Utilization of Bone-Anchored Annular Defect Closure to Prevent Reherniation Following Lumbar Discectomy: Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Adoption and Market Access.

While achieving premarket approval from the US Food and Drug Administration represents a significant milestone in the development and commercialization of a Class III medical device, the aftermath endeavor of gaining market access can be daunting. This article provides a case study of the Barricaid annular closure device (Barricaid), a reherniation reduction device, which has been demonstrated to decrease the risk of suffering a recurrent lumbar intervertebral disc herniation. Following Food and Drug Administration approval, clinical adoption has been slow due to barriers to market access, including the perception of low-quality clinical evidence, questionable significance of the medical necessity of the procedure, and imaging evidence of increased likelihood of vertebral endplate changes. The aim of this article is to provide appropriate examination, rationale, and rebuttal of these concerns. Weighing the compendium of evidence, we offer a definition of a separate and unique current procedural terminology code to delineate this procedure. Adoption of this code will help to streamline the processing of claims and support the conduct of research, the evaluation of health care utilization, and the development of appropriate medical guidelines.

Surgeon Perceptions of Performing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in an Ambulatory Surgical Center vs Hospital Setting in the Elderly Population: Results of a Surgeon Survey.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing acceptance of conducting minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Hospitals Without Walls (HWW) program in March 2020. This program granted hospitals regulatory flexibility to offer services and procedures in nontraditional locations, including ASCs. However, implementation hurdles persist. METHODS: A survey was sent to 235 surgeons regarding the use of ASCs for performing TLIF surgeries on elderly patients. Multiple-choice questions covering various aspects of TLIF practice preferences, including surgical indications, decision factors for choosing ASCs over hospitals, implementation hurdles, reimbursement concerns, staffing issues, and the impact of CMS rules and regulations on TLIF in ASCs, particularly concerning physician ownership and self-referral conflicts governed by the Stark law, were asked. RESULTS: The survey completion rate was 25.8% (Figure 1). The most common surgical indications for TLIF in ASCs were spondylolisthesis (80%), spinal stenosis (62.5%), and low back pain (47.5%). Most surgeons (78%) believed TLIF could be safely performed in ASCs. Streamlined workflow, lower infection rates, and cost-effectiveness were advantages listed by 58.5% of surgeons. Patient's medical history (75.8%), followed by ASC resources and capabilities (61%) and surgeon preference (61%), were relevant factors. Higher efficiencies at ASCs (14.6%), contractual issues (9.8%), and ownership issues (7.3%) were less relevant to surgeons. About 65.9% of surgeons reported lower reimbursement in ASCs, and 43.9% said it was an implementation hurdle. Lower direct costs were reported by 53.7% of surgeons. Other hurdles included a lack of trained staff (24.4%), inadequate staffing (22.0%), cost overruns (26.8%), high Joint Commission or the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care credentialing costs, and surgeons feeling uncomfortable performing TLIF in ASCs (22.0%). Only 17.1% listed medical problems as a reason their patient was considered unsuitable for the ASC environment. A majority (53.7%) stated that their ASCs complied with strict Stark requirements by disclosing physician ownership interests. However, 22% of surgeons reported self-referrals under the "In-Office Ancillary Services Exception" allowed by the Stark law. CONCLUSION: Our survey data show that surgeons' perceptions of current CMS rules and regulations may hinder the transition into the ASC setting because they think the reimbursement is too low and the regulatory burden is too high. ASCs have disproportionally higher initial acquisition and ongoing costs related to staff training and maintenance of the TLIF technology that CMS should consider when determining the appropriate financial remuneration for these complex procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ASC offers a viable and attractive option for their TLIF procedure with the advantage of same-day discharge and at-home recovery.

Polytomous Rasch Analyses of Surgeons' Decision-Making on Choice of Procedure in Endoscopic Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Decompression Surgeries.

