Formal Radiologist Interpretations of Intraoperative Spine Radiographs Have Low Clinical Value.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical relevance, usefulness, and financial implications of intraoperative radiograph interpretation by radiologists in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Due to rising health care costs, spine surgery is under scrutiny to maximize value-based care. Formal radiographic analysis remains a potential source of unnecessary health care costs, especially for intraoperative radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on all adult elective spine surgeries at a single institution between July 2020 and July 2021. Demographic and radiographic data were collected, including intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs. Financial data were obtained through the institution's price estimator. Radiographic characteristics included time from radiographic imaging to completion of radiologist interpretation report, completion of radiologist interpretation report before the conclusion of surgical procedure, clinical relevance, and clinical usefulness. Reports were considered clinically relevant if the spinal level of the procedure was described and clinically useful if completed before the conclusion of the procedure and deemed clinically relevant. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-one intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs from 360 patients revealed a median delay of 128 minutes between imaging and completion of the interpretive report. Only 38.9% of reports were completed before the conclusion of surgery. There were 79.4% deemed clinically relevant and only 33.5% were clinically useful. Localization reports were completed more frequently before the conclusion of surgery (67.2% vs. 34.4%) but with lower clinical relevance (90.1% vs. 98.5%) and clinical usefulness (60.3% vs. 33.6%) than post-instrumentation reports. Each patient was charged $32 to $34 for the interpretation fee, cumulating a minimum total cost of $15,392. CONCLUSIONS: Formal radiographic interpretation of intraoperative spine radiographs was of low clinical utility for spine surgeons. Institutions should consider optimizing radiology workflows to improve timeliness and clinical relevance or evaluate the necessity of reflexive consultation to radiology for intraoperative imaging interpretation to ensure that value-based care is maximized during spine surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Modified Clavien-Dindo-Sink Classification System for operative complications in adult spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Currently there is no standardized mechanism to describe or compare complications in adult spine surgery. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to modify and validate the Clavien-Dindo-Sink complication classification system for applications in spine surgery. METHODS: The Clavien-Dindo-Sink complication classification system was evaluated and modified for spine surgery by four fellowship-trained spine surgeons using a consensus process. A distinct group of three fellowship-trained spine surgeons completed a randomized electronic survey grading 71 real-life clinical case scenarios. The survey was repeated 2 weeks after its initial completion. Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa (κ) statistics were used to evaluate interrater and intrarater reliabilities, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, interobserver reliability during the first and second rounds of grading was excellent with a κ of 0.847 (95% CI 0.785-0.908) and 0.852 (95% CI 0.791-0.913), respectively. In the first round, interrater reliability ranged from good to excellent with a κ of 0.778 for grade I (95% CI 0.644-0.912), 0.698 for grade II (95% CI 0.564-0.832), 0.861 for grade III (95% CI 0.727-0.996), 0.845 for grade IV-A (95% CI 0.711-0.979), 0.962 for grade IV-B (95% CI 0.828-1.097), and 0.960 for grade V (95% CI 0.826-1.094). Intraobserver reliability testing for all three independent observers was excellent with a κ of 0.971 (95% CI 0.944-0.999) for rater 1, 0.963 (95% CI 0.926-1.001) for rater 2, and 0.926 (95% CI 0.869-0.982) for rater 3. CONCLUSIONS: The Modified Clavien-Dindo-Sink Classification System demonstrates excellent interrater and intrarater reliability in adult spine surgery cases. This system provides a useful framework to better communicate the severity of spine-related complications.

Examining the safety profile of a standard dose tranexamic acid regimen in spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Perioperative blood loss during spinal surgery is associated with complications and in-hospital mortality. Weight-based administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) has the potential to reduce blood loss and related complications in spinal surgery; however, evidence for standardized dosing is lacking. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a standardized preoperative 2 g bolus TXA dosing regimen on perioperative transfusion, blood loss, thromboembolic events, and postoperative outcomes in spine surgery patients. METHODS: An institutional review board approved this retrospective review of prospectively enrolled adult spine patients (> 18 years of age). Patients were included who underwent elective and emergency spine surgery between September 2018 and July 2021. Patients who received a standardized 2 g dose of TXA were compared to patients who did not receive TXA. The primary outcome measure was perioperative transfusion. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss and thromboembolic or other perioperative complications. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and continuous variables were analyzed with the two-tailed independent t-test, while categorical variables were analyzed with the Fisher's exact test or chi-square test. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis was performed to examine independent risk factors for perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: TXA was administered to 353 of 453 (78%) patients, and there were no demographic differences between groups. Although the TXA group had more operative levels and a longer operative time, the transfusion rate was not different between the TXA and no-TXA groups (7.4% vs 8%, p = 0.83). Stepwise multivariate regression found that the number of operative levels was an independent predictor of perioperative transfusion and that both operative levels and operative time were correlated with estimated blood loss. TXA was not identified as an independent predictor of any postoperative complication. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized preoperative 2 g bolus TXA dosing regimen was associated with an excellent safety profile, and despite increased case complexity in terms of number of operative levels and operative time, patients treated with TXA did not require more blood transfusions than patients not treated with TXA.