Preoperative Radiographic Predictors of Subsequent Fusion after Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine which demographic, surgical, and radiographic preoperative characteristics are most associated with the need for subsequent fusion after decompression lumbar spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a relatively high rate of the need for repeat decompression or fusion after an index decompression procedure for degenerative spine disease. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of literature identifying risk factors for lumbar fusion following decompression surgery. METHODS: Patients 18 years or older receiving a primary lumbar decompression surgery within the levels of L3-S1 between 2011 and 2020 were identified. All patients had preoperative radiographs and 2 years of follow-up data. Chart review was performed for surgical characteristics and demographics. The sagittal parameters included lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (aDH), posterior disk height (pDH), sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Pelvic incidence (PI=PT+SS) and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) were calculated. In addition, the Roussouly classification was determined for each patient. Bivariant and multivariant analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 363 patients identified in this study, 96 patients had a fusion after their index decompression surgery. Multivariable analysis identified involvement of L4-L5 level in the decompression (odds ratio (OR)=1.83 (1.09-3.14), P=0.026), increased L5-S1 segmental lordosis (OR=1.08 (1.03-1.13), P=0.001), decreased SS (OR=0.96 (0.93-0.99), P=0.023), and decreased endplate obliquity (OR=0.88 (0.77-0.99), P=0.040) as significant independent predictors of fusion after decompression surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to assess preoperative sagittal parameters in conjunction with demographic variables to determine predictors of the need for fusion after index decompression. We demonstrated that decompression at L4-L5, greater L5-S1 segmental lordosis, decreased sacral slope, and decreased endplate obliquity were associated with higher rates of fusion after decompression surgery.

The Effect of Patient Resilience on Postoperative Scores After One- and Two-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between resilience and outcomes of pain and neck-related disability after single- and double-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Patients who underwent single- or double-level ACDF were sent a survey between 6 months and 2 years after surgery. The survey included the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-2). Patients completed the VAS and NDI twice, once describing preoperative pain and disability and once describing current pain and disability. Respondents were classified as high resilience (HR), medium resilience (MR), or low resilience (LR). Demographics, PSEQ-2 scores, pre- and postoperative VAS and NDI scores, and change in VAS (ΔVAS) and NDI (ΔNDI) scores were compared between groups. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients comprised the HR group, 273 patients comprised the MR group, and 47 patients comprised the LR group. All groups demonstrated postoperative improvement in VAS and NDI scores that exceeded previously established MCID values. The HR group demonstrated greater improvement in pain compared with the LR group (ΔVAS: -5.8 for HR vs. -4.4 for LR, P = 0.05). Compared with the MR group, the LR group demonstrated greater postoperative pain (VAS: 3.2 for LR vs. 2.5 for MR, P = 0.02) and disability (NDI: 11.9 for LR vs. 8.6 for MR, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients demonstrated improvement in pain and neck-related disability after single- and double-level ACDF, regardless of resilience score. Patients with greater resilience may be expected to demonstrate more improvement in pain after ACDF.

Factors Related to Clinical Performance in Spine Surgery Fellowship: Can We Predict Success.

INTRODUCTION: The factors most important in the spine fellowship match may not ultimately correlate with quality of performance during fellowship. This study examined the spine fellow applicant metrics correlated with high application rank compared with the metrics associated with the strongest clinical performance during fellowship. METHODS: Spine fellow applications at three academic institutions were retrieved from the San Francisco Match database (first available to 2021) and deidentified for application review. Application metrics pertaining to research, academics, education, extracurriculars, leadership, examinations, career interests, and letter of recommendations were extracted. Attending spine surgeons involved in spine fellow selection at their institutions were sent a survey to rank (1) fellow applicants based on their perceived candidacy and (2) the strength of performance of their previous fellows. Pearson correlation assessed the associations of application metrics with theoretical fellow rank and actual performance. RESULTS: A total of 37 spine fellow applications were included (Institution A: 15, Institution B: 12, Institution C: 10), rated by 14 spine surgeons (Institution A: 6, Institution B: 4, Institution C: 4). Theoretical fellow rank demonstrated a moderate positive association with overall research, residency program rank, recommendation writer H-index, US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, and journal reviewer positions. Actual fellow performance demonstrated a moderate positive association with residency program rank, recommendation writer H-index, USMLE scores, and journal reviewer positions. Linear regressions identified journal reviewer positions (ß = 1.73, P = 0.002), Step 1 (ß = 0.09, P = 0.010) and Step 3 (ß = 0.10, P = 0.002) scores, recommendation writer H-index (ß = 0.06, P = 0.029, and ß = 0.07, P = 0.006), and overall research (ß = 0.01, P = 0.005) as predictors of theoretical rank. Recommendation writer H-index (ß = 0.21, P = 0.030) and Alpha Omega Alpha achievement (ß = 6.88, P = 0.021) predicted actual performance. CONCLUSION: Residency program reputation, USMLE scores, and a recommendation from an established spine surgeon were important in application review and performance during fellowship. Research productivity, although important during application review, was not predictive of fellow performance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort Study.

