Do Busier Surgeons Have Lower Intraoperative Costs? An Analysis of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

STUDY DESIGN: The present study is a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing neurosurgical anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to use time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology to determine whether surgeons' case volume influenced the true intraoperative costs of ACDFs performed at our institution. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Successful participation in emerging reimbursement models, such as bundled payments, requires an understanding of true intraoperative costs, as well as the modifiable drivers of those costs. Certain surgeons may have cost profiles that are favorable for these "at-risk" reimbursement models, while other surgeons may not. METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation, electronic medical records, and through querying multiple departments (business operations, sterile processing, plant operations, and pharmacy). Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. All surgeons performing ACDFs at our primary and affiliated hospital sites from 2017 to 2022 were divided into four volume-based cohorts: 1-9 cases (n=10 surgeons, 38 cases), 10-29 cases (n=7 surgeons, 126 cases), 30-100 cases (n=3 surgeons, 234 cases), and > 100 cases (n=2 surgeons, 561 cases). RESULTS: The average total intraoperative cost per case was $7,116 +/- $2,945. The major cost contributors were supply cost ($4,444, 62.5%) and personnel cost ($2,417, 34.0%). A generalized linear mixed model utilizing Poisson distribution was performed with the surgeon as a random effect. Surgeons performing 1-9 total cases, 10-29 cases, and 30-100 cases had increased total cost of surgery (P < 0.001; P < 0.001; and P<0.001, respectively) compared to high-volume surgeons (> 100 cases). Among all volume cohorts, high-volume surgeons also had the lowest mean supply cost, personnel cost, and operative times, while the opposite was true for the lowest-volume surgeons (1-9 cases). CONCLUSION: It is becoming increasingly important for hospitals to identify modifiable sources of variation in cost. We demonstrate a novel use of TDABC for this purpose. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-III.

What is the Marginal Cost of Using Robot Assistance or Navigation for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to compare the marginal intraoperative cost of 3 different methods for pedicle screw placement as part of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs). Specifically, we used time-driven activity-based costing to compare costs between robot-assisted TLIF (RA-TLIF), TLIF with intraoperative navigation (ION-TLIF), and freehand (non-navigated, nonrobotic) TLIF. METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. We identified all instances of RA-TLIF (n = 20), ION-TLIF (n = 59), and freehand TLIF (n = 233) from 2020 to 2022 at our institution. Software was developed to automate the extraction of all intraoperatively used personnel and material resources from the electronic medical record. Total costs were determined through a combination of direct observation, electronic medical record extraction, and interdepartmental collaboration (business operations, sterile processing, pharmacy, and plant operation departments). Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to compare costs between TLIF modalities, accounting for patient-specific factors as well as number of levels fused, surgeon, and hospital site. RESULTS: The average total intraoperative cost per case for the RA-TLIF, ION-TLIF, and freehand TLIF cohorts was $24 838 ± $10 748, $15 991 ± $6254, and $14 498 ± $6580, respectively. Regression analysis revealed that RA-TLIF had significantly higher intraoperative cost compared with both ION-TLIF (ß-coefficient: $7383 ± $1575, P < .001) and freehand TLIF (ß-coefficient: $8182 ± $1523, P < .001). These cost differences were primarily driven by supply cost. However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative cost between ION-TLIF and freehand TLIF (P = .32). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a novel use of time-driven activity-based costing methodology to compare different modalities for executing the same type of lumbar fusion procedure. RA-TLIF entails significantly higher supply cost when compared with other modalities, which explains its association with higher total intraoperative cost. The use of ION, however, does not add extra expense compared with freehand TLIF when accounting for confounders. This might have implications as surgeons and hospitals move toward bundled payments.

Transforaminal Contrast Injection Before Computed Tomography-Guided Lateral Endoscopic Lumbar Diskectomy Improves Visualization of Exiting Nerve Root.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (PELD) is an effective, minimally invasive method for removal of lateral lumbar disk herniations. This minimally invasive technique can be applied with high success and lead to faster recovery than traditional methods. Unfortunately, adoption of these techniques in the United States has been slow. A significant barrier to using this technique is often an inability to completely visualize relevant anatomy and increased operative times. In this article, we describe a technique using computed tomography (CT) guidance in conjunction with a neurogram to perform a PELD. We detail the steps in the technique and its advantages to the surgeon performing it. METHODS: After a patient is placed supine on a table, a transforaminal injection of contrast is performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Then, after sterilizing and draping in a normal fashion, an intraoperative CT scan is taken with a reference frame in place. During the procedure, this allows for the CT guidance to have the exiting nerve root clearly outlined. RESULTS: This procedure was successfully performed in a single patient, allowing greater visualization of the exiting nerve root during a difficult revision PELD case. No complications were experienced. CONCLUSION: A novel technique using a neurogram with CT guidance during a PELD was used to assist with identification of anatomy and decompression of the exiting nerve root. This technique was used without complications.

