Processing and Handling Cost of Single-use Versus Traditional Instrumentation for 1 Level Lumbar Fusions.

STUDY DESIGN: A single center, observational prospective clinical study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the instrumentation-related cost and efficiency of single-use instrumentation versus traditional reusable instrument trays. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Single-use instrumentation provides the opportunity to reduce costs associated with cleaning and sterilizing instrumentation after surgery. Although previous studies have shown single-use instrumentation is effective in other orthopedic specialties, it is unclear if single-use instrumentation could provide economic advantages in spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 (20 reusable instrumentation and 20 single-use instrumentation) lumbar decompression (1-3 level) and fusion (1 level) spine surgeries were collected. Instrument handling, opening, setup, re-stocking, cleaning, sterilization, inspection, packaging, and storage were recorded by direct observation for both reusable and single-use instrumentation. The rate of infection was noted for each group. RESULTS: Mean time of handling instruments by the scrub nurse was 11.6 (±3.9) minutes for reusable instrumentation and 2.1 (±0.5) minutes for single-use instrumentation. Mean cost of handling reusable instruments was estimated to be $8.52 (±$2.96) per case, and the average cost to reprocess a single tray by Sterilization Processing Department (SPD) was $58. Thus, the median cost for sterilizing 2 reusable trays per case was $116, resulting in an average total Costresuable of $124.52 (±$2.96). Mean cost of handling single-use instrumentation was estimated to be $1.57 ($0.38) per case. CONCLUSION: Single-use instrumentation provided greater cost savings and reduced time from the opening of instrumentation to use in surgery when compared with reusable instrumentation.

Statistics for the Practicing Spine Surgeon: Fundamental Measurements.

There are vast numbers of evidenced-based clinical trials produced each year, making it increasingly difficult to stay up to date with new treatments and protocols designed to provide the most optimal patient care. A physician's ability to combine existing knowledge with new data is limited by a basic understanding of the background statistics used in these studies. Our goal is to not only define the basic statistics commonly used in clinical trials but to also ensure that practitioners are able to have a working understanding of these statistical measurements to effectively make the most informed and efficacious decisions regarding patient management. On the basis of the recent growth of empirical spine literature, it is becoming more important for spine surgeons to have the basic statistical background necessary to efficiently interpret new data, which may affect clinical decision making regarding patient care.

Propensity Score Matching: A Statistical Method.

Propensity score matching (PSM) is a commonly used statistical method in orthopedic surgery research that accomplishes the removal of confounding bias from observational cohorts where the benefit of randomization is not possible. An alternative to multiple regression analysis, PSM attempts to reduce the effects of confounders by matching already treated subjects with control subjects who exhibit a similar propensity for treatment based on preexisting covariates that influence treatment selection. It, therefore, establishes a new control group by discarding outlier control subjects. This new control group reduces the unwanted influences of covariates, allowing for proper measurement of the intended variable. An example from orthopedic spine literature is discussed to illustrate how PSM may be applied in practice. PSM is uniquely valuable in its utility and simplicity, but it is limited in that it requires the removal of data and works primarily on binary treatments. In addition to matching, the propensity score can be used for stratification, covariate adjustments, and inverse probability of treatment weighting, but these topics are outside the scope of this paper. Personnel in the orthopedic field would benefit from learning about the function and application of this method given its common use in the orthopedic literature.

Statistics for the Practicing Spine Surgeon: Supplementary Data Analysis Measurements.

With the rapid rise of clinical spine surgery literature in the last few decades, there is a greater need for practicing spine surgeons to confidently analyze and critique published literature within the field. The conclusions drawn from published studies are often integrated into a physician's clinical decision-making. A strong knowledge in the fundamental statistical measurements used most frequently in spine surgery literature can enhance the ability to properly interpret the meaning of a study's results. However, medical education often lacks the incorporation of clinically relevant statistical analysis. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of some of the most commonly used statistical measurements in spine surgery, specifically intraclass correlation coefficient, diagnostic testing analyses, Kaplan-Meier curves, hazard ratios, distribution, and variance.

The Accurate Free-hand Placement of S2 Alar Iliac (S2AI) Screw.

Achieving an osseous fusion across the lumbosacral spine is still challenging in spine surgery. For the long multisegmental fusion surgery, it is crucial to build a robust and substantial foundation, which sometimes necessitates the distal spinal fixation to the pelvis. The pelvic fixation technique involves advancing the screw through the alar, thereby providing more purchase across the sacroiliac joint and into the ilium. The S2 alar iliac screws can obtain immediate stability and proper biomechanical strength of constructs. Here we demonstrated our experience of how to place the S2 alar iliac screw accurately as well as some pitfalls and pearls of this technique.

General Principles in the Consensus of SSI Management After Spine Surgery.

