matching, 699 patients were included. All differences reported above lost significance (P>0.05) except for 30-day morbidity (superficial wound infections), which remained higher for the MetS cohort (2.5% vs. 0.4%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We identified MetS as an independent predictor of 30-day morbidity in the form of superficial wound infections following single-level CDR. Although MetS patients experienced greater rates of 30-day readmission, nonhome discharge, and longer lengths of stay, MetS did not independently predict these outcomes after controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Postoperative racial disparities following spine surgery are less pronounced in the outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Racial disparities in spine surgery have been thoroughly documented in the inpatient (IP) setting. However, despite an increasing proportion of procedures being performed as same-day surgeries, whether similar differences have developed in the outpatient (OP) setting remains to be elucidated. PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate racial differences in postoperative outcomes between Black and White patients following OP and IP lumbar and cervical spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent IP or OP microdiscectomy, laminectomy, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), or cervical disc replacement (CDR) between 2017 and 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirty-day rates of serious and minor adverse events, readmission, reoperation, non-home discharge, and mortality. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent IP or OP microdiscectomy, laminectomy, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), or cervical disc replacement (CDR) between 2017 and 2021 was conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Disparities between Black and White patients in (1) adverse event rates, (2) readmission rates, (3) reoperation rates, (4) non-home discharge rates, (5) mortality rates, (6) operative times, and (7) hospital LOS between Black and White patients were measured and compared between IP and OP surgical settings. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for potential effects of baseline demographic and clinical differences. RESULTS: Of 81,696 total surgeries, 49,351 (60.4%) were performed as IP and 32,345 (39.6%) were performed as OP procedures. White patients accounted for a greater proportion of IP (88.2% vs. 11.8%) and OP (92.7% vs. 7.3%) procedures than Black patients. Following IP surgery, Black patients experienced greater odds of serious (OR 1.214, 95% CI 1.077-1.370, p=.002) and minor adverse events (OR 1.377, 95% CI 1.113-1.705, p=.003), readmission (OR 1.284, 95% CI 1.130-1.459, p<.001), reoperation (OR 1.194, 95% CI 1.013-1.407, p=.035), and non-home discharge (OR 2.304, 95% CI 2.101-2.528, p<.001) after baseline adjustment. Disparities were less prominent in the OP setting, as Black patients exhibited greater odds of readmission (OR 1.341, 95% CI 1.036-1.735, p=0.026) but were no more likely than White patients to experience adverse events, reoperation, individual complications, non-home discharge, or death (p>.050 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Racial inequality in postoperative complications following spine surgery is evident, however disparities in complication rates are relatively less following OP compared to IP procedures. Further work may be beneficial in elucidating the causes of these differences to better understand and mitigate overall racial disparities within the inpatient setting. These decreased differences may also provide promising indication that progress towards reducing inequality is possible as spine care transitions to the OP setting.

Coexisting Lower Back Pain in Patients With Cervical Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is to investigate the coexisting lower back pain (LBP) in patients with cervical myelopathy and to evaluate changes in LBP after cervical spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Only a few studies with a small number of participants have evaluated the association between cervical myelopathy surgery and postoperative improvement in LBP. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary cervical decompression surgery with or without fusion for myelopathy and completed preoperative and 1-year postoperative questionnaires were reviewed using a prospectively collected database involving 9 tertiary referral hospitals. The questionnaires included the patient-reported Japanese Orthopaedic Association (PRO-JOA) score and Numerical Rating Scales (NRS). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for NRS-LBP was defined as >30% improvement from baseline. Patient demographics, characteristics, and PRO-JOA score were compared between patients with and without concurrent LBP, and the contributor to achieving the MCID for LBP was analyzed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 786 consecutive patients with cervical myelopathy were included, of which 525 (67%) presented with concurrent LBP. LBP was associated with a higher body mass index (P<0.001) and worse preoperative PRO-JOA score (P<0.001). Among the 525 patients with concurrent LBP, the mean postoperative NRS-LBP significantly improved from 4.5±2.4 to 3.4±2.7 (P<0.01) postoperatively, with 248 (47%) patients reaching the MCID cutoff. Patients with a PRO-JOA recovery rate >50% were more likely to achieve MCID compared with those with a recovery rate <0% (adjusted odd ratio 4.02, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of patients with myelopathy reported improvement in LBP after cervical spine surgery, and 47% achieved the MCID for LBP, which was positively correlated with a better PRO-JOA recovery rate. Treating cervical myelopathy in patients with concomitant LBP may be sufficient to mitigate concomitant LBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level Ⅲ.

