The Impact of Upper Cervical Spine Alignment on Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which the upper cervical spine compensates for malalignment in the subaxial cervical spine, and how changes in upper cervical spine sagittal alignment affect patient-reported outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous research has investigated the relationship between clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters in the subaxial cervical spine following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, limited research exists regarding the upper cervical spine (occiput to C2), which accounts for up to 40% of neck movement and has been hypothesized to compensate for subaxial dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing ACDF for cervical radiculopathy and/or myelopathy at a single center with minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Radiographic parameters including cervical sagittal vertical axis, C0 angle, C1 inclination angle, C2 slope, Occiput-C1 angle (Oc-C1 degrees), Oc-C2 degrees, Oc-C7 degrees, C1-C2 degrees, C1-C7 degrees, and C2-C7 degrees cervical lordosis (CL) were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. Delta (Δ) values were calculated by subtracting preoperative values from postoperative values. Correlation analysis as well as multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine relationships between radiographic and clinical outcomes. Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were included (mean follow-up 20 mo). C2 slope significantly decreased for patients after surgery (Δ=-0.8, P =0.02), as did parameters of regional cervical lordosis (Oc-C7 degrees, C1-C7 degrees, and C2-C7 degrees; P <0.001, <0.001, and 0.01, respectively). Weak to moderate associations were observed between postoperative CL and C1 inclination ( r =-0.24, P <0.001), Oc-C1 degrees ( r =0.59, P <0.001), and C1-C2 degrees ( r =-0.23, P <0.001). Increased preoperative C1-C2 degrees and Oc-C2 degrees inversely correlated with preoperative SF-12 Mental Composite Score (MCS-12) scores ( r =-0.16, P =0.01 and r =-0.13, P =0.04). Cervical sagittal vertical axis was found to have weak but significant associations with Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Composite Score (PCS-12) ( r =-0.13, P =0.03) and MCS-12 ( r =0.12, P =0.05). CONCLUSION: No clinically significant relationship between upper cervical and subaxial cervical alignment was detected for patients undergoing ACDF for neurological symptoms. Upper cervical spine alignment was not found to be a significant predictor of patient-reported outcomes after ACDF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Can Imaging Characteristics on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predict the Acuity of a Lumbar Disc Herniation?

