Safety of early discharge after elective lumbar spine surgery with subfascial drains and association with significant reduction in length of stay.

OBJECTIVE: After lumbar spine surgery, postoperative drain removal often delays discharge. Whether inpatient drain removal reduces the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) or hematoma remains controversial. Therefore, in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery, the authors sought to determine the impact of inpatient versus outpatient drain removal on the following variables: 1) length of hospital stay (LOS), and 2) postoperative complications. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study in which the authors used prospectively collected data of patients undergoing primary, elective, 1- or 2-level lumbar spine decompression and/or fusion was undertaken between 2016 and 2022. Patients with intraoperative or postoperative CSF leaks were excluded. The primary exposure variable was inpatient versus outpatient drain removal. The primary outcome was LOS, and secondary outcomes were postoperative complications, including 90-day postoperative SSI or hematoma. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were performed, controlling for age, body mass index, instrumentation, number of levels, antibiotics at discharge, and surgeons involved. RESULTS: Of 483 patients included, 325 (67.3%) had inpatient drain removal and 158 (32.7%) had outpatient drain removal. Patients with outpatient drain removal were significantly younger (58.6 ± 12.4 vs 61.2 ± 13.2 years, p = 0.040); more likely to have 1-level surgery (75.9% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001); and less likely to receive instrumentation (50.6% vs 69.5%, p < 0.001). Postoperatively, patients with outpatient drain removal had a shorter LOS (0.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.3 ± 1.6 days, p < 0.001); were more likely to be discharged home (98.1% vs 92.3%, p = 0.015); were more likely to be discharged on antibiotics (76.6% vs 3.1%, p < 0.001); were less likely to be on opioids (32.3% vs 88.3%, p < 0.001); and were more likely to have Jackson-Pratt compared to Hemovac drains (96.2% vs 34.5%, p < 0.001). No difference was found in SSI (3.7% vs 3.8%, p > 0.999) or hematoma (0.9% vs 0.6%, p > 0.999), as well as reoperation or readmission due to SSI or hematoma. On multivariable regression, outpatient drain removal was significantly associated with shorter LOS (ß = -1.15, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.73, p < 0.001). No association was found with SSI/hematoma (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient drain removal after elective lumbar spine surgery was associated with a significantly decreased LOS without a significant increase in postoperative SSI or hematoma. Although the choice of drain removal and the LOS may be subject to surgeons' preference, these results may support the feasibility and safety of outpatient drain removal, and the potential cost savings resulting from shortened hospital stays. Drawbacks may exist regarding added burden to the patient and the surgeon's team to accommodate 1-week follow-up appointments for drain removal.

Stopping at C2 Versus C3/4 in Elective Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion: A 5-Year Follow-up Study.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing elective posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (PCLF) with a minimum of 5-year follow-up, we sought to compare reoperation rates between patients with an upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) of C2 versus C3/4. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The long-term outcomes of choosing between C2 versus C3/4 as the UIV in PCLF remain unclear. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study from a prospective registry was conducted of patients undergoing elective, degenerative PCLF from December 2010 to June 2018. The primary exposure was UIV of C2 versus C3/4. The primary outcome was reoperation. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for age, smoking, diabetes, and fusion to the thoracic spine. RESULTS: Of the 68 patients who underwent PCLF with 5-year follow-up, 27(39.7%) had a UIV of C2, and 41(60.3%) had a UIV of either C3/4. Groups had similar duration of symptoms (P=0.743), comorbidities (P>0.999), and rates of instrumentation to the thoracic spine (70.4% vs. 53.7%, P=0.210). The C2 group had significantly longer operative time (231.8±65.9 vs. 181.6±44.1 mins, P<0.001) and more fused segments (5.9±1.8 vs. 4.2±0.9, P<0.001). Reoperation rate was lower in the C2 group compared with C3/4 (7.4% vs. 19.5%), though this did not reach statistical significance (P=0.294). Multivariable logistic regression showed increased odds of reoperation for the C3/4 group compared with the C2 group (OR=3.29, 95%CI=0.59-18.11, P=0.170), though statistical significance was not reached. Similarly, the C2 group had a lower rate of instrumentation failure (7.4% vs. 12.2%, P=0.694) and adjacent segment disease/disk herniation (0% vs. 7.3%, P=0.271), though neither trend attained statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a UIV of C2 had less than half the number of reoperations and less adjacent segment disease, though neither trend was statistically significant. Despite a lack of statistical significance, whether a clinically meaningful difference exists between UIV of C2 versus C3/4 should be validated in larger samples with long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-3.

Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities in Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy With Fusion in Patients With Cervical Spondylosis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate preoperative differences in racial and socioeconomic factors in patients undergoing laminoplasty (LP) versus laminectomy and fusion (LF) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DCM is prevalent in the United States, requiring surgical intervention to prevent neurological degeneration. While LF is utilized more frequently, LP is an emerging alternative. Previous studies have demonstrated similar neurological outcomes for both procedures. However, treatment selection is primarily at the discretion of the surgeon and may be influenced by social determinants of health that impact surgical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Quality Outcome Database (QOD), a national spine registry, was queried for adult patients who underwent either LP or LF for the management of DCM. Covariates associated with socioeconomic status, pain and disability, and demographic and medical history were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess patient factors associated with undergoing LP versus LF. RESULTS: Of 1673 DCM patients, 157 (9.4%) underwent LP and 1516 (90.6%) underwent LF. A significantly greater proportion of LP patients had private insurance (P<0.001), a greater than high school level education (P<0.001), were employed (P<0.001), and underwent primary surgery (P<0.001). LP patients reported significantly lower baseline neck/arm pain and Neck Disability Index (P<0.001). In the multivariate regression model, lower baseline neck pain [odds ratio (OR)=0.915, P=0.001], identifying as non-Caucasian (OR=2.082, P<0.032), being employed (OR=1.592, P=0.023), and having a greater than high school level education (OR=1.845, P<0.001) were associated with undergoing LP rather than LF. CONCLUSIONS: In DCM patients undergoing surgery, factors associated with patients undergoing LP versus LF included lower baseline neck pain, non-Caucasian race, higher education, and employment. While symptomatology may influence the decision to choose LP over LF, there may also be socioeconomic factors at play. The trend of more educated and employed patients undergoing LP warrants further investigation.

Impact of occupational characteristics on return to work for employed patients after elective cervical spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In a cohort of employed patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery with an uncomplicated postoperative course, the authors sought to determine the demographic, functional, and occupational characteristics associated with return to work (RTW) following surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was undertaken of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the Quality Outcomes Database. Study inclusion criteria were: 1) employed prior to surgery and planned to RTW, 2) no unplanned readmissions, 3) achieved 30% improvement on the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and 4) were satisfied with the surgical outcome at 3 or 12 months postoperatively. A multivariable Cox regression model was built using demographic, functional, operative, and occupational characteristic to predict time to RTW. RESULTS: Of 5110 included patients, 4788 (93.7%) returned to work within 12 months, with a median time of 35 (IQR 19-60) days. Patients who did RTW were significantly younger (51.3 ± 9.4 vs 55.8 ± 9.6 years, p < 0.001), more often underwent an anterior approach (85.8% vs 80.7%, p = 0.009), were significantly more privately insured (82.1% vs 64.0%, p < 0.001), and were less likely to have workers' disability insurance (6.7% vs 14.6%, p < 0.001) compared with patients who did not RTW. On multivariable Cox regression, demographic factors associated with a longer RTW were older age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p < 0.001) and Black race (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.81, p < 0.001). Male sex was associated with a shorter RTW time (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.26, p < 0.001). Regarding baseline functional status, worse preoperative NDI (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, p < 0.001) was associated with a longer RTW, whereas the absence of myelopathy was associated with a shorter RTW (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25, p < 0.001). Having a sedentary (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.65-1.99, p < 0.001), light-intensity (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.45-1.76, p < 0.001), and medium-intensity (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, p = 0.037) occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation at any time point. Heavy-intensity occupations were independently the strongest predictor of longer RTW. Similar predictors of shorter RTW were found in a subanalysis of occupation intensity and among operative approaches used. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective degenerative cervical spine surgery who had favorable surgical outcomes and planned to RTW before surgery, 94% had a successful RTW. Age was the strongest predictor of lower odds of RTW. Regarding time to RTW, having a sedentary, light-intensity, or medium-intensity occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation. These findings highlight the importance of considering the demographic and occupational characteristics when predicting postoperative RTW in patients with satisfactory surgical outcomes.

