Post-operative Patient Portal Messaging is Associated With Return to the Emergency Department After Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery who message their care team via an electronic patient portal (EPP) post-operatively and emergency department (ED) visits within 90 days of surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Secure patient messaging through electronic patient portals has grown over recent years. Despite its frequent utilization by patients to engage with their care team, its association with clinical outcomes remains unknown in spine surgery. METHODS: This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Inclusion criteria were adults who underwent single-stage lumbar spine surgery between January 2016-June 2023. Patients with incomplete information, multi-stage surgeries, and those who died within 90 days of surgery were excluded. Patient sociodemographic, surgical, hospital readmission, and patient-provider engagement data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 13,135 patients were included. A total of 1,711 patients (13%) had a post-operative ED visit, and 4,791 patients (36%) used the patient portal to send a message after surgery. Sending a post-operative patient message after undergoing lumbar spine surgery was associated with an increased likelihood of having an ED visit that does not lead to readmission (1.29 (1.10-1.53), P = 0.002). Patients with high school degrees were more likely to have an ED visit without readmission (1.33 (1.08-1.65), P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Patients at a higher risk of presenting to the ED post-operatively should be identified and may benefit from additional counseling and access to the care team virtually to limit unnecessary healthcare utilization. Focusing on patients who reach out via EPP messaging post-operatively may be a good target patient group to address first. Future research is needed to investigate the possible health literacy and other socioeconomic barriers affecting these patients so that appropriate, more cost-effective resources can be utilized to avoid clinically unnecessary and costly ED visits.

Assessing the variation and drivers of cost in 1-level lumbar fusion: a time-driven activity-based costing analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: As value-based health care arrangements gain traction in spine care, understanding the true cost of care becomes critical. Historically, inaccurate cost proxies have been used, including negotiated reimbursement rates or list prices. However, time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) allows for a more accurate cost assessment, including a better understanding of the primary drivers of cost in 1-level lumbar fusion. PURPOSE: To determine the variation of total hospital cost, differences in characteristics between high-cost and non-high-cost patients, and to identify the primary drivers of total hospital cost in a sample of patients undergoing 1-level lumbar fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective, multicenter (one academic medical center, one community-based hospital), observational study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 383 patients undergoing elective 1-level lumbar fusion for degenerative spine conditions between November 2, 2021 and December 2, 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES: Total hospital cost of care (normalized); preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative cost of care (normalized); ratio of most to least expensive 1-level lumbar fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing a 1-level lumbar fusion between November 2, 2021 and December 2, 2022 were identified at two hospitals (one quaternary referral academic medical center and one community-based hospital) within our health system. TDABC was used to calculate total hospital cost, which was also broken up into: pre-, intra-, and postoperative timeframes. Operating surgeon and patient characteristics were also collected and compared between high- and non-high-cost patients. The correlation of surgical time and cost was determined. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine factors associated with total hospital cost. RESULTS: The most expensive 1-level lumbar fusion was 6.8x more expensive than the least expensive 1-level lumbar fusion, with the intraoperative period accounting for 88% of total cost. On average. the implant cost accounted for 30% of the total, but across the patient sample, the implant cost accounted for a range of 6% to 44% of the total cost. High-cost patients were younger (55 years [SD: 13 years] vs.63 years [SD: 13 years], p=.0002), more likely to have commercial health insurance (24 out of 38 (63%) vs. 181 out of 345 (52%), p=.003). There was a poor correlation between time of surgery (i.e., incision to close) and total overall cost (ρ: .26, p<.0001). Increase age (RC: -0.003 [95% CI: -0.006 to -0.000007], p=.049) was associated with decreased cost. Surgery by certain surgeons was associated with decreased total cost when accounting for other factors (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: A large variation exists in the total hospital cost for patients undergoing 1-level lumbar fusion, which is primarily driven by surgeon-level decisions and preferences (e.g., implant and technology use). Also, being a "fast" surgeon intraoperatively does not mean your total cost is meaningfully lower. As efforts continue to optimize patient value through ensuring appropriate clinical outcomes while also reducing cost, spine surgeons must use this knowledge to lead, or at least be active participants in, any discussions that could impact patient care.

