Preoperative cross-sectional area of psoas muscle correlates with short-term functional outcomes after posterior lumbar surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal level for the measurement of psoas cross-sectional area and examine the correlation with short-term functional outcomes of posterior lumbar surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent minimally invasive posterior lumbar surgery were included in this study. The cross-sectional area of psoas muscle was measured at each intervertebral level on T2-weighted axial images of preoperative MRI. Normalized total psoas area (NTPA) (mm2/m2) was calculated as total psoas area normalized to patient height. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was calculated for the analysis of inter-rater reliability. Patient reported outcome measures including Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), short form health survey (SF-12) and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system were collected. A multivariate analysis was performed to elucidate independent predictors associated with failure to reach minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in each functional outcome at 6 months. RESULTS: The total of 212 patients were included in this study. ICC was highest at L3/4 [0.992 (95% CI: 0.987-0.994)] compared to the other levels [L1/2 0.983 (0.973-0.989), L2/3 0.991 (0.986-0.994), L4/5 0.928 (0.893-0.952)]. Postoperative PROMs were significantly worse in patients with low NTPA. Low NTPA was an independent predictor of failure to reach MCID in ODI (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.26-5.67; p = 0.010) and VAS leg (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.13-5.20; p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Decreased psoas cross-sectional area on preoperative MRI correlated with functional outcomes after posterior lumbar surgery. NTPA was highly reliable, especially at L3/4.

Patient-Reported Allergies Do Not Affect Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: A gap in the literature exists regarding the association between number of allergies and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS: Consecutive cervical or lumbar spine surgery patients were identified from a prospective registry from April 2017 to July 2020. Patients were grouped into those with 0, 1, 2, or ≥3 allergies. Demographics were compared between the groups. PROMs included Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS) neck pain, VAS arm pain, VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, short form 12 (SF-12) physical component score, SF-12 mental component score, and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system physical function (PROMIS-PF), and outcomes were compared between the groups through multivariable analysis at up to 1-year follow-up. Associations between number of allergies and achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the 9 aforementioned PROMs at 1-year follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: This study included 148 cervical and 517 lumbar patients. After controlling for demographic differences, a higher number of allergies was associated with less improvement in VAS neck pain, SF-12 physical component score, and PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks following cervical surgery and less improvement in PROMIS-PF at 2 weeks following lumbar surgery (P < 0.05). However, these associations failed to persist after 6 months and 12 weeks following surgery in cervical and lumbar patients, respectively (P > 0.05). No association was identified between number of allergies and achievement of MCID in any of the 9 studied PROMs at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The higher number of allergies was associated with less improvement in PROMs in the early postoperative period but not at longer-term follow-up. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings provide data that can be utilized while counseling patients and setting postoperative expectations.