In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA was held to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 8 questions focused on general principles in spine surgery, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

Consensus on Risk Factors and Prevention in SSI in Spine Surgery.

In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 11 focused on risk factors and prevention questions in spine surgery, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

Role of Imaging, Tissue Sampling, and Biomarkers for Diagnosis of SSI in Spine Surgery.

In July 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 15 focused on the use of imaging, tissue sampling, and biomarkers in spine surgery, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

Consensus on Wound Care of SSI in Spine Surgery.

In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 7 focused on wound care, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

Wearable Technology in Spine Surgery.

Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide valuable insight into the effectiveness of spine surgery, there still remain limitations on measuring outcomes in this manner. Among other deficiencies, PROMs do not always correlate with more objective measures of surgery success. Wearable technology, such as pedometers, tri-axis accelerometer, or wearable cameras, may allow physicians to track patient progress following spine surgery more objectively. Recently, there has been an emphasis on using wearable devices to measure physical activity and limb and spine function. Wearable devices could play an important role as a supplement to PROMs, although they might have to be substantiated through adequate controlled studies to identify normative data for patients presenting with common spine disorders. This review will detail the current state of wearable technology applications in spine surgery and its direction as its utilization expands.

Is Wearable Technology Part of the Future of Orthopedic Health Care?

Wearable technology is an exciting industry that has gained exponential traction over the past few years. This technology allows individuals to track personal health and fitness parameters and is becoming more and more precise with modern advancements. As these devices continue to increase in accuracy and gain further utilities in health monitoring, their potential to influence orthopedic care will also grow. Orthopedic surgeons may use this technology to monitor the perioperative course of their patients, who can remotely communicate various parameters related to care without needing to physically be seen by their providers. Wearable devices, while of course promising in the field of medicine, still have limitations that must be overcome before they can widely be adopted into orthopedic care. Our goal is to review current wearables on the market, discuss their potential applications in health care, and postulate their future use in orthopedic care.

Fellow Versus Resident: Graduate Medical Education and Patient Outcomes After Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of spine fellow versus orthopaedic surgery resident assistance on outcomes in anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) has not been well studied. The objective of this study was to determine differences in patient health-related outcomes based on the level of surgical trainees. METHODS: Consecutive cases of ACDF (n = 407) were reviewed at a single high-volume institution between 2015 and 2017 and were separated into two groups based on whether they were fellow-assisted or resident-assisted. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded, and health-related quality of life was evaluated using the Short Form-12 (SF-12) survey. The SF-12, visual analog scale pain score, and neck disability index were compared between the two groups. Surgery level, surgical time, preoperative Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated blood loss, equivalent morphine use, perioperative complications, and 30-day readmission were also recorded. Patient outcomes were compared using an unpaired t-test as well as multivariate linear regression, controlling for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, presurgical visual analog scale, SF-12, and neck disability index. Results were reported with the 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Spine surgery fellows and orthopaedic surgery residents participated in 228 and 179 ACDF cases, respectively. No notable demographic differences between the two groups were found. A higher proportion of three or more level ACDF surgeries assisted by fellows versus residents was found. Estimated blood loss was greater in fellow-assisted ACDF cases. Both surgery time and total time in the room were also longer in the fellow-assisted ACDF group. No 30-day readmissions were found in either groups, and only one case of acute hemorrhagic anemia was found in the fellow-assisted group. Overall, postoperative complications were higher in the resident group; however, no difference with regard to intraoperative complications between groups was found. DISCUSSION: This study shows that patient health-related outcomes are similar in ACDF cases that were fellow-assisted versus resident-assisted. However, fellow-assisted ACDF cases were associated with more blood loss and longer surgery time.

Consensus on the Role of Antibiotic Use in SSI Following Spinal Surgery.

In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA was held to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 17 focused on the use of antibiotics in spine surgery, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

The C2 "Parsicle" Screw: Introduction of a Novel Posterior Surgical Technique For Upper Cervical Fixation.

The instrumentation of C2 is technically challenging given the anatomic complexity of the upper cervical spine. Although the placement of C2 pedicle screws may be safer than transarticular screw placement, the inconsistent location of the transverse foramen and vertebral artery precludes placement of such screws in up to 26% of patients. In cases where vertebral artery anatomy prevents the safe placement of a pedicle screw, a pars screw is an excellent alternative. However, pars screws must stop short of the vertebral foramen, limiting the typical length of these screws to only 14-18 mm. The associated purchase and rigidity are compromised compared with the pedicle screw. A modified C2 fixation technique was developed by our group which we have named the C2 "parsicle" screw reflecting the hybrid nature of the screw incorporating aspects of pars and pedicle screw fixation.

Circulating miR-155-5p as a Novel Biomarker of Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease.