BACKGROUND: With the growing prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis, endoscopic surgery, which incorporates techniques such as transforaminal, interlaminar, and unilateral biportal (UBE) endoscopy, is increasingly considered. However, the patient selection criteria are debated among spine surgeons. OBJECTIVE: This study used a polytomous Rasch analysis to evaluate the factors influencing surgeon decision-making in selecting patients for endoscopic surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: A comprehensive survey was distributed to a representative sample of 296 spine surgeons. Questions encompassed various patient-related and clinical factors, and responses were captured on a logit scale graphically displaying person-item maps and category probability curves for each test item. Using a Rasch analysis, the data were subsequently analyzed to determine the latent traits influencing decision-making. RESULTS: The Rasch analysis revealed that surgeons' preferences for transforaminal, interlaminar, and UBE techniques were easily influenced by comfort level and experience with the endoscopic procedure and patient-related factors. Harder-to-agree items included technological aspects, favorable clinical outcomes, and postoperative functional recovery and rehabilitation. Descriptive statistics suggested interlaminar as the best endoscopic spinal stenosis decompression technique. However, logit person-item analysis integral to the Rasch methodology showed highest intensity for transforaminal followed by interlaminar endoscopic lumbar stenosis decompression. The UBE technique was the hardest to agree on with a disordered person-item analysis and thresholds in category probability curve plots. CONCLUSION: Surgeon decision-making in selecting patients for endoscopic surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis is multifaceted. While the framework of clinical guidelines remains paramount, on-the-ground experience-based factors significantly influence surgeons' selection of patients for endoscopic lumbar spinal stenosis surgeries. The Rasch methodology allows for a more granular psychometric evaluation of surgeon decision-making and accounts better for years-long experience that may be lost in standardized clinical guideline development. This new approach to assessing spine surgeons' thought processes may improve the implementation of evidence-based protocol change dictated by technological advances was endorsed by the Interamerican Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SICCMI), the International Society for Minimal Intervention in Spinal Surgery (ISMISS), the Mexican Spine Society (AMCICO), the Brazilian Spine Society (SBC), the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), the Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Society (KOMISS), and the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS).

Comparative Analysis of Learning Curve, Complexity, Psychological Stress, and Work Relative Value Units for CPT 62380 Endoscopic Lumbar Spinal Decompression vs Traditional Lumbar Spine Surgeries: A Paired Rasch Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (RVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. An international team of endoscopic spine surgeons conducted a study, endorsed by several spine societies, analyzing the learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and estimated work RVUs of endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression compared with other common lumbar spine surgeries. METHODS: A survey comparing CPT 62380 to 10 other comparator CPT codes reflective of common spine surgeries was developed to assess the work RVUs in terms of learning curve, difficulty, psychological intensity, and work effort using a paired Rasch method. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 542 spine specialists. Of 322 respondents, 150 completed the survey for a 43.1% completion rate. Rasch analysis of the submitted responses statistically corroborated common knowledge that the learning curve with lumbar endoscopic spinal surgery is steeper and more complex than with traditional translaminar lumbar decompression surgeries. It also showed that the psychological stress and mental and work effort with the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery were perceived to be higher by responding spine surgeons compared with posterior comparator decompression and fusion surgeries and even posterior interbody and posterolateral fusion surgeries. The regression analysis of work effort vs procedural difficulty showed the real-world evaluation of the lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery described in CPT code 62380 with a calculated work RVU of 18.2464. CONCLUSION: The Rasch analysis suggested the valuation for the endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery should be higher than for standard lumbar surgeries: 111.1% of the laminectomy with exploration and/or decompression of spinal cord and/or cauda equina (CPT 63005), 118.71% of the laminectomy code (CPT 63047), which includes foraminotomy and facetectomy, 152.1% of the hemilaminectomy code (CPT 63030), and 259.55% of the interlaminar or interspinous process stabilization/distraction without decompression code (CPT 22869). This research methodology was endorsed by the Interamerican Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SICCMI), the Mexican Society of Spinal Surgeons (AMCICO), the International Society For Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (ISMISS), the Brazilian Spine Society (SBC), the Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS), the Korean Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (KOMISS), and the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides an updated reimbursement recommendation for endoscopic spine surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Disability-adjusted life years from bone and joint infections associated with antimicrobial resistance: an insight from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Study.