What Happens to Sagittal Alignment Following Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion?

OBJECTIVE: Laminectomy and fusion (LF) and laminoplasty (LP) are 2 sucessful posterior decompression techniques for cervical myelo-radiculopathy. There is also a growing body of evidence describing the importance of cervical sagittal alignment (CSA) and its importance in outcomes. We investigated the difference between pre- and postoperative CSA parameters in and between LF or LP. Furthermore, we studied predictive variables associated with change in cervical mismatch (CM). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of adults with cervical myeloradiculopathy in a single healthcare system. The primary outcomes are intra- and inter-cohort comparison of LF versus LP radiographic parameters at pre- and postoperative time points. A secondary multivariable analysis of predictive factors was performed evaluating factors predicting postoperative CM. RESULTS: Eighty nine patients were included; 38 (43%) had LF and 51 (57%) underwent LP. Both groups decreased in lordosis (LF 11.4° vs. 4.9°, P = 0.01; LP 15.2° vs. 9.1°, P < 0.001), increased in cSVA (LF 3.4 vs. 4.2 cm, P = 0.01; LP 3.2 vs. 4.2 cm, P < 0.001), and increased in CM (LF 22.0° vs. 28.5°, P = 0.02; LP 16.8° vs. 22.3°, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in the postoperative CSA between groups. No significant predictors of change in pre- and postoperative CM were found. CONSLUSIONS: There were no significant pre-or postoperative differences following the 2 procedures, suggesting radiographic equipoise in well indicated patients. Across all groups, lordosis decreased, cSVA increased, and cervical mismatch increased. There were no predictive factors that led to change in cervical mismatch.

Inpatient opioid use varies by construct length among laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion patients.

Background: Laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy and fusion (LF) are utilized to achieve decompression in patients with symptomatic degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Comparative analyses aimed at determining outcomes and clarifying indications between these procedures represent an area of active research. Accordingly, we sought to compare inpatient opioid use between LP and LF patients and to determine if opioid use correlated with length of stay. Methods: Sociodemographic information, surgical and hospitalization data, and medication administration records were abstracted for patients >18 years of age who underwent LP or LF for DCM in the Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system between 2017 and 2019. Specifically, morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of oral and parenteral pain medication given after arrival in the recovery area until discharge from the hospital were collected. Categorical variables were analyzed using chi-squared analysis or Fisher exact test when appropriate. Continuous variables were compared using Independent samples t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: One hundred eight patients underwent LF, while 138 patients underwent LP. Total inpatient opioid use was significantly higher in the LF group (312 vs. 260 MME, p=.03); this difference was primarily driven by higher postoperative day 0 pain medication requirements. Furthermore, more LF patients required high dose (>80 MME/day) regimens. While length of stay was significantly different between groups, with LF patients staying approximately 1 additional day, postoperative day 0 MME was not a significant predictor of this difference. When operative levels including C2, T1, and T2 were excluded, the differences in total opioid use and average length of stay lost significance. Conclusions: Inpatient opioid use and length of stay were significantly greater in LF patients compared to LP patients; however, when constructs including C2, T1, T2 were excluded from analysis, these differences lost significance. Such findings highlight the impact of operative extent between these procedures. Future studies incorporating patient reported outcomes and evaluating long-term pain needs will provide a more complete understanding of postoperative outcomes between these 2 procedures.