Which North American spine society disc herniation morphology descriptors are most associated with improvements in clinical outcomes after microdiscectomy?

Background: The North American Spine Society (NASS) assembled the first ever comprehensive naming system for describing lumbar disc disease, including lumbar disc herniation. The objectives of this study were (1) to determine which NASS descriptors are most predictive of independent patient-reported outcomes after microdiscectomy and (2) to identify the inter-rater reliability of each NASS descriptor. Methods: Adult patients (≥18 years) who underwent a lumbar microdiscectomy from 2014-2021 were retrospectively identified. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected at preoperative, 3-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. Lumbar disc herniations were evaluated and classified on preoperative MRI using the NASS lumbar disc nomenclature specific to disc herniation. Results: About 213 microdiscectomy patients were included in the final analysis. Herniation descriptors exhibiting the greatest reliability included sequestration status (κ=0.83), axial disc herniation area (κ=0.83), and laterality (κ=0.83). The descriptor with the lowest inter-rater reliability was direction of migration (κ=0.53). At 3 months, a sequestered herniation was associated with lower odds of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for ODI (p=.004) and MCS (p=.032). At 12 months, a similar trend was observed for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) MCID achievement (p=.001). At 3 months, a herniation with larger axial area was a predictor of MCID achievement in ODI (p=.004) and the mental component summary (MCS) (p=.009). Neither association persisted at 12 months; however, larger axial disc herniation area was able to predict MCID achievement in the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) leg (p=.031) at 12 months. Conclusions: The utility of the NASS nomenclature system in predicting postoperative outcomes after microdiscectomy has yet to be studied. We showed that sequestration status and disc area are both reliable and able to predict the odds of achieving MCID in certain clinical outcomes at 3 months and 12 months after surgery. Hence, preoperative imaging analysis of lumbar disc herniations may be useful in accurately setting patient expectations.

Physical and Psychological Impact of Scar Cosmesis After Cervical Spine Fusion Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Patients' and surgeons' perceptions of cutaneous scarring can vary, causing unpleasant physical and psychological outcomes. This study aims to bridge the current scientific literature gap and understand the impact of patient-perceived scar cosmesis after anterior and posterior cervical spine surgery. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients ≥18 years old who underwent anterior or posterior cervical spine surgery from 2017 to 2022 at a large, urban academic group. To select patients with adequate time for surgical scar maturation, only patients who were greater than 6 months postsurgery were included. The Scar Questionaire Survey (SCAR-Q) survey, a surgical scar assessment tool, was administered to patients to assess patient perceptions of scar symptomatology, appearance, and psychosocial impact. Scores range from 0 to 100, with 100 as the best outcome. An additional 5-item Likert scale question was administered to assess overall surgical satisfaction. RESULTS: All 854 respondents who completed the survey were stratified into 2 groups "Unsatisfied vs. Satisfied." Patients who were "unsatisfied" with their surgery had the lowest outcome scores for SCAR-Q appearance, symptom, and psychosocial scores than those who were "Satisfied" (P < 0.001). Females had significantly "higher/more favorable" responses for SCAR-Q Appearance (77.5 vs. 82.8 P < 0.001) and Psychosocial (87.4 vs. 94.3 P < 0.001) scores compared to males. Regression analysis performed for each component score showed that increases in all 3 component scores were significant in patients in the satisfied group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that cervical spine surgery patients unsatisfied with their surgical outcome have lower scar-related scores, highlighting the impact of cosmetic closure and appearance.