MINI: Circulating microRNAs provide an insight into current disease states. Comparing patients with degenerative disc disease to healthy controls, patients with disc disease were found to have significantly downregulated levels of miR-155-5p. This marker was found to be an accurate diagnostic predictor for the presence of degeneration (P = 0.006). STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study measuring differential gene expression of circulating microRNA (miRNA) in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). OBJECTIVE: To identify miRNA dysregulation in serum samples of patients with DDD compared to healthy controls (HC). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Early DDD can be a difficult diagnosis to make clinically, with lack of positive and specific findings on physical exam or advanced imaging. miRNAs are a class of molecules that act as gene regulators and have been shown to be dysregulated in local degenerative disc tissue. However, to date no studies have identified dysregulation of serum miRNA in patients with DDD. METHODS: Whole blood samples were obtained from 69 patients with DDD and 16 HC. Patient-reported outcomes were collected preoperatively and degree of DDD was classified using Pfirrmann grade on preoperative imaging. Differential gene expression analysis using a screening assay for several hundred miRNAs and further characterization for five specific miRNAs (miR-16-5p, miR-21-5p, miR-142-3p, miR-146a-5p, and miR-155-5p) was performed. In addition, a pro-inflammatory cytokine multiplex assay and bioinformatics analysis were done. RESULTS: The initial screening assay showed 13 miRNA molecules that were significantly dysregulated in DDD patients, with miR-155-5p showing significant downregulation (p = 0.027) and direct interactions with the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-1ß, and the tumor suppressor genes p53 and BRAF. Analyzing the whole cohort, miR-155 showed an almost four-fold downregulation in DDD patients (-3.94-fold, P < 0.001) and was the sole miRNA that accurately predicted the presence of disc degeneration (P = 0.006). Downregulation of miR-155 also correlated with increased leg pain (P = 0.018), DDD (P = 0.006), and higher Pfirrmann grade (P = 0.039). On cytokine analysis, TNF-α (0.025) and IL-6 (P < 0.001) were significantly higher in DDD patients. CONCLUSION: Serum miR-155-5p is significantly downregulated in patients with DDD and may be a diagnostic marker for degenerative spinal disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Case-control study measuring differential gene expression of circulating microRNA (miRNA) in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). To identify miRNA dysregulation in serum samples of patients with DDD compared to healthy controls (HC). Early DDD can be a difficult diagnosis to make clinically, with lack of positive and specific findings on physical exam or advanced imaging. miRNAs are a class of molecules that act as gene regulators and have been shown to be dysregulated in local degenerative disc tissue. However, to date no studies have identified dysregulation of serum miRNA in patients with DDD. Whole blood samples were obtained from 69 patients with DDD and 16 HC. Patient-reported outcomes were collected preoperatively and degree of DDD was classified using Pfirrmann grade on preoperative imaging. Differential gene expression analysis using a screening assay for several hundred miRNAs and further characterization for five specific miRNAs (miR-16-5p, miR-21-5p, miR-142-3p, miR-146a-5p, and miR-155-5p) was performed. In addition, a pro-inflammatory cytokine multiplex assay and bioinformatics analysis were done. The initial screening assay showed 13 miRNA molecules that were significantly dysregulated in DDD patients, with miR-155-5p showing significant downregulation (p = 0.027) and direct interactions with the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-1ß, and the tumor suppressor genes p53 and BRAF. Analyzing the whole cohort, miR-155 showed an almost four-fold downregulation in DDD patients (−3.94-fold, P < 0.001) and was the sole miRNA that accurately predicted the presence of disc degeneration (P = 0.006). Downregulation of miR-155 also correlated with increased leg pain (P = 0.018), DDD (P = 0.006), and higher Pfirrmann grade (P = 0.039). On cytokine analysis, TNF-α (0.025) and IL-6 (P < 0.001) were significantly higher in DDD patients. Serum miR-155-5p is significantly downregulated in patients with DDD and may be a diagnostic marker for degenerative spinal disease. Level of Evidence: N/A.