Does Nasal Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Prevent Deep Surgical Site Infections for Elective Cervical Spinal Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between nasal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) testing and surgical site infection (SSI) rates in the setting of primary posterior cervical instrumented spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Preoperative MRSA screening and decolonization has demonstrated success for some orthopedic subspecialties in prevention of SSIs. Spine surgery, however, has seen varied results, potentially secondary to the anatomic and surgical heterogeneity of the patients included in prior studies. Given that prior research has demonstrated greater propensity for gram positive SSIs in the cervical spine, we sought to investigate if MRSA screening would be more impactful in the cervical spine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients undergoing primary instrumented posterior cervical procedures from January 2015 to December 2019 were reviewed for MRSA testing <90 days before surgery, preoperative mupirocin, perioperative antibiotics, and SSI defined as operative incision and drainage (I&D) <90 days after surgery. Logistic regression modeling used SSI as the primary outcome, MRSA screening as primary predictor, and clinical and demographic factors as covariates. RESULTS: This study included 668 patients, of whom MRSA testing was performed in 212 patients (31.7%) and 6 (2.8%) were colonized with MRSA. Twelve patients (1.8%) underwent an I&D. On adjusted analysis, preoperative MRSA testing was not associated with postoperative I&D risk. Perioperative vancomycin similarly had no association with postoperative I&D risk. Notably, 6 patients (50%) grew methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus from intraoperative cultures, with no cases of MRSA. CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between preoperative nasal MRSA screening and SSIs in primary posterior cervical instrumented procedures, nor was there any association between vancomycin or infection rate. Furthermore, there was a preponderance of gram positive infections but none caused by MRSA. Given these findings, the considerable cost and effort associated with MRSA testing in the setting of primary posterior cervical instrumentation may not be justified. Further research should investigate if higher-risk scenarios demonstrate greater utility of preoperative testing.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Inadequate to Assess Cervical Sagittal Alignment Parameters.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective radiographic study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cervical sagittal alignment measurement reliability and correlation between upright radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical sagittal alignment (CSA) helps determine the surgical technique employed to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Traditionally, upright lateral radiographs are used to measure CSA, but obtaining adequate imaging can be challenging. Utilizing MRI to evaluate sagittal parameters has been explored; however, the impact of positional change on these parameters has not been determined. METHODS: One hundred seventeen adult patients were identified who underwent laminoplasty or laminectomy and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy from 2017 to 2019. Two clinicians independently measured the C2-C7 sagittal angle, C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and the T1 tilt. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities were highly correlated, with correlations greater than 0.85 across all permutations; intraclass correlation coefficients were highest with MRI measurements. The C2-C7 sagittal angle was highly correlated between x-ray and MRI at 0.76 with no significant difference ( P =0.46). There was a weaker correlation with regard to C2-C7 SVA (0.48) and T1 tilt (0.62) with significant differences observed in the mean values between the 2 modalities ( P <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The C2-C7 sagittal angle is highly correlated and not significantly different between upright x-ray and supine MRIs. However, cervical SVA and T1 tilt change with patient position. Since MRI does not accurately reflect the CSA in the upright position, upright lateral radiographs should be obtained to assess global sagittal alignment when planning a posterior-based cervical procedure.

Cervical Laminoplasty Versus Posterior Laminectomy and Fusion: Trends in Utilization and Evaluation of Complication and Revision Surgery Rates.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy with fusion (LF) are common operations used to treat cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Conflicting data exist regarding which operation provides superior patient outcomes while minimizing the risk of complications. This study evaluates the trends of LP compared with LF over the past decade in patients with cervical myelopathy and examines long-term revision rates and complications between the two procedures. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent LP or LF for cervical myelopathy from 2010 to 2019 were identified in the PearlDiver Mariner Database. Patients were grouped independently (LP versus fusion) and assessed for association with common medical and surgical complications. The primary outcome was the incidence of LP versus LF for cervical myelopathy over time. Secondary outcomes were revision rates up to 5 years postoperatively and the development of complications attributable to either surgery. RESULTS: In total, 1,420 patients underwent LP and 10,440 patients underwent LF. Rates of LP (10.5% to 13.7%) and LF (86.3% to 89.5%) remained stable, although the number of procedures nearly doubled from 865 in 2010 to 1,525 in 2019. On matched analysis, LP exhibited lower rates of wound complications, surgical site infections, spinal cord injury, dysphagia, cervical kyphosis, limb paralysis, incision and drainage/exploration, implant removal, respiratory failure, renal failure, and sepsis. Revision rates for both procedures at were not different at any time point. CONCLUSION: From 2010 to 2019, rates of LP have not increased and represent less than 15% of posterior-based myelopathy operations. Up to 5 years of follow-up, there were no differences in revision rates for LP compared with LF; however, LP was associated with fewer postoperative complications than LF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III retrospective cohort study.