Ventriculostomy Associated with Reduced Mortality in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Compared to Parenchymal ICP Monitoring: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on whether intracranial pressure (ICP)-guided therapy with an intraparenchymal fiberoptic monitor (IPM) or an external ventricular drain (EVD) leads to superior outcomes. Our goal is to determine the relationship between ICP-guided therapy with an EVD or IPM and mortality. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of severe traumatic brain injury cases that required IPM or EVD placement for ICP-guided therapy from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020. The data were obtained from the Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation registry. RESULTS: A total of 2305 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 1048 (45.5%) IPM and 1257 (54.5%) EVD placed. Inpatient mortality occurred in 337 (32.2%) and 334 (26.6%) patients in the IPM and EVD cohorts, respectively (P = 0.003). Even among those treated medically only, inpatient mortality occurred in 171 (30.8%) of those with an IPM and in 100 (23.4%) of those with an EVD (P = 0.010). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, P < 0.001), lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score (OR 1.16, P < 0.001), requiring surgery (OR 1.22, P = 0.049), and an IPM (OR 1.40, P = 0.001) were significant predictors of mortality. Propensity score-adjusted analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighted method revealed a 28% decrease in mortality and a 14% decrease in length of hospital stay with EVD use when adjusting for age, sex, GCS, Injury Severity Score, surgery, and Hispanic ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: A significant mortality benefit was associated with the use of EVD compared to IPM. This mortality benefit was observed regardless of whether patients required surgery or not.

Clinical Outcomes After Ultra-Early Cranioplasty Using Craniectomy Contour Classification as a Patient Selection Criterion.

BACKGROUND: Although not a technically difficult operation, cranioplasty is associated with high rates of complications. The optimal timing of cranioplasty to mitigate complications remains the subject of debate. OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes between patients undergoing cranioplasty at ultra-early (0-6 weeks), intermediate (6 weeks to 6 months), and late (>6 months) time frames. We report a novel craniectomy contour classification (CCC) as a radiographic parameter to assess readiness for cranioplasty. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective analysis of patients undergoing cranioplasty was performed. Patients were stratified into ultra-early (within 6 weeks of index craniectomy), intermediate (6 weeks to 6 months), and late (>6 months) cranioplasty cohorts. We have devised CCC scores, A, B, and C, based on radiographic criteria, where A represents those with a sunken brain/flap, B with a normal parenchymal contour, and C with "full" parenchyma. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were included. There was no significant difference in postcranioplasty complications, including return to operating room ( P = .212), seizures ( P = .556), infection ( P = .140), need for shunting ( P = .204), and deep venous thrombosis ( P = .066), between the cohorts. Univariate logistic regression revealed that ultra-early cranioplasty was significantly associated with higher rate of functional independence at >6 months (odds ratio 4.32, 95% CI 1.39-15.13, P = .015) although this did not persist when adjusting for patient selection features (odds ratio 2.90, 95% CI 0.53-19.03, P = .234). CONCLUSION: In appropriately selected patients, ultra-early cranioplasty is not associated with increased rate of postoperative complications and is a viable option. The CCC may help guide decision-making on timing of cranioplasty.

Initial Heart Rate Predicts Functional Independence in Patients With Spinal Cord Injury Requiring Surgery: A Registry-Based Study in a Mature Trauma System Over the Past 10 Years.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVES: To determine the ability of early vital sign abnormalities to predict functional independence in patients with SCI that required surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data extracted from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study database. Inclusion criteria were patients >18 years with a diagnosis of SCI who required urgent spine surgery in Pennsylvania from 1/1/2010-12/31/2020 and had complete records available. RESULTS: A total of 644 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 47.1 ± 14.9 years old and the mean injury severity score (ISS) was 22.3 ± 12.7 with the SCI occurring in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine in 61.8%, 19.6% and 18.0%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analyses for predictors of functional independence at discharge showed that higher HR at the scene (OR 1.016, 95% CI 1.006-1.027, P = .002) and lower ISS score (OR .894, 95% CI .870-.920, P < .001) were significant predictors of functional independence. Similarly, higher admission HR (OR 1.015, 95% CI 1.004-1.027, P = .008) and lower ISS score (OR .880, 95% CI 0.864-.914, P < .001) were significant predictors of functional independence. Peak Youden indices showed that patients with HR at scene >70 and admission HR ≥83 were more likely to achieve functional independence. CONCLUSIONS: Early heart rate is a strong predictor of functional independence in patients with SCI. HR at scene >70 and admission HR ≥83 is associated with improved outcomes, suggesting lack of neurogenic shock.

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.

Intraoperative chyle leak repair during right-sided anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Iatrogenic chyle leak (CL) following lymphatic vessel damage is an uncommon but serious complication of neck dissections. In the setting of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), left-sided CL are an exceedingly rare complication, with an incidence of only 0.02 %. Only three cases of right-sided CL during an ACDF have been reported. The case presented is the first right-sided CL to be successfully identified intraoperatively and treated. Intraoperative and postoperative management are discussed. This case will hopefully bring clinical and surgical awareness to providers caring for patients undergoing an ACDF.

