Capitate Fracture Subsequent to Capitolunate Staple Fusion: A Case Report.

We report a case of a 71-year-old man who underwent capitolunate fusion for scapholunate advanced collapse. At the patient's 4-month follow-up, there was evidence of a fracture at the distal staple tine. He subsequently underwent removal of staple hardware with revision open reduction internal fixation using headless compression screw fixation and bone grafting. The literature review aimed to identify possible mechanisms and analyze similar cases of this complication. We presume that the fracture resulted from increased stress on the bone from both drill holes and the orientation of the staples. Placing the tines in different planes may decrease the risk of this complication.

The Role of L1PA in Patient Reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Single Level Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the L1 pelvic angle (L1PA) can be used to predict quality of life outcomes for adults one year after L4-L5 fusion to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: L1PA is beneficial in the evaluation of pre and postoperative quality of life outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for spinal deformity. No studies have examined its utility in surgical patients with degenerative spinal disease. METHODS: Patients undergoing L4-L5 posterolateral decompression and fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis were grouped by preoperative and postoperative L1PA, and further stratified by cut offs of>7.2° and <7.2° based on previous literature. We also stratified patients by presence of an ideal calculated L1PA, defined as (0.5xPelvic Incidence)-21 +/- 5°, as proposed by prior literature. Preoperative, one year postoperative and Δ (postoperative minus preoperative) patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic measurements were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were identified with preoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 132 with L1PAs>7.2°. Eighteen patients were identified with postoperative L1PAs <7.2° and 138 with L1PAs>7.2°. Sixty-five and fifty-seven patients were identified as having ideal calculated pre and postoperative L1PAs, respectively. When using absolute cutoffs, L1PA correlated with pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). When using calculated L1PAs, L1PA correlated with lumbar lordosis, PI-LL, pelvic tilt and sacral slope. With respect to PROMs, no statistically significant differences existed between cohorts both preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively on either univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSION: L1PA may be a helpful radiographic consideration that translates to clinically relevant outcomes in spinal deformity. However, it does not appear as predictive of patient outcomes after single level fusion for patients with L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Further studies are warranted to investigate the role of L1PA in degenerative spine patients.