Impact of Unplanned Readmission on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Cervical Spine Surgery: A National Study of 13 355 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although risk factors for unplanned readmission after cervical spine surgery have been widely reported, less is known about how readmission itself affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Using the Quality Outcomes Database registry of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the impact of unplanned readmission on PROMs and (2) compare the effect of specific readmission reasons on PROMs. METHODS: An observational study was performed using a multi-institution, retrospective registry for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. The occurrence of 90-day unplanned readmission classified into medical, surgical, pain only, and no readmissions was the exposure variable. Outcome variables included 12-month PROMs of Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-neck/arm pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and patient dissatisfaction. Multivariable models predicting each PROM were built using readmission reasons controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and preoperative PROMs. RESULTS: Data from 13 355 patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery (82% anterior approach and 18% posterior approach) were analyzed. Unplanned readmission within 90 days of surgery occurred in 3.8% patients, including medical (1.6%), surgical (1.8%), and pain (0.3%). Besides medical reasons, wound infection/dehiscence was the most common reason for unplanned readmission for the total cohort (0.5%), dysphagia in the anterior approach (0.6%), and wound infection/dehiscence in the posterior approach (1.5%). Based on multivariable regression, surgical readmission was significantly associated with worse 12-month NDI, NRS-neck pain, NRS-arm pain, EQ-5D, and higher odds of dissatisfaction. Pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month NDI and NRS-neck pain scores, and worse dissatisfaction. For specific readmission reasons, pain, surgical site infection/wound dehiscence, hematoma/seroma, revision surgery, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were significantly associated with worsened 12-month PROMs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, 90-day unplanned surgical and pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month PROMs compared with patients with medical readmissions and no readmissions.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes, Complications, Readmissions, and Revisions in Posterior Lumbar Fusion With, Versus Without, an Interbody Device.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare posterior lumbar fusions with versus without an interbody in: (1) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 1 year and (2) postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Elective lumbar fusion is commonly used to treat various lumbar pathologies. Two common approaches for open posterior lumbar fusion include posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody and with an interbody through techniques, like transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Whether fusion with or without an interbody leads to better outcomes remains an area of active research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Lumbar Module of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for adults undergoing elective primary posterior lumbar fusion with or without an interbody. Covariates included demographic variables, comorbidities, primary spine diagnosis, operative variables, and baseline PROs, including Oswestry Disability Index, North American Spine Society satisfaction index, numeric rating scale-back/leg pain, and Euroqol 5-dimension. Outcomes included complications, reoperations, readmissions, return to work/activities, and PROs. Propensity score matching and linear regression modeling were used to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated to assess the impact of interbody use on patient outcomes. RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1044 patients with interbody and 215 patients undergoing PLF. The average treatment effect on the treated analysis showed that having an interbody or not had no significant impact on any outcome of interest, including 30-day complications and reoperations, 3-month readmissions, 12-month return to work, and 12-month PROs. CONCLUSION: There were no discernible differences in outcomes between patients undergoing PLF alone versus with an interbody in elective posterior lumbar fusion. These results add to the growing body of evidence that posterior lumbar fusions with and without an interbody seem to have similar outcomes up to 1 year postoperatively when treating degenerative lumbar spine conditions.