Perioperative Management of Spinal Cord Stimulators and Intrathecal Pain Pumps.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) and intrathecal pain pumps (IPPs) are implantable devices used in the management of chronic pain or spasticity. Complications, such as infection, lead migration/failure, cerebrospinal fluid leak, neurologic injury, and other medical complications, can occur after placement and may require surgical intervention. Orthopaedic surgeons may encounter patients with these devices and should have a basic understanding of their function. In addition, they should be aware that patients may have residual stenosis or deformity contributing to their symptoms; thus, spine surgery referral may be indicated. If a patient with a SCS or IPP is undergoing revision spinal surgery, a preoperative discussion regarding retention versus removal of the device is imperative because indications for device retention, revision, and removal are complex. This review summarizes potential complications and intraoperative considerations concerning the proper perioperative management of SCSs/IPPs and will provide evidence-based data regarding management strategies for these devices.

Is It the Back or the Hip? Differentiating Lumbar Spine From Hip Pathologies: Key Points of Evaluation and Treatment.

Disorders of the hip and spine commonly coexist and are difficult to disentangle. When they do occur together, the pathology is often referred to as hip-spine syndrome. When hip-spine syndrome is suspected, it is critically important to properly identify the relative contributions that the hip and spine each provide to a patient's overall clinical presentation. To focus on the incorrect anatomic site would be a disservice to the patient. The interconnectivity of hip and spine pathology, the various clinical presentations of the most commonly seen hip and spine disorders, the broad differential and suggested workup that should be considered for such patients, the various treatment modalities available, and the clinical predictors and expected outcomes for patients with hip-spine syndrome are important factors for review.

Surgical Intervention is Associated With Improvements in the ASIA Impairment Scale in Gunshot-induced Spinal Injuries of the Thoracic and Lumbar Spine.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of patients from the National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Center (NSCISC). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the outcomes of patients with gunshot-induced spinal injuries (GSIs) treated operatively and nonoperatively. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The treatment of neurological deficits associated with gunshot wounds to the spine has been controversial. Treatment has varied widely, ranging from nonoperative to aggressive surgery. METHODS: Patient demographics, clinical information, and outcomes were extracted. Surgical intervention was defined as a "laminectomy, neural canal restoration, open reduction, spinal fusion, or internal fixation of the spine." The primary outcome was the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale. Statistical comparisons of baseline demographics and neurological outcomes between operative and nonoperative cohorts were performed. RESULTS: In total, 961 patients with GSI and at least 1-year follow-up were identified from 1975 to 2015. The majority of patients were Black/African American (55.6%), male (89.7%), and 15-29 years old (73.8%). Of those treated surgically (19.7% of all patients), 34.2% had improvement in their ASIA Impairment Scale score at 1 year, compared with 20.6% treated nonoperatively. Overall, surgery was associated with a 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-2.8] times greater likelihood of ASIA Impairment Scale improvement at 1 year. Specifically, benefit was seen in thoracic (odds ratio: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.4-4.6) and lumbar injuries (odds ratio: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1-3.1), but not cervical injuries. CONCLUSIONS: While surgical indications are always determined on an individualized basis, in our review of GSIs, surgical intervention was associated with a greater likelihood of neurological recovery. Specifically, patients with thoracic and lumbar GSIs had a 2.5 and 1.7-times greater likelihood of improvement in their ASIA Impairment Scale score 1 year after injury, respectively, if they underwent surgical intervention.