Hypoglossal nerve injury with C1 lateral mass screw placement: A case report and review of the literature.

We report the case of a 62-year-old man who presented with a progressive myelopathy secondary to spinal cord compression from an odontoid process fracture and subaxial central canal stenosis. The patient underwent a C1-T2 posterior decompression and instrumented fusion (PCDF) and did well immediately postoperatively. However, on POD1, he developed a right hypoglossal nerve (HN) palsy attributed to direct mechanical compression or injury from the C1 lateral mass screw (LMS), which improved following a revision and screw replacement. While HN injury is a known complication of high anterior and anterolateral cervical spine approaches as well as transcondylar screw fixation, this case aims to expand on the limited reports available regarding hypoglossal nerve injury following placement of bicortical C1 LMS. Furthermore, the use of fluoroscopic guidance in addition to anatomic landmarks and triggered electromyography of the tongue are offered as potential solutions to prevent HN injury intraoperatively.

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.

Clinical Outcomes at One-year Follow-up for Patients With Surgical Site Infection After Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. OBJECTIVE: To compare health-related quality of life outcomes at one-year follow-up between patients who did and did not develop surgical site infection (SSI) after thoracolumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SSI is among the most common healthcare-associated complications. As healthcare systems increasingly emphasize the value of delivered care, there is an increased need to understand the clinical impact of SSIs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective 3:1 (control:SSI) propensity-matched case-control study was conducted for adult patients who underwent thoracolumbar fusion from March 2014 to January 2020 at a single academic institution. Exclusion criteria included less than 18 years of age, incomplete preoperative and one-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures, and revision surgery. Continuous and categorical data were compared via independent t tests and χ 2 tests, respectively. Intragroup analysis was performed using paired t tests. Regression analysis for ∆ patient-reported outcome measures (postoperative minus preoperative scores) controlled for demographics. The α was set at 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients (105 control, 35 SSI) were included in final analysis. The infections group had a higher rate of readmission (100% vs. 0.95%, P <0.001) and revision surgery (28.6% vs. 12.4%, P =0.048). Both groups improved significantly in Physical Component Score (control: P =0.013, SSI: P =0.039), Oswestry Disability Index (control: P <0.001, SSI: P =0.001), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back (both, P <0.001), and VAS Leg (control: P <0.001, SSI: P =0.030). Only the control group improved in Mental Component Score ( P <0.001 vs. SSI: P =0.228), but history of a SSI did not affect one-year improvement in ∆MCS-12 ( P =0.455) on regression analysis. VAS Leg improved significantly less in the infection group (-1.87 vs. -3.59, P =0.039), which was not significant after regression analysis (ß=1.75, P =0.050). CONCLUSION: Development of SSI after thoracolumbar fusion resulted in increased revision rates but did not influence patient improvement in one-year pain, functional disability, or physical and mental health status.

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.

Standardizing postoperative handoffs using the evidence-based IPASS framework through a multidisciplinary initiative improves handoff communication for neurosurgical patients in the neuro-intensive care unit.

Errors in communication are a major source of preventable medical errors. Neurosurgical patients frequently present to the neuro-intensive care unit (NICU) postoperatively, where handoffs occur to coordinate care within a large multidisciplinary team. A multidisciplinary working group at our institution started an initiative to improve postoperative neurosurgical handoffs using validated quality improvement methodology. Baseline handoff practices were evaluated through staff surveys and serial observations. A formalized handoff protocol was implemented using the evidence based IPASS format (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situational awareness and contingency planning, Synthesis by receiver). Cycles of objective observations and surveys were employed to track practice improvements and guide iterative process changes over one year. Surveys demonstrated improved perceptions of handoffs as organized (17.1% vs 69.7%, p < 0.001), efficient (27.0% vs. 72.7%, p < 0.001), comprehensive (17.1% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.001), and safe (18.0% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.001), noting improved teamwork (31.5% vs. 69.7%, p < 0.001). Direct observations demonstrated improved communication of airway concerns (47.1% observed vs. 92.3% observed, p < 0.001), hemodynamic concerns (70.6% vs. 97.1%, p = 0.001), intraoperative events (52.9% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), neurological examination (76.5% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), vital sign goals (70.6% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), and required postoperative studies (76.5% vs. 100%, p < 0.001). Receiving teams demonstrating improved rates of summarization (47.1% vs. 94.2%, p = 0.005) and asking questions (76.5% vs 98.1%, p = 0.004). The mean handoff time during long-term follow-up was 4.4 min (95% confidence interval = 3.9-5.0 min). Standardization of handoff practices yields improvements in communication practices for postoperative neurosurgical patients.

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.