The Relationship Between Disc Herniation Morphology and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Microdiscectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Determine if herniation morphology based on the Michigan State University Classification is associated with differences in (1) patient-reported outcome measures (or (2) surgical outcomes after a microdiscectomy. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing single-level microdiscectomy between 2014 and 2021 were identified. Demographics and surgical characteristics were collected through a query search and manual chart review. The Michigan State University classification, which assesses disc herniation laterality (zone A was central, zone B/C was lateral) and degree of extrusion into the central canal (grade 1 was up to 50% of the distance to the intra-facet line, grade >1 was beyond this line), was identified on preoperative MRIs. patient-reported outcome measures were collected at preoperative, 3-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. RESULTS: Of 233 patients, 84 had zone A versus 149 zone B/C herniations while 76 had grade 1 disc extrusion and 157 had >1 grade. There was no difference in surgical outcomes between groups (P > 0.05). Patients with extrusion grade >1 were found to have lower Physical Component Score at baseline. On bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis, extrusion grade >1 was a significant independent predictor of greater improvement in Physical Component Score at three months (estimate = 7.957; CI: 4.443-11.471, P < 0.001), but not at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Although all patients were found to improve after microdiscectomy, patients with disc herniations extending further posteriorly reported lower preoperative physical function but experienced significantly greater improvement three months after surgery. However, improvement in Visual Analog Scale Leg and back, ODI, and MCS at three and twelve months was unrelated to laterality or depth of disc herniation.

Impact of Weekday on Short-term Surgical Outcomes After Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether weekday lumbar spine fusion surgery has an impact on surgical and inpatient physical therapy (PT) outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Timing of surgery has been implicated as a factor that may impact outcomes after spine surgery. Previous literature suggests that there may be an adverse effect to having surgery on the weekend. METHODS: All patients ≥18 years who underwent primary lumbar spinal fusion from 2014 to 2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients were subdivided into an early subgroup (surgery between Monday and Wednesday) and a late subgroup (surgery between Thursday and Friday). Surgical outcome variables included inpatient complications, 90-day readmissions, and 1-year revisions. PT data from the first inpatient PT session included hours to PT session, AM-PAC Daily Activity or Basic Mobility scores, and total gait trial distance achieved. RESULTS: Of the 1239 patients identified, 839 had surgery between Monday and Wednesday and 400 had surgery between Thursday and Friday. Patients in the later surgery subgroup were more likely to experience a nonsurgical neurologic complication (3.08% vs. 0.86%, P =0.008); however, there was no difference in total complications. Patients in the early surgery subgroup had their first inpatient PT session earlier than patients in the late subgroup (15.7 vs. 18.9 h, P <0.001). However, patients in the late subgroup achieved a farther total gait distance (98.2 vs. 75.4, P =0.011). Late surgery was a significant predictor of more hours of PT (est.=0.256, P =0.016) and longer length of stay (est.=2.277, P =0.001). There were no significant differences in readmission and revision rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo surgery later in the week may experience more nonsurgical neurologic complications, longer wait times for inpatient PT appointments, and longer lengths of stay. This analysis showed no adverse effect of later weekday surgery as it relates to total complications, readmissions, and reoperations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Radiology Reports Do Not Accurately Portray the Severity of Cervical Neural Foraminal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiology reports to a validated grading system for cervical foraminal stenosis (FS) and (2) to evaluate whether the severity of cervical neural FS on MRI correlates to motor weakness or patient-reported outcomes. BACKGROUND: Radiology reports of cervical spine MRI are often reviewed to assess the degree of neural FS. However, research looking at the association between these reports and objective MRI findings, as well as clinical symptoms, is lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all adult patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at a single academic center for an indication of cervical radiculopathy. Preoperative MRI was assessed for neural FS severity using the grading system described by Kim and colleagues for each level of fusion, as well as adjacent levels. Neural FS severity was recorded from diagnostic radiologist MRI reports. Motor weakness was defined as an examination grade <4/5 on the final preoperative encounter. Regression analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the degree of FS by either classification was related to patient-reported outcome measure severity. RESULTS: A total of 283 patients were included in the study, and 998 total levels were assessed. There were significant