PURPOSE: Bone and joint infections, complicated by the burgeoning challenge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), pose significant public health threats by amplifying the disease burden globally. We leveraged results from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) to explore the impact of AMR attributed to bone and joint infections in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), elucidating the contemporary status and temporal trends. METHODS: Utilizing GBD 2019 data, we summarized the burden of bone and joint infections attributed to AMR across 195 countries and territories in the 30 years from 1990 to 2019. We review the epidemiology of AMR in terms of age-standardized rates, the estimated DALYs, comprising years of life lost (YLLs) and years lived with disability (YLDs), as well as associations between DALYs and socio-demographic indices. RESULTS: The GBD revealed that DALYs attributed to bone and joint infections associated with AMR have risen discernibly between 1990 and 2019 globally. Significant geographical disparities and a positive correlation with socio-demographic indicators were observed. Staphylococcus aureus infections, Group A Streptococcus, Group B Streptococcus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Enterobacter-related bone and joint infections were associated with the highest DALYs because of a high proportion of antimicrobial resistance. Countries with limited access to healthcare, suboptimal sanitary conditions, and inconsistent antibiotic stewardship were markedly impacted. CONCLUSIONS: The GBD underscores the escalating burden of bone and joint infections exacerbated by AMR, necessitating urgent, multi-faceted interventions. Strategies to mitigate the progression and impact of AMR should emphasize prudent antimicrobial usage and robust infection prevention and control measures, coupled with advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic modalities.

Perspective on Intradiscal Therapies for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: State of the Science, Knowledge Gaps, and Imperatives for Clinical Adoption.

Specific clinical diagnostic criteria have established a consensus for defining patients with lumbar discogenic pain. However, if conservative medical management fails, these patients have few treatment options short of surgery involving discectomy often coupled with fusion or arthroplasty. There is a rapidly-emerging research effort to fill this treatment gap with intradiscal therapies that can be delivered minimally-invasively via fluoroscopically guided injection without altering the normal anatomy of the affected vertebral motion segment. Viable candidate products to date have included mesenchymal stromal cells, platelet-rich plasma, nucleus pulposus structural allograft, and other cell-based compositions. The objective of these products is to repair, supplement, and restore the damaged intervertebral disc as well as retard further degeneration. In doing so, the intervention is meant to eliminate the source of discogenic pain and avoid surgery. Methodologically rigorous studies are rare, however, and based on the best clinical evidence, the safety as well as the magnitude and duration of clinical efficacy remain difficult to estimate. Further, we summarize the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guidance regarding the interpretation of the minimal manipulation and homologous use criteria, which is central to designating these products as a tissue or as a drug/device/biologic. We also provide perspectives on the core evidence and knowledge gaps associated with intradiscal therapies, propose imperatives for evaluating effectiveness of these treatments and highlight several new technologies on the horizon.

Paired Comparison Survey Analysis Utilizing Rasch Methodology of the Relative Difficulty and Estimated Work Relative Value Units of CPT Code 0202T.