Predictors of Subsidence and its Clinical Impact After Expandable Cage Insertion in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected multisurgeon data. OBJECTIVE: Examine the rate, clinical impact, and predictors of subsidence after expandable minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) cage. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Expandable cage technology has been adopted in MI-TLIF to reduce the risks and optimize outcomes. Although subsidence is of particular concern when using expandable technology as the force required to expand the cage can weaken the endplates, its rates, predictors, and outcomes lack evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level MI-TLIF using expandable cages for degenerative lumbar conditions and had a follow-up of >1 year were included. Preoperative and immediate, early, and late postoperative radiographs were reviewed. Subsidence was determined if the average anterior/posterior disc height decreased by >25% compared with the immediate postoperative value. Patient-reported outcomes were collected and analyzed for differences at the early (<6 mo) and late (>6 mo) time points. Fusion was assessed by 1-year postoperative computed tomography. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight patients were included (mean age, 61 yr, 86% 1-level, 14% 2-level). Twenty-two (14.9%) demonstrated subsidence. Although statistically not significant, patients with subsidence were older, had lower bone mineral density, and had higher body mass index and comorbidity burden. Operative time was significantly higher ( P = 0.02) and implant width was lower ( P < 0.01) for subsided patients. Visual analog scale-leg was significantly lower for subsided patients compared with nonsubsided patients at a >6 months time point. Long-term (>6 mo) patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rate was lower for subsided patients (53% vs . 77%), although statistically not significant ( P = 0.065). No differences existed in complication, reoperation, or fusion rates. CONCLUSIONS: Of the patients, 14.9% experienced subsidence predicted by narrower implants. Although subsidence did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported outcome measures and complication, reoperation, or fusion rates, patients had lower visual analog scale-leg and patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rates at the >6-month time point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Opioid prescription trends after ambulatory anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Opioid utilization has been well studied for inpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the amount and type of opioids prescribed following ambulatory ACDF and the associated risk of persistent use are largely unknown. PURPOSE: To characterize opioid prescription filling following single-level ambulatory ACDF compared with inpatient procedures. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate, amount, and type of perioperative opioid prescription. METHODS: Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database. Perioperative opioids were defined as opioid prescriptions 30 days before and 14 days after the procedure. Rate, amount, and type of opioid prescription were characterized. Multivariable analyses controlling for any differences in demographics and comorbidities between the two treatment groups were utilized to determine any association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use (defined as the patient still filling new opioid prescriptions >90 days postoperatively). RESULTS: A total of 42,521 opioid-naive patients were identified, of which 2,850 were ambulatory and 39,671 were inpatient. Ambulatory ACDF was associated with slightly increased perioperative opioid prescription filling (52.7% vs 47.3% for inpatient procedures; p<.001). Among the 20,280 patients (47.7%) who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions, the average amount of opioids prescribed (in morphine milligram equivalents) was similar between ambulatory and inpatient procedures (550 vs 540, p=.413). There was no association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use in patients who filled a perioperative opioid prescription, even after controlling for comorbidities, (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15, p=.066). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory ACDF patients who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions were prescribed a similar amount of opioids as those undergoing inpatient procedures. Further, ambulatory ACDF does not appear to be a risk factor for persistent opioid use. These findings are important for patient counseling as well as support the safety profile of this new surgical pathway.

The Feasibility of 3D Intraoperative Navigation in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Perioperative Outcomes, Accuracy of Cage Placement and Radiation Exposure.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using 3D intraoperative navigation (ION), compared to conventional 2D fluoroscopy only. METHODS: The perioperative outcomes and accuracy of cage placement were examined in all patients who underwent LLIF using ION (ION group) or fluoroscopy only (non-ION group) by a single surgeon. The radiation exposure was examined in patients who underwent stand-alone LLIF. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients with 154 levels (ION 49 patients with 79 levels/ non-ION 38 patients with 75 levels) were included. There were no significant differences in operative time (ION 143.5 min vs. non-ION 126.0 min, P = .406), time from induction end to surgery start (ION 31.0 min vs. non-ION 31.0 min, P = .761), estimated blood loss (ION 37.5 ml vs. non-ION 50.0 ml, P = .351), perioperative complications (ION 16.3% vs. non-ION 7.9%, P = .335) and length of stay (ION 50.6 hours vs. non-ION 41.7 hours, P = .841). No significant difference was found in the accuracy of cage placement (P = .279). ION did not significantly increase total radiation dose (ION 51.0 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .237) and tended to reduce radiation dose during the procedure (ION 32.2 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .932). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in LLIF using ION were comparable to those using fluoroscopy only. The use of ION in LLIF was feasible, safe and accurate and may reduce radiation dose to the surgeon and surgical team.

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding. PURPOSE: To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy). CONCLUSIONS: These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

Computer-Assisted Navigation Is Associated With Decreased Rates of Hardware-Related Revision After Instrumented Posterior Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To (1) define utilization trends for navigated instrumented posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), (2) compare reasons and rates of revision at 30-day, 60-day, 90-day, and 1-year follow-up, and (3) compare 90-day perioperative complications between navigated versus conventional instrumented PLF. METHODS: Patients who underwent navigated or conventional instrumented PLF were identified from the Humana insurance database using the PearlDiver Patient Records between 2007-2017. Usage of navigation was characterized. Patient demographics and operative characteristics (number of levels fused, interbody usage) were compared between the 2 treatment groups. Propensity score matching was done and comparisons were made for revision rates at different follow-up periods (categorized by reasons) and other 90-day perioperative complications. RESULTS: This study included 1,648 navigated and 23 429 conventional instrumented PLF. Navigated cases increased over the years studied to approximately 10% in 2017. Statistical analysis after propensity score matching revealed significantly lower rates of hardware-related revision at 90-day follow-up in the navigated cohort (0.49% versus 1.15%, P = .033). At 1-year follow-up, the navigated cohort continued to have significantly lower rates of hardware-related revision (1.70% versus 2.73%, P = .044) as well as all cause revision (2.67% versus 4.00%, P = .032). There were no statistical differences between the 2 cohorts in any of the 90-day perioperative complications studied, such as cellulitis and blood transfusion (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that navigation is associated with reductions in hardware-related revisions after instrumented PLF. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously in the setting of potential confounding by other unmeasured variables.

