Preoperative Hounsfield Units Predict Pedicle Screw Loosening in Osteoporotic Patients Following Short Segment Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: (1) To determine if vertebral HU values obtained from preoperative CT predict postoperative outcomes following 1-3 level lumbar fusion and (2) to investigate whether decreased BMD values determined by HU predict cage subsidence and screw loosening. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In light of suboptimal screening for osteoporosis, vertebral computerized tomography(CT) Hounsfield Units(HU), have been investigated as a surrogate for bone mineral density(BMD). METHODS: In this retrospective study, adult patients who underwent 1-3 level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion(PLDF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody and fusion(TLIF) for degenerative disease between the years 2017-2022 were eligible for inclusion. Demographics and surgical characteristics were collected. Outcomes assessed included 90-day readmissions, 90-day complications, revisions, patient reported outcomes(PROMs), cage subsidence, and screw loosening. Osteoporosis was defined as HU of ≤110 on preoperative CT at L1. RESULTS: We assessed 119 patients with a mean age of 59.1, of whom 80.7% were white and 64.7% were nonsmokers. The majority underwent PLDF(63%) compared to TLIF(37%), with an average of 1.63 levels fused. Osteoporosis was diagnosed in 37.8% of the cohort with a mean HU in the osteoporotic group of 88.4 compared to 169 in non-osteoporotic patients. Although older in age, osteoporotic individuals did not exhibit increased 90-day readmissions, complications, or revisions compared to non-osteoporotic patients. A significant increase in the incidence of screw loosening was noted in the osteoporotic group with no differences observed in subsidence rates. On multivariable linear regression osteoporosis was independently associated with less improvement in visual analog scale(VAS) scores for back pain. CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis predicts screw loosening and increased back pain. Clinicians should be advised of the importance of preoperative BMD optimization as part of their surgical planning and the utility of vertebral CT HU as a tool for risk stratification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Subfascial Lumbar Spine Drain Output Does Not Affect Outcomes After Incidental Durotomies in Elective Spine Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative drains have long been regarded as a preventive measure to mitigate the risks of complications such as neurological impairment by reducing fluid accumulation following spine surgery. Our study aims to contribute to the existing body of knowledge by examining the effects of postoperative drain output on the 90-day postoperative outcomes for patients who experienced an incidental durotomy after lumbar decompression procedures, with or without fusion. METHODS: All patients aged ≥18 years with an incidental durotomy from spinal decompression with or without fusion surgery between 2017 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. The patient demographics, surgical characteristics, method of dural tear repair (DuraSeal, suture, and/or DuraGen), surgical outcomes, and drain data were collected via medical record review. Patients were grouped by readmission status and final 8-hour drain output. Those with a final 8-hour drain output of ≥40 mL were included in the high drain output (HDO) group and those with <40 mL were in the low drain output (LDO) group. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative patient demographics, surgical characteristics, method of dural tear repair, length of stay (HDO, 4.02 ± 1.90 days; vs. LDO, 4.26 ± 2.10 days; P = 0.269), hospital readmissions (HDO, 10.6%; vs. LDO, 7.96%; P = 0.744), or occurrence of reoperation during readmission (HDO, 6.06%; vs. LDO, 2.65%; P = 0.5944) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing primary lumbar decompression with or without fusion and experiencing an incidental durotomy, no significant association was found between the drain output and 90-day patient outcomes. Adequate fascial closure and the absence of symptoms may be satisfactory criteria for standard patient discharge regardless of drain output.

Correction of Spinal Sagittal Alignment after Posterior Lumbar Decompression: Does Severity of Central Canal Stenosis Matter?

STUDY DESIGN: This study adopted a retrospective study design. PURPOSE: Our study aimed to investigate the impact of central canal stenosis severity on surgical outcomes and lumbar sagittal correction after lumbar decompression. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Studies have evaluated sagittal correction in patients with central canal stenosis after lumbar decompression and the association of stenosis severity with worse preoperative sagittal alignment. However, none have evaluated the impact of spinal stenosis severity on sagittal correction. METHODS: Patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression (PLD) of ≤4 levels were divided into severe and non-severe central canal stenosis groups based on the Lee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) grading system. Patients without preoperative MRI or inadequate visualization on radiographs were excluded. Surgical characteristics, clinical outcomes, and sagittal measurements were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the predictors of pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL). RESULTS: Of the 142 patients included, 39 had severe stenosis, and 103 had non-severe stenosis. The mean follow-up duration for the cohort was 4.72 months. Patients with severe stenosis were older, had higher comorbidity indices and levels decompressed, and longer lengths of stay and operative times (p <0.001). Although those with severe stenosis had lower lordosis, lower SS, and higher PI-LL mismatch preoperatively, no differences in Delta LL, SS, PT, or PI-LL were observed between the two groups (p >0.05). On multivariate regression, severe stenosis was a significant predictor of a lower preoperative LL (estimate=-5.243, p =0.045) and a higher preoperative PI-LL mismatch (estimate=6.192, p =0.039). No differences in surgical or clinical outcomes were observed (p >0.05). CONCLUSION: Severe central lumbar stenosis was associated with greater spinopelvic mismatch preoperatively. Sagittal balance improved in both patients with severe and non-severe stenosis after PLD to a similar degree, with differences in sagittal parameters remaining after surgery. We also found no differences in postoperative outcomes associated with stenosis severity.

