Telemedicine in Spine Patients: Utilization and Satisfaction Remain High Even After Easing of COVID-19 Lockdown Restrictions.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the present study were to (1) define telemedicine utilization rates during and after the initial height of the COVID-19 lockdown period and (2) determine patient satisfaction with telemedicine during and after the initial height of the COVID-19 lockdown period for spine patients at an orthopedic specialty hospital. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have shown high patient satisfaction with telemedicine during the initial height of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there exists limited data about spine telemedicine utilization and patient satisfaction after the reopening of in-person office visits and the easing of restrictions on elective surgical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who had an in-person or telemedicine visit at an urban tertiary specialty hospital from April 1, 2020 to April 15, 2021 were identified. Rates of overall telemedicine utilization over time were delineated. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine, as assessed through a series of questionnaires, was also evaluated over time. RESULTS: Overall, 60,368 patients were identified. Of these, 19,568 patients (32.4%) had telemedicine visit. During the peak initial coronavirus lockdown period, the rate of overall telemedicine utilization, on average, was greater than 90%. After the peak period, the rate of overall telemedicine utilization on average was at ~29% of all visits per month. The percentage of patients who would have been definitely comfortable if the telemedicine visit had been in-person increased over the entire study period ( P <0.001). Despite this, patient satisfaction based on survey responses remained statistically similar throughout the study period ( P >0.05). CONCLUSION: The rate of telemedicine utilization in spine patients remains high, at ~one-third of all visits, even after the initial peak coronavirus lockdown period. In addition, patient satisfaction with telemedicine remained consistent throughout the study period, regardless of pandemic restrictions on in-person visits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Does Low Back Pain Improve Following Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Frequently, patients indicated for total hip arthroplasty (THA) present with low back pain (LBP) and hip pain. The purpose of this study was to compare patients whose back pain resolved after THA with those where back pain did not resolve and identify how to predict this using spinopelvic parameters. METHODS: We reviewed a series of 500 patients who underwent THA for unilateral hip osteoarthritis by 2 surgeons. Patients underwent biplanar standing and sitting EOS radiographs pre-operatively. Patients with previous spine surgery or femoral neck fracture were excluded. Demographic data was analyzed at baseline. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were calculated pre-operatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Spinopelvic parameters included, pelvic incidence and sacral slope (SS) change from standing to sitting. RESULTS: Two hundred and four patients (41%) had documented LBP before THA. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for patients improved from 38.9 ± 17.8 pre-operatively to 17.0 ± 10.6 at 1 year post-operatively (P < .001). At 1- and 2-year follow-up, resolution of back pain occurred in 168 (82.4%) and 187 (91.2%) patients, respectively. Pelvic incidence was not predictive of back pain resolution. All patients whose back pain resolved had a sacral slope change from standing to sitting of >10°, while those patients whose back pain did not resolve had a change of <10°. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that symptomatic low back pain (LBP) resolves in 82% of patients after THA. The results of this study may be used to counsel patients on back pain and its resolution following total hip replacement.

Does robot-assisted navigation influence pedicle screw selection and accuracy in minimally invasive spine surgery?

OBJECTIVE: The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups. RESULTS: Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of "ideal" pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the "optimal screw," maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.

Indirect Lumbar Decompression Combined With or Without Additional Direct Posterior Decompression: A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: Indirect decompression via lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) can ameliorate central and foraminal lumbar stenosis. In severe central stenosis, additional posterior direct decompression is utilized. The aim of this review is to synthesize existing literature on these 2 techniques and identify significant differences in outcomes between isolated indirect decompression via LLIF and combined indirect decompression supplemented with direct posterior decompression. METHODS: A database search algorithm was utilized to query MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE to identify literature reporting adult decompression study groups that involved an oblique or lateral fusion approach through September 2020. Improvement in outcomes measures and complication rates were pooled and tested for significance. RESULTS: A total of 110 publications were assessed with 15 studies meeting inclusion criteria, including 557 patients and 1008 levels. Mean age was 63.1 years with BMI of 27.5 kg/m2. For the combined indirect and direct decompression cohort, lumbar lordosis (LL) increased 133.9%, from 22.8o to 48.7o, while the indirect decompression cohort LL increased 8.9%, from 41.9o to 45.5o. Difference in LL improvement between cohorts was insignificant (P > .05). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) decreased from 36.5 to 19.4 in the combined indirect and direct decompression cohort, and from 44.4 to 23.1 in the indirect decompression cohort. ODI reduction was insignificant (P = .053). CONCLUSIONS: Prior studies of both indirect decompression as well as combined indirect and direct decompression of lumbar spine stenosis are limited by small samples, heterogeneous populations, and lack of direct comparisons. Both procedures result in improved function and pain postoperatively with direct decompression restoring more lordosis in patients with worse preoperative alignment.

Surgical Management of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Surgical Decision-making Using the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Score and Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score.

The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures is controversial with no universally accepted treatment algorithm. Several classification and scoring systems have been developed to assist in surgical decision-making. The most widely accepted are the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) and AOSpine Thoracolumbar Injury Classification Score (TL AOSIS) with both systems designed to provide a simple objective scoring criteria to guide the surgical or nonsurgical management of complex injury patterns. When used in the evaluation and treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures, both of these systems result in safe and consistent patient care. However, there are important differences between the 2 systems, specifically in the evaluation of the complete burst fractures (AOSIS A4) and patients with transient neurological deficits (AOSIS N1). In these circumstances, the AOSpine system may more accurately capture and characterize injury severity, providing the most refined guidance for optimal treatment. With respect to surgical approach, these systems provide a framework for decision-making based on patient neurology and the status of the posterior tension band. Here we propose an operative treatment algorithm based on these fracture characteristics as well as the level of injury.

Decreased flexion contracture after total knee arthroplasty using Botulinum toxin A: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Flexion contracture after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can cause significant dissatisfaction. Botulinum toxin A has shown improved extension in patients with spastic flexion contractures after TKA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether Botulinum toxin A improves knee extension for any patient with flexion contractures following TKA. METHODS: A prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Fourteen patients (15 knees), with a flexion contracture (≥10°) one month postoperatively, were randomized to receive either Botulinum toxin A or saline placebo to the affected hamstrings. The subject, surgeon, and administering physiatrist were blinded to the treatment group throughout the study. Subject range of motion (ROM) was evaluated at 1, 6, and 12 months following injection. Differences were tested using mixed-effects regression to control for multiple measurements. RESULTS: The initial post-operative flexion contracture averaged 19° ± 6° in the Botulinum toxin A group and 13° ± 3° in the saline group. Injections were performed 53 and 57 days after TKA in the Botulinum toxin A and saline groups, respectively. Post-injection extension improved to an average of 8, 5, and 1 degrees for BTX and 4, 2, and 1 degrees for SAL, at 1, 6, and 12 months, respectively, compared to pre-injection extension (p < 0.0001). Improvement in knee extension at 1 year improved 18° ± 7.5° for Botulinum toxin A and 12° ± 2° for saline (p = 0.04). No complications resulted from either injection. CONCLUSION: Patients who received Botulinum toxin A or placebo were able to achieve near full extension one year after surgery. There was a statistically significant improvement in the amount of extension achieved at 1 year with Botulinum toxin A, but this may be of little clinical significance. Since achieving full extension is important for patient function and satisfaction, novel techniques to address this issue deserve special attention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.