Effect of Antibiotic Spacer Dosing on Treatment Success in Two-Stage Exchange for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

INTRODUCTION: In two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), adding antibiotics to cement spacers is the standard of care; however, little is known about optimal dosage. There is emphasis on using >3.6 g of total antibiotic, including ≥2.0 g of vancomycin, per 40 g of cement, but these recommendations lack clinical evidence. We examined whether recommended antibiotic spacer doses affect treatment success. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 202 patients who underwent two-stage exchange for PJI from 2004 to 2020 with at least 1-year follow-up. Patients were separated into high (>3.6 g of total antibiotic per 40 g of cement) and low-dose spacer groups. Primary outcomes were overall and infectious failure. RESULTS: High-dose spacers were used in 80% (162/202) of patients. High-dose spacers had a reduced risk of overall (OR, 0.37; P = 0.024) and infectious (OR, 0.35; P = 0.020) failure for infected primary arthroplasties, but not revisions. In multivariate analysis, vancomycin dose ≥2.0 g decreased the risk of infectious failure (OR, 0.31; P = 0.016), although not overall failure (OR, 0.51; P = 0.147). CONCLUSION: During two-stage exchange for PJI, spacers with greater than 3.6 g of total antibiotic may reduce overall and infectious failure for infected primary arthroplasties. Furthermore, using at least 2.0 g of vancomycin could independently decrease the risk of infectious failure.

Comparison of Static and Articulating Spacers After Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus on whether articulating or static spacers are superior during two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection. We aimed to compare surgical time, need for extensile exposure, surgical costs, and treatment success for articulating and static spacers. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 229 periprosthetic joint infections treated with two-stage exchange with a minimum of one-year follow-up. For articulating and static spacers, we compared the need for extensile exposure during reimplantation and treatment failure based on an updated definition. Surgical time and costs at both stages were also compared. Subgroup analysis was performed for total knee and hip arthroplasties. RESULTS: There was no difference in the surgical time for spacer insertion; however, articulating spacers demonstrated reduced surgical time during reimplantation (181 vs. 234 minutes, P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, there was no difference in extensile exposures (odds ratio 2.20, P = 0.081), but treatment failure was more likely for static spacers (odds ratio 2.17, P = 0.009). Overall surgical costs for two-stage exchange were similar between groups (23,782 vs. 23,766, P = 0.495). CONCLUSION: Articulating spacers demonstrated shorter surgical times and a trend toward decreased extensile exposures during reimplantation. They also had higher treatment success rates and similar surgical costs for overall two-stage exchange.

Utilization Patterns, Efficacy, and Complications of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Strategies in Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty as Reported by American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II Candidates.

BACKGROUND: The optimum venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis strategy to minimize risk of VTE and bleeding complications following revision total hip and knee arthroplasty (rTHA/rTKA) is controversial. The purpose of this study is to describe current VTE prophylaxis patterns following revision arthroplasty procedures to determine efficacy, complication rates, and prescribing patterns for different prophylactic strategies. METHODS: The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Part II (oral) examination case list database was analyzed. Current Procedural Terminology codes for rTHA/rTKA were queried and geographic region, VTE prophylaxis strategy, and complications were obtained. Less aggressive prophylaxis patterns were defined if only aspirin and/or sequential compression devises were utilized. More aggressive VTE prophylaxis patterns were considered if any of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin), warfarin, rivaroxaban, fondaparinux, or other strategies were used. RESULTS: In total, 6387 revision arthroplasties were included. The national rate of less aggressive VTE prophylaxis strategies was 35.3% and more aggressive in 64.7%. Use of less aggressive prophylaxis strategy was significantly associated with patients having no complications (89.8% vs 81.9%, P < .001). Use of more aggressive prophylaxis patterns was associated with higher likelihood of mild thrombotic (1.2% vs 0.3%, P < .001), mild bleeding (1.7% vs 0.6%, P < .001), moderate thrombotic (2.6% vs 0.4%, P < .001), moderate bleeding (6.2% vs 4.0%, P < .001), severe bleeding events (4.4% vs 2.4%, P < .001), infections (6.4% vs 3.8%, P < .001), and death within 90 days (3.1% vs 1.3%, P < .001). There were no significant differences in rates of fatal pulmonary embolism (0.1% vs 0.04%, P = .474). Subgroup analysis of rTHA and rTKA patients showed similar results. CONCLUSION: The individual rationale for using a more aggressive VTE prophylaxis strategy was unknown; however, more aggressive strategies were associated with higher rates of bleeding and thrombotic complications. Less aggressive strategies were not associated with a higher rate of thrombosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.

