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.

Intravenous versus oral acetaminophen for pain and quality of recovery after ambulatory spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: As ambulatory spine surgery increases, efficient recovery and discharge become essential. Multimodal analgesia is superior to opioids alone. Acetaminophen is a central component of multimodal protocols and both intravenous and oral forms are used. While some advantages for intravenous acetaminophen have been touted, prospective studies with patient-centered outcomes are lacking in ambulatory spine surgery. A substantial cost difference exists. We hypothesized that intravenous acetaminophen would be associated with fewer opioids and better recovery. METHODS: Patients undergoing ambulatory spine surgery were randomized to preoperative oral placebo and intraoperative intravenous acetaminophen or preoperative oral acetaminophen. All patients received general anesthesia and multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was 24-hour opioid use in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), beginning with arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included pain, Quality of Recovery (QoR)-15 scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting, recovery time, and correlations between pain catastrophizing, QoR-15, and pain. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were included in final analyses. Demographics were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, the median 24-hour MMEs did not differ between groups (12.6 (4.0, 27.1) vs 12.0 (4.0, 29.5) mg, p=0.893). Postoperative pain ratings, PACU MMEs, QoR-15 scores, and recovery time showed no differences. Spearman's correlation showed a moderate negative correlation between postoperative opioid use and QoR-15. CONCLUSION: Intravenous acetaminophen was not superior to the oral form in ambulatory spine surgery patients. This does not support routine use of the more expensive intravenous form to improve recovery and accelerate discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04574778.

The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on the Presence of Advance Care Planning Documents in Patients With Acute Cervical Spinal Cord Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Patients presenting with spinal cord injury (SCI) often times have notable deficits or polytrauma and may require urgent decision making for early management. However, their presentation may affect decision-making ability. Although advance care planning (ACP) may help guide spine surgeons as to patient preferences, the rate at which they are available and disparities in ACP completion are still not understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate disparities in the completion of ACP among patients with acute SCI. METHODS: All patients presenting with cervical SCI to the emergency department at an urban, tertiary level I trauma center from 2010 to 2021 were identified from a prospective database of all consults evaluated by the spine service. Each patient's medical record was reviewed to assess for the presence of ACP documents such as living will, power of attorney, or advance directive. Community-level socioeconomic status was assessed using the Distressed Communities Index. Bivariable and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 424 patients: 104 (24.5%) of whom had ACP. Patients with ACP were older (64.8 versus 56.5 years, P = 0.001), more likely White (78.8% versus 71.9%, P = 0.057), and present with ASIA Impairment Scale grade A SCI (21.2% versus 12.8%, P = 0.054), although the latter two did not reach statistical significance. On multivariable logistic regression, patients residing in at-risk communities were significantly less likely to have ACP documents compared with those in prosperous communities (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29, P = 0.03). Although patients living in distressed communities were less likely to complete ACP compared with those in prosperous communities (OR 0.50, P = 0.066), this did not meet statistical significance. Female patients were also less likely to have ACP (OR: 0.43, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Female patients and those from at-risk communities are markedly less likely to complete ACP. Attention to possible disparities during admission and ACP discussions may help ensure that patients of all backgrounds have treatment goals documented.

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.

Early Diet Liberalization After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Improves Postoperative Recovery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of diet liberalization on short-term outcomes in patients undergoing anterior interbody lumbar fusion (ALIF). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for patients undergoing ALIF at our tertiary care center institution from 2010 to 2022. Electronic medical records were reviewed for demographics, surgical characteristics, and 90-day postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: We included 515 patients in this study with 102 patients receiving a full diet on the same day as their operation. All other patients had a delay of at least 1 day (average 1.6 days) until a full diet was provided. This group was found to have a higher rate of postoperative ileus (10.2% vs 2.9%) and urinary retention (16.0% vs 3.9%). The readmission rate and percent of patients presenting to the emergency department within 90 days postoperatively were similar. On multivariate regression analysis, same-day, full-diet patients had decreased odds of developing urinary retention (OR = .17) and a shorter length of hospital stay (Estimate: -.99). Immediate full diet had no impact on the development of ileus (OR: .33). CONCLUSIONS: An immediate postoperative full diet following an anterior approach to the lumbar spine was not found to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative ileus in patients deemed appropriate for early diet liberalization. Moreover, an early full diet was found to reduce length of hospitalization and risk of postoperative urinary retention. Reconsideration of postoperative diet protocols may help optimize patient outcomes and recovery.

Lateral approach to the lumbar spine: The utility of an access surgeon.