Postoperative opioid consumption patterns diverge between propensity matched patients undergoing traumatic and elective cervical spine fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prolonged opioid therapy following spine surgery is an ongoing postoperative concern. While prior studies have investigated postoperative opioid use patterns in the elective cervical surgery patient population, to our knowledge, opioid use patterns in patients undergoing surgery for traumatic cervical spine injuries have not been elucidated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare opioid use and prescription patterns in the postoperative pain management of patients undergoing traumatic and elective cervical spine fusion surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients with traumatic cervical injuries who underwent primary anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) during their initial hospital admission. The propensity matched, control group consisted of adult elective cervical fusion patients who underwent primary ACDF or PCDF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic data, surgical characteristics, spinal disease diagnosis, location of cervical injury, procedure type, operative levels fused, and Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) data. PDMP data included the number of opioid prescriptions filled, preoperative opioid use, postoperative opioid use, and use of perioperative benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, or gabapentin. Opioid consumption data was collected in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and standardized per day. METHODS: A 1:1 propensity match was performed to match traumatic injury patients undergoing cervical fusion surgery with elective cervical fusion patients. Traumatic injury patients were matched based on age, sex, CCI, procedure type, and cervical levels fused. Pre- and postoperative opioid, benzodiazepine, muscle relaxant, and gabapentin use were assessed for the traumatic injury and elective patients. T- or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare continuous data and Chi-Squared or Fisher's Exact were used to compare categorical data. Multivariate stepwise regression using MME per day 0 - 30 days following surgery as the dependent outcome was performed to further evaluate associations with postoperative opioid use. RESULTS: A total of 48 patients underwent fusion surgery for a traumatic cervical spine injury and 48 elective cervical fusion with complete PDMP data were assessed. Elective patients were found to fill more prescriptions (3.19 vs. 0.65, p=.023) and take more morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day (0.60 vs. 0.04, p=.014) within 1 year prior to surgery in comparison to traumatic patients. Elective patients were also more likely to use opioids (29.2% vs. 10.4%, p=.040) and take more MMEs per day (0.70 vs. 0.05, p=.004) within 30 days prior to surgery. Within 30 days postoperatively, elective patients used opioids more frequently (89.6% vs. 52.1%, p<.001) and took more MMEs per day (3.73 vs. 1.71, p<.001) than traumatic injury patients. Multivariate stepwise regression demonstrated preoperative opioid use (Estimate: 1.87, p=.013) to be correlated with higher postoperative MME per day within 30 days of surgery. Surgery after traumatic injury was correlated with lower postoperative MME use per day within 30 days of surgery (Estimate: -1.63 p=.022). CONCLUSION: Cervical fusion patients with a history of traumatic spine injury consume fewer opioids in the early postoperative period in comparison to elective cervical fusion patients, however both cohorts consumed a similar amount after the initial 30-day postoperative period. Preoperative opioid use was also a risk factor for higher consumption in the short-term postoperative period. These results may aid physicians in further understanding patients' postoperative care needs based on presenting injury characteristics and highlights the need for enhanced follow-up care for traumatic cervical spine injury patients after fusion surgery.

Comparison of Length of Stay and Discharge Disposition after Short-Segment Lumbar Fusion Surgery at Tertiary Care and Non-Tertiary Care Hospitals: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes among lumbar fusion patients treated at an orthopaedic specialty hospital (OSH), a hybrid community hospital (HCH), and a conventional community hospital in comparison to a tertiary care hospital (TCH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In spine surgery, strategies to reduce length of stay (LOS) include a myriad of pre-, intra-, and postoperative strategies that require a multidisciplinary infrastructure. The sum of these efforts has led to the creation of orthopedic specialty hospitals and protocols that have been adopted by community hospitals as well. There is a notable lack of information regarding the results of these efforts across different healthcare institution models. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients undergoing elective one or two-level lumbar fusion between 2017 and 2022 at a large urban TCH, an OSH, a HCH, and a conventional CH. Data was collected on patient characteristics, demographics, comorbidities, BMI, smoking status, surgical type, surgical levels, surgery duration, hospital length of stay, readmissions, reoperations, and discharge status within a year. Patients across the four surgical settings were matched based on age, BMI, CCI, type of procedure, and number of levels fused. RESULTS: A total of 1435 patients met the inclusion criteria. Length of hospital stay was significantly longer at TCH compared to OSH, HCH, and CH by an average of 1-2 days (P<0.001). 90-day readmissions were higher at TCH compared to OSH (P=0.001). TCH patients also were less likely to be discharged home than OSH and HCH patients (P=0.001 and P=0.016, respectively). No significant differences were noted in 1-year reoperation rates across all hospital models. CONCLUSION: Shorter lengths of stays and more home discharges at the orthopaedic specialty hospital and community hospital settings did not compromise surgical quality or postoperative outcomes.