Impact of Frailty and Cervical Radiographic Parameters on Postoperative Dysphagia Following Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively collected registry. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact of frailty and radiographical parameters on postoperative dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a growing body of literature indicating an association between frailty and increased postoperative complications following various surgeries. However, few studies have investigated the relationship between frailty and postoperative dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent anterior cervical spine surgery for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology were included. Frailty and dysphagia were assessed by the modified Frailty Index-11 (mFI-11) and Eat Assessment Tool 10 (EAT-10), respectively. We also collected clinical demographics and cervical alignment parameters previously reported as risk factors for postoperative dysphagia. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify the odds ratio (OR) of postoperative dysphagia at early (2-6 weeks) and late postoperative time points (1-2 years). RESULTS: Ninety-five patients who underwent ACSS were included in the study. Postoperative dysphagia occurred in 31 patients (32.6%) at the early postoperative time point. Multivariable logistic regression identified higher mFI-11 score (OR, 4.03; 95% CI: 1.24-13.16; P =0.021), overcorrection of TS-CL after surgery (TS-CL, T1 slope minus C2-C7 lordosis; OR, 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.95; P =0.003), and surgery at C3/C4 (OR, 12.38; 95% CI: 1.41-108.92; P =0.023) as factors associated with postoperative dysphagia. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty, as assessed by the mFI-11, was significantly associated with postoperative dysphagia after ACSS. Additional factors associated with postoperative dysphagia were overcorrection of TS-CL and surgery at C3/C4. These findings emphasize the importance of assessing frailty and cervical alignment in the decision-making process preceding ACSS.

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 Disability Influences Effectiveness of Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Predicting Patient Improvement Following Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) metrics when interpreting Neck Disability Index (NDI) following cervical spine surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary cervical fusion, discectomy, or laminectomy were included. NDI and global rating change (GRC) data at 6 months/1 year/2 years were analyzed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MCID and PASS in predicting improvement on GRC were calculated for the overall cohort and separately for patients with minimal (NDI <30), moderate (NDI 30 - 49), and severe (NDI ≥ 50) preoperative disability. Two groups with patients who achieved PASS but not MCID and patients who achieved MCID but not PASS were analyzed. RESULTS: 141 patients (206 responses) were included. PASS had significantly greater sensitivity for the overall cohort (85% vs 73% with MCID, P = .02) and patients with minimal disability (96% vs 53% with MCID, P < .001). MCID had greater sensitivity for patients with severe disability (78% vs 57% with PASS, P = .05). Sensitivity was not significantly different for PASS and MCID in patients with moderate preoperative disability (83% vs 92%, P = .1). 17% of patients achieved PASS but not MCID and 9% of patients achieved MCID but not PASS. Most of these patients still reported improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (89% vs 72%, P = .13). CONCLUSION: PASS and MCID are better metrics for patients with minimal and severe preoperative disability, respectively. Both metrics are equally effective for patients with moderate preoperative disability.

Severe Obesity Is an Independent Risk Factor of Early Readmission and Nonhome Discharge After Cervical Disc Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Despite growing interest in cervical disc replacement (CDR) for conditions such as cervical radiculopathy, limited data exists describing the impact of obesity on early postoperative outcomes and complications. These data are especially important as nearly half of the adult population in the United States is expected to become obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30 kg/m2) by 2030. The goal of this study was to compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following CDR. METHODS: The 2005-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program datasets were queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: Nonobese (BMI: 18.5-29.9 kg/m2), Obese class-I (BMI: 30-34.9 kg/m2), Obese class-II/III (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2). Morbidity was defined as the presence of any complication within 30 days postoperatively. Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, morbidity, individual complications, length of stay, frequency of nonhome discharge disposition were collected. RESULTS: A total of 5,397 patients were included for analysis: 3,130 were nonobese, 1,348 were obese class I, and 919 were obese class II/III. There were more 2-level CDRs performed in the class II/III cohort compared to the nonobese group (25.7% vs. 21.5%, respectively; p < 0.05). Class-II/III had more nonhome discharges than class I and nonobese (2.1% vs. 0.5% vs. 0.7%, respectively; p < 0.001). Readmission rates differed as well (nonobese: 0.5%, class I: 1.1%, class II/III: 2.1%; p < 0.001) with pairwise significance between class II/II and nonobese. Class II/III obesity was an independent risk factor for both readmission (odds ratio [OR], 3.32; p = 0.002) and nonhome discharge (OR, 2.51; p = 0.02). Neither 30-day reoperation nor morbidity rates demonstrated significance. No mortalities were reported. CONCLUSION: Although obese class-II/III were risk factors for 30-day readmission and nonhome discharge, there was no significant difference in reoperation rates or morbidity. CDR procedures can continue to be safely preformed independent of obesity status.