BACKGROUND: Currently, no authors of existing studies have attempted to classify the signal characteristics of disc herniation on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and their temporal relationship to symptoms of lumbar radiculopathy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the MRI signal characteristics are predictive of acuity of symptoms in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients treated at an academic center for LDH from 2015 to 2018. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on symptom duration (acute: ≤6 weeks; or chronic: >4 months). Two independent observers measured T1, T2 signal, and other MRI characteristics at the affected disc level. Univariate analysis was used to compare differences between groups. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine predictors of acuity. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were included (33 acute, 56 chronic) with no significant baseline differences between groups. Rater 2 observed a higher proportion of disc bulges in the chronic group (P = .021) and a higher abnormal T1 herniation signal in the acute group (P = .048). Rater 1 found a higher Pfirrmann grade (P = .005) and a higher prevalence of vertebral body spurring (P = .007) in the chronic group. Interobserver agreement for T1 central and herniation signals demonstrated poor to fair agreement, whereas the remainder of the measurements showed moderate to substantial agreement (κ = 0.4-0.8). Multiple logistic regression showed that Pfirrmann Grade 5 (odds ratio = 0.12, 95% confidence interval [0.02, 0.74], P = .022) and anterior/posterior spurring (odds ratio = 0.053 [0.03, 0.85], P = .023) were not associated with acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Other than Pfirrmann grade or vertebral body spurring, no MRI characteristics could be reliably identified that correlate with acuity of symptoms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Patient Outcomes Following Short-segment Lumbar Fusion Are Not Affected by PI-LL Mismatch.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to further elucidate the relationship between pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing short segment lumbar fusions for degenerative lumbar disease. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are few studies examining the relationship between spinopelvic parameters and patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in short segment lumbar degenerative disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at single academic institution. Patients undergoing 1- or 2-level lumbar fusion were retrospectively identified and separated into 2 groups based on postoperative PI-LL mismatch ≤10 degrees (NM) or PI-LL mismatch >10 degrees (M). Outcomes including the Physical Component Score (PCS)-12, Mental Component Score (MCS)-12, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back and leg scores were analyzed. Absolute PROM scores, the recovery ratio and the percentage of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference between groups were compared and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were included, with 59 patients in the NM group and 247 patients in the M group. Patients in the M group started with a higher degree of PI-LL mismatch compared with the NM group (22.2 vs. 7.6 degrees, P<0.001) and this difference increased postoperatively (24.7 vs. 2.5 degrees, P<0.001). There were no differences between the 2 groups in terms of baseline, postoperative, or Δ outcome scores (P>0.05). In addition, having a PI-LL mismatch was not found to be an independent predictor of any PROM on multivariate analysis (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings in this study show that even though patients in the M group had a higher degree of mismatch preoperatively and postoperatively, there was no difference in PROMs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Does Smoking Status Influence Health-Related Quality of Life Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing ACDF?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: Whereas smoking has been shown to affect the fusion rates for patients undergoing an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), the relationship between smoking and health-related quality of life outcome measurements after an ACDF is less clear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether smoking negatively affects patient outcomes after an ACDF for cervical degenerative pathology. METHODS: Patients with tumor, trauma, infection, and previous cervical spine surgery and those with less than a year of follow-up were excluded. Smoking status was assessed by self-reported smoking history. Patient outcomes, including Neck Disability Index, Short Form 12 Mental Component Score, Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (PCS-12), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) arm pain, VAS neck pain, and pseudarthrosis rates were evaluated. Outcomes were compared between smoking groups using multiple linear and logistic regression, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI), among other factors. A P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 19.8 months, age of 53.1 years, and BMI of 29.6 kg/m2. There were 43 current, 69 former, and 152 nonsmokers in the cohort. At baseline, nonsmokers had higher PCS-12 scores than current smokers (P = .010), lower VAS neck pain than current (P = .035) and former (P = .014) smokers, as well as lower VAS arm pain than former smokers (P = .006). Postoperatively, nonsmokers had higher PCS-12 scores than both current (P = .030) and former smokers (P = .035). Smoking status was not a significant predictor of change in patient outcome in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas nonsmokers had higher function and lower pain than former or current smokers preoperatively, smoking status overall was not found to be an independent predictor of outcome scores after ACDF. This supports the notion that smoking status alone should not deter patients from undergoing ACDF for cervical degenerative pathology.

Does Smoking Affect Short-Term Patient-Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Decompression?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine how smoking status influences patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression between 1 to 3 levels at a single-center, academic hospital were retrospectively identified. Patients <18 years old, and those undergoing surgery for infection, trauma, tumor, or revision, with less than 12 months of follow-up were excluded. Patients were divided into 3 groups: (1) never smokers (NSs); (2) current smokers (CSs); and (3) former smokers (FSs). PROMs analyzed included the Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score of the Short Form-12 Health Survey, the Oswestry Disability Index, and Visual Analogue Scale Back and Leg pain scores. One-way ANOVA was used to compare preoperative and postoperative scores between smoking groups, and multiple linear regression analysis was performed to determine whether smoking status predicted change in each outcome score, controlling for factors such as age, sex, body mass index, and other clinical variables. A P value <.05 was considered to be significant. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients were included in the final cohort, with 121 (62.1%) patients in the NS group, 22 (11.3%) in the CS group, and 52 (26.6%) in the FS group. There were no significant differences between groups at baseline or postoperatively. Smoking status was also not a significant predictor of change in any outcome scores over time on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that smoking status does not significantly affect short-term complications or outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery.

How Does Smoking Influence Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients After Lumbar Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine the effect of smoking on patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) after lumbar fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although smoking is known to decrease fusion rates after lumbar fusion, there is less evidence regarding the influence of smoking on PROMs after surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing between 1 and 3 levels of lumbar fusion were divided into 3 groups on the basis of preoperative smoking status: never smokers (NS); current smokers (CS); and former smokers (FS). PROMs collected for analysis include the Physical Component Score (PCS-12), Mental Component Score (MCS-12), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analogue Scale back (VAS back) and leg (VAS leg) pain scores. Preoperative and postoperative PROMs were compared between groups. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to determine whether preoperative smoking status was a predictor of change in PROM scores. RESULTS: A total of 220 (60.1%) NS, 52 (14.2%) CS, and 94 (25.7%) FS patients were included. Patients in most groups improved within each of the PROMs analyzed (P<0.05). VAS leg pain (P=0.001) was found to significantly differ between groups, with NS and FS having less disability than CS (3.6 vs. 2.0, P=0.010; and 3.6 vs. 2.4, P=0.022; respectively). Being a CS significantly predicted less improvement in ODI (P=0.035), VAS back (P=0.034), and VAS leg (P<0.001) compared with NS. In addition, NS had a significantly lower 30-day readmission rate than CS or FS (3.2% vs. 5.8% and 10.6%, respectively, P=0.029). CONCLUSION: CS exhibited worse postoperative VAS leg pain and a lower recovery ratio than never smokers. In addition, being in the CS group was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in ODI, VAS back, and VAS leg scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