Radiology Reports Do Not Accurately Portray the Severity of Cervical Neural Foraminal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiology reports to a validated grading system for cervical foraminal stenosis (FS) and (2) to evaluate whether the severity of cervical neural FS on MRI correlates to motor weakness or patient-reported outcomes. BACKGROUND: Radiology reports of cervical spine MRI are often reviewed to assess the degree of neural FS. However, research looking at the association between these reports and objective MRI findings, as well as clinical symptoms, is lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all adult patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a single academic center for an indication of cervical radiculopathy. Preoperative MRI was assessed for neural FS severity using the grading system described by Kim and colleagues for each level of fusion, as well as adjacent levels. Neural FS severity was recorded from diagnostic radiologist MRI reports. Motor weakness was defined as an examination grade <4/5 on the final preoperative encounter. Regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the degree of FS by either classification was related to patient-reported outcome measure severity. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were included in the study, and 998 total levels were assessed. There were significant differences between the MRI grading system and the assessment by radio-logists (P< 0.001). In levels with moderate stenosis, 28.9% were classified as having no stenosis by radiology. In levels with severe stenosis, 29.7% were classified as having mild-moderate stenosis or less. Motor weakness was found similarly often in levels of moderate or severe stenosis (6.9% and 9.2%, respectively). On regression analysis, no associations were found between baseline patient-reported outcome measures and stenosis severity assessed by radiologists or MRI grading systems. CONCLUSION: Radiology reports on the severity of cervical neural FS are not consistent with a validated MRI grading system. These radiology reports underestimated the severity of neural foraminal compression and may be inappropriate when used for clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Implementation of a Private Payer Bundled Payment Model While Maintaining High-Value Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-institution cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of a commercial bundled payment model in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: BPCI-A caused significant losses for many physician practices, prompting private payers to establish their own bundled payment models. The feasibility of these private bundles has yet to be evaluated in spine fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar fusion from October to December 2018 in BPCI-A before our institution's departure were included for BPCI-A analysis. Private bundle data was collected from 2018 to 2020. Analysis of the transition was conducted among Medicare-aged beneficiaries. Private bundles were grouped by calendar year (Y1, Y2, Y3). Stepwise multivariate linear regression was performed to measure independent predictors of net deficit. RESULTS: The net surplus was the lowest in Y1 ($2,395, P =0.03) but did not differ between our final year in BPCI-A and subsequent years in private bundles (all, P >0.05). AIR and SNF patient discharges decreased significantly in all private bundle years compared with BPCI. Readmissions fell from 10.7% (N=37) in BPCI-A to 4.4% (N=6) in Y2 and 4.5% (N=3) Y3 of private bundles ( P <0.001). Being in Y2 or Y3 was independently associated with a net surplus in comparison to the Y1 (ß: $11,728, P =0.001; ß: $11,643, P =0.002). Postoperatively, length of stay in days (ß: $-2,982, P <0.001), any readmission (ß: -$18,825, P =0.001), and discharge to AIR (ß: $-61,256, P <0.001) or SNF (ß: $-10,497, P =0.058) were all associated with a net deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Nongovernmental bundled payment models can be successfully implemented in lumbar spinal fusion patients. Constant price adjustment is necessary so bundled payments remain financially beneficial to both parties and systems overcome early losses. Private insurers who have more competition than the government may be more willing to provide mutually beneficial situations where cost is reduced for payers and health systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Cellular Bone Matrix in Spine Surgery - Are They Worth the Risk: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature for complications and outcomes after the implantation of cellular bone matrix (CBM) during spine fusion. METHODS: The PubMed database was queried from inception to January 31, 2023 for any articles that discussed the role of and identified a specific CBM in spinal fusion procedures. Adverse events, reoperations, methods, and fusion rates were collected from all studies and reported. RESULTS: Six hundred articles were identified, of which 19 were included that reported outcomes of 7 different CBM products. Seven studies evaluated lumbar fusion, 11 evaluated cervical fusion, and 1 study reported adverse events of a single CBM product. Only 4 studies were comparative studies while others were limited to case series. Fusion rates ranged from 68% to 98.7% in the lumbar spine and 87% to 100% in the cervical spine, although criteria for radiographic fusion was variable. While 7 studies reported no adverse events, there was no strict consensus on what constituted a complication. One study reported catastrophic disseminated tuberculosis from donor contaminated CBM. The authors of 14 studies had conflicts of interest with either the manufacturer or distributor for their analyzed CBM. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence regarding the use of cellular bone matrix as an osteobiologic during spine surgery is weak and limited to low-grade non-comparative studies subject to industry funding. While reported fusion rates are high, the risk of severe complications should not be overlooked. Further large clinical trials are required to elucidate whether the CBMs offer any benefits that outweigh the risks.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Urinary Retention After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Anesthetics and Surgical Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) after lumbar fusion surgery can lead to longer hospital stays and thus increased risk of developing other postoperative complications. Therefore, we aimed to determine the relationship between POUR and (1) surgical approach and (2) anesthetic agents, including sugammadex and glycopyrrolate. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, L4-S1 single-level lumbar fusion surgeries between 2018 and 2021 were identified. A 3:1 propensity match of patients with POUR to those without was conducted, controlling for patient age, sex, diabetes status, body mass index, smoking status, history of benign prostatic hyperplasia, and the number of levels decompressed. POUR was defined as documented straight catheterization yielding >400 mL. We compared patient demographic, surgical, anesthetic, and postoperative characteristics. A bivariant analysis and backward multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis ( P -value < 0.200) were performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 899 patients identified, 51 met the criteria for POUR and were matched to 153 patients. No notable differences were observed between groups based on demographic or surgical characteristics. On bivariant analysis, patients who developed POUR were more likely to have been given succinylcholine (13.7% vs. 3.92%, P = 0.020) as an induction agent. The independent predictors of POUR identified by multivariable analysis included the use of succinylcholine {odds ratio (OR), 4.37 (confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 16.46), P = 0.022} and reduced postoperative activity (OR, 0.99 [CI, 0.993 to 0.999], P = 0.049). Factors protective against POUR included using sugammadex as a reversal agent (OR, 0.38 [CI, 0.17 to 0.82], P = 0.017). The stepwise regression did not identify an anterior surgical approach as a notable predictor of POUR. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that sugammadex for anesthesia reversal was protective against POUR while succinylcholine and reduced postoperative activity were associated with the development of POUR. In addition, we found no difference between the anterior or posterior approach to spinal fusion in the development of POUR.