The Impact of the Preoperative Mental Health Component Summary (MCS) Score on Short-term Outcomes after Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to characterize the relationship between preoperative MCS and surgical outcomes after lumbar spine surgery including inpatient complications, length of stay, readmissions, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As the prevalence of mental health disorders in the United States increases, it is important to identify risks associated with poor mental health status in the surgical spine patient. The mental health component summary (MCS) of the Short Form-12 has been used extensively as an indication of a patient's mental health status and psychological well-being. METHODS: Adult patients older than or equal to 18 years who underwent primary one to three level lumbar fusion surgery at our academic medical institution from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Preoperative MCS score was used to analyze outcomes in patients based on a cutoff (<45.6). A score >45.6 indicated better preoperative mental health and a score <45.6 indicated worse preoperative mental health. RESULTS: Patients with lower preoperative MCS scores had longer hospital stays (3.86 + 2.16 vs. 3.55 + 1.42 days, P=0.010) and were more likely to have inpatient renal complications (3.09% vs. 7.19%, P=0.006). Patients with lower preoperative MCS scores also had lower Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) scores (17.1 + 2.85 vs. 17.6 + 2.49, P=0.030). Ninety-day surgical readmissions, medical readmissions, and reoperations were not significantly different between groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that patients with lower preoperative mental health scores (MCS < 45.6) were independently more likely to experience more renal complications and longer length of stay after primary lumbar fusion. Additionally, higher MCS scores may correlate with better postoperative mobility and daily activity scores. Nevertheless, long-term outcomes are not significantly different between patients of better or worse preoperative mental health.

Preoperative Electrodiagnostic Study Findings Differ Between Patients With Double-crush Syndrome and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Propensity Matched Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Double-crush syndrome (DCS) represents a condition that involves peripheral nerve compression in combination with spinal nerve root impingement. The purpose of this study was to compare electrodiagnostic study (EDS) results in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release (CTR) for carpal tunnel syndrome with those undergoing both CTR and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion for DCS. METHODS: Patients receiving an isolated CTR were compared with those undergoing CTR and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion within two years of CTR. The latter group was defined as our DCS cohort. Electrodiagnostic study results were collected which included sensory and motor nerve conduction data as well as electromyogram (EMG) findings. All electrodiagnostic studies were done before CTR in both sets of patients. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with DCS and 137 CTR-only patients were included. Patients with DCS were found to have decreased sensory onset latency (3.51 vs 4.01; P = 0.015) and peak latency (4.25 vs 5.17; P = 0.004) compared with the CTR-only patients. Patients with DCS had slower wrist motor velocity (30.5 vs 47.7; P = 0.012), decreased elbow motor latency (9.62 vs 10.6; P = 0.015), and faster elbow motor velocity (56.0 vs 49.4; P = 0.031). EMG results showed that patients with DCS were more likely to have positive findings in the biceps (31.9% vs 1.96%; P < 0.001) and triceps (24.4% vs 2.97%; P < 0.001), but not abductor pollicis brevis (APB) (45.7% vs 37.9%; P = 0.459). CONCLUSION: We identified changes on EDS between patients with and without DCS. In patients with DCS, sensory nerve studies showed shorter peak and onset latency than in CTR-only patients. Interestingly, DCS and CTR-only patients had different patterns of wrist and elbow motor nerve conduction. Providers observing positive EMG findings proximal to the APB should raise their suspicion for possible cervical radiculopathy and when present with carpal tunnel syndrome-like symptoms, should also consider DCS in their diagnostic differential.