Background: Lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs) utilize a retroperitoneal approach that avoids the intraperitoneal organs and manipulation of the anterior vasculature encountered in anterior approaches to the lumbar spine. The approach was championed by spinal surgeons; however, general/vasculature surgeons may be more comfortable with the approach. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following LLIF procedures based on whether a spine surgeon or access surgeon performed the approach. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified all one- to two-level LLIFs at a tertiary care center from 2011 to 2021 for degenerative spine disease. Patients were divided into groups based on whether a spine surgeon or general surgeon performed the surgical approach. The electronic medical record was reviewed for hospital readmissions and complication rates. Results: We identified 239 patients; of which 177 had approaches performed by spine surgeons and 62 by general surgeons. The spine surgeon group had fewer levels with posterior instrumentation (1.40 vs. 2.00; P < 0.001) and decompressed (0.94 vs. 1.25, P = 0.046); however, the two groups had a similar amount of two-level LLIFs (29.9% vs. 27.4%, P = 0.831). This spine surgeon approach group was found to have shorter surgeries (281 vs. 328 min, P = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays Length of Stay (LOS) (3.1 vs. 3.6 days, P = 0.019); however, these differences were largely attributed to the shorter posterior fusion construct. On regression analysis, there was no statistical difference in postoperative complication rates whether or not an access surgeon was utilized (P = 0.226). Conclusion: Similar outcomes may be seen regardless of whether a spine or access surgeon performs the approach for an LLIF.

Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes: Anteriorly Placed Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage vs. Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Posterior Instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in anteriorly placed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) and anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TLIF and ALIF are surgical techniques that have become more prevalent in recent years. Although studies have compared the two, none have considered TLIFs with anteriorly placed cages, which may serve as a better comparison to ALIFs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing TLIF or ALIF with posterior instrumentation from 2010-2020 at a tertiary care institution were retrospectively identified. TLIF cage position was assessed and those with anterior placement were included. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes. Radiographic outcomes included posterior disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). Statistical analysis was performed to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 351 patients, 108 had ALIF with posterior instrumentation and 207 had a TLIF. Preoperatively, TLIF patients had less LL (53.7° vs. 60.6°, P<0.001), SS (38.3° vs. 43.7°, P<0.001), and PI (60.1° vs. 66.1°, P<0.001), all of which remained significant at one-year and long-term follow-up (P<0.001). The TLIF group had less ∆DH (1.51° vs. 5.43°, P<0.001), ∆LL (1.8° vs. 2.97°, P=0.038), and ∆SL (0.18° vs. 4.40°, P<0.001) at one year postoperatively. At two to three years, ∆DH (P<0.001) and ∆SL (P=0.001) remained significant, but ∆LL (P=0.695) did not. Patients in the TLIF group had higher VAS-Back scores one year postoperatively (3.68 vs. 2.16, P=0.008) and experienced less improvement in ODI (-17.1 vs. -28.6, P=0.012) and VAS-Back (-2.67 vs. -4.50, P=0.008) compared to ALIF patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ALIF with posterior instrumentation performed superiorly in radiographic outcomes and PROMs compared to anteriorly placed TLIFs. Anteriorly placed TLIF cages may not achieve the same results as those of ALIF cages.

Preoperative opioid use correlates with worse patient-reported outcomes two years after elective shoulder surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Prescription opioid consumption in the United States is a well-known public health problem, however, the deleterious effect of opioids may not be fully understood. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between preoperative opioid use and patient-reported outcomes two years after shoulder surgery. We hypothesized preoperative opioid use would be predictive of worse two-year patient reported outcome scores. METHODS: Patients undergoing shoulder surgery at an urban institution from June 2015 to July 2017 were prospectively enrolled into our orthopaedic registry. Preoperative opioid use and its association to patient outcome scores was retrospectively analyzed through bivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was used to control for confounding variables and to determine independent predictors of two-year outcome scores. RESULTS: Preoperative opioid use was associated with significantly worse scores on all two-year patient reported outcomes, and less improvement in PROMIS Physical Function and Numeric Pain Score (NPS) Body Pain two years postoperatively. Multivariate analysis showed preoperative opioid use to be an independent predictor of worse two-year scores in PROMIS Physical Function, PROMIS Pain Interference, PROMIS Social Satisfaction, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Form and NPS Operative Site. Preoperative opioid use was not an independent predictor of change in any outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Preoperative opioid use was associated with worse scores on all two-year patient reported outcomes, and after controlling for confounders, preoperative opioid use was predictive of worse scores in several two-year outcome measures. To our knowledge, this is one of the few studies investigating the impact of preoperative opioid use on postoperative outcomes after shoulder surgery.