Advances in diagnosis and management of atypical spinal infections: A comprehensive review.

Atypical spinal infections (ASIs) of the spine are a challenging pathology to management with potentially devastating morbidity and mortality. To identify patients with atypical spinal infections, it is important to recognize the often insidious clinical and radiographic presentations, in the setting of indolent and smoldering organism growth. Trending of inflammatory markers, and culturing of organisms, is essential. Once identified, the spinal infection should be treated with antibiotics and possibly various surgical interventions including decompression and possible fusion depending on spine structural integrity and stability. Early diagnosis of ASIs and immediate treatment of debilitating conditions, such as epidural abscess, correlate with fewer neurological deficits and a shorter duration of medical treatment. There have been great advances in surgical interventions and spinal fusion techniques for patients with spinal infection. Overall, ASIs remain a perplexing pathology that could be successfully treated with early diagnosis and immediate, appropriate medical, and surgical management.

Bilateral phrenic nerve palsy after posterior cervical decompression and fusion surgery: a rare event after surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed C5 weakness is a known entity in cervical spine surgery, although with varied clinical presentation and poorly understood mechanism of action. We describe the first case in the literature of a bilateral C5 palsy leading to bilateral phrenic nerve dysfunction following a posterior cervical decompression and fusion. CASE REPORT: A 76-year-old male presented with low back pain and was diagnosed as myelopathic. On initial neurological examination, he could not ambulate without assistance and was unsteady on tandem gait. The initial cervical MRI and CT scan showed advanced multilevel degenerative changes of the cervical spine with severe cord compression and myelomalacia. The patient underwent C3-C6 posterior cervical decompression & fusion (PCDF). He awoke with his baseline examination without neurophysiological monitoring changes intraoperatively or C5 root EMG activity. Post-operative MRI of the cervical spine was performed and showed an excellent decompression. The patient was neurologically stable and discharged to a rehabilitation facility. Patient developed a delayed bilateral C5P on postoperative day (POD) 74. Delayed bilateral C5P and phrenic nerve damage was determined to cause this patient's dyspnea. PM&R consult recommended placement of diaphragmatic pacers. However, clinically his respiratory function, as well as motor deficits, have gradually improved. CONCLUSION: Bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, a severe complication of cervical spine surgery, may cause respiratory distress and upper limb weakness. C5P, the underlying cause, may arise from various factors. Early detection and management of diaphragmatic weakness with physical therapy and pacers are crucial, emphasizing the need for vigilance by healthcare professionals and surgeons.

Does axial cervical pain improve with surgical fusion? A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Axial neck pain is a prevalent condition that causes significant morbidity and productivity loss. This study aimed to review the current literature and define the impact of surgical intervention on the management of cervical axial neck pain. METHODS: A search was conducted of three databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies written in the English language with a minimum 6-month follow-up. The analysis was limited to patients with axial neck pain/cervical radiculopathy and preoperative/postoperative Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Literature reviews, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, surveys, and case studies were excluded. Two patient groups were analyzed: the arm pain predominant (pAP) cohort and the neck pain predominant (pNP) cohort. The pAP cohort had preoperative VAS neck scores that were lower than the arm scores, whereas the pNP cohort was defined as having preoperative VAS neck scores higher than the arm scores. A 30% reduction in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores from the baseline represented the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria, involving a total of 5221 patients. Patients with pAP showed a slightly higher percent reduction in PROM scores from baseline than those with pNP. The NDI reduction in patients with pNP was 41.35% (mean change in NDI score 16.3/mean baseline NDI score 39.42) (p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had a reduction of 45.12% (15.86/35.15) (p < 0.0001). Surgical improvement was slightly but similarly greater in pNP patients compared with pAP patients (16.3 vs 15.86 points, respectively; p = 0.3193). Regarding VAS scores, patients with pNP had a greater reduction in neck pain, with a change from baseline of 53.4% (3.60/6.74, p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had a change from baseline of 50.3% (2.46/4.89, p < 0.0001). The difference in VAS scores for neck pain improvement was significant (3.6 vs 2.46, p < 0.0134). Similarly, patients with pNP had a 43.6% (1.96/4.5) improvement in VAS scores for arm pain (p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had 66.12% (4.43/6.7) improvement (p < 0.0001). The VAS scores for arm pain were significantly greater in patients with pAP (4.43 vs 1.96 points, respectively; p < 0.0051). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, despite significant variations in the existing literature, there is mounting evidence that surgical intervention can lead to clinically meaningful improvements in patients with primary axial neck pain. The studies suggest that patients with pNP tend to have better improvement in neck pain than in arm pain. In both groups, the average improvements exceeded the MCID values and reached substantial clinical benefit in all studies. Further research is necessary to identify which patients and underlying pathologies will benefit most from surgical intervention for axial neck pain because it is a multifaceted condition with many causes.