Determining the Effect of Intraoperative TXA on Postoperative Blood Loss in ACDF.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of intraoperative tranexamic acid (TXA) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) on postoperative blood loss. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TXA has been proven to be a safe and effective agent in reducing blood loss after cervical surgery; however, its efficacy when used intraoperatively for ACDF surgeries had yet to be researched. Currently, there are few studies examining the effects of intraoperative TXA in cervical spinal fusion, and none specifically examining TXA use in ACDF. METHODS: A tertiary medical center's prospectively collected spine registry was queried between 1/1/18 and 12/1/21 for all patients who underwent elective ACDF surgery and received a drain postoperatively. Patients were separated into 2 groups; those who had received intraoperative TXA and those who did not. Baseline demographic and operative variables were collected from the registry. The primary outcome was postoperative blood loss over a 24-hour period. Secondary outcomes included total drain output, intraoperative estimated blood loss, operative duration, drain duration, changes in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, and rate of transfusions, complications, revisions, and reoperations. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients were included. One hundred ninety patients underwent ACDF and did not receive intraoperative TXA, whereas 96 patients underwent ACDF and did receive TXA. There were no differences in any demographic or baseline variables. Multivariate analysis showed intraoperative TXA was associated with shorter drain duration (ß=-5.74, 95% CI: -10.9 to -0.53, P =0.031) and reduction in 24-hour drain output (ß=-12.2, 95% CI: -19.4 to -4.89, P =0.001) and total drain output (ß=-14.0, 95% CI: -22.9 to -5.05, P =0.002). CONCLUSIONS: TXA use during ACDF procedures leads to a decrease in perioperative blood loss and faster drain removal. TXA is an effective and safe agent for reducing perioperative blood loss in ACDF surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Impact of unplanned readmissions on lumbar surgery outcomes: a national study of 33,447 patients.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Unplanned readmissions following lumbar spine surgery have immense clinical and financial implications. However, little is known regarding the impact of unplanned readmissions on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following lumbar spine surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of unplanned readmissions, including specific readmission reasons, on patient reported outcomes 12 months after lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was conducted using patients included in the lumbar module of the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD), a national, multicenter spine registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 33,447 patients who underwent elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative diseases were included. Mean age was 59.8 (SD=14.04), 53.6% were male, 89.5% were white, 45.9% were employed, and 47.5% had private insurance. OUTCOME MEASURES: Unplanned 90-day readmissions and 12-month patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores, and North American Spine Society (NASS) patient-satisfaction scores. METHODS: The lumbar module of the QOD was queried for adults undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease. Unplanned 90-day readmissions were classified into 4 groups: medical, surgical, pain-only, and no readmissions. Medical and surgical readmissions were further categorized into primary reason for readmission. 12-month PROs assessing patient back and leg pain (NRS), disability (ODI), quality of life (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction were collected. Multivariable models predicting 12-month PROs were built controlling for covariates. RESULTS: A total of 31,430 patients (94%) had no unplanned readmission while 2,017 patients (6%) had an unplanned readmission within 90 days following lumbar surgery. Patients with readmissions had significantly worse 12-month PROs compared with those with no unplanned readmissions in covariate-adjusted models. Using Wald-df as a measure of predictor importance, surgical readmissions were associated with the worst 12-month outcomes, followed by pain-only, then medical readmissions. In separate covariate adjusted models, we found that readmissions for pain, SSI/wound dehiscence, and revisions were among the most important predictors of worse outcomes at 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned 90-day readmissions were associated with worse pain, disability, quality of life, and greater dissatisfaction at 12-months, with surgical readmissions having the greatest impact, followed by pain-only readmissions, then medical readmissions. Readmissions for pain, SSI/wound dehiscence, and revisions were the most important predictors of worse outcomes. These results may help providers better understand the factors that impact outcomes following lumbar spine surgery and promote improved patient counseling and perioperative management.