BACKGROUND: In anticipation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) system, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) conducted a study to estimate the work relative value units (RVUs) for facet arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to establish a valuation of work RVU for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Code 0202T in the interim until the Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) can determine an appropriate value. The valuation established from this survey will assist surgeons to establish appropriate procedure reimbursement from third-party payers. METHODS: A survey was created and sent to 52 surgeons who had experience implanting the TOPS system during the investigational device exemption clinical trial. The survey included a patient vignette, a description of CPT Code 0202T along with a video of the TOPS system, and a confirmation question about the illustration's effectiveness. Respondents were asked to compare the work involved in CPT Code 0202T to 8 lumbar spine procedures. A Rasch analysis was performed to estimate the relative difficulty of CPT 0202T using the work RVUs of the comparable procedures. RESULTS: Forty-one surgeons responded to the survey. Of all the procedures, CPT Code 0202T received the most responses for equal work compared with posterior osteotomy (46%) followed by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (41%). The results of the regression analysis indicate a work RVU for CPT 0202T of 39.47. CONCLUSION: The study found an estimated work RVU of 39.47 for CPT Code 0202T using Rasch analysis. As an alternative to this Rasch methodology, one may consider a crosswalk methodology to the work RVUs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedurally, not as an alternative code. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These recommendations are not a substitute for RUC methodology but serve as a reference for physicians and third-party payers to understand work RVU similarities for charge and payment purposes temporarily until RUC methodology provides accurate RVUs for the procedure.

Network-Based In Silico Analysis of New Combinations of Modern Drug Targets with Methotrexate for Response-Based Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate (MTX), sulfonamides, hydroxychloroquine, and leflunomide have consistently resulted in remission with relatively mild to moderate adverse effects in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Modern medications outperform traditional treatments in that they target the pathological processes that underlie the development of RA. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, the authors accomplished a systematic review of the clinical efficacy of RA drugs, including the biologics such as Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha inhibitors (TNF-α i) like Etanercept, Infliximab, Golimumab, and Adalimumab, kinase inhibitors (JAK inhibitors including Baricitinib and Tofacitanib), SyK inhibitors like Fos-tamatinib, MAPK inhibitors such as Talmapimod, T-cell inhibitors (Abatacept), IL6 blockers (Tocilizumab), and B cells depleters (Rituximab). These drugs have been found to increase remission rates when combined with MTX. A bioinformatics-based network was designed applying STRING-MODEL and the DrugBank database for the aforementioned drugs and MTX and, finally, employed for this systematic review. RESULTS: Current research demonstrates that non-TNF-α inhibitor biologicals are particularly helpful in treating patients who did not respond well to conventional medications and TNF-α inhibitors. Despite being effective, these innovative drugs have a higher chance of producing hazardous side effects. The in silico investigations suggested an uncovered molecular interaction in combining MTX with other biological drugs. The STRING-MODEL showed that DHFR, TYMS, and ATIC, as the receptors of MTX, interact with each other but are not connected to the major interacted receptors. CONCLUSIONS: New game-changing drugs including Mavrilimumab, Iguratimod, Upadacitinib, Fenebrutinib, and nanoparticles may be crucial in controlling symptoms in poorly managed RA patients. Emerging therapeutic targets like Toll-like 4 receptors, NLRP3 inflammasome complexes, and mesenchymal stem cells can further transform RA therapy.

International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Statement: Restorative Neurostimulation for Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain Resulting From Neuromuscular Instability.

This International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery statement has been generated to respond to growing requests for background, supporting literature and evidence, and proper coding for restorative neurostimulation for chronic low back pain. Chronic low back pain describes the diverse experience of a significant proportion of the population. Conservative management of these patients remains the predominant care pathway, but for many patients, symptom relief is poor. The application of new techniques in patients who have exhausted traditional care paradigms should be undertaken with a detailed understanding of the pathology being treated, the mechanisms involved, and the data supporting efficacy. This statement on restorative neurostimulation places this technology in the context of the current understanding of the etiology of mechanical low back pain and the currently available evidence for this technique. In an appropriately selected cohort with a specific subset of chronic low back pain symptoms, this technique may provide benefit to payers and patients.

Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Tribulations: Providing Clinical Evidence for Personalized Surgical Pain Management Care Models.