Practice Variation Within a Single Institution in Management of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess variation in care for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) among surgeons at the same institution, to establish diagnostic and therapeutic variables contributing to this variation, and to determine whether variation in care changed over time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Like other degenerative spinal disorders, DS is prone to practice variation due to the wide array of treatment options. Focusing on a single institution can identify more individualized drivers of practice variation by omitting geographic variability of demographics and socioeconomic factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected number of office visits, imaging procedures, injections, electromyography (EMG), and surgical procedures within 1 year after diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of surgery. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated to compare the variation in practice over time. RESULTS: Patients had a mean 2.5 (±0.6) visits, 1.8 (±0.7) imaging procedures, and 0.16 (±0.09) injections in the first year after diagnosis. Thirty-six percent (1937/5091) of patients had physical therapy in the 3 months after diagnosis. CV was highest for EMG (95%) and lowest for office visits (22%). An additional spinal diagnosis [odds ratio (OR)=3.99, P <0.001], visiting a neurosurgery clinic (OR=1.81, P =0.016), and diagnosis post-2007 (OR=1.21, P =0.010) were independently associated with increased surgery rates. The CVs for all variables decreased after 2007, with the largest decrease seen for EMG (132% vs. 56%). CONCLUSIONS: While there is variation in the management of patients diagnosed with DS between surgeons of a single institution, this variation seems to have gone down in recent years. All practice variables showed diminished variation. The largest variation and subsequent decrease of variation was seen in the use of EMG. Despite the smaller amount of variation, the rate of surgery has gone up since 2007.

Impact of insurance type on patient-reported outcome measures in patients with lumbar disc herniation.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar disc herniations (LDH) are among the most common spinal conditions. Despite increased appreciation for the importance of social determinants of health, the role that these factors play in patients with lumbar disc herniations is poorly defined. PURPOSE: To elucidate the association between insurance status and baseline patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the setting of lumbar disc herniations. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study PATIENT SAMPLE: Baseline patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) were reviewed from 924 adult patients presenting for treatment of lumbar disc herniation within our institutional healthcare system (2015-2020). OUTCOME MEASURES: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF10a), PROMIS Global-Mental, PROMIS Global-Physical, and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain were assessed. METHODS: PROMIS scores at presentation were defined at the primary outcome and insurance status as the primary predictor. Differences in clinical and sociodemographic characteristics between our cohorts, stratified by insurance status, were evaluated using Wilcoxon rank-sum or chi-squared testing. We used multivariable negative binomial regression modeling to adjust for potential confounders including age, gender, race, language, ethnicity, comorbidity index, and median geospatial household income. RESULTS: We included 924 patients, with mean age of 58.4 +/- 15.2 years and 52.6% male prevalence. Patients insured through Medicaid were more likely to be Black, Hispanic, and non-English speaking patients compared with the commercially insured. The Charlson Comorbidity index was significantly higher in the Medicare group. Following adjusted analysis, patients with Medicaid insurance had significantly worse PF10a (IRR, 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.96), as well as PROMIS Global-Physical score (IRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.94), and VAS low back pain (IRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04-1.40) when compared to the commercially insured. CONCLUSIONS: We encountered worse physical function, mental, and pain-related patient-reported outcomes for those with Medicaid insurance in a population of patients presenting for evaluation of lumbar disc herniation. These findings, including worse depression, anxiety, and higher axial back pain scores, merit further investigation into potential health system asymmetries, and should be accounted for by treating providers.