Are Low Patient Satisfaction Scores Always Due to the Provider?: Determinants of Patient Satisfaction Scores During Spine Clinic Visits.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of various components on patient satisfaction scores SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Patient satisfaction has become an important component of quality assessments. However, with many of these sources collecting satisfaction data reluctant to disclose detailed information, little remains known about the potential determinants of patient satisfaction. METHODS: Two hundred patients were contacted via phone within 3 weeks of new patient encounter with 11 spine providers. Standardized patient satisfaction phone survey consisting of 25 questions (1-10 rating scale) was administered. Questions inquired about scheduling, parking, office staff, teamwork, wait-time, radiology, provider interactions/behavior, treatment, and follow-up communication. Potential associations between these factors and three main outcome measures were investigated: (1) provider satisfaction, (2) overall clinic visit satisfaction, and (3) quality of care. RESULTS: Significant associations (P < 0.0001) with provider satisfaction, overall clinic visit satisfaction, and perceived overall quality of care were found with appointment scheduling, parking, office staff, teamwork, wait time, radiology, provider interactions/behavior, treatment, and follow-up communication. Nurse-practitioner/resident involvement was positively associated with scores (P ≤ 0.03). A "candy-man" effect was not noted, as pain medication prescribing did not play a significant role in satisfaction (P > 0.05).In multivariate regression analysis, explanation of medical condition/treatment (P = 0.002) and provider empathy (P = 0.04) were significantly associated with provider satisfaction scores, while the amount of time spent with the provider was not. Conversely, teamwork of staff/provider and follow-up communication were significantly associated with both overall clinic visit satisfaction and quality of care (P ≤ 0.03), while provider behaviors or satisfaction were not. CONCLUSION: Satisfaction with the provider was associated with better explanations of the spine condition/treatment plan and provider empathy, but was not a significant factor in either overall clinic visit satisfaction or perceived quality of care. Patients' perception of teamwork between staff and providers along with reliable follow-up communication were found to be significant determinants of overall patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Increased Preoperative Narcotic Use and Its Association With Postoperative Complications and Length of Hospital Stay in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of preoperative narcotic use on the incidence of 30- and 90-day postoperative complications, as well as length of hospital stay (LOS) in patients undergoing spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work has associated an increased incidence of complications and length of stay following surgery in patients with increased preoperative narcotic use. Despite this and recent national attention highlighting the negative effects of narcotics, they remain commonly used for the management of pain in patients undergoing spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 583 patients undergoing spine surgery for a structural lesion were evaluated. Self-reported preoperative narcotic consumption was obtained and converted to morphine equivalents at the initial preoperative visit. LOS was recorded upon discharge and presence/type of a postoperative complication within 30/90 days was obtained. A multivariable logistic and linear regression analysis was performed for the incidence of complications and length of stay controlling for clinically important covariates. RESULTS: Narcotic use was not associated with 30- or 90-day complications; however, smoking status was significantly associated with 30-day complications. Increased preoperative narcotic use was significantly associated with increased LOS, as was age, type of surgery, and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Increased preoperative narcotic use and depression are associated with increased LOS in patients undergoing spine surgery. We calculated that for every 100 morphine equivalents a patient is taking preoperatively; their stay is extended 1.1 days. Narcotic use was not associated with 30- or 90-day postoperative complications. As reimbursement is bundled before surgery, providing interventions for patients with treatable causes for increased length of stay can save cost overall.

Cost-effectiveness of cell saver in short-segment lumbar laminectomy and fusion (≤3 levels).

STUDY DESIGN: Mixed retrospective-prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To characterize practice patterns for the use of Cell Saver at our institution, investigate its cost-effectiveness, and propose a new tool for patient selection. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Blood loss is an exceedingly common complication of spine surgery, and Cell Saver intraoperative cell salvage has been used to decrease reliance on allogeneic blood transfusions for blood volume replacement. The cost-effectiveness of Cell Saver has not been established for lumbar spinal surgery, and no universal guidelines exist for clinicians to decide when to utilize this tool. Other authors have proposed cutoffs for anticipated blood loss volumes which indicate that Cell Saver should be used. METHODS: Five hundred and eight patients undergoing lumbar laminectomy in 3 or fewer levels were reviewed from our prospective spinal outcomes registry. Cost information for Cell Saver and allogeneic transfusions was collected from our institution's billing and collections department. Logistic regression was used to identify patient characteristics associated with use of Cell Saver. An incremental cost effectiveness ratio was calculated based on transfusion and cost data. A clinical prediction score was derived using logistic regression. RESULTS: Use of Cell Saver correlated with increased age, higher body mass index, diabetes, greater American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and greater number of previous spine surgeries. Outcomes for patients who did and did not have Cell Saver set up intraoperatively were equivocal. Cell Saver was not cost effective based on current usage patterns, but may become cost effective if used for patients with high expected blood loss. A simple clinical prediction rule is proposed which may aid in selection of patients to have Cell Saver present intraoperatively. CONCLUSION: Cell Saver is not a cost-effective intervention but may become cost effective if a threshold of expected intraoperative blood loss is used to select patients more judiciously. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

What Patient Characteristics Could Potentially Affect Patient Satisfaction Scores During Spine Clinic?