Clinical Outcomes Following Open Olecranon Bursa Excision for Septic and Aseptic Olecranon Bursitis: An Observational Study.

Background and objective Olecranon bursitis (aseptic or septic) is caused by inflammation in the bursal tissue. While it is typically managed with conservative measures, refractory cases may indicate surgical intervention. There is currently limited research about outcomes following bursal excision for both septic and aseptic etiologies. In light of this, the purpose of this study was to determine if patients experienced improvement following surgical olecranon bursa excision and to compare outcomes between septic and aseptic forms. Materials and methods A retrospective review was performed involving patients who underwent olecranon bursa excision from 2014 to 2021. Demographic data, patient characteristics, surgical data, and outcome-related data were collected from the medical records. Patients were classified into subgroups based on the type of olecranon bursitis (septic or aseptic). Preoperative and one-year postoperative 12-item short-form survey (SF-12) results and range of motion (ROM) outcomes were evaluated for the entire cohort as well as the subgroups. Results We included 61 patients in our study and found significant improvement in the Physical Component Scale 12 (PCS-12) score for all patients (42.0 vs. 45.5, p=0.010) following surgery. However, based on subgroup analysis, the aseptic group improved in PCS-12 following surgery (41.5 vs. 46.8, p<0.001), but the septic group did not (43.6 vs. 40.5, p=0.277). No improvements were found in the Mental Component Scale 12 (MCS-12) scores following surgery in either group. Eighteen of the 61 patients experienced postoperative complications (29.5%), but only 6.5% required a second surgical procedure. Specifically, 14 of the 18 complications occurred in the aseptic group while two septic and two aseptic patients required additional surgeries. Elbow ROM did not change significantly after surgery but more patients were found to have full ROM postoperatively (83.0% to 91.8%, p=0.228). Conclusion Our findings suggest that patients with refractory olecranon bursitis, particularly if aseptic, tend to gain significant physical health benefits from open bursectomy.

Vascularized Bone Grafting Versus the 2-Stage Masquelet Technique for Upper-Extremity Bone Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Vascularized bone grafting (VBG) has been described as the technique of choice for larger bone defects in bone reconstruction, yielding excellent results at the traditional threshold of 6 cm as described in the literature. However, we hypothesize that the 2-stage Masquelet technique provides equivalent union rates for upper-extremity bone defects regardless of size, while having no increase in the rate of patient complications. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and Scopus for outcomes after VBG and the Masquelet technique for upper-extremity bone defects of the humerus, radius, ulna, metacarpal, or phalanx (carpal defects were excluded). A meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes following VBG and the Masquelet technique at varying defect sizes. RESULTS: There were 77 VBG (295 patients) and 25 Masquelet (119 patients) studies that met inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing the Masquelet technique had defect sizes ranging from 0-15 cm (average 4.5 cm), while patients undergoing VBG had defect sizes ranging from 0-24 cm (average 5.9 cm). The union rate for Masquelet patients was 94.1% with an average time to union of 5.8 months, compared to 94.9% and 4.4 months, respectively, for VBG patients. We did not identify a defect size threshold at which VBG demonstrated a significantly higher union rate. No statistically significant difference was found in union rates between techniques when using multivariable logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in union rates between VBG and the Masquelet technique in upper-extremity bone defects regardless of defect size. Surgeons may consider the Masquelet technique as an alternative to VBG in large bone defects of the upper extremity. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Shoulder Stiffness With Rotator Cuff Repair Yields Similar Outcomes to Isolated Rotator Cuff Repair.

Purpose: To compare patient-reported and surgical outcome measures in patients with and without secondary shoulder stiffness (SSS) undergoing rotator cuff repair (RCR). Methods: Patients undergoing rotator cuff repair from 2014 to 2020 with complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by the short-form 12 survey (SF-12) were retrospectively reviewed to identify if operative intervention for SSS was performed alongside the RCR. Those patients with operative intervention for SSS were propensity matched to a group without prior intervention for stiffness by age, sex, laterality, body mass index, diabetes mellitus status, and the presence of a thyroid disorder. The groups were compared by rotator cuff tear (RCT) size, surgical outcomes, further surgical intervention, rotator cuff retear rate, postoperative range of motion (ROM), and SF-12 results at 1 year after surgery. Delta values were calculated for component scores of the SF-12 and ROM values by subtracting the preoperative result from the postoperative result. Results: A total of 89 patients with SSS were compared to 156 patients in the control group at final analysis. The patients in the SSS group experienced a significant improvement in the delta mental health component score (MCS-12) of the SF-12 survey that was not seen in the control group (P = .005 to P = .539). Both groups experienced significant improvement by the delta physical health component score (PCS-12) of the SF-12 survey (SSS: 7.68; P < .001; control: 6.95; P < .001). The SSS group also experienced greater improvement of their forward flexion (25.8° vs 12.9°; P = .005) and external rotation (7.13° vs 1.65°; P = .031) ROM than the control group. Conclusions: Operative intervention of SSS at the time of RCR has equivalent postoperative SF-12 survey outcome scores when compared to patients undergoing RCR without preoperative stiffness despite those patients having lower preoperative scores. Level of Evidence: Level III retrospective comparative study.