Insurance Type is Associated with Baseline Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients with Lumbar Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine if insurance type is associated with differences in baseline patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) among patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PROMs are increasingly used as means to convey value. Prior research suggests that sociodemographic factors, including insurance type may influence these metrics, with patients who are more socioeconomi-cally disadvantaged reporting poorer baseline PROMs. Nonetheless, this association is yet to be evaluated among patients with spinal stenosis. METHODS: Six-hundred-eight patients with LSS were identified within a major academic health system. Their baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System for physical function, pain, anxiety and depression, and visual analogue scale for low back and leg pain were analyzed. Wilcoxon rank-sum testing and chi-squared testing were utilized for descriptive nonadjusted comparisons. Negative binomial regression modeling was performed with PROMs considered as dependent variables, insurance type as the primary predictor, and all other factors (e.g., Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, gender, race, ethnicity, language spoken, and median geospatial household income) considered as covariates. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 62.6 ± 14years with a female majority (50.7%). Patients with Medicaid insurance were younger, more likely to be Hispanic, and less likely to be English-speaking than those with commercial insurance or Medicare. Overall, patients with Medicaid insurance were found to have worse baseline PROMs across almost all domains, with the worst performance in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10 physical global (incidence rate ration 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.82-0.95) and mental function (incidence rate ration 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.92). CONCLUSION: LSS patients insured through Medicaid have systematically worse baseline PROMs across almost all domains as compared to those with commercial insurance and Medicare, even after adjusting for confounders. These findings have broad ranging implications for research and healthcare policy, especially when using PROMs as measures of value.

Nasal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus does not reduce surgical site infection after primary lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Preoperative methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) testing and decolonization has demonstrated success for arthroplasty patients in surgical site infections (SSIs) prevention. Spine surgery, however, has seen varied results. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of nasal MRSA testing and operative debridement rates on surgical site infection after primary lumbar fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study and/or Consolidated medical enterprise PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients undergoing primary instrumented lumbar fusions from January 2015 to December 2019 were reviewed. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was incision and drainage performed in the operating room within 90 days of surgery. METHODS: MRSA testing <90-day's before surgery, mupirocin prescription <30-day's before surgery, perioperative antibiotics, and Elixhauser comorbidity index were collected for each subject. Bivariate analysis used Wilcoxon rank-sum testing and logistic regression modeling Multivariable logistic regression modeling assessed for associations with MRSA testing, intravenous vancomycin use, and I&D rate. RESULTS: The study included 1,884 patients for analysis, with mean age of 63.1 (SE 0.3) and BMI 29.5 (SE 0.1). MRSA testing was performed in 755 patients (40.1%) and was more likely to be performed in patients with lower Elixhauser index scores (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, p=.021) on multivariable analysis. Vancomycin use increased significantly over time (OR 1.49 and/or year, 95% CI 1.3-1.8, p<.001) despite no change in mupirocin or I&D rates. MRSA testing, mupirocin prescriptions, perioperative parenteral vancomycin use, and intrawound vancomycin powder use had no impact on I&D rates. I&D risk was associated with higher BMI (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.12, p=.009) and higher number of blood product units transfused (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.46, p=.022). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates no impact on surgical I&D rates from the use of preoperative MRSA testing. Increased BMI and transfusions were associated with operative I&D rates for surgical site infection. As a result of the hospital directive, vancomycin use increased over time with no associated change in infection rates, underscoring the need for focused interventions, and engagement with antibiotic stewardship programs.

Association of Spinal Alignment Correction With Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adult Cervical Deformity: Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: Adult cervical deformity (ACD) is a debilitating spinal condition that causes significant pain, neurologic dysfunction, and functional impairment. Surgery is often performed to correct cervical alignment, but the optimal amount of correction required to improve patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are not yet well-defined. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed and Fisher z-transformation (Zr) was used to pool the correlation coefficients between alignment parameters and PROs. The strength of correlation was defined according to the following: poor (0 < r ≤ 0.3), fair (0.3 < r ≤ 0.5), moderate (0.5 < r ≤ 0.8), and strong (0.8 < r ≤ 1). RESULTS: Increased C2-7 sagittal vertical axis was fairly associated with increased Neck Disability Index (NDI) (pooled Zr = 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03 to 0.58). Changes in T1 slope minus cervical lordosis poorly correlated with NDI (pooled Zr = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.30). Increased C7-S1 was poorly associated with worse EuroQoL 5-Dimension (pooled Zr = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.06). Correction of horizontal gaze did not correlate with legacy metrics. Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association correlated with C2-slope, C7-S1, and C2-S1. CONCLUSION: Spinal alignment parameters variably correlated with improved health-related quality of life and myelopathy after corrective surgery for ACD. Further studies evaluating legacy PROs, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System, and ACD specific instruments are needed for further validation.