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. OBJECTIVE: Assess which patient factors are associated with patient satisfaction scores in the outpatient spine clinic setting. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patient satisfaction has become an important component of quality assessments, and thereby pay-for-performance metrics, made by government, hospitals, and insurance providers. METHODS: During a 7-month period, 200 patients were contacted via phone within 3 weeks of a new patient encounter with 1 of 11 spine providers. A standardized patient satisfaction phone survey consisting of 25 questions, answered using a 1-10 scale, was then administered. Patient demographics, medical/social history, and previous treatment were prospectively recorded. Potential associations between these patient factors and 3 outcomes of interest were investigated: (1) provider satisfaction, (2) overall clinic visit satisfaction, and (3) overall quality of care during clinic visit. RESULTS: Younger age, less formal education, and smoking were associated with diminished provider satisfaction, overall clinic visit satisfaction, and perceived overall quality of care (P ≤ 0.0001). Male patients were significantly less satisfied with their clinic visit compared with females (P = 0.029). Those treated under a worker's compensation claim were significantly less satisfied with their provider and overall quality of care (P ≤ 0.02). Marital status, working status, mental health history, travel distance, pain characteristics, previous treatments, and current narcotic use were not significant determinants of patient satisfaction (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study found that those patients who were younger, with less formal education, and active smokers had lower patient satisfaction scores. Because patient satisfaction is increasingly being used in assessments of quality of care, it is essential that these factors be considered when evaluating a given provider's practice. This information is important to providers by helping guide individualized patient interactions while in clinic, as well as, the various agencies collecting satisfaction scores allowing them to account for potential sampling bias. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody graft placement using an articulating delivery arm facilitates increased segmental lordosis with superior anterior and midline graft placement.

OBJECTIVE: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a frequently performed method of lumbar arthrodesis in patients failing medical management of back and leg pain. Accurate placement of the interbody graft and restoration of lordosis has been shown to be crucial when performing lumbar fusion procedures. We performed a single-surgeon, prospective, randomized study to determine whether a novel articulating versus traditional straight graft delivery arm system allows for superior graft placement and increased lordosis for single-level TLIF. METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients undergoing single-level TLIF were included and prospectively randomized to one of the 2 groups (articulated vs. straight delivery arm system). Three radiographic characteristics were evaluated at 6-week follow-up: (1) degree of segmental lumbar lordosis at the fused level; (2) the percent anterior location of the interbody graft in disk space; and (3) the distance (mm) off midline of the interbody graft placement. RESULTS: Randomization yielded 16 patients in the articulated delivery arm cohort and 14 in the straight delivery arm cohort. The articulating delivery arm system yielded an average of 14.7-degree segmental lordosis at fused level, 35% anterior location, and 3.6 mm off midline. The straight delivery arm system yielded an average of 10.7-degree segmental lordosis at fused level, 46% anterior location, and 7.0 mm off midline. All 3 comparisons were statistically significant (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that an articulating delivery arm system facilitates superior anterior and midline TLIF graft placement allowing for increased segmental lordosis compared with a traditional straight delivery arm system.