Clinical Outcomes with and without Adherence to Evidence-Based Medicine Guidelines for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Fusion Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS) patients are treated with instrumented fusion, following EBM guidelines, and typically have excellent clinical outcomes. However, not all lumbar fusion procedures adhere to EBM guidelines, typically due to a lack of prospective data. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study compared outcomes of DS lumbar fusion patients treated according to EBM guidelines (EBM concordant) to lumbar fused patients with procedures that did not have clear EBM literature that supported this treatment, the goal being to examine the value of present EBM to guide clinical care. METHODS: A total of 125 DS patients were considered EBM concordant, while 21 patients were EBM discordant. Pre- and postsurgical ODI scores were collected. Clinical outcomes were stratified into substantial clinical benefit (SCB ΔODI >10 points), minimal clinical importance benefit (MCID ΔODI ≥ 5 points), no MCID (ΔODI < 5 points), and a group that showed no change or worsening ODI. Fisher's exact and χ2 tests for categorical variables, Student's t-test for continuous variables, and descriptive statistics were used. Statistical tests were computed at the 95% level of confidence. RESULTS: Analysis of 125 degenerative spondylolisthesis patients was performed comparing preoperative and postoperative (6 months) ODI scores. ODI improved by 8 points in the EBM concordant group vs. 2.1 points in the EBM discordant group (p = 0.002). Compliance with EBM guidelines was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.93 for achieving MCID ([CI]: 1.12-7.58, p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Patients whose lumbar fusions met EBM criteria had better self-reported outcomes at six months than those who did not meet the requirements. A greater knowledge set is needed to help further support EBM-guided patient care.

Lumbar Synovial Cysts-Should You Fuse or Not?

BACKGROUND: Spinal synovial cysts are lesions that most commonly occur in the lumbar region. The need for an instrumented spinal fusion in addition to lumbar decompression with removal of the synovial cyst is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that select patients who underwent decompression with instrumented fusion for lumbar synovial cysts would be less likely to have subsequent surgery (SS) in a 2-year period than patients treated with laminectomy alone. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed using IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Patients who had a lumbar synovial cyst diagnosis and laminectomy surgery with or without fusion surgery were included in this study. Patients were tracked for SS 2 years after surgery. Laminectomy patients were propensity score-matched to laminectomy with fusion (LF) patients using a 2:1 ratio. The log-rank test and Cox regression were used to compare the cumulative incidence of SS between groups. RESULTS: There were 7664 and 1631 patients treated with laminectomy and LF before matching. After matching, there were 2212 laminectomy and 1631 LF patients and patient characteristics were balanced. The 2-year incidence of recurrent SS was 3.1% ([CI]: 2.2%, 4.0%) and 1.7% (95% CI: 0.9%, 2.5%) laminectomy and LF, respectively. Compared with laminectomy, LF had a statistically significant lower risk of recurrent SS (hazard ratio: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.32-0.97]; P -value: .04). CONCLUSION: All patients who had concomitant lumbar fusion showed decreased chance of having a cyst- or noncyst-related recurrence SS when compared with all patients undergoing laminectomy alone, regardless of diagnosis at the time of SS.