Development of machine learning and natural language processing algorithms for preoperative prediction and automated identification of intraoperative vascular injury in anterior lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative vascular injury (VI) may be an unavoidable complication of anterior lumbar spine surgery; however, vascular injury has implications for quality and safety reporting as this intraoperative complication may result in serious bleeding, thrombosis, and postoperative stricture. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to (1) develop machine learning algorithms for preoperative prediction of VI and (2) develop natural language processing (NLP) algorithms for automated surveillance of intraoperative VI from free-text operative notes. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients, 18 years or age or older, undergoing anterior lumbar spine surgery at two academic and three community medical centers were included in this analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was unintended VI during anterior lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Manual review of free-text operative notes was used to identify patients who had unintended VI. The available population was split into training and testing cohorts. Five machine learning algorithms were developed for preoperative prediction of VI. An NLP algorithm was trained for automated detection of intraoperative VI from free-text operative notes. Performance of the NLP algorithm was compared to current procedural terminology and international classification of diseases codes. RESULTS: In all, 1035 patients underwent anterior lumbar spine surgery and the rate of intraoperative VI was 7.2% (n=75). Variables used for preoperative prediction of VI were age, male sex, body mass index, diabetes, L4-L5 exposure, and surgery for infection (discitis, osteomyelitis). The best performing machine learning algorithm achieved c-statistic of 0.73 for preoperative prediction of VI (https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/lumbar_vascular_injury/). For automated detection of intraoperative VI from free-text notes, the NLP algorithm achieved c-statistic of 0.92. The NLP algorithm identified 18 of the 21 patients (sensitivity 0.86) who had a VI whereas current procedural terminologyand international classification of diseases codes identified 6 of the 21 (sensitivity 0.29) patients. At this threshold, the NLP algorithm had a specificity of 0.93, negative predictive value of 0.99, positive predictive value of 0.51, and F1-score of 0.64. CONCLUSION: Relying on administrative procedural and diagnosis codes may underestimate the rate of unintended intraoperative VI in anterior lumbar spine surgery. External and prospective validation of the algorithms presented here may improve quality and safety reporting.

Laminoplasty-an underutilized procedure for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

BACKGROUND CONTENT: Cervical laminoplasty (LP) and laminectomy and fusion (LF) are commonly used surgical techniques for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). Several recent studies have demonstrated superior perioperative metrics and decreased overall costs with LP, yet LF is performed far more often in the United States. PURPOSE: To determine the percentage of patients with CSM who are radiographically candidates for LP. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients >18 years old who underwent LF or LP for CSM at 2 large academic institutions from 2017 to 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Candidacy for LP based on radiographic criteria. METHODS: Radiographs were assessed by 2 spine surgeons not involved in the care of the patients to determine the C2-C7 Cobb angle and the presence and extent of cervical instability. Patients with kyphosis >13°, > 3.5 mm of listhesis on static imaging, or > 2.5 mm of motion on flexion-extension or standing-supine films were not considered candidates for LP. Intraclass coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the interobserver reliability of angular measurements and the presence of instability. The percentage of patients for whom LP was contraindicated was calculated. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients underwent LF while 142 underwent LP. Of the 108 patients who underwent LF, 79.6% were radiographically deemed candidates for LP, as were all 142 patients who underwent LP. The ICC for C2-C7 alignment was 0.90; there was 97% agreement with respect to the presence of instability. CONCLUSIONS: In 250 patients with CSM, 228 (91.2%) were radiographically candidates for LP. These data suggest that LP may be an underutilized procedure for the treatment for CSM.