Preoperative opioid use and its association with perioperative opioid demand and postoperative opioid independence in patients undergoing spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether preoperative opioid use is associated with increased perioperative opioid demand and postoperative opioid independence in patients undergoing spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work has demonstrated increased opioid requirements during the intraoperative and immediate postoperative period in patients with high levels of preoperative opioid use. Despite this, they remain a common agent class used for the management of pain in patients prior to spine surgery. METHODS: A total of 583 patients were included. Self-reported daily opioid consumption was obtained preoperatively and converted into morphine equivalent amounts and opioid use was recorded at the 12-month postoperative time. Intraoperative and immediate postoperative opioid demand was calculated. Linear regression analyses for intraoperative and immediate postoperative opioid demand while logistic regression analyses for opioid independence at 12 months including relevant covariates such as depression and anxiety were performed. RESULTS: The median preoperative morphine equivalent amount for the cohort was 8.75 mg, with 55% of patients reporting some degree of opioid use. Younger age, more invasive surgery, anxiety, and primary surgery were significantly associated with increased intraoperative opioid demand (P < 0.05). Younger age, anxiety, and greater preoperative opioid use were significantly associated with increased immediate postoperative opioid demand (P < 0.05). More invasive surgery, anxiety, revision surgery, and greater preoperative opioid use were significantly associated with a decreased incidence of opioid independence at 12 months postoperatively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Greater preoperative opioid use prior to undergoing spine surgery predicts increased immediate postoperative opioid demand and decreased incidence of postoperative opioid independence. Psychiatric diagnoses in those using preoperative opioids were predictors of continued opioid use at 12 months. Patients may benefit from preoperative counseling that emphasizes minimizing opioid use prior to undergoing spine surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Approach to pain management in chronic opioid users undergoing orthopaedic surgery.

Opioids are commonly used for the management of pain in patients with musculoskeletal disorders; however, national attention has highlighted the potential adverse effects of the use of opioid analgesia in this and other nonmalignant pain settings. Chronic opioid users undergoing orthopaedic surgery represent a particularly challenging patient population in regard to their perioperative pain control and outcomes. Preoperative evaluation provides an opportunity to estimate a patient's preoperative opioid intake, discuss pain-related fears, and identify potential psychiatric comorbidities. Patients using high levels of opioids may also require referral to an addiction specialist. Various regional blockade and pharmaceutical options are available to help control perioperative pain, and a multimodal pain management approach may be of particular benefit in chronic opioid users undergoing orthopaedic surgery.

Long-term outcomes after revision neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: defining the effectiveness of surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-cohort study of patients undergoing revision neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term outcomes of revision surgery using validated patient-reported outcomes measures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recurrent lumbar stenosis may occur after lumbar spine surgery, leading to significant discomfort and radicular pain. Although numerous studies have reported clinical outcomes after primary lumbar surgery, there remains a paucity of data on the outcomes after revision surgery for recurrent same-level stenosis. METHODS: Fifty-three patients undergoing revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for same-level recurrent stenosis-associated back and leg pain were included in this study. Baseline and 2-year visual analog scale for leg pain (LP-VAS), visual analog scale for low back pain (BP-VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zung self-reported depression score (ZDS), time to narcotic independence, time to return to work, health-state utility [EuroQol (EQ-5D)], and physical and mental quality of life [SF-12 physical and mental component scores (PCS and MCS)] were assessed. RESULTS: Mean±SD duration of time between index surgery and revision surgery was 4.00±4.19 years. A significant improvement from baseline was observed in BP-VAS (9.28±1.01 vs. 5.00±2.94, P=0.001), LP-VAS (9.55±0.93 vs. 3.45±2.95, P=0.001), and ODI (36.02±6.01 vs. 21.75±12.08, P=0.001). Mean±SD SF-12 PCS (7.17±11.22, P=0.001), SF-12 MCS (12.57±13.03, P=0.001), ZDS (12.37±16.80, P=0.001), and EQ-5D (0.42±0.34, P=0.001) were also significantly improved. The mean cumulative 2-year gain in health-utility state was 0.84 QALY. Median (interquartile range) duration of postoperative narcotic use was 6 (1.4-12.2) months and time of missed work was 6 (4.0-10.0) months. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for recurrent same-level stenosis provides significant improvement in all patient-assessed outcome metrics and should be offered as a viable treatment option.

Utility of Postoperative Radiographs for Pediatric Scoliosis: Association Between History and Physical Examination Findings and Radiographic Findings.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative radiographs are routinely obtained following surgery for the correction of scoliosis in pediatric patients. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the utility of obtaining routine postoperative radiographs in the management of these patients. METHODS: A total of 1969 clinic notes and corresponding radiographs regarding 451 consecutive patients with scoliosis (age range, ten to eighteen years) who had surgical correction over a ten-year period at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Curve etiology, preoperative curve characteristics, and surgical procedures performed were recorded. All postoperative clinic notes and radiographs were reviewed for abnormalities and changes in treatment course. It was then determined whether clinical signs and symptoms and/or abnormal radiographic findings led to a change in treatment course, which was defined as a therapeutic intervention or further diagnostic testing. RESULTS: Of the 451 patients in this study (average age [and standard deviation], 14.7 ± 2.4 years), 72.5% had adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, 23.3% had neuromuscular scoliosis, and 4.2% had other underlying causes of scoliosis. A change in treatment course occurred in the cases of forty-two patients, all of whom had symptomatic findings on postoperative history and physical examination and only fifteen of whom had supportive abnormal findings on postoperative radiographs. Curve etiology and surgical procedures performed had no impact on radiographic utility. A significant increase in utility was seen for radiographs obtained at visits one year or more following surgery compared with those obtained at visits less than one year following surgery (1.7% compared with 0.3%, p = 0.001). The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of routine postoperative radiographs in guiding treatment course were 35.7%, 98.1%, 28.8%, and 98.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Routine radiographs provide low utility in guiding the course of treatment for asymptomatic pediatric patients following surgery for scoliosis. The results of this study suggest that patient or caregiver complaints, comorbidities, and clinical suspicion should be considered before obtaining radiographs at postoperative visits in order to minimize radiation exposure in pediatric patients and reduce medical costs without compromising care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Two-year comprehensive medical management of degenerative lumbar spine disease (lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, or disc herniation): a value analysis of cost, pain, disability, and quality of life: clinical article.