Does Paraspinal Muscle Mass Predict Lumbar Lordosis before and after Decompression for Degenerative Spinal Stenosis?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine if muscle mass and quality of the lumbar paraspinal muscles was associated with improvements in lumbar lordosis and other sagittal parameters after isolated posterior lumbar decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Over time, either due to degenerative changes or other spinal conditions, individuals may develop sagittal imbalance. In patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, sagittal imbalance can further exacerbate symptoms of pain and radiculopathy. Sarcopenia of paraspinal muscles has been implicated in previous spine research as a variable with influence on surgical outcomes. METHODS: Sagittal parameters were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral lumbar radiographs and included lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Preoperative MRI images were evaluated at the base of the L4 vertebral body to assess muscles mass of the psoas muscle and paravertebral muscles (PVM) and Goutallier grade of the PVM. Patients were divided into 3 muscle size groups based on PVM normalized for body size (PVM/BMI): Group A (smallest), Group B, and Group C (largest). RESULTS: Patients in Group C had greater LL preoperatively (51.5° vs. 47.9° vs. 43.2, P=0.005) and postoperatively (52.2° vs. 48.9° vs. 45.7°, P=0.043). There was no significant difference in the ∆LL values between groups (P>0.05). Patients in Group C had larger SS preoperatively (35.2° vs. 32.1° vs. 30.0°, P=0.010) and postoperatively (36.1° vs. 33.0° vs. 31.7°, P=0.030). Regression analysis showed that PVM/BMI was a significant predictor of LL preoperatively (P=0.039) and postoperatively (P=0.031), as well as SS preoperatively (P=0.001) and postoperatively (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Muscle mass of the paravertebral muscles significantly impacts lumbar lordosis and sacral slope in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis before and after posterior lumbar decompression. These findings highlight a need to address risk factors for poor muscle quality in patients with sagittal imbalance.

The Relationship Between Disc Herniation Morphology and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Microdiscectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Determine if herniation morphology based on the Michigan State University Classification is associated with differences in (1) patient-reported outcome measures (or (2) surgical outcomes after a microdiscectomy. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing single-level microdiscectomy between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Demographics and surgical characteristics were collected through a query search and manual chart review. The Michigan State University classification, which assesses disc herniation laterality (zone A was central, zone B/C was lateral) and degree of extrusion into the central canal (grade 1 was up to 50% of the distance to the intra-facet line, grade >1 was beyond this line), was identified on preoperative MRIs. patient-reported outcome measures were collected at preoperative, 3-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. RESULTS: Of 233 patients, 84 had zone A versus 149 zone B/C herniations while 76 had grade 1 disc extrusion and 157 had >1 grade. There was no difference in surgical outcomes between groups (P > 0.05). Patients with extrusion grade >1 were found to have lower Physical Component Score at baseline. On bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis, extrusion grade >1 was a significant independent predictor of greater improvement in Physical Component Score at three months (estimate = 7.957; CI: 4.443-11.471, P < 0.001), but not at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Although all patients were found to improve after microdiscectomy, patients with disc herniations extending further posteriorly reported lower preoperative physical function but experienced significantly greater improvement three months after surgery. However, improvement in Visual Analog Scale Leg and back, ODI, and MCS at three and twelve months was unrelated to laterality or depth of disc herniation.

Relating preoperative MCS-12 to microdiscectomy outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine the impact of poor mental health on patient-reported and surgical outcomes after microdiscectomy. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years who underwent a single-level lumbar microdiscectomy from 2014 to 2021 at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were collected at preoperative, three-month, and one-year postoperative time points. PROMs included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale Back and Leg (VAS Back and VAS Leg, respectively), and the mental and physical component of the short form-12 survey (MCS and PCS). The minimum clinically important differences (MCID) were employed to compare scores for each PROM. Patients were categorized as having worse mental health or better mental health based on a MCS threshold of 50. RESULTS: Of 210 patients identified, 128 (61%) patients had a preoperative MCS score ≤ 50. There was no difference in 90-day surgical readmissions or spine reoperations within one year. At 3- and 12-month time points, both groups demonstrated improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05). At three months postoperatively, patients with worse mental health had significantly lower PCS (42.1 vs. 46.4, p = 0.004) and higher ODI (20.5 vs. 13.3, p = 0.006) scores. Lower mental health scores were associated with lower 12-month PCS scores (43.3 vs. 48.8, p < 0.001), but greater improvements in 12-month ODI (- 28.36 vs. - 18.55, p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: While worse preoperative mental health was associated with lower baseline and postoperative PROMs, patients in both groups experienced similar improvements in PROMs. Rates of surgical readmissions and reoperations were similar among patients with varying preoperative mental health status.