differences between the MRI grading system and the assessment by radio-logists ( P < 0.001). In levels with moderate stenosis, 28.9% were classified as having no stenosis by radiology. In levels with severe stenosis, 29.7% were classified as having mild-moderate stenosis or less. Motor weakness was found similarly often in levels of moderate or severe stenosis (6.9% and 9.2%, respectively). On regression analysis, no associations were found between baseline patient-reported outcome measures and stenosis severity assessed by radiologists or MRI grading systems. CONCLUSION: Radiology reports on the severity of cervical neural FS are not consistent with a validated MRI grading system. These radiology reports underestimated the severity of neural foraminal compression and may be inappropriate when used for clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

A Longitudinal Evaluation of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Its Effects on Spinal Decompressions With or Without Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: The objectives were to (1) compare the safety of spine surgery before and after the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and (2) determine whether patients with a history of COVID-19 were at increased risk of adverse events. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: The COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on several health care services. In spine surgery, elective cases were canceled and patients received delayed care due to the uncertainty of disease transmission and surgical outcomes. As new coronavirus variants arise, health care systems require guidance on how to provide optimal patient care to all those in need of our services. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing spine surgery between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021 was performed. Patients were split into pre-COVID or post-COVID cohorts based on local government guidelines. Inpatient complications, 90-day readmission, and 90-day mortality were compared between groups. Secondary analysis included multiple logistic regression to determine independent predictors of each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 2976 patients were included for analysis with 1701 patients designated as pre-COVID and 1275 as post-COVID. The pre-COVID cohort had fewer patients undergoing revision surgery (16.8% vs 21.9%, P < 0.001) and a lower home discharge rate (84.5% vs 88.2%, P = 0.008). Inpatient complication (9.9% vs 9.2%, P = 0.562), inpatient mortality (0.1% vs 0.2%, P = 0.193), 90-day readmission (3.4% vs 3.2%, P = 0.828), and 90-day mortality rates (0.8% vs 0.8%, P = 0.902) were similar between groups. Patients with positive COVID-19 tests before surgery had similar complication rates (7.7% vs 6.1%, P = 1.000) as those without a positive test documented. CONCLUSIONS: After the emergence of COVID-19, patients undergoing spine surgery had a greater number of medical comorbidities, but similar rates of inpatient complications, readmission, and mortality. Prior COVID-19 infection was not associated with an increased risk of postsurgical complications or mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Does Operative Level Impact Dysphagia Severity After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion?: A Multicenter Prospective Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between operative level and postoperative dysphagia after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). BACKGROUND: Dysphagia is common after ACDF and has several risk factors, including soft tissue edema. The degree of prevertebral soft tissue edema varies based on the operative cervical level. However, the operative level has not been evaluated as a source of postoperative dysphagia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients undergoing elective ACDF were prospectively enrolled at 3 academic centers. Dysphagia was assessed using the Bazaz Questionnaire, Dysphagia Short Questionnaire, and Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10) preoperatively and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively. Patients were grouped based on the inclusion of specific surgical levels in the fusion construct. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to evaluate the independent effects of the number of surgical levels and the inclusion of each particular level on dysphagia symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were included. Overall, 24 (18.5%) patients had persistent postoperative dysphagia at 24 weeks and these patients were older, female, and less likely to drink alcohol. There was no difference in operative duration or dexamethasone administration. Patients with persistent dysphagia were significantly more likely to have C4-C5 included in the fusion construct (62.5% vs . 34.9%, P = 0.024) but there were no differences based on the inclusion of other levels. On multivariable regression, the inclusion of C3-C4 or C6-C7 was associated with more severe EAT-10 (ß: 9.56, P = 0.016 and ß: 8.15, P = 0.040) and Dysphagia Short Questionnaire (ß: 4.44, P = 0.023 and (ß: 4.27, P = 0.030) at 6 weeks. At 12 weeks, C3-C4 fusion was also independently associated with more severe dysphagia (EAT-10 ß: 4.74, P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: The location of prevertebral soft tissue swelling may impact the duration and severity of patient-reported dysphagia outcomes at up to 24 weeks postoperatively. In particular, the inclusion of C3-C4 and C4-C5 into the fusion may be associated with dysphagia severity.