Multimodality Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of Alerts in 628 Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of private neuromonitoring databases. OBJECTIVES: To review neuromonitoring alerts in a large series of patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and determine whether alerts occurred more frequently when more lumbar levels were accessed or more frequently at particular lumbar levels. METHODS: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) databases were reviewed and patients were identified undergoing LLIF between L1 and L5. All cases in which at least one IONM modality was used (motor evoked potentials (MEP), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), evoked electromyography (EMG)) were included in this study. The type of IONM used and incidence of alerts were collected from each IONM report and analyzed. The incidence of alerts for each IONM modality based on number of levels at which at LLIF was performed and the specific level an LLIF was performed were compared. RESULTS: A total of 628 patients undergoing LLIF across 934 levels were reviewed. EMG was used in 611 (97%) cases, SSEP in 561 (89%), MEP in 144 (23%). The frequency of IONM alerts for EMG, SSEP and MEPs did not significantly increase as the number of LLIF levels accessed increased. No EMG, SSEP, or MEP alerts occurred at L1-L2. EMG alerts occurred in 2-5% of patients at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 and did not significantly vary by level (P = .34). SSEP and MEP alerts occurred more frequently at L4-L5 versus L2-L3 and L3-L4 (P < .03). CONCLUSIONS: IONM may provide the greatest utility at L4-L5, particularly MEPs, and may not be necessary for more cephalad LLIF procedures such as at L1-L2.

Factors Causing Delay in Discharge in Patients Eligible for Ambulatory Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the postoperative factors that led delayed discharge in patients who would have been eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion (ALF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Assessing postoperative inefficiencies is vital to increase the feasibility of ALF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and would have met the eligibility criteria for ALF were included. Length of stay (LOS); time in postanesthesia recovery unit (PACU); alertness and neurological examination, and pain scores at three and six hours; type of analgesia; time to physical therapy (PT) visit; reasons for PT nonclearance; time to per-oral (PO) intake; time to voiding; time to readiness for discharge were assessed. Time taken to meet each discharge criterion was calculated. Multiple regression analyses were performed to study the effect of variables on postoperative parameters influencing discharge. RESULTS: Of 71 patients, 4% were discharged on the same day and 69% on postoperative day 1. PT clearance was the last-met discharge criterion in 93%. Sixty-six percent did not get PT evaluation on the day of surgery. Seventy-six percent required intravenous opioids and <60% had adequate pain control. Twenty-six percent had orthostatic intolerance. The median postoperative LOS was 26.9 hours, time in PACU was 4.2 hours, time to PO intake was 6.5 hours, time to first void was 6.3 hours, time to first PT visit was 17.7 hours, time to PT clearance was 21.8 hours, and time to discharge readiness was 21.9 hours. Regression analysis showed that time to PT clearance, time to PO intake, time to voiding, time in PACU, and pain score at three hours had a significant effect on LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Unavailability of PT, surgery after 1  pm , orthostatic intolerance, inadequate pain control, prolonged PACU stay, and long feeding and voiding times were identified as modifiable factors preventing same-day discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Advanced Technologies for Outpatient Lumbar Fusion: Barriers and Opportunities.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been increasing interest in outpatient spine surgery. Minimally invasive techniques have created an opportunity for ambulatory lumbar fusion, and these techniques increasingly involve advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers, advantages, and future predictions for such technology in the context of outpatient lumbar fusions. METHODS: This is a narrative review of studies examining the advantages, limitations, and cost-effectiveness of navigation and spinal robotics in conjunction with the outcomes and costs of outpatient lumbar fusion. RESULTS: Outpatient lumbar fusion is a growing trend with ample evidence of its safety, favorable patient outcomes, and cost savings. Navigation and spinal robotics are associated with improved instrumentation accuracy and fewer complications, and the long-term cost savings can make these technologies financially practical in the outpatient setting. Future capabilities with robotics will only increase their value. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics are strategic long-term investments in the context of outpatient lumbar fusion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The favorable outcomes and costs associated with navigation and robotics will be relevant to any spine surgeon interested in developing an outpatient lumbar fusion program.