Does Preoperative Opiate Choice Increase Risk of Postoperative Infection and Subsequent Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Opioids are commonly prescribed for chronic pain before spinal surgery and research has shown an increased rate of postoperative adverse events in these patients. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the incidence of 2-year subsequent surgical procedures and postoperative adverse events in patients undergoing lumbar fusion with or without 90-day preoperative opioid use. We hypothesized that patients using preoperative opioids would have a higher incidence of subsequent surgery and adverse outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Optum Pan-Therapeutic Electronic Health Records database including adult patients who had their first lumbar fusion between 2015 and 2018. The daily average preoperative opioid dosage 90 days before fusion was determined as morphine equivalent dose and further categorized into high dose (morphine equivalent dose >100 mg/day) and low dose (1-100 mg/day). Clinical outcomes were compared after adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 23,275 patients were included, with 2112 patients (10%) using opioids preoperatively. There was a significantly higher incidence of infection compared with nonusers (12.3% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.01). There was no association between subsequent fusion surgery (7.9% vs. 7.5%; P = 0.52) and subsequent decompression surgery (4.1% vs. 3.6%; P = 0.3) between opioid users and nonusers. Regarding postoperative infection risk, low-dose users showed significantly higher incidence (12.7% vs. 10.1%; P < 0.01), but high-dose users did not show higher incidence than nonusers (7.5% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous studies, opioid use was significantly associated with a higher incidence of 2-year postoperative infection compared with nonuse. Low-dose opioid users had higher postoperative infection rates than did nonusers.

Increased Surgeon-specific Experience and Volume is Correlated With Improved Clinical Outcomes in Lumbar Fusion Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: The present study design was that of a single center, retrospective cohort study to evaluate the influence of surgeon-specific factors on patient functional outcomes at 6 months following lumbar fusion. Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis identified the present study population. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to evaluate surgeon-specific variable effects on patient-reported outcomes such as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the effect of North American Spine Society (NASS) concordance on outcomes in the setting of variable surgeon characteristics. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar fusion is one of the fastest growing procedures performed in the United States. Although the impact of surgeon-specific factors on patient-reported outcomes has been contested, studies examining these effects are limited. METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective cohort study analyzing a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis by 1 of 5 neurosurgery fellowship trained spine surgeons. The primary outcome was improvement of ODI at 6 months postoperative follow-up compared with preoperative ODI. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were identified for analysis. Overall, 62% of the study population achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI score at 6 months. Years in practice and volume of lumbar fusions were statistically significant independent predictors of MCID ODI on multivariable logistic regression ( P =0.0340 and P =0.0343, respectively). Concordance with evidence-based criteria conferred a 3.16 (95% CI: 1.03, 9.65) times greater odds of achieving MCID. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that traditional surgeon-specific variables predicting surgical morbidity such as experience and procedural volume are also predictors of achieving MCID 6 months postoperatively from lumbar fusion. Independent of surgeon factors, however, adhering to evidence-based guidelines can lead to improved outcomes.

Does the Number of Levels of Decompression Have an Impact on the Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Retrospective Study in Single-Level Fused Patients.

Introduction The American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) 2014 lumbar fusion guidelines for stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) support surgical decompression and fusion as an effective treatment option for symptomatic stenosis associated with DS. The association between the number of levels decompressed in patients with single-level fusion and clinical outcomes has never been published. Methods A retrospective analysis of a single-center, prospectively collected database was performed on 77 patients to compare the effect of the number of decompression levels in patients that received single-level fusion surgery. A total of 77 patients met the criteria. Group one had one level decompressed, group two had two levels decompressed, and group three had three or four levels decompressed. All patients received lumbar fusion surgery at a single spinal level. Outcomes at six months included: Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) (ΔODI ≥ 10 points); Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) (ΔODI ≥ 5); no MCID (ΔODI <5 points). Student's t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post hoc comparison using unpaired two-tailed student's t-test with Holm-Bonferroni correction were performed. p -values were ranked from smallest to largest, and alpha level adjustments were made.  Results A sub-analysis of each group's clinical outcomes showed that patients with two levels decompressed reached greater clinical outcomes. SCB was obtained by approximately 60% (group one: 12.5% vs. group three: 40%) of the patients. A total of 77.6% (38/49) achieved MCID (group one: 62.5% vs. group three: 55%). Single-level fused patients with two levels of decompression showed an improvement of 48% from baseline ODI, as opposed to group one: 17.85% and group three: 21.1%. Patients belonging to group two showed the lowest rate of no improvement. Baseline ODI scores were similar upon presentation (p=0.46), and the difference was found among groups after six months of follow-up (p=0.009). Post hoc comparison showed statistical significance in the comparison between group two and group three (p=0.009, alpha value: 0.017). Conclusion The addition of more than two levels of decompression to single-level fused patients might be associated with poor clinical outcomes and spinal instability.