Recovery Kinetics After Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multisurgeon registry. OBJECTIVE: To study recovery kinetics and associated factors after cervical spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have described return to activities cervical spine surgery. This is a big gap in the literature, as preoperative counseling and expectations before surgery are important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) were included. Data collected included preoperative patient-reported outcome measures, return to driving, return to working, and discontinuation of opioids data. A multivariable regression was conducted to identify the factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to working by 15 days, and discontinuing opioids by 30 days. RESULTS: Seventy ACDF patients and 70 CDR patients were included. Overall, 98.2% of ACDF patients and 98% of CDR patients returned to driving in 16 and 12 days, respectively; 85.7% of ACDF patients and 90.9% of CDR patients returned to work in 16 and 14 days; and 98.3% of ACDF patients and 98.3% of CDR patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and six days. Though not significant, minimal (odds ratio (OR)=1.65) and moderate (OR=1.79) disability was associated with greater odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Sedentary work (OR=0.8) and preoperative narcotics (OR=0.86) were associated with decreased odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Medium (OR=0.81) and heavy (OR=0.78) intensity occupations were associated with decreased odds of returning to work by 15 days. High school education (OR=0.75), sedentary work (OR=0.79), and retired/not working (OR=0.69) were all associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery kinetics for ACDF and CDR are comparable. Most patients return to all activities after ACDF and CDR within 16 days. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

Unplanned readmissions following ambulatory spine surgery: assessing common reasons and risk factors.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although outpatient spine surgery is becoming increasingly popular in the United States, unplanned readmission following outpatient surgery remains a significant postoperative concern. PURPOSE: This study aimed to (1) describe the incidence and timing of 30-day unplanned readmission after ambulatory lumbar and cervical spine surgery (2) evaluate the common reasons for readmission, and (3) identify factors associated with readmission in this population. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent ambulatory cervical or lumbar spine surgery between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital readmission within 30 postoperative days. METHODS: Patients who underwent ambulatory cervical or lumbar spine surgery between 2015 and 2020 were identified using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Reasons for and timing of unplanned readmissions were recorded. Multivariable poisson regressions were employed to determine any independent predictors of readmission. RESULTS: A total of 33,092 ambulatory cervical and 68,115 ambulatory lumbar spine surgery patients were identified. Incidences of 30-day readmission were 3.37% and 3.07% among cervical and lumbar patients, respectively. The most common surgical site-related reasons for readmission included uncontrolled pain, recurrence of disc herniation or major symptom, and postoperative hematoma/seroma. Common nonsurgical site-related reasons included gastrointestinal, neurological, and cardiovascular complications. Factors associated with readmission among cervical patients included age ≥55, BMI ≥35, functional dependence, diabetes, smoking, COPD, and steroid use, whereas factors associated with readmission following lumbar spine surgery included age ≥65, female sex, BMI ≥35, functional dependence, ASA ≥3, diabetes, smoking, COPD, and hypertension (p<.05 for all). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the common reasons and factors associated with unplanned readmission following ambulatory spine surgery. Consideration of these factors may be critical to ensuring appropriate patient selection for ambulatory spine surgery.

Cervical Total Disc Replacement in Athletes: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to describe clinical characteristics, outcomes, and return to play after cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) in athletes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The role of cTDR in treating athletes with symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease is undefined. METHODS: A systematic search using MEDLINE through PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify all relevant literature. Data regarding study type, country in which the study was conducted, sample size, mean age, sex, type of sport, level of patient participation in sports, surgical indication, levels operated, type of implant, duration of follow-up, reoperations, surgical complications, extent of postoperative return to sports (RTSs), time to RTSs, and outcome notes were extracted from the included studies and analyzed. RESULTS: Seven studies, including 4 case series and 3 case reports, and a total of 57 cTDR cases, were included. There was significant heterogeneity among the cTDR cases in terms of chosen sport and level of participation. Prestige LP was utilized in 51 out of 57 (89.5%) cases and 53 out of 57 (93%) cases were single-level. No reoperations were noted at a mean follow-up of 51.6 months. All patients returned to sports postoperatively. Return to training and competition occurred at a mean of 10.1 weeks and 30.7 weeks postoperatively, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence regarding cTDR in athletes indicates that these patients RTSs at high rates, with return to training occurring around 10 weeks and return to competition occurring around 30 weeks. Clinical outcomes in these patients are like those reported for the general population. Low-level evidence, small numbers of cases, heterogeneity in chosen sport and participation level, and predominance of a single implant type limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the current literature on this patient population.

Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference following cervical disc replacement.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: While cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been emerging as a reliable and efficacious treatment option for degenerative cervical spine pathology, not all patients undergoing CDR will achieve minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) postoperatively-risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in PROMs following CDR have not been established. PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in Neck Disability Index (NDI, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck and arm following primary 1- or 2-level CDRs in the early and late postoperative periods. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who had undergone primary 1- or 2-level CDR for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks between 2017 and 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes: Neck disability index (NDI), Visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm, MCID. METHODS: Minimal clinically important difference achievement rates for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm within early (within 3 months) and late (6 months to 2 years) postoperative periods were assessed based on previously established thresholds. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed for each PROM and evaluation period, with failure to achieve MCID assigned as the outcome variable, to establish models to identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID and predictors for achievement of MCID. Predictor variables included in the analyses featured demographics, comorbidities, diagnoses/symptoms, and perioperative characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients achieved MCID for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm for both early and late postoperative periods-79% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the early postoperative period, while 80% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the late postoperative period. Predominant neck pain was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for NDI in the early (OR: 3.13 [1.10-8.87], p-value: .032) and late (OR: 5.01 [1.31-19.12], p-value: .018) postoperative periods, and VAS-Arm for the late postoperative period (OR: 36.63 [3.78-354.56], p-value: .002). Myelopathy was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the early postoperative period (OR: 3.40 [1.08-10.66], p-value: .036). Anxiety was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the late postoperative period (OR: 6.51 [1.91-22.18], p-value: .003). CDR at levels C5C7 was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID in NDI for the late postoperative period (OR: 9.74 [1.43-66.34], p-value: .020). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in common PROMs following CDR including predominant neck pain, myelopathy, anxiety, and CDR at levels C5-C7. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on outcomes of CDR as the evidence suggests that those with the risk factors above may not improve as reliably after CDR.

Preoperative Disability Influences Effectiveness of MCID and PASS in Predicting Patient Improvement Following Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) are utilized to interpret Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), it is unclear whether there is a clearly better metric between the two and if not, which metric should be utilized when. OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of MCID and PASS when interpreting ODI after lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or decompression were included. The ODI and global rating change data at 1 year were analyzed. The global rating change was collapsed to a dichotomous outcome variable-(a) improved, (b) not improved The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of MCID and PASS were calculated for the overall cohort and separately for patients with minimal, moderate, and severe preoperative disability. Two groups with patients who achieved PASS but not MCID and patients who achieved MCID but not PASS were analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty patients (mean age 62 y, 57% males) were included. PASS (86% vs. 69%) and MCID (88% vs. 63%) had significantly greater sensitivity in patients with moderate and severe preoperative disability, respectively. Nineteen percent of patients achieved PASS but not MCID and 10% of patients achieved MCID but not PASS, with the preoperative ODI being significantly greater in the latter. Most of these patients still reported improvement with no significant difference between the 2 groups (93% vs. 86%). CONCLUSION: Significant postoperative clinical improvement is most effectively assessed by PASS in patients with minimal or moderate preoperative disability and by MCID in patients with severe preoperative disability. Adequate interpretation of ODI using the PASS and MCID metrics warrants individualized application as their utility is highly dependent on the degree of preoperative disability.

Floor-Mounted Robotic Pedicle Screw Placement in Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Analysis of 1,050 Screws.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the usage of floor-mounted robot in minimally invasive lumbar fusion. METHODS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology using floor-mounted robot (ExcelsiusGPS) were included. Pedicle screw accuracy, proximal level violation rate, pedicle screw size, screw-related complications, and robot abandonment rate were analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients were included. Most surgeries were primary single-level fusion. Sixty-five percent of surgeries had intraoperative computed tomography (CT) workflow, 35% had preoperative CT workflow. Sixty-six percent were transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, 16% were lateral, 8% were anterior, and 10% were a combined approach. A total of 1,050 screws were placed with robotic assistance (85% in prone position, 15% in lateral position). Postoperative CT scan was available for 80 patients (419 screws). Overall pedicle screw accuracy rate was 96.4% (prone, 96.7%; lateral, 94.2%; primary, 96.7%; revision, 95.3%). Overall poor screw placement rate was 2.8% (prone, 2.7%; lateral, 3.8%; primary, 2.7%; revision, 3.5%). Overall proximal facet and endplate violation rates were 0.4% and 0.9%. Average diameter and length of pedicle screws were 7.1 mm and 47.7 mm. Screw revision had to be done for 1 screw (0.1%). Use of the robot had to be aborted in 2 cases (0.8%). CONCLUSION: Usage of floor-mounted robotics for the placement of lumbar pedicle screws leads to excellent accuracy, large screw size, and negligible screw-related complications. It does so for screw placement in prone/lateral position and primary/revision surgery alike with negligible robot abandonment rates.