Reimbursement of Lumbar Fusion at an Orthopaedic Specialty Hospital Versus Tertiary Referral Center.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: To explore the differences in Medicare reimbursement for lumbar fusion performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital (OSH) and a tertiary referral center and to elucidate drivers of Medicare reimbursement differences. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To provide more cost-efficient care, appropriately selected patients are increasingly being transitioned to OSHs for lumbar fusion procedures. There are no studies directly comparing reimbursement of lumbar fusion between tertiary referral centers (TRC) and OSHs. METHODS: Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an orthopaedic specialty hospital were compiled through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Any patient with lumbar fusions between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified. OSH patients were matched to TRC patients by demographic and surgical variables. Outcomes analyzed were reimbursement data, procedure data, 90-day complications and readmissions, operating room times, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included in the final cohort. The tertiary referral center had higher post-trigger ($13,554 vs. $8,541, P<0.001) and total episode ($49,973 vs. $43,512, P<0.010) reimbursements. Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH was predictive of shorter OR time (ß=0.77, P<0.001), shorter procedure time (ß=0.71, P<0.001), and shorter LOS (ß=0.53, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in complications (9.21% vs. 15.8%, P=0.353) or readmission rates (3.95% vs. 7.89%, P=0.374) between the 2 hospitals; however, our study is underpowered for complications and readmissions. CONCLUSION: Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH, compared with a tertiary referral center, is associated with significant Medicare cost savings, shorter perioperative times, decreased LOS, and decreased utilization of post-acute resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Effect of Preoperative Marijuana on Patient Outcomes and Opioid Use after Lumbar Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: Our study aims to analyze the effect of preoperative marijuana use on outcomes and postoperative opioid use in patients who have undergone lumbar decompression without fusion. METHODS: All patients >18 years of age who underwent lumbar decompression from 2017-2022 with documented preoperative marijuana use at our academic institution were retrospectively identified. A 3:1 propensity match incorporating demographics, procedure type, and levels decompressed was performed to compare preoperative marijuana users and non-users. 1-year preoperative and postoperative opioid consumption in milligrams of morphine equivalents and postoperative outcomes including readmissions, reoperations, and complications, were obtained. A multivariate regression model was performed to measure the effect of marijuana use on the likelihood of a spine reoperation. RESULTS: Of the 340 included patients, 85 were preoperative marijuana users. There were no significant differences in medical complications, 90-day readmissions, or opioid consumption preoperatively or postoperatively (P > .05). We identified a trend towards patients who used marijuana having more reoperations for any cause (20.0% vs 11.37%, P = .067). Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that preoperative marijuana use was a significant predictor of all-spine reoperations (OR = 2.06, P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: In lumbar decompression patients, preoperative marijuana use does not impact opioid consumption, readmissions, or medical complications, but is a significant predictor of future postoperative reoperations. Additional research is necessary to further explore the role of marijuana use in spine surgery.

Spinal tumor embolization: benefit for surgical resection.

The embolization of hypervascular spinal tumors preoperatively has shown to be a worthwhile adjunctive procedure to minimize the elevated risks associated with surgical resection, such as intraoperative blood loss and its associated complications. Resection of these hypervascular tumors is necessary for local tumor control, reduction in patient-reported pain, improved neurological functioning, and spinal stability. This adjunctive procedure has been associated with improved surgical outcomes and easier facilitation of surgical resection. As such, we provide a review of the current literature examining the employment of this technique. Specifically, this article (a) reviews the techniques of embolization, with anatomical considerations of the arterial framework of the spinal network; (b) relativizes and outlines the post-embolization management of spinal tumor resection; (c) provides a critical outlook on the reported benefit of preoperative embolization before surgical resection with support from clinical studies in the literature; and (d) discusses the efficacy and reliability of provocative testing and post-procedural management and follow-up. Ultimately, a thorough and updated review of preoperative spinal tumor embolization and its clinical benefits will summarize the current fund of knowledge and encourage future research toward continued improvements in patient outcomes for those needing to undergo surgical resection of spinal lesions.

Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state.

PURPOSE: While patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) define value in spine surgery, several values such as minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) help guide the interpretation of PROMs and identify thresholds of clinical significance. Significant variation exists in reported values and their calculation, so the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the spine surgery literature for metrics of clinical significance derived from PROMs. METHODS: We conducted a query of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception to January 1, 2023, for studies that derived quantitative metrics (e.g., SCB, MCID, PASS) from PROMs in the setting of spine surgery with minimum 1-year follow-up. Details regarding the specific PROMs were collected including which PROM was measured, whether anchor- or distribution-based methods were utilized, the specific calculations, and the recommended value for a given PROM based on all evaluated calculations. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies of 21,780 patients were included. The most commonly evaluated PROM-derived value was the MCID (n = 28), followed by PASS (n = 6) and SCB (n = 4). Twenty-one studies only utilized anchor-based calculations, 15 utilized both anchor-based and distribution-based methods, and one only utilized distribution-based calculations. The most commonly evaluated legacy PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (N = 11, MCID range 4-20) and visual analog scale back pain (N = 5, MCID range 0.5-4.6). All 10 studies that derived SCB or PASS utilized the receiver operating characteristic methods. Among the six studies deriving a PASS value, four only evaluated ODI, identifying PASS ranging from 5 to 22. CONCLUSION: While calculated measures of clinical significance such as MCID, PASS, and SCB exist, significant heterogeneity exists in the current literature. Current shortcomings include a wide variability of reported value thresholds across the literature, and limited applicability to more heterogenous patient populations than the targeted cohorts included in published investigations. Continued investigations that apply these methods to heterogenous, large-scale populations can help increase generalizability and validity of these measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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.

Trends in Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity in Orthopaedic Surgery Adult Reconstruction Fellowships From 2007 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic surgery has seen improvement in its representation of women, whereas the representation of racial/ethnic minorities has remained stagnant over the past decade. Overall, the surgical field lags behind other specialties in sex and racial/ethnic parity. Although demographic disparities within orthopaedics have been analyzed for both residents and faculty members, information for adult reconstruction fellows remains limited. METHODS: Sex and race/ethnicity demographics for adult reconstruction orthopaedic fellowship matriculants were collected via a database published by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) from 2007 to 2021. Statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics and significance testing, were performed. RESULTS: During the 14-year time frame, men trainees remained high with an overall average percentage of 88% and demonstrated increasing representation (P trend = .012). White non-Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics represented on average 54%, 11%, 3%, and 4%, respectively. White non-Hispanics (P trend = .039) and Asians (P trend = .030) saw increasing and decreasing representation, respectively. Women, Blacks, and Hispanics remained relatively stagnant throughout the observation period as no trends were appreciable (P trend >.05, each). CONCLUSION: Using publicly available demographic data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) from 2007 to 2021, we found relatively limited progress in the representation of women and those from traditionally marginalized groups seeking additional training in adult reconstruction. Our findings mark an initial step in measuring the demographic diversity among adult reconstruction fellows. Further research is needed to ascertain specific factors likely to attract and retain members from minoritized groups into orthopaedics.

The Implication of Preoperative Central Stenosis on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of central stenosis severity on patient-reported outcomes after lumbar decompression. METHODS: Patient diagnosis, demographics, and surgical characteristics were collected via query search and manual chart review of electronic medical records. The inclusion criteria were posterior lumbar decompressions from 2014-2020, with accessible magnetic resonance imaging reports. As previously validated by Lee et al., central stenosis was determined on magnetic resonance imaging and graded as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients were dichotomized into 2 groups to improve statistical power for comparisons: none or mild central stenosis and moderate or severe central stenosis. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared between cohorts at 1 year postoperatively. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: On bivariate analysis, no significant differences were noted between cohorts with regard to preoperative, 1-year postoperative, and delta PROMs. In addition, no significant difference in the number of patients attaining minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for each PROM was noted between cohorts. With the exception of mental score of the Short Form-12 survey, all intragroup preoperative to postoperative PROMs indicated significant improvement (all P < 0.05) after lumbar decompression surgery. Multivariate regression identified moderate or severe central canal stenosis as a significant independent predictor of improvement in visual analog scale back (estimate = -1.464, P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that patients with moderate or severe central spinal stenosis may have more improvement in back pain than those with mild or no central stenosis after lumbar spine decompression surgery.