Which Bone Mineral Density Measure Offers a More Reliable Prediction of Mechanical Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Hounsfield Units or DEXA Scan?

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, we sought to: (1) determine the relationship between dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)-measured bone mineral density (BMD), T-scores, and Hounsfield units (HU), and (2) compare the ability of DEXA-measured BMD, T-scores, and HU to predict mechanical complications and reoperations. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective cohort study was undertaken for cases from 2013 to 2017. INCLUSION CRITERIA: ≥5-level-fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. Multivariable regression controlled for age, body mass index, receiving anabolic medications, and postoperative sagittal vertical axis and pelvic-incidence lumbar-lordosis mismatch. A subanalysis was performed for osteopenic patients (-1 < T-score < -2). RESULTS: Of 145 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 72 (49.6%) had both preoperative DEXA and computed tomography scans. Mean DEXA-measured BMD was 0.91 ± 0.52 g/cm2, mean T-score was -1.61 ± 1.03, and mean HU was 153.5 ± 52.8. While no correlation was found between DEXA-measured BMD and HU (r = 0.17, P = 0.144), T-score and HU had a weakly positive correlation (r = 0.31, P = 0.007). Mechanical complications occurred in 48 (66.7%) patients, including 27 (37.5%) proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), 1 (1.4%) distal junctional kyphosis, 5 (6.9%) implant failure, 30 (41.7%) rod fracture/pseudarthrosis, 42 (58.3%) reoperations, and 16 (22.2%) reoperations due to PJK. No association was found between DEXA-measured BMD or T-scores with mechanical complications or reoperations. While univariate regression showed a significant association between lower HU and PJK (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.97-0.99, P = 0.011), the significance was lost after multivariable analysis. When considering osteopenic patients (n = 37), only DEXA-measured BMD was an independent risk factor for PJK (OR 0.01, 95%CI 0.00-0.09, P = 0.017), with a threshold of 0.82 g/cm2 (AUC 0.70, 95%CI 0.53-0.84, P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Poor correlation was found between the 3 BMD modalities. DEXA-measured BMD may be superior to T-scores and HU in predicting PJK among patients with osteopenia with a threshold of BMD <0.82 g/cm2.

The importance of Hounsfield units in adult spinal deformity surgery: finding an optimal threshold to minimize the risk of mechanical complications.

Background: Low bone mineral density (BMD) is a well-established risk factor for mechanical complications following adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. Hounsfield units (HU) measured on computed tomography (CT) scans are a proxy of BMD. In ASD surgery, we sought to: (I) evaluate the association of HU with mechanical complications and reoperation, and (II) identify optimal HU threshold to predict the occurrence of mechanical complications. Methods: A single-institution retrospective cohort study was undertaken for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2013-2017. Inclusion criteria were: ≥5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. HU were measured on 3 axial slices of one vertebra, either at the upper instrumented vertebra (UIV) itself or UIV ±4 from CT scans. Multivariable regression controlled for age, body mass index (BMI), postoperative sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and postoperative pelvic-incidence lumbar-lordosis mismatch. Results: Of 145 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 121 (83.4%) had a preoperative CT from which HU were measured. Mean age was 64.4±10.7 years, mean total instrumented levels was 9.8±2.6, and mean HU was 153.5±52.8. Mean preoperative SVA and T1PA were 95.5±71.1 mm and 28.8°±12.8°, respectively. Postoperative SVA and T1PA significantly improved to 61.2±61.6 mm (P<0.001) and 23.0°±11.0° (P<0.001). Mechanical complications occurred in 74 (61.2%) patients, including 42 (34.7%) proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK), 3 (2.5%) distal junctional kyphosis (DJK), 9 (7.4%) implant failure, 48 (39.7%) rod fracture/pseudarthrosis, and 61 (52.2%) reoperations within 2 years. Univariate logistic regression showed a significant association between low HU and PJK [odds ratio (OR) =0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-0.99; P=0.023], but not on multivariable analysis. No association was found regarding other mechanical complications, overall reoperations, and reoperations due to PJK. HU below 163 were associated with increased PJK on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis [area under the curve (AUC) =0.63; 95% CI: 0.53-0.73; P<0.001]. Conclusions: Though several factors contribute to PJK, it appears that 163 HU may serve as a preliminary threshold when planning ASD surgery to mitigate the risk of PJK.