Proving clinical superiority of personalized care models in interventional and surgical pain management is challenging. The apparent difficulties may arise from the inability to standardize complex surgical procedures that often involve multiple steps. Ensuring the surgery is performed the same way every time is nearly impossible. Confounding factors, such as the variability of the patient population and selection bias regarding comorbidities and anatomical variations are also difficult to control for. Small sample sizes in study groups comparing iterations of a surgical protocol may amplify bias. It is essentially impossible to conceal the surgical treatment from the surgeon and the operating team. Restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria may distort the study population to no longer reflect patients seen in daily practice. Hindsight bias is introduced by the inability to effectively blind patient group allocation, which affects clinical result interpretation, particularly if the outcome is already known to the investigators when the outcome analysis is performed (often a long time after the intervention). Randomization is equally problematic, as many patients want to avoid being randomly assigned to a study group, particularly if they perceive their surgeon to be unsure of which treatment will likely render the best clinical outcome for them. Ethical concerns may also exist if the study involves additional and unnecessary risks. Lastly, surgical trials are costly, especially if the tested interventions are complex and require long-term follow-up to assess their benefit. Traditional clinical testing of personalized surgical pain management treatments may be more challenging because individualized solutions tailored to each patient's pain generator can vary extensively. However, high-grade evidence is needed to prompt a protocol change and break with traditional image-based criteria for treatment. In this article, the authors review issues in surgical trials and offer practical solutions.

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

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

Patient Perceptions of Paramedian Minimally Invasive Spine Skin Incisions.

BACKGROUND: In clinical outcome studies, patient input into the factors that drive higher satisfaction with lumbar minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) is rare. The skin incision is often the only visible consequence of surgery that patients can assess. The authors were interested in patients' opinions about the type of lumbar paramedian minimally invasive spinal (MIS) skin incision employed during MISS and how novel skin incisions could impact patients' interpretation of the outcome. The authors wanted to compare traditional lumbar stab incisions to three novel lumbar paramedian (MIS) skin incisions to determine if further study is indicated. The primary objective was to examine patient satisfaction and perceptions regarding lumbar paramedian MIS skin incisions. METHODS: We reviewed the literature and conducted a patient opinion survey. Responses were solicited from back pain patients from a single chiropractic office. Survey questions regarding novel skin incisions for minimally invasive spine surgery (NSIMISS) were conceptualized. The three novel skin incisions were designed using Langer's lines to reduce the total number of incisions; improve patient satisfaction; increase ease of surgical approach/fixation; and reduce operative time/radiation exposure. RESULTS: One hundred and six participants were surveyed. When shown traditional lumbar paramedian MIS skin stab incisions, 76% of respondents indicated negative responses, n = 65. The majority of patients chose traditional stab incisions (n = 41) followed by novel larger intersecting incisions (n = 37). The least popular incisions were the novel horizontal (n = 20) and the novel mini oblique (n = 5) incisions. Female patients worried more than male patients about how their incision looked. However, there was no statistically significant difference (p value of 0.0418 via Mann-Whitney U one-tailed test and p value of 0.0836 via Mann-Whitney U two-tailed test). Patients less than or equal to 50 years of age worried more than patients over 51 years of age, which was statistically significant (p value of 0.0104 via Mann-Whitney U one-tailed test and p value of 0.0208 via Mann-Whitney U two-tailed test). CONCLUSIONS: Patients do have opinions on the type of lumbar paramedian MIS skin incision used. It appears that younger patients and female patients worry most about how the incision on their back looks after surgery. A larger population of patients across many demographics is needed to validate these findings.

Personalized Interventional Surgery of the Lumbar Spine: A Perspective on Minimally Invasive and Neuroendoscopic Decompression for Spinal Stenosis.