Radiology Reports Do Not Accurately Portray the Severity of Cervical Neural Foraminal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiology reports to a validated grading system for cervical foraminal stenosis (FS) and (2) to evaluate whether the severity of cervical neural FS on MRI correlates to motor weakness or patient-reported outcomes. BACKGROUND: Radiology reports of cervical spine MRI are often reviewed to assess the degree of neural FS. However, research looking at the association between these reports and objective MRI findings, as well as clinical symptoms, is lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all adult patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a single academic center for an indication of cervical radiculopathy. Preoperative MRI was assessed for neural FS severity using the grading system described by Kim and colleagues for each level of fusion, as well as adjacent levels. Neural FS severity was recorded from diagnostic radiologist MRI reports. Motor weakness was defined as an examination grade <4/5 on the final preoperative encounter. Regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the degree of FS by either classification was related to patient-reported outcome measure severity. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were included in the study, and 998 total levels were assessed. There were significant differences between the MRI grading system and the assessment by radio-logists (P< 0.001). In levels with moderate stenosis, 28.9% were classified as having no stenosis by radiology. In levels with severe stenosis, 29.7% were classified as having mild-moderate stenosis or less. Motor weakness was found similarly often in levels of moderate or severe stenosis (6.9% and 9.2%, respectively). On regression analysis, no associations were found between baseline patient-reported outcome measures and stenosis severity assessed by radiologists or MRI grading systems. CONCLUSION: Radiology reports on the severity of cervical neural FS are not consistent with a validated MRI grading system. These radiology reports underestimated the severity of neural foraminal compression and may be inappropriate when used for clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Significance of Facet Fluid Index in Anterior Cervical Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To correlate cervical facet fluid characteristics to radiographic spondylolisthesis, determine if facet fluid is associated with instability in cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis, and examine whether vertebral levels with certain facet fluid characteristics and spondylolisthesis are more likely to be operated on. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The relationship between facet fluid and lumbar spondylolisthesis is well-documented; however, there is a paucity of literature investigating facet fluid in degenerative cervical spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis were identified from a hospital's medical records. Demographic and surgical characteristics were collected through a structured query language search and manual chart review. Radiographic measurements were made on preoperative MRIs for all vertebral levels diagnosed with spondylolisthesis and adjacent undiagnosed levels between C3 and C6. The facet fluid index was calculated by dividing the facet fluid measurement by the width of the facet. Bivariate analysis was conducted to compare facet characteristics based on radiographic spondylolisthesis and spondylolisthesis stability. RESULTS: We included 154 patients, for whom 149 levels were classified as having spondylolisthesis and 206 levels did not. The average facet fluid index was significantly higher in patients with spondylolisthesis (0.26±0.07 vs. 0.23±0.08, p <0.001). In addition, both fluid width and facet width were significantly larger in patients with spondylolisthesis (p <0.001 each). Cervical levels in the fusion construct demonstrated a greater facet fluid index and were more likely to have unstable spondylolisthesis than stable spondylolisthesis (p <0.001 each). CONCLUSIONS: Facet fluid index is associated with cervical spondylolisthesis and an increased facet size and fluid width are associated with unstable spondylolisthesis. While cervical spondylolisthesis continues to be an inconclusive finding, vertebral levels with spondylolisthesis, especially the unstable ones, were more likely to be included in the fusion procedure than those without spondylolisthesis.

The Effect of Muscle Quality on Outcomes after Microdiscectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between muscle quality and 1) patient-reported outcomes and 2) surgical outcomes after lumbar microdiscectomy surgery. METHODS: Adult patients (≥18 years) who underwent lumbar microdiscectomy from 2014 to 2021 at a single academic institution were identified. Outcomes were collected during the preoperative, 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year postoperative periods. Those included were the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale Back and Leg (VAS-Back and VAS-Leg, respectively), and the mental and physical component of the short-form 12 survey (MCS and PCS). Muscle quality was determined by 2 systems: the normalized total psoas area (NTPA) and a paralumbar-based grading system. Surgical outcomes including 90-day surgical readmissions and 1-year reoperations were also collected. RESULTS: Of the 218 patients identified, 150 had good paralumbar muscle quality and 165 had good psoas muscle quality. Bivariant analysis demonstrated no difference between groups regarding surgical outcomes (P > 0.05). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that better paralumbar muscle quality was not associated with any consistent changes in patient reported outcomes. Higher NTPA was associated with improved PCS at 6 months (est. = 6.703, [95% CI: 0.759-12.646], P = 0.030) and 12 months (est. = 6.625, [95% CI: 0.845-12.405], P = 0.027). There was no association between muscle quality and surgical readmissions or reoperations. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrated that higher psoas muscle quality was associated with greater physical improvement postoperatively. Muscle quality did not affect surgical readmissions or reoperations. Additional studies are needed for further assessment of the implications of muscle quality on postoperative outcomes.