Incidence of Pseudarthrosis and Subsequent Surgery After Cervical Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Review of a National Health Care Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Cervical pseudarthrosis is a postoperative adverse event that occurs when a surgically induced fusion fails to establish bone growth connecting the 2 regions. It has both clinical and financial implications and may result in significant patient morbidity; it continues to be one of the leading causes of pain after surgery. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study was performed. Patients in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) database, 18-64 years old, who underwent elective cervical fusions during 2015-2019 were included. Patients with trauma, infection, or neoplasm were excluded. Patients were followed for 2 years from surgical fusion for occurrence of pseudarthrosis. After pseudarthrosis, subsequent surgery was documented, and cumulative incidence curves, adjusted for patient/procedure characteristics, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated. Risk factors were evaluated with multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The cohort included 45,584 patients. The 1-year and 2-year incidence of pseudarthrosis was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.9%-2.2%) and 3.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-3.5%), respectively. Factors significantly associated with increased risk of pseudarthrosis were female gender, current/previous substance abuse, previous spinal pain in the cervical/thoracic/lumbar spine, and Elixhauser score ≥5. Factors significantly associated with decreased risk of pseudarthrosis were anterior cervical approach, use of an interbody cage, and 2-level or 3-level anterior instrumentation. The 1-year and 2-year incidence of subsequent surgery in patients with pseudarthrosis was 11.7% (95% CI, 9.6%-13.7%) and 13.8% (95% CI, 11.5%-16.2%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical pseudarthrosis and subsequent surgery still occur at a low rate. Surgical factors such as anterior approach, interbody cage use, and anterior instrumentation may reduce pseudarthrosis risk.

A Review of Endoscopic Spine Surgery: Decompression for Radiculopathy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With this manuscript the authors sought to write a succinct review of the origins, as well as the latest advancements in endoscopic spine surgery to serve as a reference frame for physicians looking to learn this approach. RECENT FINDINGS: At its infancy, the indications for posterolateral and transforaminal endoscopic decompression remained narrow, which prevented the procedure from gaining rapid traction during those days. However, more recently the tides have turned and an increasing number of surgeons are starting to adopt this technique given all its advantages. With the advent of higher quality camera systems and instruments, indications to use a minimally invasive option have gotten significantly broader. The most basic indication for the use of this technology is a soft disc herniation causing compromise of a neural structure that has failed to be managed successfully with non-surgical therapies. The use of endoscopic techniques provides significant advantages to patient outcomes and patient recovery. Endoscopic procedures should not be used as a blanket approach to nerve root decompression, as they certainly have limitations. Most contraindications to this procedure are relative and serve mostly as points to consider when selecting the methods to address neural compression. As these techniques become more widely accepted, we expect its reach and indications to continue to broaden and diversify. The full integration of navigation technologies will likely leapfrog this procedure into the mainstream use.