Current treatment and decision-making factors leading to fusion vs decompression for one-level degenerative spondylolisthesis: survey results from members of the Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is one of the most common pathologies spine surgeons treat. While a number of potential factors have been identified, there is no current consensus on which variables most impact the decision to fuse vs. decompress alone in this population. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe current DS treatment practices and identify both the radiographic and clinical factors leading to the decision to fuse segments for one level DS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Descriptive cross-sectional survey. PATIENT SAMPLE: Surveys were administered to members of Lumbar Spine Research Society and Society of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgeon demographics and treatment practices were reported. Radiographic and clinical parameters were ranked by each surgeon with regards to their importance. METHODS: The primary analysis was limited to completed surveys. Baseline characteristics were summarized. Clinical and radiographic parameters were ranked and compared. Ranking of each clinical and radiographic parameters was reported using best and worst rank, mean rank position, and percentiles. The most important, top 3 most important, and top 5 most important parameters were ordered given each parameter's ranking frequency. RESULTS: 381 surveys were returned completed. With regards to fusion vs. decompression, 19.9% fuse all cases, 39.1% fuse > 75%, 17.8% fuse 50%-75%, and 23.2% fuse <25%. The most common decompressive technique was a partial laminotomy (51.4%), followed by full laminectomy (28.9%). 82.2% of respondents instrument all fusion cases. Instability (93.2%), spondylolisthesis grade (59.8%), and laterolisthesis (37.3%) were the most common radiographic factors impacting the decision to fuse. With regards to the clinical factors leading to fusion, mechanical low back pain (83.2%), activity level (58.3%), and neurogenic claudication (42.8%) were the top 3 clinical parameters. CONCLUSIONS: There is little consensus on the treatment of DS, with society members showing substantial variation in treatment patterns with the majority utilizing fusion for treatment. The most common radiographic parameters impacting treatment are instability, spondylolisthesis grade, and laterolisthesis while mechanical low back pain, activity level, and neurogenic claudication are the most common clinical parameters.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Low-Grade Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort comparison study. OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative outcomes, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (MIS-ULBD) versus MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: While lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common condition, optimal surgical treatment remains controversial. Newer MIS techniques, which preserve bone, paraspinal musculature, and posterior midline stabilizers, are thought to reduce the risk of iatrogenic instability and may obviate the need for fusion. However, few comparative studies of MIS techniques for low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis currently exist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with low-grade (Meyerding grade I or II) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with single-level MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected spine surgery registry from April 2017 to November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, radiographic data, and PROMs were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients underwent either MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF (79 MIS-ULBD and 109 MIS-TLIF). Patients who underwent MIS-ULBD tended to be older, had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower mean percentage back pain, higher percentage of L4/L5 pathology, shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, and lower postoperative pain ( P <0.05). In both groups, there were statistically significant improvements at one year for five of the six PROMs studied: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS)-back pain, VAS-leg pain, Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (SF12-PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) ( P <0.05). On multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, there were no associations between procedure type and achieving minimal clinically important difference at one year in any of the PROMs studied. CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that both MIS-ULBD and MIS-TLIF result in significant improvements in pain and physical function for patients with low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCES: 3.

Recovery Kinetics After Commonly Performed Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Procedures.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days. RESULTS: In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84). CONCLUSION: Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