How do C2 tilt and C2 slope correlate with patient reported outcomes in patients after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT: C2 tilt and C2 slope are quick and easy measurements to obtain on lateral radiographs and may be used to determine overall cervical sagittal alignment; however, the influence of these measurements on patient outcomes has not been well established in literature. PURPOSE: To determine if C2 tilt and/or C2 slope predict patient outcomes better compared with conventional radiographic measures after an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 249 patients who underwent 1 to 3 level ACDF to address radiculopathy and/or myelopathy at a single academic institution between 2011 and 2015 were identified. Patients with less than 1 year of follow-up were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient Reported Outcomes: Neck Disability Index (NDI), Physical Component Score-12 (PCS-12), and Mental Component Score (MCS-12), Visual Analog Score (VAS) Neck and Arm scores Cervical radiographic measurements: C2 tilt, C2 slope, C2-C7 lordosis, cervical SVA, T1 slope, T1 slope minus cervical lordosis (TS-CL), and C2-C7 ROM METHODS: Pearson correlation tests were performed to assess for significant associations between radiographic measurements and patient outcomes. Multiple linear regression models were developed adjusting for demographics and radiographic parameters to determine which factors were predictive of patient outcomes. RESULTS: C2 tilt and TS-CL correlated with all postoperative physical outcome scores (NDI, PCS-12, VAS Neck and ARM; p<.05), however no association was seen between C2 slope and postoperative outcomes. After accounting for the presence of subaxial deformity, C2 tilt and TS-CL remained strongly correlated to patient outcome scores. With multiple linear regression, C2 tilt was a significant predictor for NDI, whereas TS-CL was a significant predictor for PCS-12, VAS Neck and VAS Arm. CONCLUSIONS: C2 tilt significantly correlated with well-described conventional cervical parameters as well as postoperative physical outcomes measures, especially NDI, on multivariate analysis. C2 tilt may provide an easy and practical tool for predicting physical outcomes after ACDF.

How do spinopelvic parameters influence patient-reported outcome measurements after lumbar decompression?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinopelvic parameters indicative of sagittal imbalance include a pelvic tilt (PT) greater than 20° and a mismatch between pelvic incidence (PI) and lumbar lordosis (LL) greater than 10°. However, unlike in fusion surgery, the relationship between spinopelvic parameters and patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in patients undergoing lumbar decompression surgery for neurologic symptoms is less clear. PURPOSE: To determine whether PROMs are affected by the amount of residual (postoperative) PI-LL mismatch or PT in patients undergoing one- to three-level lumbar decompression surgeries. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Level of Evidence: III). PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing between one to three levels of lumbar decompression surgery at a single, academic institution. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMs-including the PCS-12, MCS-12, ODI, and VAS Back and Leg pain scores-and radiographic measurements of spinopelvic parameters. METHODS: Patients were separated into groups based on a postoperative PI-LL mismatch of ≤10° or >10° and a postoperative PT<20° or ≥20°. Absolute PROM scores, the recovery ratio (RR) and the percentage of patients achieving Minimum Clinically Important Difference between groups were compared and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were included, with 27 patients in the PI-LL>10° group and 91 patients in the PT≥20° group. All groups exhibited significant improvement after surgery for each PROM included (p<.05) except for MCS-12 scores in the PI-LL≤10° group and both PT groups. Comparing between groups, all patients were similar with respect to preoperative scores, postoperative scores, change in scores, recovery ratios, and percentage change in Minimum Clinically Important Difference, except that patients with PT≥20° had higher pre- and postoperative VAS Back scores (p=.036 and p=.024, respectively). With multiple linear regression, postoperative PI-LL>10° and PT≥20° were not significant predictors of worse outcomes for any measured PROM. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with postoperative measurements PI-LL>10° and PT≥20° without instability had similar PROMs at 1 year after limited lumbar decompression when compared to patients without a spinopelvic mismatch.