Preoperative expectations of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: an observational study from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Despite an abundance of literature on degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), little is known about preoperative expectations of these patients. PURPOSE: The primary objective was to describe patient preoperative expectations. Secondary objectives included identifying patient characteristics associated with high preoperative expectations and to determine if expectations varied depending on myelopathy severity. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of a prospective multicenter, observational cohort of patients with DCM. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who consented to undergo surgical treatment between January 2019 and September 2022 were included. OUTCOMES MEASURES: An 11-domain expectation questionnaire was completed preoperatively whereby patients quantified the expected change in each domain. METHODS: The most important expected change was captured. A standardized expectation score was calculated as the sum of each expectation divided by the maximal possible score. The high expectation group was defined by patients who had an expectation score above the 75th percentile. Predictors of patients with high expectations were determined using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: There were 262 patients included. The most important patient expectation was preventing neurological worsening (40.8%) followed by improving balance when standing or walking (14.5%), improving independence in everyday activities (10.3%), and relieving arm tingling, burning and numbness (10%). Patients with mild myelopathy were more likely to select no worsening as the most important expected change compared to patients with severe myelopathy (p<.01). Predictors of high patient expectations were: having fewer comorbidities (OR -0.30 for every added comorbidity, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.10, p=.01), a shorter duration of symptoms (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.35-1.19, p=.02), no contribution from "failure of other treatments" on the decision to undergo surgery (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.56-2.71, p=.02) and more severe neck pain (OR 0.19 for 1 point increase, 95% CI 0.05-0.37, p=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients undergoing surgery for DCM expect prevention of neurological decline, better functional status, and improvement in their myelopathic symptoms. Stopping neurological deterioration is the most important expected outcomes by patients.

Factors associated with increased length of stay in degenerative cervical spine surgery: a cohort analysis from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative length of stay (LOS) significantly contributes to healthcare costs and resource utilization. The primary goal of this study was to identify patient, clinical, surgical, and institutional variables that influence LOS after elective surgery for degenerative conditions of the cervical spine. The secondary objectives were to examine the variability in LOS and institutional practices used to decrease LOS. METHODS: This was a multicenter observational retrospective cohort study of patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) between January 2015 and October 2020 who underwent elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) (1-3 levels) or posterior cervical fusion (PCF) (between C2 and T2) with/without decompression for degenerative conditions of the cervical spine. Prolonged LOS was defined as LOS greater than the median for the ACDF and PCF populations. The principal investigators at each participating CSORN healthcare institution completed a survey to capture institutional practices implemented to reduce postoperative LOS. RESULTS: In total, 1228 patients were included (729 ACDF and 499 PCF patients). The median (IQR) LOS for ACDF and PCF were 1.0 (1.0) day and 5.0 (4.0) days, respectively. Predictors of prolonged LOS after ACDF were female sex, myelopathy diagnosis, lower baseline SF-12 mental component summary score, multilevel ACDF, and perioperative adverse events (AEs) (p < 0.05). Predictors of prolonged LOS after PCF were nonsmoking status, education less than high school, lower baseline numeric rating scale score for neck pain and EQ5D score, higher baseline Neck Disability Index score, and perioperative AEs (p < 0.05). Myelopathy did not significantly predict prolonged LOS within the PCF cohort after multivariate analysis. Of the 8 institutions (57.1%) with an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol or standardized protocol, only 3 reported using an ERAS protocol specific to patients undergoing ACDF or PCF. CONCLUSIONS: Patient and clinical factors predictive of prolonged LOS after ACDF and PCF are highly variable, warranting individual consideration for possible mitigation. Perioperative AEs remained a consistent independent predictor of prolonged LOS in both cohorts, highlighting the importance of preventing intra- and postoperative complications.

The Effects of Peri-Operative Adverse Events on Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Observational Cohort Study from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of data examining the effects of perioperative adverse events (AEs) on long-term outcomes for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. We aimed to investigate associations between the occurrence of perioperative AEs and coprimary outcomes: (1) modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score and (2) Neck Disability Index (NDI) score. METHODS: We analyzed data from 800 patients prospectively enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network multicenter observational study. The Spine AEs Severity system was used to collect intraoperative and postoperative AEs. Patients were assessed at up to 2 years after surgery using the NDI and the mJOA scale. We used a linear mixed-effect regression to assess the influence of AEs on longitudinal outcome measures as well as multivariable logistic regression to assess factors associated with meeting minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds at 1 year. RESULTS: There were 167 (20.9%) patients with minor AEs and 36 (4.5%) patients with major AEs. The occurrence of major AEs was associated with an average increase in NDI of 6.8 points (95% CI: 1.1-12.4, P = .019) and reduction of 1.5 points for mJOA scores (95% CI: -2.3 to -0.8, P < .001) up to 2 years after surgery. Occurrence of major AEs reduced the odds of patients achieving MCID targets at 1 year after surgery for mJOA (odds ratio 0.23, 95% CI: 0.086-0.53, P = .001) and for NDI (odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI: 0.11-0.84, P = .032). CONCLUSION: Major AEs were associated with reduced functional gains and worse recovery trajectories for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. Occurrence of major AEs reduced the probability of achieving mJOA and NDI MCID thresholds at 1 year. Both minor and major AEs significantly increased health resource utilization by reducing the proportion of discharges home and increasing length of stay.

Anterior vs Posterior Surgery for Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The advantages and disadvantages of anterior vs posterior surgical approaches for patients with progressive degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) remain uncertain. Our primary objective was to evaluate patient-reported disability at 1 year after surgery. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate differences in patient profiles selected for each approach in routine clinical practice and to compare neurological function, neck and arm pain, health-related quality of life, adverse events, and rates of reoperations. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients with DCM who were enrolled in an ongoing multicenter prospective observational cohort study. We controlled for differences in baseline characteristics and numbers of spinal levels treated using multivariable logistic regression. Adverse events were collected according to the Spinal Adverse Events Severity protocol. RESULTS: Among 559 patients, 261 (47%) underwent anterior surgery while 298 (53%) underwent posterior surgery. Patients treated posteriorly had significantly worse DCM severity and a greater number of vertebral levels involved. After adjusting for confounders, there was no significant difference between approaches for odds of achieving the minimum clinically important difference for the Neck Disability Index (odds ratio 1.23, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.86, P = .31). There was also no significant difference for change in modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores, and differences in neck and arm pain and health-related quality of life did not exceed minimum clinically important differences. Patients treated anteriorly experienced greater rates of dysphagia, whereas patients treated posteriorly experienced greater rates of wound complications, neurological complications, and reoperations. CONCLUSION: Patients selected for posterior surgery had worse DCM and a greater number of vertebral levels involved. Despite this, anterior and posterior surgeries were associated with similar improvements in disability, neurological function, pain, and quality of life. Anterior surgery had a more favorable profile of adverse events, which suggests it might be a preferred option when feasible.