Pain generator-based lumbar spinal decompression surgery is the backbone of modern spine care. In contrast to traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for spinal surgery, assessing the severity of neural element encroachment, instability, and deformity, staged management of common painful degenerative lumbar spine conditions is likely to be more durable and cost-effective. Targeting validated pain generators can be accomplished with simplified decompression procedures associated with lower perioperative complications and long-term revision rates. In this perspective article, the authors summarize the current concepts of successful management of spinal stenosis patients with modern transforaminal endoscopic and translaminar minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques. They represent the consensus statements of 14 international surgeon societies, who have worked in collaborative teams in an open peer-review model based on a systematic review of the existing literature and grading the strength of its clinical evidence. The authors found that personalized clinical care protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis rooted in validated pain generators can successfully treat most patients with sciatica-type back and leg pain including those who fail to meet traditional image-based medical necessity criteria for surgery since nearly half of the surgically treated pain generators are not shown on the preoperative MRI scan. Common pain generators in the lumbar spine include (a) an inflamed disc, (b) an inflamed nerve, (c) a hypervascular scar, (d) a hypertrophied superior articular process (SAP) and ligamentum flavum, (e) a tender capsule, (f) an impacting facet margin, (g) a superior foraminal facet osteophyte and cyst, (h) a superior foraminal ligament impingement, (i) a hidden shoulder osteophyte. The position of the key opinion authors of the perspective article is that further clinical research will continue to validate pain generator-based treatment protocols for lumbar spinal stenosis. The endoscopic technology platform enables spine surgeons to directly visualize pain generators, forming the basis for more simplified targeted surgical pain management therapies. Limitations of this care model are dictated by appropriate patient selection and mastering the learning curve of modern MIS procedures. Decompensated deformity and instability will likely continue to be treated with open corrective surgery. Vertically integrated outpatient spine care programs are the most suitable setting for executing such pain generator-focused programs.

Endoscopic Posterior Cervical Decompression for Ossified Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Technical Note.

BACKGROUND: Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) may cause cervical myelopathy. In its multilevel form, it may not be easy to manage. Minimally invasive endoscopic posterior cervical decompression may be an alternative to traditional laminectomy surgery. METHODS: Thirteen patients with multilevel OPLL and symptomatic cervical myelopathy were treated with endoscopic spine surgery from January 2019 to June 2020. In this consecutive observational cohort study, pre- and postoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were analyzed at a final follow-up of 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: There were 13 patients consisting of 3 women and 10 men. The patient's average age was 51.15 years. At the final 2-year follow-up, the JOA score improved from a preoperative value of 10.85 ± 2.91 to 14.77 ± 2.13 postoperatively (P < 0.001). The corresponding NDI scores decreased from 26.61 ± 12.88 to 11.12 ± 10.85 (P < 0.001). There were no infections, wound complications, or reoperations. CONCLUSION: Direct posterior endoscopic decompression for multilevel OPLL is feasible in symptomatic patients when executed at a high skill level. While 2-year outcomes were encouraging and on par with historic data obtained with traditional laminectomy, future studies will need to show whether any long-term shortcomings exist.

Defining the Patient with Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Real-World Implications for Diagnosis and Effective Clinical Management.

There is an enormous body of literature that has identified the intervertebral disc as a potent pain generator. However, with regard to lumbar degenerative disc disease, the specific diagnostic criteria lack clarity and fail to capture the primary components which include axial midline low back pain with or without non-radicular/non-sciatic referred leg pain in a sclerotomal distribution. In fact, there is no specific ICD-10-CM diagnostic code to classify and define discogenic pain as a unique source of pain distinct from other recognized sources of chronic low back pain including facetogenic, neurocompressive including herniation and/or stenosis, sacroiliac, vertebrogenic, and psychogenic. All of these other sources have well-defined ICD-10-CM codes. Corresponding codes for discogenic pain remain absent from the diagnostic coding vernacular. The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) has proposed a modernization of ICD-10-CM codes to specifically define pain associated with lumbar and lumbosacral degenerative disc disease. The proposed codes would also allow the pain to be characterized by location: lumbar region only, leg only, or both. Successful implementation of these codes would benefit both physicians and payers in distinguishing, tracking, and improving algorithms and treatments for discogenic pain associated with intervertebral disc degeneration.