Reoperations after primary and revision lumbar discectomy: study of a national-level cohort with eight years follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Published rates for disc reherniation following primary discectomy are around 6%, but the ultimate reoperation outcomes in patients after receiving revision discectomy are not well understood. Additionally, any disparity in the outcomes of subsequent revision discectomy (SRD) versus subsequent lumbar fusion (SLF) following primary/revision discectomy remains poorly studied. PURPOSE: To determine the 8-year SRD/SLF rates and time until SRD/SLF after primary/revision discectomy respectively. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary or revision discectomy, with records in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database from the years 2010 to 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subsequent surgery type and time to subsequent surgery. METHODS: Patients were grouped into primary or revision discectomy cohorts based off of the nature of "index" procedure (primary or revision discectomy) using ICD9/10 and CPT procedure codes from 2010 to 19 insurance data sets in the PearlDiver Patient Records Database. Preoperative demographic data was collected. Outcome measures such as subsequent surgery type (fusion or discectomy) and time to subsequent surgery were collected prospectively in PearlDiver Mariner database. Statistical analysis was performed using BellWeather statistical software. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of time to SLF/SRD was performed on each cohort, and log-rank test was used to compare the rates of SLF/SRD between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 20,147 patients were identified (17,849 primary discectomy, 2,298 revision discectomy). The 8-year rates of SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01) and SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) were higher after revision versus primary discectomy. Time to SLF was shorter after revision versus primary discectomy (709 vs. 886 days, p<.01). After both primary and revision discectomy, the 8-year rate of SLF (10.4% in revision cohort, 6.2% in primary cohort, p<.01) is greater than SRD (6.1% in revision cohort, 4.8% in primary cohort, p<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to primary discectomy, revision discectomy has higher rates of SLF (10.4% vs. 6.2%), and faster time to SLF (2.4 vs. 1.9 years) at 8-year follow up.

Cervical Disc Replacement for Radiculopathy Versus Myeloradiculopathy: An MCID Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) across multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing cervical disc replacement (CDR) for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To date, a limited number of studies have demonstrated mostly similar results in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy undergoing CDR. However, each of these previous studies have focused on statistically significant differences, which may not correlate with patient perceived improvements in outcomes or success. METHODS: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level CDR with radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic variables, preoperative diagnosis, and operative variables were collected for each patient. The following PROs were prospectively collected: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS)-Neck, VAS-Arm, Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS), PROMIS Physical Function (PF). An MCID analysis of PROs for each diagnosis group was performed and the percentage of patients achieving the MCID was compared between the two diagnosis groups. RESULTS: Eight-five patients, of which 56% had radiculopathy and 44% had myeloradiculopathy. MCID analysis demonstrated that at 6-week, 12-week, and final postoperative follow-up there was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy achieving the MCID for each PRO assessed. In both diagnosis groups the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO continued to increase from the 6-week to final postoperative follow-up except for the SF-12 MCS in patients with myeloradiculopathy. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients achieving the MCID was not significantly different at each postoperative period assessed in the radiculopathy and myeloradiculopathy groups treated with CDR. In addition, the percentage of patients achieving the MCID continued to increase from 6 weeks to final follow-up in both groups for almost all PROs assessed.

Surface Navigation and the Influence of Navigation on MIS Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for surface-based navigation in minimally-invasive spine surgery (MIS), provide an outline for its workflow, and present a wide range of MIS case examples in which surface-based navigation may be advantageous. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings related to surface-based navigation in MIS was performed. Workflow and case examples utilizing surface-based navigation were described. RESULTS: The nascent literature regarding surface-based intraoperative navigation (ION) in spine surgery is encouraging and initial studies have shown that surface-based navigation can allow for accurate pedicle screw placement and decreased operative time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation exposure when compared to traditional fluoroscopic imaging. Surface-based navigation may be particularly useful in MIS cervical and lumbar decompressions and MIS lumbar instrumentation cases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, it is possible that surface-based ION will become a mainstay in the armamentarium of enabling technologies utilized by minimally-invasive spine surgeons, but further studies are needed assessing its accuracy, complications, and cost-effectiveness.