Expert Opinion, Real-World Classification, and Decision-Making in Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures Without Neurologic Deficits?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare decision-making between an expert panel and real-world spine surgeons in thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) without neurological deficits and analyze which factors influence surgical decision-making. METHODS: This study is a sub-analysis of a prospective observational study in TL fractures. Twenty two experts were asked to review 183 CT scans and recommend treatment for each fracture. The expert recommendation was based on radiographic review. RESULTS: Overall agreement between the expert panel and real-world surgeons regarding surgery was 63.2%. In 36.8% of cases, the expert panel recommended surgery that was not performed in real-world scenarios. Conversely, in cases where the expert panel recommended non-surgical treatment, only 38.6% received non-surgical treatment, while 61.4% underwent surgery. A separate analysis of A3 and A4 fractures revealed that expert panel recommended surgery for 30% of A3 injuries and 68% of A4 injuries. However, 61% of patients with both A3 and A4 fractures received surgery in the real world. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a 1% increase in certainty of PLC injury led to a 4% increase in surgery recommendation among the expert panel, while a .2% increase in the likelihood of receiving surgery in the real world. CONCLUSION: Surgical decision-making varied between the expert panel and real-world treating surgeons. Differences appear to be less evident in A3/A4 burst fractures making this specific group of fractures a real challenge independent of the level of expertise.

Preoperative Oswestry Disability Index Should not be Utilized to Determine Surgical Eligibility for Patients Requiring Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) thresholds might affect minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement following lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As payers invest in alternative payment models, some are suggesting threshold cutoffs of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) in reimbursement approvals for orthopedic procedures. The feasibility of this has not been investigated in spine surgery. MATERIALS/METHODS: We included all adult patients undergoing one to three-level primary lumbar fusion at a single urban tertiary academic center from 2014 to 2020. ODI was collected preoperatively and one year postoperatively. We implemented theoretical threshold cutoffs at increments of 10. MCID was set at 14.3. The percent of patients meeting MCID were determined among patients "approved" or "denied" at each threshold. At each threshold, the positive predictive value (PPV) for MCID attainment was calculated. RESULTS: A total 1368 patients were included and 62.4% (N=364) achieved MCID. As the ODI thresholds increased, a greater percent of patients in each group reached the MCID. At the lowest ODI threshold, 6.58% (N=90) of patients would be denied, rising to 20.2%, 39.5%, 58.4%, 79.9%, and 91.4% at ODI thresholds of 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70, respectively. The PPV increased from 0.072 among patients with ODI>20 to 0.919 at ODI>70. The number of patients denied a clinical improvement in the denied category per patient achieving the MCID increased at each threshold (ODI>20: 1.96; ODI>30: 2.40; ODI>40: 2.75; ODI>50: 3.03; ODI>60: 3.54; ODI>70: 3.75). CONCLUSION: Patients with poorer preoperative ODI are significantly more likely to achieve MCID following lumbar spine fusion at all ODI thresholds. Setting a preoperative ODI threshold for surgical eligibility will restrict access to patients who may benefit from spine fusion despite ODI>20 demonstrating the lowest predictive value for MCID achievement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Surgical Algorithm for the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System.