Durotomy- and Irrigation-Related Serious Adverse Events During Spinal Endoscopy: Illustrative Case Series and International Surgeon Survey.

BACKGROUND: Durotomy during endoscopic spine surgery can cause a patient's neurological or cardiovascular status to deteriorate unexpectedly intra- or postoperatively. There is currently limited literature regarding appropriate fluid management strategies, irrigation-related risk factors, and clinical consequences of incidental durotomy during spinal endoscopy, and no validated irrigation protocol exists for endoscopic spine surgery. Thus, the present article sought to (1) describe 3 cases of durotomy, (2) investigate standard epidural pressure measurements, and (3) survey endoscopic spine surgeons on the incidence of adverse effects believed to result from durotomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors first reviewed clinical outcomes and analyzed complications in 3 patients with intraoperatively recognized incidental durotomy. Second, the authors conducted a small case series with intraoperative epidural pressure measurements during gravity-assisted irrigated video endoscopy of the lumbar spine. Measurements were conducted on 12 patients with a transducer assembly that was introduced through the endoscopic working channel of the RIWOSpine Panoview Plus and Vertebris endoscope to the decompression site in the spine. Third, the authors conducted a retrospective, multiple-choice survey of endoscopic spine surgeons to better understand the frequency and seriousness of problems they attributed to irrigation fluid escaping from the surgical decompression site into the spinal canal and neural axis. Descriptive and correlative statistical analyses were performed on the surgeons' responses. RESULTS: In the first part of this study, durotomy-related complications during irrigated spinal endoscopy were observed in 3 patients. Postoperative head computed tomographic (CT) images revealed massive blood in the intracranial subarachnoid space, the basal cisterns, the III and IV ventricle, and the lateral ventricles characteristic of an arterial fisher grade IV subarachnoid hemorrhage, and hydrocephalus without evidence of aneurysms or angiomas. Two additional patients developed intraoperative seizures, cardiac arrhythmia, and hypotension. The head CT image in 1 of these 2 patients had intracranial air entrapment.In the second part, epidural pressure measurements in 12 patients who underwent uneventful routine lumbar interlaminar decompression for L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc herniation showed an average epidural pressure of 24.5 mm Hg.In the third part, the online survey was accessed by 766 spine surgeons worldwide and had a response rate of 43.6%. Irrigation-related problems were reported by 38% of responding surgeons. Only 11.8% used irrigation pumps, with 90% running the pump above 40 mm Hg. Headaches (4.5%) and neck pain (4.9%) were observed by nearly a 10th (9.4%) of surgeons. Seizures in combination with headaches, neck and abdominal pain, soft tissue edema, and nerve root injury were reported by another 5 surgeons. One surgeon reported a delirious patient. Another 14 surgeons thought that they had patients with neurological deficits ranging from nerve root injury to cauda equina syndrome related to irrigation fluid. Autonomic dysreflexia associated with hypertension was attributed by 19 of the 244 responding surgeons to the noxious stimulus of escaped irrigation fluid that migrated from the decompression site in the spinal canal. Two of these 19 surgeons reported 1 case associated with a recognized incidental durotomy and another with postoperative paralysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients should be educated preoperatively about the risk of irrigated spinal endoscopy. Although rare, intracranial blood, hydrocephalus, headaches, neck pain, seizures, and more severe complications, including life-threatening autonomic dysreflexia with hypertension, may arise if irrigation fluid enters the spinal canal or the dural sac and migrates from the endoscopic site along the neural axis rostrally. Experienced endoscopic spine surgeons suspect a correlation between durotomy and irrigation-related extra- and intradural pressure equalization that could be problematic if associated with high volumes of irrigation fluid LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Awake transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy in an ambulatory surgery center: early clinical outcomes and complications of 100 patients.