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Lumbar Fusion in Patients with Previously Treated Cervical Myelopathy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of surgically treated cervical myelopathy and lumbar pathology requiring fusion present complex challenges, and literature describing patient-reported outcomes in this cohort beyond patients with tandem spinal stenosis is sparse. This has led to unclear guidelines in the literature. We present the first dataset comparing patient-reported outcomes for lumbar fusion in patients with isolated lumbar pathology versus patients with a history of surgically treated cervical myelopathy. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of a prospectively collected lumbar fusion database, variables of interest included demographics, comorbidities, type and levels of fusion, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: Of 325 patients identified, 309 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 29 patients had previous cervical surgery to address cervical myelopathy. Median time between cervical and lumbar surgery was 4.0 years (range, 0.3-19.7). There was no statistical difference in preoperative ODI score (24.8 vs. 25.6, P = 0.687), 6-month postoperative ODI score (17.3 vs. 18.7, P = 0.459), change in ODI score (7.5 vs. 6.9, P = 0.673), or minimal clinically important difference for ODI score (62.1% vs. 58.6%, P = 0.710) in patients who had undergone cervical surgery versus patients who had not. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of previously treated cervical myelopathy have a similar rate of clinically relevant improvement after lumbar fusion compared with patients without such history. As such, these patients appear to benefit from lumbar fusion surgery to the same degree as patients without a history of surgically treated cervical myelopathy.

Combined Anterior Osteophytectomy and Cricopharyngeal Myotomy for Treatment of DISH-Associated Dysphagia.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational case series. OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcome of patients with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) with dysphagia who underwent cricopharyngeal myotomy (CPM) in conjunction with anterior osteophytectomy (OP). METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of 9 patients that received combined intervention by neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists. Inclusion criteria for surgery consisted of patients who failed to respond to conservative treatments for dysphagia and had evidence of both upper esophageal dysfunction and osteophyte compression. We present the largest series in literature to date including patients undergoing combined OP and CPM. RESULTS: A total of 88.9% (8/9) of the patients who underwent OP and CPM showed improvement in their symptoms. Of the aforementioned group, 22.2% of these patients had complete resolution of their symptoms, 11.1% did not improve, and only 2 patients showed recurrence of their symptoms. None of the patients in whom surgery was performed required reoperation or suffered serious complication related to the surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Based on the literature results, high rate of improvements in dysphagia, and low rate of complications, combined OP and CPM procedures may be beneficial to a carefully selected group of patients.

Lumbar Total Disc Replacement: Current Usage.

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide in industrialized nations. The pathology underlying chronic low back pain is associated with numerous factors. Lumbar degenerative disc disease is a potential major source of low back pain. There are numerous treatment modalities and options. Nonsurgical treatment options exist in the form of pain management through a combination of anti-inflammatory medications and steroid injections, physical therapy and lifestyle modifications. This article reviews the history and current trends in use for lumbar toral disc arthroplasty for degenerative disc disease treatment. Furthermore, indications, contraindications, and complications management are discussed.

Independent Predictors of Revision Lumbar Fusion Outcomes and the Impact of Spine Surgeon Variability: Does It Matter Whether the Primary Surgeon Revises?

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information regarding treatment strategies and variables affecting outcomes of revision lumbar fusions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of primary vs different surgeon on functional outcomes of revisions. METHODS: All elective lumbar fusion revisions, March 2018 to August 2019, were retrospectively categorized as performed by the same or different surgeon who performed the primary surgery. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and clinical variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression identified multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) of independent variables analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 130 cases, 117 (90%) had complete data. There was a slight difference in age in the same (median: 59; interquartile range [IQR], 54-66) and different surgeon (median: 67; IQR, 56-72) groups (P = .02); all other demographic variables were not significantly different (P > .05). Revision surgery with a different surgeon had an ODI improvement (median: 8; IQR, 2-14) greater than revisions performed by the same surgeon (median: 1.5; IQR, -3 to 10) (P < .01). Revisions who achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) performed by different surgeon (59.7%) were also significantly greater than the ones performed by the same surgeon (40%) (P = .042). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a different surgeon revising (OR, 2.37; [CI]: 1.007-5.575, P = .04) was an independent predictor of MCID achievement, each additional 2 years beyond the last surgery conferred a 2.38 ([CI]: 1.36-4.14, P < .01) times greater odds of MCID achievement, and the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach decreased the chance of achieving MCID (OR, 0.19; [CI]: 0.04-0.861, P = .03). CONCLUSION: All revision lumbar spinal fusion approaches may not achieve the same outcomes. This analysis suggests that revision surgeries may have better outcomes when performed by a different surgeon.