OBJECT: Current health care reform calls for a reduction of procedures and treatments that are less effective, more costly, and of little value (high cost/low quality). The authors assessed the 2-year cost and effectiveness of comprehensive medical management for lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, and herniation by utilizing a prospective single-center multidisciplinary spine center registry in a real-world practice setting. METHODS: Analysis was performed on a prospective longitudinal quality of life spine registry. Patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis (n = 50), stenosis (n = 50), and disc herniation (n = 50) who had symptoms persisting after 6 weeks of medical management and who were eligible for surgical treatment were entered into a prospective registry after deciding on nonsurgical treatment. In all cases, comprehensive medical management included spinal steroid injections, physical therapy, muscle relaxants, antiinflammatory medication, and narcotic oral agents. Two-year patient-reported outcomes, back-related medical resource utilization, and occupational work-day losses were prospectively collected and used to calculate Medicare fee-based direct and indirect costs from the payer and societal perspectives. The maximum health gain associated with medical management was defined as the improvement in pain, disability, and quality of life experienced after 2 years of medical treatment or at the time a patient decided to cross over to surgery. RESULTS: The maximum health gain in back pain, leg pain, disability, quality of life, depression, and general health state did not achieve statistical significance by 2 years of medical management, except for pain and disability in patients with disc herniation and back pain in patients with lumbar stenosis. Eighteen patients (36%) with spondylolisthesis, 11 (22%) with stenosis, and 17 (34%) with disc herniation eventually required surgical management due to lack of improvement. The 2-year improvement did not achieve a minimum clinically important difference in any outcome measure. The mean 2-year total cost (direct plus indirect) of medical management was $6606 for spondylolisthesis, $7747 for stenosis, and $7097 for herniation. CONCLUSIONS: In an institution-wide, prospective, longitudinal quality of life registry that measures cost and effectiveness of all spine care provided, comprehensive medical management did not result in sustained improvement in pain, disability, or quality of life for patients with surgically eligible degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, stenosis, or disc herniation. From both the societal and payer perspective, continued medical management of patients with these lumbar pathologies in whom 6 weeks of conservative therapy failed was of minimal value given its lack of health utility and effectiveness and its health care costs. The findings from this real-world practice setting may more accurately reflect the true value and effectiveness of nonoperative care in surgically eligible patient populations.

Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for lumbar spondylolisthesis allows for the surgical treatment of back/leg pain while minimizing tissue injury and accelerating the patient's recovery. Although previous results have shown shorter hospital stays and decreased intraoperative blood loss for MIS versus open TLIF, short- and long-term outcomes have been similar. Therefore, we performed comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis for MIS versus open TLIF. METHODS: A total of 100 patients (50 MIS, 50 open) undergoing TLIF for lumbar spondylolisthesis were prospectively studied. Back-related medical resource use, missed work, and quality-adjusted life years were assessed. Cost of in-patient care, direct cost (2-year resource use × unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts), and indirect cost (work-day losses × self-reported gross-of-tax wage rate) were recorded, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. RESULTS: Length of hospitalization and time to return to work were less for MIS versus open TLIF (P = 0.006 and P = 0.03, respectively). MIS versus open TLIF demonstrated similar improvement in patient-reported outcomes assessed. MIS versus open TLIF was associated with a reduction in mean hospital cost of $1758, indirect cost of $8474, and total 2-year societal cost of $9295 (P = 0.03) but similar 2-year direct health care cost and quality-adjusted life years gained. CONCLUSIONS: MIS TLIF resulted in reduced operative blood loss, hospital stay and 2-year cost, and accelerated return to work. Surgical morbidity, hospital readmission, and short- and long-term clinical effectiveness were similar between MIS and open TLIF. MIS TLIF may represent a valuable and cost-saving advancement from a societal and hospital perspective.