PURPOSE: Transforaminal endoscopic discectomy has been found to have equivalent outcomes to traditional discectomy techniques. Controversy exists concerning whether this should be performed under general anesthetic with neuromonitoring or can be safely performed on awake patients without neuromonitoring. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of awake transforaminal endoscopic discectomy in an ambulatory setting. METHODS: 100 consecutive patients with lumbar disc herniations treated with transforaminal endoscopic discectomy by a single surgeon were enrolled in the study. All procedures were performed under conscious sedation with local anesthetic. Preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded and compared. Time spent in recovery prior to discharge home and complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Average VAS score improved from a mean of 6.85 to 0.74 (median 7 to 0) immediately postoperatively. The average time spent in Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) prior to discharge was 56.7 min. Average VAS score at 2 weeks was 3.07 (median 2.5). Complication rates were commensurate with published results in the literature. The most common complication was radiculitis, which appears to be more likely with foraminal/extraforaminal herniations at a rate of 20.7%, versus 2.6% for central/paracentral herniations. There were no cases that required conversion to general anesthetic or transfer to a hospital and no permanent nerve injuries in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic discectomy can safely and successfully be performed in an ambulatory surgery center under conscious sedation and local anesthetic without neuromonitoring. This procedure leads to rapid recovery in the PACU and significantly improved VAS scores postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion Alone in the Treatment of Grade 1 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone are two operations performed to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. To date, it is unclear which operation leads to better outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare TLIF vs PLF alone regarding long-term reoperation rates, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with degenerative grade 1 spondylolisthesis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data between October 2010 and May 2021 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 years or older with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing elective, single-level, open posterior lumbar decompression and instrumented fusion with ≥1-year follow-up. The primary exposure was presence of TLIF vs PLF without interbody fusion. The primary outcome was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included complications, readmission, discharge disposition, return to work, and PROMs at 3 and 12 months postoperatively, including Numeric Rating Scale-Back/Leg and Oswestry Disability Index. Minimum clinically important difference of PROMs was set at 30% improvement from baseline. RESULTS: Of 546 patients, 373 (68.3%) underwent TLIF and 173 underwent (31.7%) PLF. Median follow-up was 6.1 years (IQR = 3.6-9.0), with 339 (62.1%) >5-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression showed that patients undergoing TLIF had a lower odds of reoperation compared with PLF alone (odds ratio = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.54-0.99, P = .048). Among patients with >5-year follow-up, the same trend was seen (odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.95, P = .045). No differences were observed in 90-day complications ( P = .487) and readmission rates ( P = .230) or minimum clinically important difference PROMs. CONCLUSION: In a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively maintained registry, patients with grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing TLIF had significantly lower long-term reoperation rates than those undergoing PLF.

Endoscopic transforaminal treatment of a thoracic perineural cyst: a case report.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: To describe the first case of a thoracic perineural cyst successfully treated using a direct thoracic transforaminal endoscopic approach. METHODS: Case report. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: A 66-year-old male presented with right-sided radicular pain in a T4 distribution. MRI of the thoracic spine revealed a right T4 perineural cyst caudally displacing the root in the T4-5 foramen. He had failed attempts at nonoperative management. The patient underwent an all endoscopic transforaminal perineural cyst decompression and resection as a same-day surgical procedure. Postoperatively, the patient noted near complete resolution of the preoperative radicular pain. A thoracic MRI with and without contrast was performed 3 months after surgery and showed no evidence of the preoperative perineural cyst and no symptom recurrence was noted by the patient. CONCLUSION: This case report presents the first safe and successful report of an all endoscopic transforaminal decompression and resection of a perineural cyst in the thoracic spine.