Reimbursement of Lumbar Fusion at an Orthopaedic Specialty Hospital Versus Tertiary Referral Center.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: To explore the differences in Medicare reimbursement for lumbar fusion performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital (OSH) and a tertiary referral center and to elucidate drivers of Medicare reimbursement differences. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To provide more cost-efficient care, appropriately selected patients are increasingly being transitioned to OSHs for lumbar fusion procedures. There are no studies directly comparing reimbursement of lumbar fusion between tertiary referral centers (TRC) and OSHs. METHODS: Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an orthopaedic specialty hospital were compiled through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Any patient with lumbar fusions between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified. OSH patients were matched to TRC patients by demographic and surgical variables. Outcomes analyzed were reimbursement data, procedure data, 90-day complications and readmissions, operating room times, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included in the final cohort. The tertiary referral center had higher post-trigger ($13,554 vs. $8,541, P<0.001) and total episode ($49,973 vs. $43,512, P<0.010) reimbursements. Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH was predictive of shorter OR time (ß=0.77, P<0.001), shorter procedure time (ß=0.71, P<0.001), and shorter LOS (ß=0.53, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in complications (9.21% vs. 15.8%, P=0.353) or readmission rates (3.95% vs. 7.89%, P=0.374) between the 2 hospitals; however, our study is underpowered for complications and readmissions. CONCLUSION: Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH, compared with a tertiary referral center, is associated with significant Medicare cost savings, shorter perioperative times, decreased LOS, and decreased utilization of post-acute resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Utilization of In-Hospital Orthopaedic Spine Consultations: Evaluating the Impact of Health Care Policy.

Access to specialty and private practice providers has been a divisive policy issue over the last decade, complicated by the conflict between a reduction in government-funded health care reimbursement and the need for health care providers to sustain a financially sound practice. This study evaluates the orthopedic spine consult service at an academic tertiary care center at 2 separate time points over a 5-year period to better understand the impact of decreasing orthopedic reimbursement rates and the increasing prevalence of federally supported medical insurance on the access to specialty care. In total 500 patients in 2017 and 480 patients in 2021 were included for the final analysis. A higher percentage of consults in 2021 came from the emergency department (74.0% versus 60.4%, P < 0.001); however, the emergency department saw fewer spinal cord injuries (11.9% versus 21.4%, P < 0.001), and the spinal cord injuries were less severe (3.1% versus 6.2% Association Impairment Scale A or B, P = 0.034). A smaller percentage of patients in 2021 went on to receive orthopedic spine surgery following consultation (35.2% versus 43.8%, P = 0.007), and those receiving surgery had an operation performed farther out from the initial consultation (4.73 versus 4.09 days, P < 0.001). Additionally, fewer patients with Medicare insurance (23.5% versus 30.8%) and more patients with Medicaid insurance (20.2% versus 12.4%) were seen in 2021 compared with 2017 (P = 0.003). Overall, this study found an increased proportion of Medicaid patients seen by the spine consult service but a decrease in the acuity of consults. Measures to improve access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act have revealed the complexity of this issue in health care. This study's findings have demonstrated that while more patients did have insurance coverage following the Affordable Care Act, they still face a barrier to accessing outpatient orthopedic spine providers.

Lateral approach to the lumbar spine: The utility of an access surgeon.