Preoperative narcotic use and its relation to depression and anxiety in patients undergoing spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective review of registry data at a single institution from October 2010 to June 2012. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the amount of preoperative narcotic use is associated with preoperative depression and anxiety in patients undergoing spine surgery for a structural lesion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work suggests that narcotic use and psychiatric comorbidities are significantly related. Among other psychological considerations, depression and anxiety may be associated with the amount of preoperative narcotic use in patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS: Five hundred eighty-three patients undergoing lumbar (60%), thoracolumbar (11%), or cervical spine (29%) were included. Self-reported preoperative narcotic consumption was obtained at the initial preoperative visit and converted to daily morphine equivalent amounts. Preoperative Zung Depression Scale (ZDS) and Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) scores were also obtained at the initial preoperative visit and recorded as measures of depression and anxiety, respectively. Resistant and robust bootstrapped multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between ZDS and MSPQ scores and preoperative narcotics, controlling for clinically important covariates. Mann-Whitney U tests examined preoperative narcotic use in patients who were categorized as depressed (ZDS ≥ 33) or anxious (MSPQ ≥ 12). RESULTS: Multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, smoking status, preoperative employment status, and prior spinal surgery demonstrated that preoperative ZDS (P = 0.006), prior spine surgery (P = 0.007), and preoperative pain (0.014) were independent risk factors for preoperative narcotic use. Preoperative MSPQ (P = 0.083) was nearly a statistically significant risk factor. Patients who were categorized as depressed or anxious on the basis of ZDS and MSPQ scores also showed higher preoperative narcotic use than those who were not (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Depression and anxiety as assessed by ZDS and MSPQ scores were significantly associated with increased preoperative narcotic use, underscoring the importance of thorough psychological and substance use evaluation in patients being evaluated for spine surgery.

Comprehensive assessment of 1-year outcomes and determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after suboccipital decompression for Chiari malformation I in adults.

BACKGROUND: To date, there has been no study to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of suboccipital craniectomy (SOC) for Chiari malformation I (CMI) using validated patient-reported outcome measures. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and minimum clinically important difference thresholds of SOC for the treatment of adult patients with CMI using patient-reported outcome metrics. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing first-time SOC and C1 laminectomy for CMI at a single institution were followed up for 1 year. Baseline and 1-year postoperative pain, disability, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and return to work were assessed. Minimum clinically important difference thresholds were calculated with 2 anchors: the Health Transition Index and North American Spine Society satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: The severity of headaches improved in 37 patients (74%). Improvement in syrinx size was seen in 12 patients (63%) and myelopathy in 12 patients (60%). All patient-reported outcomes showed significant improvement 1 year postoperatively (P < .05). Of the 38 patients (76%) employed preoperatively, 29 (76%) returned to work postoperatively at a median time of 6 weeks (interquartile range, 4-12 weeks). Minimum clinically important difference thresholds after SOC for CMI were 4.4 points for numeric rating scale for headache, 0.7 points for numeric rating scale for neck pain, 13.8 percentage points for Headache Disability Index, 14.2 percentage points for Neck Disability Index, 7.0 points for Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary, 6.1 points for Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary, 4.5 points for Zung depression, 1.7 points for modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association, and 0.34 quality-adjusted life-years for Euro-Qol-5D. CONCLUSION: Surgical management of CMI in adults via SOC provides significant and sustained improvement in pain, disability, general health, and quality of life as assessed by patient-reported outcomes. This patient-centered assessment suggests that suboccipital decompression for CMI in adults is an effective treatment strategy.