Clinical outcomes in revision lumbar spine fusions: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared primary lumbar spine fusions with revision fusions by using patient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to evaluate the impact of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based medicine (EBM) lumbar fusion indications on patient-reported outcome measures of revision surgeries. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single quaternary spine surgery service and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. A prospective quality improvement database was constructed that included the data from all elective lumbar spine surgeries, which were categorized prospectively as primary or revision surgeries and EBM-concordant or EBM-discordant revision surgeries based on the NASS coverage EBM policy. In total, 309 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The ODIs of all groups (primary, revision, revision EBM concordant, and revision EBM discordant) were statistically compared. Differences in frequencies between cohorts were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. The unpaired 2-tailed Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric data were used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was performed to determine the associations between independent variables (surgery status and NASS criteria indications) and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Primary lumbar fusions were significantly associated with improved functional outcomes compared with revisions, as evidenced by ODI scores (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16-2.95 to achieve a minimal clinically important difference, p = 0.01). The percentage of patients whose functional status had declined at the 6-month postoperative evaluation was significantly higher in patients who had undergone a revision surgery than in those who underwent a primary surgery (23% vs 12.3%, respectively). An increase in ODI score, indicating worse clinical outcome after surgery, was greater in patients who underwent revision procedures (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.17-3.91, p = 0.0014). Patients who underwent EBM-concordant revision surgery had significantly improved mean ODI scores compared with those who underwent EBM-discordant revision surgery (7.02 ± 5.57 vs -4.6 ± 6.54, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective quality improvement program investigation illustrate that outcomes of primary lumbar fusions were superior to outcomes of revisions. However, revision procedures that met EBM guidelines were associated with greater improvements in ODI scores, which indicates that the use of defined EBM guideline criteria for reoperation can improve clinical outcomes of revision lumbar fusions.

The Impact of Incorporating Evidence-Based Guidelines for Lumbar Fusion Surgery in Neurosurgical Resident Education.

BACKGROUND: Instrumented fusion procedures are essential in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease to alleviate pain and improve neurological function, but they are being performed with increasing incidence and variability. We implemented a training module for neurosurgery residents that is based on evidence-based criteria for lumbar fusion surgery and measured its effectiveness in residents' decision making regarding whether patients should or should not undergo instrumented fusion. METHODS: The study design was a pretest versus posttest experiment conducted from September 2019 until July 2020 to measure improvement after formalized instruction on evidence-based guidelines. Neurosurgery residents of all training levels at our institution participated. A test was administered at the beginning of each academic year. The highest possible score was 18 points in each pretest and posttest. RESULTS: There was a general trend of test score improvement across all levels of training with a greater degree of change for participants with lower compared with higher pretest scores, indicating a possible ceiling effect. Paired t test demonstrated an overall mean score increase of 2 points (P < 0.0001), equivalent to an 11.11% increase (P < 0.0001). Stratified by training group, mean absolute change in test score was 2 (P = 0.0217), 1.67 (P = 0.0108), and 2.25 (P = 0.0173) points for junior, midlevel, and senior training groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating a targeted evidence-based learning module for lumbar spine fusion surgery can improve neurosurgery residents' clinical decision making toward a more uniform practice supported by published data.