Initial learning curve after switching to uniportal endoscopic discectomy for lumbar disc herniations.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to investigate the learning curve for elective endoscopic discectomy performed by a single surgeon who made a complete switch to uniportal endoscopic surgery for lumbar disc herniations in an ambulatory surgery center and determine the minimum case number required to safely overcome the initial learning curve. METHODS: Electronic medical records (EMR) of the first 90 patients receiving endoscopic discectomy by the senior author in an ambulatory surgery center were reviewed. Cases were divided by approach, transforaminal (46) versus interlaminar (44). Patient-reported outcome measures (visual-analog-score (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI)) were recorded preoperatively and at 2-week, 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month appointments. Operative times, complications, time to discharge from PACU, postoperative narcotic use, return to work, and reoperations were compiled. RESULTS: Median operative time decreased approximately 50% for the first 50 patients then plateaued for both approaches (mean: 65 min). No difference in reoperation rate observed during the learning curve. Mean time to reoperation was 10 weeks, with 7(7.8%) reoperations. The interlaminar and transforaminal median operative times were 52 versus 73 min, respectively (p = 0.03). Median time to discharge from PACU was 80 min for interlaminar approaches and 60 min for transforaminal (p < 0.001). Mean VAS and ODI scores 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively were statistically and clinically improved from preoperatively. The duration of postoperative narcotic use and narcotics need significantly decreased during the learning curve as the senior author realized that narcotics were not needed. No differences were apparent between groups in other metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic discectomy was shown to be safe and effective for symptomatic disc herniations in an ambulatory setting. Median operative time decreases by half over the first 50 patients in our learning curve, while reoperation rates remained similar without the need for hospital transfer or conversion to an open procedure in an ambulatory setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prospective cohort.

In Single-Level, Open, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, Does Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion or Posterolateral Fusion Lead to Better Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Two common approaches for open, one-level, posterior lumbar fusions include transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody. OBJECTIVE: To compare TLIF vs PLF alone in (1) discharge disposition, (2) return to work (RTW), and (3) patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was undertaken between October 2010 and May 2021, all with a 1-year follow-up and excluding patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis. Minimum clinically important difference for each PRO was used, which included Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Logistic/linear regression controlled for age, body mass index, disc height, flexion-extension movement, amount of movement on flexion-extension, and spondylolisthesis grade. RESULTS: Of 850 patients undergoing open, 1-level, posterior lumbar fusion, 591 (69.5%) underwent a TLIF and 259 (30.5%) underwent a PLF alone. Patients undergoing TLIF were younger (59.0 ± 11.3 vs 63.3 ± 12.6, P < .001), had higher body mass index (31.3 ± 6.6 vs 30.2 ± 12.6, P = .019), and more often had private insurance (50.3% vs 39.0%, P < .001). Regarding discharge disposition, no significance was found in multivariate regression (odds ratio = 2.07, 95% CI = 0.39-10.82, P = .385) with similar RTW between TLIF and PLF alone (80.8% vs 80.4%, P = .645) (odds ratio = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.19-6.81, P = .873). Regarding PROs, patients undergoing a TLIF had higher preoperative (6.7 ± 2.3 vs 6.4 ± 2.5, P = .046) and 3-month NRS-back pain (3.4 ± 2.6 vs 2.9 ± 2.5, P = .036), with similar 12-month NRS-back pain. Regarding NRS-leg pain, no differences were observed preoperatively ( P = .532) and at 3 months ( P = .808). No other significant differences were observed in ODI. CONCLUSION: TLIF patients had slightly higher NRS-back pain at baseline and 3 months, but similar NRS-leg pain, despite the added risk of placing an interbody. No differences were seen in discharge disposition, RTW, and 12-month pain scores and ODI.