Trends in Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity Among Hand Surgery Fellows From 2007 to 2021.

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of research on the demographic trends of orthopedic and plastic hand surgery fellows. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the current state of racial and gender demographic trends in hand surgery fellowship from 2007 to 2021. METHODS: We analyzed fellowship demographic data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education public database from 2007-2008 through 2020-2021. The gender of hand surgery fellows was categorized as male, female, or not reported and their race/ethnicity as White, Non-Hispanic; Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic; Black, Non-Hispanic; American Indian or Alaskan Native; other; or unknown. We extracted the number of fellows per year for each category and calculated the percentage equivalents and average percentages. We performed the chi-square test for trend (Cochran-Armitage test) to identify any significant changes in the percentages of gender and race/ethnicity between 2007 and 2021. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the percentage of hand surgery fellows who are women (20.7% to 30.7%) and Asian or Pacific Islander (13.3% to 25.3%). There was no significant change in the percentage of Hispanic or Black, Non-Hispanic fellows. CONCLUSIONS: Although there have been some increases, hand surgery fellows continue to be underrepresented by women and minorities, consistent with the demographic of orthopedic and plastic surgery residents. There have been increasing trends in the number of women and minorities in medical schools, which leaves room for improvement from the downstream prospective applicant pool. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The physician-patient relationship can potentially be strengthened by race and gender concordance; however, many minority and female hand surgery patients do not have physicians who are women or of the same ethnic background. Patient satisfaction, trust, and potential health outcomes may be improved with a physician workforce that reflects the diversity of their patients.

Patient-specific Risk Factors Increase Episode of Care Costs After Lumbar Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine, which patient-specific risk factors increase total episode of care (EOC) costs in a population of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries undergoing lumbar decompression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar decompression is an effective option for the treatment of central canal stenosis or radiculopathy in patients unresponsive to nonoperative management. Given that elderly Americans are more likely to have one or more chronic medical conditions, there is a need to determine, which, if any, patient-specific risk factors increase health care costs after lumbar decompression. METHODS: Care episodes limited to lumbar decompression surgeries were retrospectively reviewed on a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service reimbursement database at our academic institution between 2014 and 2019. The 90-day total EOC reimbursement payments were collected. Patient electronic medical records were then matched to the selected care episodes for the collection of patient demographics, medical comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and clinical outcomes. A stepwise multivariate linear regression model was developed to predict patient-specific risk factors that increased total EOC costs after lumbar decompression. Significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients were included for analysis. Risk factors associated with increased total EOC cost included increased age (per year) (ß = $324.70, P < 0.001), comorbid depression (ß = $4368.30, P = 0.037), revision procedures (ß = $6538.43, P =0.012), increased hospital length of stay (per day) (ß = $2995.43, P < 0.001), discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (ß = $14,417.42, P = 0.001), incidence of a complication (ß = $8178.07, P < 0.001), and readmission (ß = $18,734.24, P < 0.001) within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Increased age, comorbid depression, revision decompression procedures, increased hospital length of stay, discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility, and incidence of a complication and readmission within 90 days were all associated with increased total episodes of care costs.

Trends in Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Diversity in Orthopedic Surgery Spine Fellowships From 2007 to 2021.

STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to analyze trends in racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in orthopedic spine surgery fellowship trainees. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Orthopedic surgery has consistently been labeled as one of the least diverse fields in Medicine. Although some effort has been made to combat this in recent years at the residency level, it is uncertain whether spine fellowships have had any changes in fellow demographics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fellowship demographic data were collected through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Data collected included gender (male, female, and not reported) and race (White, Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native Hawaiians, American Indian or Alaskan Native, other, and unknown). Percentage equivalents were calculated for each group from 2007 to 2008 to 2020 to 2021. A χ 2 test for trend (Cochran-Armitage test) was done to determine whether there was a significant change in percentages of each race and gender during the study period. The results were considered statistically significant at P <0.05. RESULTS: White, Non-Hispanic males represent the largest proportion of orthopedic spine fellowship positions each year. From 2007 to 2021, there were no significant changes in the representation of any race or gender of orthopedic spine fellows. Males ranged from 81% to 95%, Whites from 28% to 66%, Asians from 9% to 28%, Blacks from 3% to 16%, and Hispanics from 0% to 10%. Native Hawaiians and American Indians remained at 0% for all years included in the study. Females and all races, excluding Whites, continue to be under-represented in orthopedic spine fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedic spine surgery fellowship programs have not made substantial progress in diversifying its population. More attention is needed to increase diversity in residency programs through pipeline programs, increased mentorship and sponsorship, and early exposure to the field. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