Preoperative Zung depression scale predicts patient satisfaction independent of the extent of improvement after revision lumbar surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patient satisfaction ratings are increasingly being used in health care as a proxy for quality and are becoming the focal point for several quality improvement initiatives. Affective disorders, such as depression, have been shown to influence patient-reported outcomes and self-interpretation of health status. We hypothesize that patient psychiatric profiles influence reported satisfaction with care, independent of surgical effectiveness. PURPOSE: To assess the predictive value of preoperative depression on patient satisfaction after revision surgery for same-level recurrent stenosis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Fifty-three patients undergoing a revision surgery for symptomatic same-level recurrent stenosis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed using an outcomes questionnaire that included questions on health state values (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), depression (Zung self-rating depression scale), and Short Form 12 (SF-12) physical and mental component scores (PCS and MCS). Patient satisfaction was dichotomized as either "YES" or "NO" on whether they were satisfied with their surgical outcome 2 years after the surgery. METHODS: A total of fifty-three patients undergoing revision neural decompression and instrumented fusion for same-level recurrent stenosis-associated back and leg pain were included in this study. Preoperative Zung self-rating depression score (ZDS), education status, comorbidities, and postoperative satisfaction with surgical care and outcome was assessed for all patients. Baseline and 2-year VAS for leg pain (VAS-LP), VAS for low back pain (VAS-BP), ODI, SF-12 PCS and MCS, and health-state utility (EQ-5D) were assessed. Factors associated with patient satisfaction after surgery were assessed via multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two years after surgery, a significant improvement was reported in all outcome measures: VAS-BP (5±2.94 vs. 9.28±1, p<.001), VAS-LP (3.43±2.95 vs. 9.5±0.93, p<.001), ODI (21.75±12.07 vs. 36.01±6, p<.001), SF-12 PCS (32.30±11.01 vs. 25.13±5.84, p<.001), SF-12 MCS (47.48±10.96 vs. 34.91±12.77, p<.001), EQ-5D (0.60±0.31 vs. 0.18±0.22, p<.001), and ZDS (37.52±11.98 vs. 49.90±10.88, p<.001). Independent of postoperative improvement in pain and disability (surgical effectiveness), increasing preoperative Zung depression score was significantly associated with patient dissatisfaction 2 years after revision lumbar surgery (Odds ratio=0.67 [confidence interval: 0.38, 0.87], p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that independent of the surgical effectiveness, the extent of preoperative depression influences the reported patient satisfaction after revision lumbar surgery. Quality improvement initiatives using patient satisfaction as a proxy for quality should account for the patients' baseline depression as potential confounders.

Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article.

OBJECT: Treatment effectiveness following spine surgery is usually gauged with the help of patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires. Although these questionnaires assess pain, disability, and general health state, their numerical scores lack direct, clinically significant meaning. Thus, the concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been introduced, which indicates the smallest change in an outcome measure that reflects clinically meaningful improvement to patients. The authors set out to determine anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)-specific MCID values for the visual analog scale (VAS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and EQ-5D (the EuroQol health survey) in patients undergoing ACDF for cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: Data on 69 patients who underwent ACDF for cervical radiculopathy were collected in the authors' web-based, prospective registry during the study enrollment period. Patient-reported outcome questionnaires (VAS-neck pain [NP]), VAS-arm pain [AP], NDI, SF-12, and EQ-5D) were administered preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively, allowing 3-month change scores to be calculated. Four established calculation methods were used to calculate anchor-based MCID values using the North American Spine Society (NASS) patient satisfaction scale as the anchor: 1) average change, 2) minimum detectable change (MDC), 3) change difference, and 4) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (88%) were available at follow-up. At 3 months postoperatively, statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) was observed for the following PROs assessed: VAS-NP (2.7 ± 3.3), VAS-AP (3.7 ± 3.6), NDI (23.2% ± 19.7%), SF-12 physical component score (PCS; 10.7 ± 9.7), and EQ-5D (0.20 ± 0.23 QALY). Improvement on the SF-12 mental component score (MCS) trended toward significance (3.4 ± 11.4, p = 0.07). The 4 MCID calculation methods generated a range of MCID values for each of the PROs: VAS-NP 2.6-4.0, VAS-AP 2.4-4.2, NDI 16.0%-27.6%, SF-12 PCS 7.0-12.2, SF-12 MCS 0.0-7.2, and EQ-5D 0.05-0.24 QALY. The maximum area under the curve (AUC) was observed for NDI (0.80), and the minimum AUC was observed for SF-12 MCS (0.66) and EQ-5D (0.67). Based on the MDC approach, the MCID threshold was 2.6 points for VAS-NP, 4.1 points for VAS-AP, 17.3% for NDI, 8.1 points for SF-12 PCS, 4.7 points for SF-12 MCS, and 0.24 QALY for EQ-5D. The mean improvement in patient scores at 3 months surpassed the MCID threshold for VAS-NP, NDI, and SF-12 PCS but not for VAS-AP, SF-12 MCS, and EQ-5D. CONCLUSIONS: The ACDF-specific MCID is highly variable depending on the calculation technique used. The MDC approach seems to be most appropriate for MCID calculations in the ACDF population, as it provided a threshold value above the 95% confidence interval of nonresponders (greater than the measurement error) and was closest to the average change of most PROs reported by responders. When the MDC method was applied with the NASS patient satisfaction scale as the anchor, the MCID thresholds were 2.6 points for VAS-NP, 4.1 points for VAS-AP, 17.3% for NDI, 8.1 points for SF-12 PCS, 4.7 points for SF-12 MCS, and 0.24 QALY for EQ-5D.