Operative versus Nonoperative Management of Idiopathic Spinal Cord Herniation: Effect on Symptomatology and Disease Progression.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic spinal cord herniation (ISCH) is a rare pathology characterized by extravasation of the spinal cord through a dural defect. The optimal algorithm for choosing operative or nonoperative management is not well elucidated, partially because of the rarity of this pathology. We present the largest single-center series of ISCH and compare operative treatment to conservative management. METHODS: A retrospective case series of all patients evaluated for treatment of ISCH at our institution between 2010 and 2019 was conducted. Demographic variables, presenting symptoms, and imaging characteristics were assessed for all patients. For patients who underwent operative treatment, surgical approach, postoperative course, and discharge outcomes were recorded. Follow-up notes were reviewed for status of symptoms and functional capabilities, which were synthesized into Odom's criteria score. RESULTS: Sixteen patients met the inclusion criteria for this study, 8 of whom underwent operative treatment. No significant differences were found between operative and nonoperative groups with regard to demographic variables or pathology characteristics. Odom's criteria scores for the operative cohort were 12.5% (1 of 8) Excellent, 62.5% (5 of 8) Good, 12.5% (1 of 8) Fair, and 12.5% (1 of 8) Poor. Odom's criteria scores for the nonoperative cohort were 16.7% (1 of 6) Excellent, 33.3% (2 of 6) Good, 16.7% (1 of 6) Fair, and 33.3% (2 of 6) Poor. There was no significant difference between Odom's criteria score distribution between the operative and nonoperative groups at latest follow up (P = 0.715). CONCLUSIONS: Conservative management of spinal cord herniation is an option that does not preclude symptomatic improvement in patients with idiopathic spinal cord herniation.

Long-segment posterior cervical decompression and fusion: does caudal level affect revision rate?

OBJECTIVE: Posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) is a commonly performed procedure to address cervical myelopathy. A significant number of these patients require revision surgery for adjacent-segment disease (ASD) or pseudarthrosis. Currently, there is no consensus among spine surgeons on the inclusion of proximal thoracic spine instrumentation. This study investigates the benefits of thoracic extension in long-segment cervical fusions and the potential drawbacks. The authors compare outcomes in long-segment subaxial cervical fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy with caudal vertebral levels of C6, C7, and T1. METHODS: A retrospective analysis identified 369 patients who underwent PCDF. Patients were grouped by caudal fusion level. Reoperation rates for ASD and pseudarthrosis, infection, and blood loss were examined. Data were analyzed with chi-square, 1-way ANOVA, and logistic regression. RESULTS: The total reoperation rate for symptomatic pseudarthrosis or ASD was 4.8%. Reoperation rates, although not significant, were lower in the C3-6 group (2.6%, vs 8.3% for C3-7 and 3.8% for C3-T1; p = 0.129). Similarly, rates of infection were lower in the shorter-segment fusion without achieving statistical significance (2.6% for C3-6, vs 5.6% for C3-7 and 5.5% for C3-T1; p = 0.573). The mean blood loss was documented as 104, 125, and 224 mL for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Given the lack of statistical difference in reoperation rates for long-segment cervical fusions ending at C6, C7, or T1, shorter fusions in high-risk surgical candidates or elderly patients may be performed without higher rates of reoperation.

Achieving Value in Spine Surgery: 10 Major Cost Contributors.

STUDY DESIGN: Narrative Review. OBJECTIVES: The increasing cost of healthcare overall and for spine surgery, coupled with the growing burden of spine-related disease and rising demand have necessitated a shift in practice standards with a new emphasis on value-based care. Despite multiple attempts to reconcile the discrepancy between national recommendations for appropriate use and the patterns of use employed in clinical practice, resources continue to be overused-often in the absence of any demonstrable clinical benefit. The following discussion illustrates 10 areas for further research and quality improvement. METHODS: We present a narrative review of the literature regarding 10 features in spine surgery which are characterized by substantial disproportionate costs and minimal-if any-clear benefit. Discussion items were generated from a service-wide poll; topics mentioned with great frequency or emphasis were considered. Items are not listed in hierarchical order, nor is the list comprehensive. RESULTS: We describe the cost and clinical data for the following 10 items: Over-referral, Over-imaging & Overdiagnosis; Advanced Imaging for Low Back Pain; Advanced imaging for C-Spine Clearance; Advanced Imaging for Other Spinal Trauma; Neuromonitoring for Cervical Spine; Neuromonitoring for Lumbar Spine/Single-Level Surgery; Bracing & Spinal Orthotics; Biologics; Robotic Assistance; Unnecessary perioperative testing. CONCLUSIONS: In the pursuit of value in spine surgery we must define what quality is, and what costs we are willing to pay for each theoretical unit of quality. We illustrate 10 areas for future research and quality improvement initiatives, which are at present overpriced and underbeneficial.