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To establish a surgical algorithm for sacral fractures based on the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) Spine Sacral Injury Classification System. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification has been validated across an international audience of surgeons, a consensus on a surgical algorithm for sacral fractures using the Sacral AO Spine Injury Score (Sacral AOSIS) has yet to be developed. METHODS: A survey was sent to general orthopedic surgeons, orthopedic spine surgeons, and neurosurgeons across the five AO spine regions of the world. Descriptions of controversial sacral injuries based on different fracture subtypes were given, and surgeons were asked whether the patient should undergo operative or nonoperative management. The results of the survey were used to create a surgical algorithm based on each subtype's sacral AOSIS. RESULTS: An international agreement of 70% was decided on by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma experts to indicate a recommendation of initial operative intervention. Using this, sacral fracture subtypes of AOSIS 5 or greater were considered operative, while those with AOSIS 4 or less were generally nonoperative. For subtypes with an AOSIS of 3 or 4, if the sacral fracture was associated with an anterior pelvic ring injury (M3 case-specific modifier), intervention should be left to the surgeons' discretion. CONCLUSION: The AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System offers a validated hierarchical system to approach sacral injuries. Through multispecialty and global surgeon input, a surgical algorithm was developed to determine appropriate operative indications for sacral trauma. Further validation is required, but this algorithm provides surgeons across the world with the basis for discussion and the development of standards of care and treatment.

Implementation of a Private Payer Bundled Payment Model While Maintaining High-Value Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-institution cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of a commercial bundled payment model in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: BPCI-A caused significant losses for many physician practices, prompting private payers to establish their own bundled payment models. The feasibility of these private bundles has yet to be evaluated in spine fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar fusion from October to December 2018 in BPCI-A before our institution's departure were included for BPCI-A analysis. Private bundle data was collected from 2018 to 2020. Analysis of the transition was conducted among Medicare-aged beneficiaries. Private bundles were grouped by calendar year (Y1, Y2, Y3). Stepwise multivariate linear regression was performed to measure independent predictors of net deficit. RESULTS: The net surplus was the lowest in Y1 ($2,395, P =0.03) but did not differ between our final year in BPCI-A and subsequent years in private bundles (all, P >0.05). AIR and SNF patient discharges decreased significantly in all private bundle years compared with BPCI. Readmissions fell from 10.7% (N=37) in BPCI-A to 4.4% (N=6) in Y2 and 4.5% (N=3) Y3 of private bundles ( P <0.001). Being in Y2 or Y3 was independently associated with a net surplus in comparison to the Y1 (ß: $11,728, P =0.001; ß: $11,643, P =0.002). Postoperatively, length of stay in days (ß: $-2,982, P <0.001), any readmission (ß: -$18,825, P =0.001), and discharge to AIR (ß: $-61,256, P <0.001) or SNF (ß: $-10,497, P =0.058) were all associated with a net deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Nongovernmental bundled payment models can be successfully implemented in lumbar spinal fusion patients. Constant price adjustment is necessary so bundled payments remain financially beneficial to both parties and systems overcome early losses. Private insurers who have more competition than the government may be more willing to provide mutually beneficial situations where cost is reduced for payers and health systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Reimbursement of Lumbar Fusion at an Orthopaedic Specialty Hospital Versus Tertiary Referral Center.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: To explore the differences in Medicare reimbursement for lumbar fusion performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital (OSH) and a tertiary referral center and to elucidate drivers of Medicare reimbursement differences. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To provide more cost-efficient care, appropriately selected patients are increasingly being transitioned to OSHs for lumbar fusion procedures. There are no studies directly comparing reimbursement of lumbar fusion between tertiary referral centers (TRC) and OSHs. METHODS: Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an orthopaedic specialty hospital were compiled through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Any patient with lumbar fusions between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified. OSH patients were matched to TRC patients by demographic and surgical variables. Outcomes analyzed were reimbursement data, procedure data, 90-day complications and readmissions, operating room times, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included in the final cohort. The tertiary referral center had higher post-trigger ($13,554 vs. $8,541, P<0.001) and total episode ($49,973 vs. $43,512, P<0.010) reimbursements. Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH was predictive of shorter OR time (ß=0.77, P<0.001), shorter procedure time (ß=0.71, P<0.001), and shorter LOS (ß=0.53, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in complications (9.21% vs. 15.8%, P=0.353) or readmission rates (3.95% vs. 7.89%, P=0.374) between the 2 hospitals; however, our study is underpowered for complications and readmissions. CONCLUSION: Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH, compared with a tertiary referral center, is associated with significant Medicare cost savings, shorter perioperative times, decreased LOS, and decreased utilization of post-acute resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Are Clinical or Surgical Outcomes Different Based on Whether the Same Surgeon or Hospital System Performs the Spine Revision?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of discontinuity in care by changing surgeons, health systems, or increased time to revision surgery on revision spine fusion surgical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Patients undergoing revision spine fusion experience worse outcomes than those undergoing primary lumbar surgery. Those requiring complex revisions are often transferred to tertiary or quaternary referral centers under the assumption that those institutions may be more accustomed at performing those procedures. However, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the impact of discontinuity of care in revision spinal fusions. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion 2011-2021 were grouped based on (1) revision performed by the index surgeon versus a different surgeon, (2) revision performed within the same versus different hospital system as the index procedure, and (3) length of time from index procedure. Multivariate regression for outcomes controlled for confounding differences. RESULTS: A total of 776 revision surgeries were included. An increased time interval between the index procedure and the revision surgery was predictive of a lower risk for subsequent revision procedure (odds ratio: 0.57, P =0.022). Revision surgeries performed by the same surgeon predicted a reduced length of hospital stay (ß: -0.14, P =0.001). Neither time to revision nor undergoing by the same surgeon or same practice predicted 90-day readmission rates. Patients are less likely to report meaningful improvement in Mental Component Score-12 or Physical Component Score-12 if revision surgery was performed at a different hospital system. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have revision lumbar fusions have similar clinical outcomes regardless of whether their surgeon performed the index procedure. However, continuity of care with the same surgeon may reduce hospital length of stay and associated health care costs. The length of time between primary and revision surgery does not significantly impact patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Assessment of a Private Payer Bundled Payment Model for Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Although bundled payment models are well-established in Medicare-aged individuals, private insurers are now developing bundled payment plans. The role of these plans in spine surgery has not been evaluated. Our objective was to analyze the performance of a private insurance bundled payment program for lumbar decompression and microdiskectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all lumbar decompressions in a private payer bundled payment model at a single institution from October 2018 to December 2020. 120-day episode of care cost data were collected and reported as net profit or loss regarding set target prices. A stepwise multivariable linear regression model was developed to measure the effect of patient and surgical factors on net surplus or deficit. RESULTS: Overall, 151 of 468 (32.2%) resulted in a deficit. Older patients (58.6 vs. 50.9 years, P < 0.001) with diabetes (25.2% vs. 13.9%, P = 0.004), hypertension (38.4% vs. 28.4%, P = 0.038), heart disease (13.9% vs. 7.57%, P = 0.030), and hyperlipidemia (51.7% vs. 35.6%, P = 0.001) were more likely to experience a loss. Surgically, decompression of more levels (1.91 vs. 1.19, P < 0.001), posterior lumbar decompression (86.8% vs. 56.5%, P < 0.001), and performing surgery at a tertiary hospital (84.8% vs. 70.3%, P < 0.001) were more likely to result in loss. All readmissions resulted in a loss (4.64% vs. 0.0%, P < 0.001). On multivariable regression, microdiskectomy (ß: $2,398, P = 0.012) and surgery in a specialty hospital (ß: $1,729, P = 0.096) or ambulatory surgery center (ß: $3,534, P = 0.055) were associated with cost savings. Increasing number of levels, longer length of stay, active smoking, and history of cancer, dementia, or congestive heart failure were all associated with degree of deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively optimizing comorbidities and using risk stratification to identify those patients who may safely undergo surgery at a facility other than an inpatient hospital may help increase cost savings in a bundled payment model of working-age and Medicare-age individuals.