Laminectomy and extension of instrumented fusion improves 2-year pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with adjacent segment disease: defining the long-term effectiveness of surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Adjacent segment disease (ASD) may occur as a long-term consequence of spinal fusion and is associated with significant back and leg pain. Surgical management of symptomatic ASD consists of neural decompression and extension of fusion. However, conflicting results have been reported with respect to the long-term clinical effectiveness of revision surgery in this setting. We set out to comprehensively assess the long-term clinical outcome after revision surgery and determine its effectiveness in the treatment of adjacent segment disease. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing revision surgery for ASD-associated back and leg pain were included in this study. Baseline and 2-year Visual Analog Scale-Back Pain (VAS-BP), Visual Analog Scale-Leg Pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry Disability Index, physical and mental quality of life (Short Form-12 [SF-12] physical and mental component score [PCS and MCS]) and health-state utility (EuroQol [EQ-5D]) were assessed. RESULTS: A sustained improvement in VAS-BP (8.72 ± 1.85 vs. 3.92 ± 2.84, P = 0.001), VAS-LP (6.30 ± 3.90 vs. 3.02 ± 3.03, P = 0.001), Oswestry Disability Index (28.72 ± 9.64 vs. 18.48 ± 11.31, P = 0.001), SF-12 PCS (26.89 ± 8.85 vs. 35.58 ± 11.97, P = 0.001) and SF-12 MCS (44.66 ± 12.85 vs. 53.16 ± 9.46, P = 0.001) was observed 2 years after revision surgery, with a cumulative mean 2-year gain of 0.76 quality-adjusted life-years (EQ-5D). Median (interquartile range) time to narcotic independence and return to work was 1.7 (1.0-8.0) months and 2.0 (1.0-4.75) months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing decompression and extension of fusion for adjacent segment disease-associated back and leg pain reported long-term improvement in pain, disability, and both physical and mental quality of life, suggesting that revision surgery is a highly effective treatment strategy in this patient population.

Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal surgical outcome studies rely on patient reported outcome (PRO) measurements to assess the effect of treatment. A shortcoming of these questionnaires is that the extent of improvement in their numerical scores lacks a direct clinical meaning. As a result, the concept of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has been used to measure the critical threshold needed to achieve clinically relevant treatment effectiveness. Post hoc anchor-based MCID methods have not been applied to the surgical treatment for pseudoarthrosis. PURPOSE: To determine the most appropriate MCID values for visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form (SF)-12 physical component score (PCS), and European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) in patients undergoing revision lumbar arthrodesis for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: In 47 patients undergoing revision fusion for pseudoarthrosis-associated back pain, PRO measures of back pain (BP-VAS), ODI, physical quality of life (SF-12 PCS), and general health utility (EQ-5D) were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Four subjective post hoc anchor-based MCID calculation methods were used to calculate MCID (average change; minimum detectable change; change difference; and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis) for two separate anchors (health transition index (HTI) of SF-36 and satisfaction index). RESULTS: All patients were available for a 2-year PRO assessment. Two years after surgery, a significant improvement was observed for all PROs; Mean change score: BP-VAS (2.3±2.6; p<.001), ODI (8.6%±13.2%; p<.001), SF-12 PCS (4.0±6.1; p=.01), and EQ-5D (0.18±0.19; p<.001). The four MCID calculation methods generated a wide range of MCID values for each of the PROs (BP-VAS: 2.0-3.2; ODI: 4.0%-16.6%; SF-12 PCS: 3.2-6.1; and EQ-5D: 0.14-0.24). There was no difference in response between anchors for any patient, suggesting that HTI and satisfaction anchors are equivalent in this patient population. The wide variations in calculated MCID values between methods precluded any ability to reliably determine what the true value is for meaningful change in this disease state. CONCLUSIONS: Using subjective post hoc anchor-based methods of MCID calculation, MCID after revision fusion for pseudoarthrosis varies by as much as 400% per PRO based on the calculation technique. MCID was suggested to be as low as 2 points for ODI and 3 points for SF-12. These wide variations and low values of MCID question the face validity of such calculation techniques, especially when applied to heterogeneous disease and patient groups with a multitude of psychosocial confounders such as failed back syndromes. The variability of MCID thresholds observed in our study of patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion for pseudoarthrosis raises further questions to whether ante hoc or Delphi methods may be a more valid and consistent technique to define clinically meaningful, patient-centered changes in PRO measurements.