Are Clinical or Surgical Outcomes Different Based on Whether the Same Surgeon or Hospital System Performs the Spine Revision?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of discontinuity in care by changing surgeons, health systems, or increased time to revision surgery on revision spine fusion surgical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience worse outcomes than those undergoing primary lumbar surgery. Those requiring complex revisions are often transferred to tertiary or quaternary referral centers under the assumption that those institutions may be more accustomed at performing those procedures. However, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the impact of discontinuity of care in revision spinal fusions. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion 2011-2021 were grouped based on (1) revision performed by the index surgeon versus a different surgeon, (2) revision performed within the same versus different hospital system as the index procedure, and (3) length of time from index procedure. Multivariate regression for outcomes controlled for confounding differences. RESULTS: A total of 776 revision surgeries were included. An increased time interval between the index procedure and the revision surgery was predictive of a lower risk for subsequent revision procedure (odds ratio: 0.57, P =0.022). Revision surgeries performed by the same surgeon predicted a reduced length of hospital stay (ß: -0.14, P =0.001). Neither time to revision nor undergoing by the same surgeon or same practice predicted 90-day readmission rates. Patients are less likely to report meaningful improvement in Mental Component Score-12 or Physical Component Score-12 if revision surgery was performed at a different hospital system. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have revision lumbar fusions have similar clinical outcomes regardless of whether their surgeon performed the index procedure. However, continuity of care with the same surgeon may reduce hospital length of stay and associated health care costs. The length of time between primary and revision surgery does not significantly impact patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Bibliometric Analysis of Spinopelvic Alignment in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative dislocation of unclear etiology remains a concern after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Interest is growing in the importance of spinopelvic alignment on stability in THA. The purpose of this study was to analyze publication trends, areas of interest, and future research direction of spinopelvic alignment in THA. METHODS: Articles on the topic of spinopelvic alignment in THA published between 1990 and 2022 were obtained through Web of Science Core Collection of Clarivate Analytics (WSCCA). Results were screened by title, abstract, and full text. The inclusion criterion was English-language peer-reviewed journal publications on the clinical topic of spinopelvic alignment in THA. Bibliometric software was used to characterize publication trends. RESULTS: We screened 1,211 articles, yielding 132 meeting the inclusion criterion. From 1990 to 2022, published articles have steadily increased, peaking in 2021. Countries that have been the most productive in contributions to research are those in which THA is the most prevalent. Our analysis of keyword frequency showed increasing interest in "pelvic tilt," "anteversion," and "acetabular component" position. CONCLUSION: Our study identified that increasing attention is being given to spinopelvic mobility and PT in the setting of THA. The United States and France produced the most studies related to spinopelvic alignment.

