Acute spinal cord compression in the setting of chronic extramedullary hematopoiesis of the thoracic spine.

Background: Though rare, pathologic extramedullary hematopoiesis (EMH) can occur in response to myeloproliferative disorders and may present as paravertebral masses. Case Description: We describe a 63-year-old female with unspecified thalassemia, hemochromatosis, and known asymptomatic extramedullary hematopoiesis of the thoracic spine who acutely developed severe spinal cord compression and a T9 vacuum phenomenon fracture 7 months after her initial diagnosis. Outcome: The patient was treated with urgent decompression and T9 kyphoplasty, which resulted in complete resolution of her neurological deficits. Conclusions: The timeline of symptomatology in the case suggests that asymptomatic patients with T-spine extramedullary hematopoiesis can develop progressive neurologic deterioration and atraumatic compression fractures culminating in acute spinal cord injury. While it may be appropriate to treat asymptomatic patients conservatively, surgical decompression must always remain a consideration.

Adjacent Segment Disease After Spinal Fusion.

¼ Adjacent segment disease is characterized by a degenerative process adjacent to a previously fused spine segment, with new onset of clinical symptoms such as radiculopathy, myelopathy, or instability.¼ Etiology is related to the natural history of the disease process, increased biomechanical stress at adjacent segments, clinical factors specific to the individual patient, intraoperative factors, and malalignment.¼ Treatment is usually nonoperative, but surgical intervention can be indicated. Decompression and fusion remain the mainstay of operative treatment, and isolated decompression should be considered in specific cases.¼ Further randomized controlled trials are needed to establish how the treatment should progress, particularly with the development of minimally invasive and endoscopic surgery.

Trends in Surgical Approach for Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Over the Past Decade.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Comparative Study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize trends in surgical approach for single-level lumbar fusion over the past decade. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The number of elective lumbar fusion cases performed is increasing annually. Several different surgical approaches exist for lumbar spinal fusion including novel anterior approaches developed in recent years. With ongoing innovation, trends in the utilization of common surgical approaches in recent years are unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the PearlDiver database (Fort Wayne, IN). Patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion between 2010 and 2019 were identified using Current Procedural Technology codes and divided into 4 mutually exclusive cohorts based on surgical approach: (1) anterior-only, (2) anterior approach with posterior instrumentation, (3) posterolateral, and (4) posterior-only interbody. Trend analyses of surgical approach utilization over the last decade were performed with the Cochran-Armitage test to evaluate the 2-tailed null hypothesis that utilization of each surgical approach for single-level lumbar fusion remained constant. RESULTS: A total of 53,234 patients met inclusion criteria and were stratified into 4 cohorts: anterior-only (n=5104), anterior with posterior instrumentation (n=23,515), posterolateral (n=5525), and posterior-only interbody (n=19,090). Trend analysis revealed the utilization of a posterior-only interbody approach significantly decreased from 36.7% to 29.2% ( P <0.001), whereas the utilization of a combined anterior and posterior approach significantly increased from 45.8% to 50.4% ( P <0.001). The utilization of an anterior-only approach also significantly increased from 7.9% to 10.5% ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of anterior-only and anterior with posterior instrumentation approaches for single-level lumbar fusion have been significantly increasing over the past decade while use of posterior-only interbody approach trended significantly downward. These data may be particularly useful for trainees and spine surgeons as new techniques and technology become available. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective cohort study.

Anterior lumbar spinal fusion surgery associated with lower risk of stroke, pneumonia, and infection compared to posterior lumbar spinal fusion surgery.

Background: Prior studies, comparing anterior and posterior approaches to lumbar fusion surgery, found similar fusion rates and clinical outcomes, but are limited by sample size. Further evaluation of the postoperative complications of each approach is necessary. Methods: The MSpine database by PearlDiver was queried using ICD-9, ICD-10, and CPT codes to identify patients who had undergone single-level anterior or posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Readmission rates, ileus, lower extremity DVT, infection, pneumonia, and stroke were used to compare post-operative complications of an anterior vs. posterior approach. Results: 112,023 patients were included in this study, with 38,529 (34.4%) in the anterior group (ALIF/LLIF) and 73,494 (65.6%) in the posterior group (PLIF/TLIF). At both 30 and 90-days postoperative, patients undergoing an anterior approach to lumbar interbody fusion had a higher odds ratio of lower extremity DVT (30-day OR: 1.19, 90-day OR: 1.16; P<0.05) and ileus complication (30-day OR: 1.87, P= <.05; 90-day OR: 1.81, P<.05). At both 30 and 90-days postoperative, patients undergoing a posterior approach had a higher odds ratio of stroke (30-day: OR: 0.79, 90-day OR: 0.87; P<0.05), transfusion (30-day OR: 0.66, 90-day OR: 0.69; P<.05), infection (30-day OR: 0.88, 90-day OR: 0.91; P <.05), and pneumonia (30-day OR: 0.85, 90-day OR: 0.90; P<.05). There was no statistically significant difference in myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism between both approaches at 30 and 90-days postoperative. Conclusions: Anterior and posterior approaches for lumbar interbody fusion were associated with differences in postoperative complications at 30 and 90-days. The complication profiles associated with each approach can inform surgeon treatment decisions based on patient profiles.