The impact of cage positioning on lumbar lordosis and disc space restoration following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate patient and surgical factors that predict increased overall lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis correction following a minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent one- or two-level LLIF. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and 6-month postoperative measurements of LL, segmental lordosis, anterior disc height, and posterior disc height were collected from standing lateral radiographs for each patient. Cage placement was measured utilizing the center point ratio (CPR) on immediate postoperative radiographs. Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between cage lordosis and radiographic parameters. Multivariate linear regression was performed to assess independent predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 106 levels in 78 unique patients were included. Most procedures involved fusion of one level (n = 50, 64.1%), most commonly L3-4 (46.2%). Despite no differences in baseline segmental lordosis, patients with anteriorly or centrally placed cages experienced the greatest segmental lordosis correction immediately (mean anterior 4.81° and central 4.46° vs posterior 2.47°, p = 0.0315) and at 6 months postoperatively, and patients with anteriorly placed cages had greater overall lordosis correction postoperatively (mean 6.30°, p = 0.0338). At the 6-month follow-up, patients with anteriorly placed cages experienced the greatest increase in anterior disc height (mean anterior 6.24 mm vs posterior 3.69 mm, p = 0.0122). Cages placed more posteriorly increased the change in posterior disc height postoperatively (mean posterior 4.91 mm vs anterior 1.80 mm, p = 0.0001) and at 6 months (mean posterior 4.18 mm vs anterior 2.06 mm, p = 0.0255). There were no correlations between cage lordotic angle and outcomes. On multivariate regression, anterior cage placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in segmental lordosis, while posterior placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in posterior disc height. Percutaneous screw placement, cage lordotic angle, and cage height did not independently predict any radiographic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF procedures reliably improve LL and increase intervertebral disc space. Anterior cage placement improves the lordosis angle greater than posterior placement, which better corrects sagittal alignment, but there is still a significant improvement in lordosis even with a posteriorly placed cage. Posterior cage placement provides greater restoration in posterior disc space height, maximizing indirect decompression, but even the anteriorly placed cages provided indirect decompression. Cage parameters including cage height, lordosis angle, and material do not impact radiographic improvement.

The Legal and Socioeconomic Considerations in Spine Telemedicine.

Telemedicine has become indispensable in today's health care because of the recent ongoing COVID-19 crisis. Although it has been beneficial in coping with the pandemic, there is still much uncertainty as to whether it will have a permanent role in treating spine patients. Some of the ongoing legal challenges include patient confidentiality, liability coverage for treating healthcare workers, and financial reimbursements by insurance companies. One of the impediments of telemedicine is its lack of a standard legal framework. Telehealth is currently regulated through a state-based system with each state having its own policy regarding this practice. In addition, each of the components of a virtual visit represent a potential area for legal concerns. Nonetheless, telemedicine has the ability to provide convenient and effective health care to patients. However, the spine surgeon, as well as other physicians, must consider the legal issues along with some socioeconomic factors identified herein. Moreover, without parity and uniformity, the incentive to offer telehealth services decreases. There may be a need for modifications in the law, insurance policies, and medical malpractice coverage to strengthen their support to telemedicine usage. As spine surgeons become more familiarized with the telemedicine framework, its role in patient care will likely expand.

The Use of Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy as Treatment for Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: Case Report and a Review of Previously Reported Cases.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), or pseudotumor cerebri, is a rare disorder marked by an increase of cerebrospinal fluid pressure that may cause severe headaches, papilledema, vision loss, and other symptoms. IIH is typically treated with shunts, but shunts are prone to malfunction and infection, resulting in many patients experiencing recurrent headaches after treatment. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 41-year-old woman with IIH presented with a history of severe headaches and seizures with documented elevated intracranial pressure (opening pressure 250 mm H2O). After failure of several medical treatments, the patient was offered surgery for symptomatic relief. Given the patient's ventricular anatomy and preference, IIH was treated with endoscopic third ventriculostomy rather than a conventional shunt. CONCLUSIONS: Reported resolution of the patient's headaches and improved quality of life following the procedure indicated that endoscopic third ventriculostomy can be used to treat IIH if ventricles are not completely slitlike. Additionally, we present a review of all previously reported cases in which endoscopic third ventriculostomy was used for the treatment of IIH.