The Changing Environment in Postgraduate Education in Orthopedic Surgery and Neurosurgery and Its Impact on Technology-Driven Targeted Interventional and Surgical Pain Management: Perspectives from Europe, Latin America, Asia, and The United States.

Personalized care models are dominating modern medicine. These models are rooted in teaching future physicians the skill set to keep up with innovation. In orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery, education is increasingly influenced by augmented reality, simulation, navigation, robotics, and in some cases, artificial intelligence. The postpandemic learning environment has also changed, emphasizing online learning and skill- and competency-based teaching models incorporating clinical and bench-top research. Attempts to improve work-life balance and minimize physician burnout have led to work-hour restrictions in postgraduate training programs. These restrictions have made it particularly challenging for orthopedic and neurosurgery residents to acquire the knowledge and skill set to meet the requirements for certification. The fast-paced flow of information and the rapid implementation of innovation require higher efficiencies in the modern postgraduate training environment. However, what is taught typically lags several years behind. Examples include minimally invasive tissue-sparing techniques through tubular small-bladed retractor systems, robotic and navigation, endoscopic, patient-specific implants made possible by advances in imaging technology and 3D printing, and regenerative strategies. Currently, the traditional roles of mentee and mentor are being redefined. The future orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons involved in personalized surgical pain management will need to be versed in several disciplines ranging from bioengineering, basic research, computer, social and health sciences, clinical study, trial design, public health policy development, and economic accountability. Solutions to the fast-paced innovation cycle in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery include adaptive learning skills to seize opportunities for innovation with execution and implementation by facilitating translational research and clinical program development across traditional boundaries between clinical and nonclinical specialties. Preparing the future generation of surgeons to have the aptitude to keep up with the rapid technological advances is challenging for postgraduate residency programs and accreditation agencies. However, implementing clinical protocol change when the entrepreneur-investigator surgeon substantiates it with high-grade clinical evidence is at the heart of personalized surgical pain management.

Determination of Work Related to Endoscopic Decompression of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

Background: Effective 1 January 2017, single-level endoscopic lumbar discectomy received a Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) code 62380. However, no work relative value units (wRVUs) are currently assigned to the procedure. A physician's payment needs to be updated to commensurate with the work involved in the modern version of the lumbar endoscopic decompression procedure with and without the use of any implants to stabilize the spine. In the United States, the American Medical Association (AMA) and its Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) proposes to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) what wRVUs to assign for any endoscopic lumbar surgery codes. Methods: The authors conducted an independent survey between May and June 2022 which reached 210 spine surgeons using the TypeForm survey platform. The survey link was sent to them via email and social media. Surgeons were asked to assess the endoscopic procedure's technical and physical effort, risk, and overall intensity without focusing just on the time required to perform the surgery. Respondents were asked to compare the work involved in modern comprehensive endoscopic spine care with other commonly performed lumbar surgeries. For this purpose, respondents were provided with the verbatim descriptions of 12 other existing comparator CPT® codes and associated wRVUs of common spine surgeries, as well as a typical patient vignette describing an endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery scenario. Respondents were then asked to select the comparator CPT® code most reflective of the technical and physical effort, risk, intensity, and time spent on patient care during the pre-operative, peri- and intra-operative, and post-operative periods of a lumbar endoscopic surgery. Results: Of the 30 spine surgeons who completed the survey, 85.8%, 46.6%, and 14.3% valued the appropriate wRVU for the lumbar endoscopic decompression to be over 13, over 15, and over 20, respectively. Most surgeons (78.5%; <50th percentile) did not think they were adequately compensated. Regarding facility reimbursement, 77.3% of surgeons reported that their healthcare facility struggled to cover the cost with the received compensation. The majority (46.5%) said their facility received less than USD 2000, while another 10.7% reported less than USD 1500 and 17.9% reported less than USD 1000. The professional fee received by surgeons was

Clinical Consequences of Incidental Durotomy during Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression Surgery in Relation to Intraoperative Epidural Pressure Measurements.