How Does Body Mass Index Influence Outcomes in Patients After Lumbar Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study is to determine how body mass index (BMI) affects patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) after lumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although greater preoperative BMI is known to increase the rates of adverse events after surgery, there is a paucity of literature assessing the influence of BMI on PROMs after lumbar fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery between 1 and 3 levels were retrospectively identified. PROMs analyzed were the Short Form-12 Physical Component Score, Mental Component Score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analog Scale Back and Leg pain scores. Patients were divided into groups based on preoperative BMI: class 1, BMI <25.0; class 2, BMI 25.0 to 29.9; class 3, BMI 30.0 to 34.9; and class 4, BMI ≥35.0. Absolute PROM scores, the recovery ratio, and the percentage of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference between groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 54 (14.8%) patients in class 1, 140 (38.2%) in class 2, 109 (29.8%) in class 3, and 63 (17.2%) in class 4 were included. All patients improved after surgery across all outcome measures (P < 0.001) except for class 4 patients, who did not improve in terms of Short Form-12 Mental Component Score scores after surgery (P = 0.276). Preoperative Short Form-12 Physical Component Score (P = 0.002) and Oswestry Disability Index (P < 0.0001) scores were significantly different between BMI groups-with class 4 having worse disability than class 1 and 2. BMI was not a significant predictor for any outcome domain. Overall 30- and 90-day readmission rates were similar between groups, with a higher revision rate in the class 4 group (P = 0.036), due to a higher incidence of postoperative surgical site infections (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: All patients undergoing short-segment lumbar fusion for degenerative disease improved to a similar degree with respect to PROMs. Those in the highest class of obesity (BMI ≥35.0) were, however, at a greater risk for postoperative surgical site infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Are Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Influenced by Presurgical Depression Symptoms on the Mental Component Score of the Short Form-12 Survey?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether preoperative depressive symptoms, measured by mental component score of the Short Form-12 survey (MCS-12), influence patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) following an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery for cervical degeneration. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a paucity of literature regarding preoperative depression and PROMs following ACDF surgery for cervical degenerative disease. METHODS: Patients who underwent an ACDF for degenerative cervical pathology were identified. A score of 45.6 on the MCS-12 was used as the threshold for depression symptoms, and patients were divided into two groups based on this value: depression (MCS-12 ≤45.6) and nondepression (MCS-12 >45.6) groups. Outcomes including Neck Disability Index (NDI), physical component score of the Short Form-12 survey (PCS-12), and Visual Analogue Scale Neck (VAS Neck), and Arm (VAS Arm) pain scores were evaluated using independent sample t test, recovery ratios, percentage of patients reaching the minimum clinically important difference, and multiple linear regression - controlling for factors such as age, sex, and BMI. RESULTS: The depression group was found to have significantly worse baseline pain and disability than the nondepression group in NDI (P < 0.001), VAS Neck pain (P < 0.001), and VAS Arm pain (P < 0.001) scores. Postoperatively, both groups improved to a similar amount with surgery based on the recovery ratio analysis. The depression group continued to have worse scores than the nondepression group in NDI (P = 0.010), PCS-12 (P = 0.026), and VAS Arm pain (P = 0.001) scores. Depression was not a significant predictor of change in any PROMs based on regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Patients who presented with preoperative depression reported more pain and disability symptoms preoperatively and postoperatively; however, both groups achieved similar degrees of improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Consensus on Implants in Infections After Spine Surgery.

In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA was held to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 9 focused on implants questions in spine surgery, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

Does Riluzole Influence Bone Formation?: An In Vitro Study of Human Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Osteoblast.

STUDY DESIGN: A post-test design biological experiment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the osteogenic effects of riluzole on human mesenchymal stromal cells and osteoblasts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Riluzole may benefit patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) from a neurologic perspective, but little is known about riluzole's effect on bone formation, fracture healing, or osteogenesis. METHODS: Human mesenchymal stromal cells (hMSCs) and human osteoblasts (hOB) were obtained and isolated from healthy donors and cultured. The cells were treated with riluzole of different concentrations (50, 150, 450 ng/mL) for 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks. Cytotoxicity was evaluated as was the induction of osteogenic differentiation of hMSCs. Differentiation was evaluated by measuring alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity and with Alizarin red staining. Osteogenic gene expression of type I collagen (Col1), ALP, osteocalcin (Ocn), Runx2, Sox9, Runx2/Sox9 ratio were measured by qRT-PCR. RESULTS: No cytotoxicity or increased proliferation was observed in bone marrow derived hMSCs and primary hOBs cultured with riluzole over 7 days. ALP activity was slightly increased in hMSCs after treatment for 2 weeks with riluzole 150 ng/mL and slightly upregulated by 150% (150 ng/mL) and 90% (450 ng/mL) in hMSCs at 3 weeks. In hOBs, ALP activity almost doubled after 2 weeks of culture with riluzole 150 ng/mL (P < 0.05). More pronounced 2.6-fold upregulation was noticed after 3 weeks of culture with riluzole at both 150 ng/mL (P = 0.05) and 450 ng/mL (P = 0.05). No significant influence of riluzole on the mRNA expression of osteocalcin (OCN) was observed. CONCLUSION: The effect of riluzole on bone formation is mixed; low-dose riluzole has no effect on the viability or function of either hMSCs or hOBs. The activity of ALP in both cell types is upregulated by high-dose riluzole, which may indicate that high-dose riluzole can increase osteogenic metabolism and subsequently accelerate bone healing process. However, at high concentrations, riluzole leads to a decrease in osteogenic gene expression, including Runx2 and type 1 collagen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.