Preoperative Opioid Prescribers and Lumbar Fusion: Their Effect on Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Opioid Usage.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of multiple preoperative opioid prescribers on postoperative patient opioid usage and patient-reported outcome measures after single-level lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior literature has identified opioid prescriptions from multiple postoperative providers increase opioid usage rates. However, there is limited evidence on how multiple preoperative opioid prescribers affect postoperative opioid usage or clinical outcomes after a single-level lumbar fusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or posterolateral lumbar fusions between September 2017 and February 2020 at a single academic institution was performed. Patients were excluded if they were not identifiable in our state's prescription drug-monitoring program. Univariate comparisons and regression analyses identified factors associated with postoperative clinical outcomes and opioid usage. RESULTS: Of 239 patients, 160 (66.9%) had one or fewer preoperative prescribers and 79 (33.1%) had >1 prescribers. On regression analysis, the presence of multiple preoperative prescribers was an independent predictor of increased improvement in Visual Analog Scale (∆VAS) Back (ß=-1.61, P =0.012) and the involvement of a nonoperative spine provider was an independent predictor of increased improvement in ∆VAS Leg (ß = -1.53, P = 0.034). Multiple preoperative opioid prescribers correlated with an increase in opioid prescriptions postoperatively (ß = 0.26, P = 0.014), but it did not significantly affect the amount of morphine milligram equivalents prescribed (ß = -48.79, P = 0.146). A greater number of preoperative opioid prescriptions predicted worse improvements in VAS Back, VAS Leg, and Oswestry Disability Index and predicted increased postoperative opioid prescriptions, prescribers, and morphine milligram equivalents. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple preoperative opioid prescribers predicted increased improvement in postoperative back pain, whereas preoperative involvement of a nonoperative spine provider predicted improvements in leg pain after surgery. The number of preoperative opioid prescriptions was a better metric for predicting poor postoperative outcomes and increased opioid consumption compared with the number of preoperative opioid prescribers.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Incidental Durotomy during Lumbar Spine Decompression with or without Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for incidental durotomies during lumbar decompression surgeries. In addition, we aimed to determine the changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on incidental durotomy status. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There is limited literature investigating the affect of incidental durotomy on patient reported outcome measures. While the majority of research does not suggest differences in complications, readmission, or revision rates, many studies rely on public databases, and their sensitivity and specificity for identifying incidental durotomies is unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with or without fusion at a single tertiary care center were grouped based on the presence of a durotomy. Multivariate analysis was performed for length of stay (LOS), hospital readmissions, and changes in PROMs. To identify surgical risk factors for durotomy, 3:1 propensity matching was performed using stepwise logistic regression. The sensitivity and specificity of the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes (G96.11 and G97.41) were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 3,684 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar decompressions, 533 (14.5%) had durotomies, and a complete set of PROMs (preoperative and 1-year postoperative) were available for 737 patients (20.0%). Incidental durotomy was an independent predictor of increased LOS but not hospital readmission or worse PROMs. The durotomy repair method was not associated with hospital readmission or LOS. However, repair with collagen graft and suture predicted reduced improvement in Visual Analog Scale back (ß =2.56, p=0.004). Independent risk factors for incidental durotomies included revisions (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; p<0.001), levels decompressed (OR, 1.11; p=0.005), and preoperative diagnosis of spondylolisthesis or thoracolumbar kyphosis. The sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 codes were 5.4% and 99.9%, respectively, for identifying durotomies. CONCLUSIONS: The durotomy rate for lumbar decompressions was 14.5%. No differences in outcomes were detected except for increased LOS. Database studies relying on ICD codes should be interpreted with caution due to the limited sensitivity in identifying incidental durotomies.

The role of socioeconomic factors as barriers to patient reported outcome measure completion following lumbar spine fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although incorporating patient reported outcomes (PROMs) into practice allows healthcare systems to evaluate the value of care provided, research and policy reflecting PROMs can only be valid if they represent all patients. Few studies have evaluated socioeconomic barriers to PROM completion, and none have done so in a spine patient population. PURPOSE: To identify patient barriers to PROM completion one year following lumbar spine fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective single-institution cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 2,984 patients undergoing lumbar fusion between 2014 and 2020 OUTCOME MEASURES: Completion of Mental Component Score (MCS-12) and Physical Component Score (PCS-12) of Short Form-12 questionnaire 1 year postoperatively. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients undergoing 1-3-level lumbar fusion at a single urban tertiary center. PROMs were queried from our prospectively managed electronic outcomes database. Patients were considered to have complete PROMs if 1-year outcomes were available. Community-level characteristics were collected from patients' zip codes using the Economic Innovation Group Distressed Communities Index. Bivariate analyses were performed to assess factors associated with PROM incompletion along with multivariate logistic regression to control for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 1,968 (66.0%) had incomplete 1-year PROMs. Patients with incomplete PROMs were more likely to be Black (14.5% vs 9.3%, p<.001), Hispanic (2.9% vs 1.6%, p=.027), reside in a distressed community (14.7% vs 8.5%, p<.001), and be active smokers (22.4% vs 15.5%, p<.001). On multivariate regression, Black race (OR: 1.46, p=.014, Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 2.19, p=.027), distressed community status (OR: 1.47, p=.024), workers' compensation status (OR: 2.82, p=.001), and active smoking (OR:1.31, p=.034) all were independently associated with PROM incompletion. Surgical characteristics, including primary surgeon, revision status, approach, and levels fused were not associated with PROM incompletion. CONCLUSIONS: Social determinants of health impact completion of PROMs. Patients completing PROMs are overwhelmingly White, non-Hispanic, and reside in wealthier communities. Efforts should be taken to provide better education regarding PROMs and ensure closer follow-up of certain subgroups of patients to avoid furthering disparities in PROM research.