Outcomes of cervical disc replacement in patients with neck pain greater than arm pain.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is believed to positively impact a patient's radicular symptoms as well as axial neck pain, the outcomes of cervical disc replacement (CDR) with regards to neck pain specifically have not been established. PURPOSE: Primary: to assess clinical improvement following CDR in patients with neck pain greater than arm pain. Secondary: to compare the clinical outcomes between patients undergoing CDR for predominant neck pain (pNP), predominant arm pain (pAP), and equal neck and arm pain (ENAP). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who had undergone one- or two-level CDR for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology and had a minimum of 6-month follow-up were included and stratified into three cohorts based on their predominant location of pain: pNP, pAP, and ENAP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes: Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck and arm, Short Form 12-Item Physical Health Score (SF12-PHS), Short Form 12-Item Mental Health Score (SF12-MHS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID). METHODS: Changes in Patient-reported outcomes from preoperative values to early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative timepoints were analyzed within each of the three groups. The percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients (52 pNP, 30 pAP, 43 ENAP) were included. The pNP cohort demonstrated significant improvements in early and late NDI and VAS-Neck, early SF-12 MCS, and late SF-12 PCS. The pAP and ENAP cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs, including NDI, VAS-Neck, VAS-Arm, SF-12 PCS, and SF-12 MCS, at both the early and late timepoints. No statistically significant differences were found in the MCID achievement rates for NDI, VAS-Neck, SF-12 PCS, and SF-12 MCS at the late timepoint amongst the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: CDR leads to comparable improvement in neck pain and disability in patients presenting with neck pain greater than arm pain and meeting specific clinical and radiographic criteria.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Versus Cervical Disc Replacement in Patients With Significant Cervical Spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with significant cervical spondylosis treated with cervical disc replacement (CDR) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As CDR utilization has increased over the past decade, recent studies have investigated the outcomes of CDR in patients with more significant spondylotic changes and demonstrated improved postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). However, no prior study has investigated clinical outcomes of patients with significant spondylotic changes treated with CDR in comparison to ACDF. METHODS: Patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level CDR or ACDF with significant cervical spondylosis, quantified using a validated grading scale, were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. The following PROs were analyzed: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale-Neck, visual analog scale-Arm, and PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) Computer Adaptive Test Score. Demographic, operative, and radiographic variables, and achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for each PRO were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients were included in the present study, of which 35 (53%) were treated with CDR and 31 (47%) with ACDF. The preoperative cervical spondylotic grade was similar between the 2 groups (1.8 vs. 2.2, P=0.27). At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the absolute value for each PRO between the 2 groups (P>0.19) and both groups demonstrated significant improvement in each PRO compared with preoperative values (P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO when comparing CDR to ACDF (P>0.09). CONCLUSIONS: A similar percentage of patients with significant degenerative cervical spondylosis achieved the MCID across multiple PROs when treated with CDR or ACDF. Patients in both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in all PROs assessed when compared with preoperative values. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Does robot-assisted navigation influence pedicle screw selection and accuracy in minimally invasive spine surgery?

OBJECTIVE: The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups. RESULTS: Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of "ideal" pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the "optimal screw," maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.

Preoperative opioids before adult spinal deformity surgery associated with increased reoperations and high rates of chronic postoperative opioid use at 3-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To determine the association of preoperative opioid prescriptions with reoperations and postoperative opioid prescriptions after adult spina deformity (ASD) surgery. With the current opioid crisis, patients undergoing surgery for ASD are at particular risk for opioid-related complications due to significant preoperative disability and surgical morbidity. No previous studies consider preoperative opioids in this population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion (7 or more levels) for ASD was performed. All patients had at least 3 years of postoperative follow-up 3 years postoperatively. Prescriptions for 4 different opioid medications (hydromorphone, oxycodone, hydrocodone, and tramadol) were identified within 3 months preoperatively and up to 3 years postoperatively. Multivariate regression was utilized to determine the association of preoperative use with reoperations and with postoperative opioid use, controlling for both patient and surgery-related confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 743 patients were identified and 59.6% (443) had opioid prescriptions within 3 months preoperatively. Postoperative opioid prescriptions were identified in 66.9% of patients at 12 months postoperatively, and in 54.8% at 36 months postoperatively. The 3-year reoperation rate was 11.0% in patients without preoperative prescriptions, 16.0% in patients with preoperative any opioid prescriptions (P = 0.07), and 34.8% in patients with preoperative hydromorphone prescriptions (P < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, preoperative opioid prescriptions were associated with increased reoperations (odds ratio [OR]: 1.62, P = 0.04), and chronic postoperative opioid use (OR: 4.40, P < 0.01). Preoperative hydromorphone prescriptions had the strongest association with both reoperations (OR: 4.96; P < 0.01) and chronic use (OR: 5.19: P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In the ASD population, preoperative opioids are associated with both reoperations and chronic opioid use, with hydromorphone having the strongest association. Further investigation of the benefits of preoperative weaning programs is warranted.