Improvement in predominant back pain following minimally invasive decompression for spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of patients with predominant back pain (pBP) undergoing minimally invasive decompression surgery compared with patients with nonpredominant back pain (npBP). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presenting complaint: 1) pBP, defined as visual analog scale (VAS) back pain score > VAS leg pain score; and 2) npBP. Changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) postoperative time points. Outcomes measures were: 1) PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], VAS back and leg pain scores, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Score [SF-12 PCS], and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function [PROMIS PF]), and 2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rate and time. For the late MCID achievement point, a second analysis was conducted restricting VAS back and leg pain scores only to patients with preoperative scores ≥ 5. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety patients were included (126 with pBP and 264 with npBP). There were no differences in patient demographics and operated levels. There were no differences in preoperative ODI, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF scores. The pBP cohort had a significantly greater preoperative VAS back pain score than the npBP cohort, whereas the npBP cohort had a significantly greater preoperative VAS leg pain score than the pBP cohort. There were no differences in the absolute values or changes in ODI, VAS back pain, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF scores at any time point. There was a significant difference in the early VAS leg pain scores (greater in npBP) that disappeared by the late postoperative time point. There was no difference in the MCID achievement rate in the ODI, SF-12 PCS, or PROMIS PF scores. By the late postoperative time point, 51.2% and 55.3% achieved an MCID on the ODI, 58.1% and 62.7% on the SF-12 PCS, 60% and 67.6% on the PROMIS PF, 81.1% and 73.2% on VAS back pain scores for those with preoperative scores ≥ 5, and 72% and 83.6% on VAS leg pain scores for those with preoperative scores ≥ 5 for the pBP and npBP cohorts, respectively. Additionally, there were no differences in time to MCID achievement for any PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: The pBP and npBP cohorts showed similar improvement in PROMs and MCID achievement rates. This result shows that minimally invasive laminectomy is equally effective for patients presenting with pBP or npBP.

Quality of Life and Postoperative Satisfaction in Patients with Benign Extramedullary Spinal Tumors: A Multicenter Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected registry data. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and postoperative satisfaction in patients with different histotypes of benign extramedullary spinal tumors (ESTs). BACKGROUND: Little is known about how different histotypes influence HRQOL and postoperative satisfaction in EST patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing primary benign EST surgery at 11 tertiary referral hospitals between 2017 and 2021 who completed preoperative and 1-year postoperative questionnaires were included. HRQOL assessment included the Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary (MCS) of Short Form-12, EuroQol 5-dimension, Oswestry/Neck Disability Index (ODI/NDI), and Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) for upper/lower extremities (UEP/LEP) and back pain (BP). Patients who answered "very satisfied," "satisfied," or "somewhat satisfied" on a seven-point Likert scale were considered to be satisfied with treatment. Student t -tests or Welch's t -test were used to compare continuous variables between two groups, and one-way analysis of variance was used to compare outcomes between the three groups of EST histotypes (schwannoma, meningioma, atypical). Categorical variables were compared using the χ 2 test or Fisher exact test. RESULTS: A total of 140 consecutive EST patients were evaluated; 100 (72%) had schwannomas, 30 (21%) had meningiomas, and 10 (7%) had other ESTs. Baseline Physical Component Summary was significantly worse in patients with meningiomas ( P =0.04), and baseline NRS-LEP was significantly worse in patients with schwannomas ( P =0.03). However, there were no significant differences in overall postoperative HRQOL or patient satisfaction between histology types. Overall, 121 (86%) patients were satisfied with surgery. In a subgroup analysis comparing intradural schwannomas and meningiomas adjusted for patient demographics and tumor location with inverse probability weighting, schwannoma patients had worse baseline MCS ( P =0.03), ODI ( P =0.03), NRS-BP ( P <.001), and NRS-LEP ( P =0.001). Schwannoma patients also had worse postoperative MCS ( P =0.03) and NRS-BP ( P =0.001), with no significant difference in the percentage of satisfied patients ( P =0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent primary benign EST resection had a significant improvement in HRQOL postoperatively, and ~90% of these patients reported being satisfied with their treatment outcomes one year after surgery. EST patients may exhibit a relatively lower threshold for postoperative satisfaction compared with patients undergoing surgery for degenerative spine conditions.