Background: Lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs) utilize a retroperitoneal approach that avoids the intraperitoneal organs and manipulation of the anterior vasculature encountered in anterior approaches to the lumbar spine. The approach was championed by spinal surgeons; however, general/vasculature surgeons may be more comfortable with the approach. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following LLIF procedures based on whether a spine surgeon or access surgeon performed the approach. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified all one- to two-level LLIFs at a tertiary care center from 2011 to 2021 for degenerative spine disease. Patients were divided into groups based on whether a spine surgeon or general surgeon performed the surgical approach. The electronic medical record was reviewed for hospital readmissions and complication rates. Results: We identified 239 patients; of which 177 had approaches performed by spine surgeons and 62 by general surgeons. The spine surgeon group had fewer levels with posterior instrumentation (1.40 vs. 2.00; P < 0.001) and decompressed (0.94 vs. 1.25, P = 0.046); however, the two groups had a similar amount of two-level LLIFs (29.9% vs. 27.4%, P = 0.831). This spine surgeon approach group was found to have shorter surgeries (281 vs. 328 min, P = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays Length of Stay (LOS) (3.1 vs. 3.6 days, P = 0.019); however, these differences were largely attributed to the shorter posterior fusion construct. On regression analysis, there was no statistical difference in postoperative complication rates whether or not an access surgeon was utilized (P = 0.226). Conclusion: Similar outcomes may be seen regardless of whether a spine or access surgeon performs the approach for an LLIF.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Urinary Retention After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Anesthetics and Surgical Approach.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) after lumbar fusion surgery can lead to longer hospital stays and thus increased risk of developing other postoperative complications. Therefore, we aimed to determine the relationship between POUR and (1) surgical approach and (2) anesthetic agents, including sugammadex and glycopyrrolate. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, L4-S1 single-level lumbar fusion surgeries between 2018 and 2021 were identified. A 3:1 propensity match of patients with POUR to those without was conducted, controlling for patient age, sex, diabetes status, body mass index, smoking status, history of benign prostatic hyperplasia, and the number of levels decompressed. POUR was defined as documented straight catheterization yielding >400 mL. We compared patient demographic, surgical, anesthetic, and postoperative characteristics. A bivariant analysis and backward multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis ( P -value < 0.200) were performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 899 patients identified, 51 met the criteria for POUR and were matched to 153 patients. No notable differences were observed between groups based on demographic or surgical characteristics. On bivariant analysis, patients who developed POUR were more likely to have been given succinylcholine (13.7% vs. 3.92%, P = 0.020) as an induction agent. The independent predictors of POUR identified by multivariable analysis included the use of succinylcholine {odds ratio (OR), 4.37 (confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 16.46), P = 0.022} and reduced postoperative activity (OR, 0.99 [CI, 0.993 to 0.999], P = 0.049). Factors protective against POUR included using sugammadex as a reversal agent (OR, 0.38 [CI, 0.17 to 0.82], P = 0.017). The stepwise regression did not identify an anterior surgical approach as a notable predictor of POUR. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that sugammadex for anesthesia reversal was protective against POUR while succinylcholine and reduced postoperative activity were associated with the development of POUR. In addition, we found no difference between the anterior or posterior approach to spinal fusion in the development of POUR.

Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes: Anteriorly Placed Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage vs. Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Posterior Instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in anteriorly placed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) and anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TLIF and ALIF are surgical techniques that have become more prevalent in recent years. Although studies have compared the two, none have considered TLIFs with anteriorly placed cages, which may serve as a better comparison to ALIFs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing TLIF or ALIF with posterior instrumentation from 2010-2020 at a tertiary care institution were retrospectively identified. TLIF cage position was assessed and those with anterior placement were included. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes. Radiographic outcomes included posterior disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI) and pelvic tilt (PT). Statistical analysis was performed to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 351 patients, 108 had ALIF with posterior instrumentation and 207 had a TLIF. Preoperatively, TLIF patients had less LL (53.7° vs. 60.6°, P<0.001), SS (38.3° vs. 43.7°, P<0.001), and PI (60.1° vs. 66.1°, P<0.001), all of which remained significant at one-year and long-term follow-up (P<0.001). The TLIF group had less ∆DH (1.51° vs. 5.43°, P<0.001), ∆LL (1.8° vs. 2.97°, P=0.038), and ∆SL (0.18° vs. 4.40°, P<0.001) at one year postoperatively. At two to three years, ∆DH (P<0.001) and ∆SL (P=0.001) remained significant, but ∆LL (P=0.695) did not. Patients in the TLIF group had higher VAS-Back scores one year postoperatively (3.68 vs. 2.16, P=0.008) and experienced less improvement in ODI (-17.1 vs. -28.6, P=0.012) and VAS-Back (-2.67 vs. -4.50, P=0.008) compared to ALIF patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ALIF with posterior instrumentation performed superiorly in radiographic outcomes and PROMs compared to anteriorly placed TLIFs. Anteriorly placed TLIF cages may not achieve the same results as those of ALIF cages.