Effect of Interbody Composition on the Development of Pseudarthrosis Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To determine if polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or titanium alloy cages increase the rate of pseudarthrosis development or revision surgery rate compared with structural allograft following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and identify if the cage type results in differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) versus structural allograft. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: PEEK and titanium alloy cages have become popular options for ACDF intervertebral spacers. However, while data is beginning to emerge on how cage types affect arthrodesis rates, the effect of their composition on PROMs is less clear. METHODS: All patients aged >18 years who underwent primary one- to four-level ACDF at a single institution were retrospectively identified. Propensity matching was performed to compare patients' PEEK or titanium alloy cages with structural allograft. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to measure the effect of interbody spacer composition on the likelihood of pseudarthrosis development. RESULTS: Of the 502 patients who received structural allograft and had 1-year postoperative dynamic radiographs, 96 patients were propensity matched to 32 patients who received a PEEK cage, and 162 patients were propensity matched to 54 patients who received a titanium alloy cage. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that PEEK cage implants (odds ratio [OR], 3.34; p =0.007) predicted pseudarthrosis development compared with structural allograft implantation. Titanium alloy cage (OR, 1.64; p =0.156) implantation was not predictive of pseudarthrosis. One-year postoperative PROMs were not significantly different between patients who received PEEK or titanium alloy cages and those who received structural allograft (all p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with structural allograft, receiving a PEEK cage increased the risk of pseudarthrosis development following ACDF, whereas receiving a titanium alloy cage had no significant effect on pseudarthrosis development. One-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes were similar between patients who received structural allograft, PEEK, and titanium alloy interbody spacers.

Comparison of Postoperative Opioid Use After Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion or Posterior Cervical Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) are two main surgical management options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Although ACDF is less invasive than PCF which should theoretically reduce postoperative pain, it is still unknown whether this leads to reduced opioid use. Our objective was to evaluate whether PCF increases postoperative opioid use compared with ACDF. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing 2-level to 4-level ACDF or PCF at a single center from 2017 to 2021. Our state's prescription drug-monitoring program was queried for filled opioid prescriptions using milligrams morphine equivalents (MMEs) up to 1 year postoperatively. In-hospital opioid use was collected from the electronic medical record. Bivariate statistics compared ACDF and PCF cohorts. Multivariate linear regression was done to assess independent predictors of in-hospital opioid use and short-term (0 to 30 days), subacute (30 to 90 days), and long-term (3 to 12 months) opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: We included 211 ACDF patients and 91 PCF patients. Patients undergoing PCF used more opioids during admission (126.7 vs. 51.0 MME, P < 0.001) and refilled more MMEs in the short-term (118.2 vs. 86.1, P = 0.001) but not subacute (33.6 vs. 19.7, P = 0.174) or long-term (85.6 vs. 47.8, P = 0.310) period. A similar percent of patients in both groups refilled at least one prescription after 90 days (39.6% vs. 33.2%, P = 0.287). PCF (ß = 56.7, P = 0.001) and 30-day preoperative MMEs (ß = 0.28, P = 0.041) were associated with greater in-hospital opioid requirements. PCF (ß = 26.7, P = 0.039), C5 nerve root irritation (ß = 51.4, P = 0.019), and a history of depression (ß = 40.9, P < 0.001) were independently associated with 30-day postoperative MMEs. CONCLUSIONS: PCF is initially more painful than ACDF but does not lead to persistent opioid use. Surgeons should optimize multimodal analgesia protocols to reduce long-term narcotic usage rather than change the surgical approach.Level of Evidence:III.

Cellular Bone Matrix Leading to Disseminated Tuberculosis After Spinal Fusion: A Report of 2 Cases.

CASE: Although implanted tuberculosis (TB) is rare, a single lot of cellular bone matrix was found to be infected with TB, leading to devastating outcomes. We present 2 cases referred to our institution because of instrumentation failure caused by TB inoculation of cellular bone matrix. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of spinal region of implanted TB infection, excision of infected bone, extensive irrigation and debridement, and instrumented stabilization are of primary importance to ensure TB eradication and adequate stabilization.