Background: Seizures, neurological deficits, bradycardia, and, in the worst cases, cardiac arrest may occur following incidental durotomy during routine lumbar endoscopy. Therefore, we set out to measure the intraoperative epidural pressure during lumbar endoscopic decompression surgery. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to obtain intraoperative epidural measurements with an epidural catheter-pressure transducer assembly through the spinal endoscope on 15 patients who underwent lumbar endoscopic decompression of symptomatic lumbar herniated discs and spinal stenosis. The endoscopic interlaminar technique was employed. Results: There were six (40.0%) female and nine (60.0%) male patients aged 49.0667 ± 11.31034, ranging from 36 to 72 years, with an average follow-up of 35.15 ± 12.48 months. Three of the fifteen patients had seizures with durotomy and one of these three had intracranial air on their postoperative brain CT. Another patient developed spinal headaches and diplopia on postoperative day one when her deteriorating neurological function was investigated with a brain computed tomography (CT) scan, showing an intraventricular hemorrhage consistent with a Fisher Grade IV subarachnoid hemorrhage. A CT angiogram did not show any abnormalities. Pressure recordings in the epidural space in nine patients ranged from 20 to 29 mm Hg with a mean of 24.33 mm Hg. Conclusion: Most incidental durotomies encountered during lumbar interlaminar endoscopy can be managed without formal repair and supportive care measures. The intradural spread of irrigation fluid and intraoperatively used drugs and air entrapment through an unrecognized durotomy should be suspected if patients deteriorate in the recovery room. Ascending paralysis may cause nausea, vomiting, upper and lower motor neuron symptoms, cranial nerve palsies, hypotension, bradycardia, and respiratory and cardiac arrest. The recovery team should be prepared to manage these complications.

Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center and Traditional Hospital Settings, Part 2: Assessment of Surgical Safety in Medicare Beneficiaries.

(1) Background: The clinical benefits and procedural efficiencies of performing minimally invasive fusion procedures, such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) are becoming increasingly well established. Currently, Medicare does not provide reimbursement for its beneficiaries eligible for TLIF in the ASC due to a lack of evidence regarding procedural safety. However, the initiation of the Hospital Without Walls program allowed for traditional hospital procedures to be relocated to other facilities such as ASCs, providing a unique opportunity to evaluate the utility of TLIF in the ASC in Medicare-age patients. (2) Methods: This single-center, retrospective study compared baseline characteristics, intraoperative variables, and 30-day postoperative safety outcomes between 48 Medicare-age patients undergoing TLIF in the ASC and 48 patients having the same procedure as hospital in-patients. All patients had a one-level TLIF using the VariLift®-LX expandable lumbar interbody fusion device. (3) Results: There were similar patient characteristics, procedural efficiency, and occurrence of clinical 30-day safety events between the two study groups. However, there was a marked and statistically significant difference in the median length of stay favoring TLIF patients treated in the ASC (23.9 h vs. 1.6 h, p = 0.001). All ASC-treated patients were discharged on the day of surgery. Postoperative visits to address adverse events were rare in either group. (4) Conclusions: These findings provide evidence that minimally invasive TLIF can be performed safely and efficiently in the ASC in Medicare-age patients. With same-day discharge, fusion procedures performed in the ASC offer a similar safety and more attractive cost-benefit profile for older patients than the same surgery undertaken in the traditional hospital setting. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should strongly consider extending the appropriate reimbursement codes (CPT ® 22630, 22633) for minimally invasive TLIF and PLIF to the ASC Covered Procedure List so that Medicare-age patients can realize the clinical benefits of surgeries performed in this setting.