Trends of single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion documentation after the 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services coding audit.

OBJECTIVE: With the use of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) expected to rise by 13.3% from 2020 to 2040, the increased usage of interbody cages with integral anterior fixation prompted a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) review, which resulted in coding changes affecting anterior instrumentation documentation. CMS determined that Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 22845 should not be used to report integrated instrumentation (plate) with an interbody device, and if additional anterior instrumentation (e.g., plates and screws) is placed with an integrated interbody device, then a 59 modifier should be used. There is sparse literature examining the trends of ACDF without and with additional anterior instrumentation after the 2015 CMS audit. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the trends of single-level subaxial ACDF utilization from 2011 to 2019 to determine whether the 2015 CMS audit influenced the documented usage of additional anterior instrumentation. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the commercially available database PearlDiver. Patient records were queried from 2011 to 2019 for single-level subaxial ACDF without (CPT code 22551) and with (CPT codes 22551 + 22845) instrumentation. Cochran-Armitage trend analyses were performed to evaluate the hypothesis that ACDF with additional anterior instrumentation decreased over the given time period. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2019, the total number of single-level ACDFs decreased from 6202 to 4402. From 2011 to 2015, an average of 6240 patients per year underwent single-level subaxial ACDF; of those, 950 patients (15.2%) had ACDF without instrumentation and 5290 patients (84.8%) had ACDF with instrumentation. In 2016, the total number of single-level subaxial ACDFs decreased to 5525, with 1006 patients (18.2%) receiving no instrumentation and 4519 patients (81.8%) receiving instrumentation. From 2017 to 2019, an average of 4283 patients per year underwent a single-level subaxial ACDF; of these, 1280 (29.9%) had no instrumentation and 3003 (70.1%) had instrumentation (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: From 2015 to 2019, single-level ACDF without instrumentation significantly increased by 91.5% and ACDF with anterior instrumentation significantly decreased by 18.1%. The 2015 CMS audit of interbody cages and anterior instrumentation coding (CPT code 22845) may account for the decreased documentation of anterior instrumentation in the 9-year period. Understanding CMS auditing could help surgeons perceive changes in practice patterns that may lead to a more thorough evaluation of patient outcomes, cost, and overall value.

Far Anterior Medial Portals in Complicated Elbow Arthroscopic Procedures: Safety Profile in a Cadaveric Model.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to describe the placement and evaluate the safety of the far anterior proximal and distal anteromedial portals by comparing them to previously defined portal techniques in a cadaveric model of the elbow. Methods: Six paired (left and right) fresh, frozen cadaveric elbow joints were dissected. .62-mm Kirschner wires were placed at the literature-defined distal and proximal portal sites on right elbows. The proposed "far anterior" distal and proximal portals were established on the matched left elbows. The elbows were dissected to display the median and ulnar nerves. Digital calipers were used to measure distances from wires to nerves. Results: For the distal portal, the literature-defined portals were a significantly greater distance (P = .014) from the ulnar nerve (31.22 mm) compared to the far anterior portals (24.65 mm). For the proximal portal, the far anterior portals were a significantly greater distance (P = .026) from the ulnar nerve (26.98 mm) than the literature-defined portals (13.75 mm). There was no significant difference between the far anterior and literature-defined proximal and distal portal techniques in relation to the median nerve. Conclusions: Analysis of elbow arthroscopy anteromedial portal technique shows the far, anterior, proximal, and distal portals are a safe distance from the ulnar and median nerves. A portal modification that may address complicated elbow conditions is a more anterior placement of the medial portals to allow for better visualization and access. Clinical Relevance: The elbow is a difficult joint in which to perform arthroscopic surgery. One option our institution has used for safe portal modification to address complicated elbow conditions is a further anterior placement of the medial portals to allow better visualization and access.

Triceps Tendon Ruptures: Risk Factors, Treatment, and Rehabilitation.

Triceps tendon ruptures (TTRs) are rare and often occur as a result of falling on an outstretched hand, forceful eccentric contraction, direct trauma to the elbow, or lifting against resistance. TTRs are most commonly seen in middle-aged men, football players, and weightlifters. Radiography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging may be utilized for diagnosis and to guide treatment. Acute partial TTRs may have good outcomes with nonoperative management. Surgery should be considered if nonoperative treatment is unsuccessful or if substantial musculotendinous retraction is present. Surgical repair is strongly recommended for complete TTRs.