Spine Surgical Subspecialty and Its Effect on Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify if intraoperative or postoperative differences in outcomes exist between orthopedic and neurological spine surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine surgeons may become board certified through orthopedic surgery or neurosurgical residency training, and recent literature has compared surgical outcomes between surgeons based on residency training background with conflicting results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted and included articles comparing outcomes between orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to determine the quality of studies. Forest plots were generated using mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odds ratios (OR) for binomial variables, and 95% CI was reported. RESULTS: Of 615 search term results, 16 studies were identified for inclusion. Evaluation of the studies found no differences in readmission rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.901, 1.09); I2 = 80%], overall complication rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 1.03 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.10); I2 = 70%], reoperation rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.00); I2 = 86%], or overall length of hospital stay between orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons [MD: -0.19 days (95% CI: -0.38, 0.00); I2 = 98%]. However, neurosurgeons ordered a significantly lower rate of postoperative blood transfusions [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.49 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.57); I2 = 75%] while orthopedic spine surgeons had shorter operative times [MD: 14.28 minutes, (95% CI: 8.07, 20.49), I2 = 97%]. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is significant data heterogeneity, our meta-analysis found that neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons have similar readmission, complication, and reoperation rates regardless of the type of spine surgery performed.

Effect of Fracture Type, Treatment, and Surgeon Training on Reoperation After Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femur Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of Vancouver B periprosthetic proximal femur fractures (PPFFs) is complex due to the overlap between arthroplasty and orthopedic trauma techniques. Our purpose was to assess the effects of fracture type, treatment difference, and surgeon training on the risk of reoperation in Vancouver B PPFF. METHODS: A collaborative research consortium of 11 centers retrospectively reviewed PPFFs from 2014 to 2019 to determine the effects of variations in surgeon expertise, fracture type, and treatment on surgical reoperation. Surgeons were classified as per fellowship training, fractures using the Vancouver classification, and treatment as open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or revision total hip arthroplasty with or without ORIF. Regression analyses were performed with reoperation as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Fracture type (Vancouver B3 versus B1: odds ratio [OR]: 5.70) was an independent risk factor for reoperation. No differences were found in reoperation rates with treatment (ORIF versus revision: OR 0.92, P = .883). Treatment by a nonarthroplasty-trained surgeon versus an arthroplasty specialist led to higher odds of reoperation in all Vancouver B fracture (OR: 2.87, P = .023); however, no significant differences were seen in the Vancouver B2 group alone (OR: 2.61, P = .139). Age was a significant risk factor for reoperation in all Vancouver B fractures (OR: 0.97, P = .004) and in the B2 fractures alone (OR: 0.96, P = .007). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that age and fracture type affect reoperation rates. Treatment type did not affect reoperation rates and the effect of surgeon training is unclear.

Surgeon Estimations of Acetabular Cup Orientation Using Intraoperative Fluoroscopic Imagining Are Unreliable.

Background: Accurate acetabular cup orientation is associated with decreased revision rates and improved outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty. This study assesses surgeon's ability to estimate both the acetabular component inclination and anteversion angles via intraoperative fluoroscopy (IF) images. Methods: We surveyed orthopedic surgeons to estimate acetabular component inclination and anteversion based on 20 IF images of total hip arthroplasty through a direct anterior approach. Postoperative computed-tomography scans were used to calculate the true inclination and anteversion component angles. The absolute difference between the true and estimated values was calculated to determine the mean and standard deviation of the survey results. Interrater reliability was determined through interclass correlation coefficients. Results: A majority of surgeons preferred the direct anterior approach (83.3%) and utilized IF during surgery (70%). Surgeons surveyed were on average 5.9° away from the true value of inclination (standard deviation = 4.7) and 8.8° away from the true value of anteversion (standard deviation = 6.0). Respondents were within 5° of both inclination and anteversion in 19.7% of cases, and within 10° in 57.3% of cases. All surgeons were determined to have poor reliability in estimating anteversion (interclass correlation coefficient < 0.5). Only 2 surgeons were determined to have moderate reliability when estimating inclination. Conclusions: Surgeons, when solely relying on IF for the estimation of anteversion and inclination, are unreliable. Utilization of other techniques in conjunction with IF would improve observer reliability.