Surgeon-level variance in achieving clinical improvement after lumbar decompression: the importance of adequate risk adjustment.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores are increasingly utilized in clinical care. However, it is unclear if PROMIS can discriminate surgeon performance on an individual level. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine surgeon-level variance in rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after lumbar decompression. PATIENT SAMPLE: This is a prospective, observational cohort study performed across a healthcare enterprise (two academic medical centers and three community centers). Patients 18 years or older undergoing one- to two-level primary decompression for lumbar disc herniation (LDH) or lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was achievement of MCID, using a distribution-based method, on paired PROMIS physical function scores. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were generated to examine the baseline characteristics of the study cohort. Bivariate analyses were used to examine the impact of surgeon-level variance on rates of MCID. Multivariable analyses were used to examine the risk-adjusted impact of surgeon-level variance on rates of MCID. RESULTS: Overall, 636 patients treated by nine surgeons were included. The median patient age was 58 [interquartile range (IQR): 46-70] and 62.3% (n=396) were female. Among all patients, 56.9% (n=362) underwent surgery for LDH. The overall rate of achieving MCID was 75.8% (n=482). Of the surgeons, the median years in practice were 12 (range 4-31) and 55.6% (n=5) were in academic practice settings. On bivariate analysis, patients treated by one of the surgeons had lower rates of achieving MICD (odds ratio=0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.91, p=.03). However, on multivariable analysis adjusting for operative indication (LDH vs. LSS), body mass index, number of comorbidities, percent unemployment in patient zip code, and preoperative PROMIS physical function scores, all surgeons were equally likely to obtain MCID. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, variance in PROMIS scores after primary lumbar decompression is influenced by patient-related factors and not by individual surgeon. Adequate risk adjustment is needed if ascertaining clinical improvement on an individual surgeon basis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Development of prediction models for clinically meaningful improvement in PROMIS scores after lumbar decompression.

BACKGROUND: The ability to preoperatively predict which patients will achieve a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after lumbar spine decompression surgery can help determine the appropriateness and timing of surgery. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores are an increasingly popular outcome instrument. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop algorithms predictive of achieving MCID after primary lumbar decompression surgery. PATIENT SAMPLE: This was a retrospective study at two academic medical centers and three community medical centers including adult patients 18 years or older undergoing one or two level posterior decompression for lumbar disc herniation or lumbar spinal stenosis between January 1, 2016 and April 1, 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome, MCID, was defined using distribution-based methods as one half the standard deviation of postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROMIS physical function, pain interference, pain intensity). METHODS: Five machine learning algorithms were developed to predict MCID on these surveys and assessed by discrimination, calibration, Brier score, and decision curve analysis. The final model was incorporated into an open access digital application. RESULTS: Overall, 906 patients completed at least one PROMs survey in the 90 days before surgery and at least one PROMs survey in the year after surgery. Attainment of MCID during the study period by PROMIS instrument was 74.3% for physical function, 75.8% for pain interference, and 79.2% for pain intensity. Factors identified for preoperative prediction of MCID attainment on these outcomes included preoperative PROs, percent unemployment in neighborhood of residence, comorbidities, body mass index, private insurance, preoperative opioid use, surgery for disc herniation, and federal poverty level in neighborhood of residence. The discrimination (c-statistic) of the final algorithms for these outcomes was 0.79 for physical function, 0.74 for pain interference, and 0.69 for pain intensity with good calibration. The open access digital application for these algorithms can be found here: https://sorg-apps.shinyapps.io/promis_pld_mcid/ CONCLUSION: Lower preoperative PROMIS scores, fewer comorbidities, and certain sociodemographic factors increase the likelihood of achieving MCID for PROMIS after lumbar spine decompression.