The Impact of Physical Therapy After Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine if outcomes varied between patients based on physical therapy (PT) attendance after lumbar fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The literature has been mixed regarding the efficacy of postoperative PT to improve disability and back pain, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures. Given the prevalence of PT referrals and lack of high-quality evidence, there is a need for additional studies investigating the efficacy of PT after lumbar fusion surgery to aid in developing robust clinical guidelines. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients receiving lumbar fusion surgery by current procedural terminology codes and separated them into 2 groups based on whether PT was prescribed. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient and surgical characteristics, PT utilization, and surgical outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were identified and compared preoperatively, at 90 days postoperatively and one year postoperatively. RESULTS: The two groups had similar patient characteristics and comorbidities and demonstrated no significant differences between readmission, complication, and revision rates after surgery. Patients that attended PT had significantly more fused levels (1.41 ± 0.64 vs. 1.32 ± 0.54, P =0.027), longer operative durations (234 ± 96.4 vs. 215 ± 86.1 min, P =0.012), and longer postoperative hospital stays (3.35 ± 1.68 vs. 3.00 ± 1.49 days, P =0.004). All groups improved similarly by Oswestry Disability Index, short form-12 physical and mental health subsets, and back and leg pain by Visual Analog Scale at 90-day and 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that physical therapy does not significantly impact PROMs after lumbar fusion surgery. Given the lack of data suggesting clear benefit of PT after lumbar fusion, surgeons should consider more strict criteria when recommending physical therapy to their patients after lumbar fusion surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-Ⅲ.

Comparison of Postoperative Opioid Use After Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion or Posterior Cervical Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) are two main surgical management options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Although ACDF is less invasive than PCF which should theoretically reduce postoperative pain, it is still unknown whether this leads to reduced opioid use. Our objective was to evaluate whether PCF increases postoperative opioid use compared with ACDF. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing 2-level to 4-level ACDF or PCF at a single center from 2017 to 2021. Our state's prescription drug-monitoring program was queried for filled opioid prescriptions using milligrams morphine equivalents (MMEs) up to 1 year postoperatively. In-hospital opioid use was collected from the electronic medical record. Bivariate statistics compared ACDF and PCF cohorts. Multivariate linear regression was done to assess independent predictors of in-hospital opioid use and short-term (0 to 30 days), subacute (30 to 90 days), and long-term (3 to 12 months) opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: We included 211 ACDF patients and 91 PCF patients. Patients undergoing PCF used more opioids during admission (126.7 vs. 51.0 MME, P < 0.001) and refilled more MMEs in the short-term (118.2 vs. 86.1, P = 0.001) but not subacute (33.6 vs. 19.7, P = 0.174) or long-term (85.6 vs. 47.8, P = 0.310) period. A similar percent of patients in both groups refilled at least one prescription after 90 days (39.6% vs. 33.2%, P = 0.287). PCF (ß = 56.7, P = 0.001) and 30-day preoperative MMEs (ß = 0.28, P = 0.041) were associated with greater in-hospital opioid requirements. PCF (ß = 26.7, P = 0.039), C5 nerve root irritation (ß = 51.4, P = 0.019), and a history of depression (ß = 40.9, P < 0.001) were independently associated with 30-day postoperative MMEs. CONCLUSIONS: PCF is initially more painful than ACDF but does not lead to persistent opioid use. Surgeons should optimize multimodal analgesia protocols to reduce long-term narcotic usage rather than change the surgical approach.Level of Evidence:III.

Remote fit wrist braces through artificial intelligence.

INTRODUCTION: Physical boundaries to access skilled orthotist or hand therapy care may be hindered by multiple factors, such as geography, or availability. This study evaluated the accuracy of fitting a prefabricated wrist splint using an app on a smart device. We hypothesize that remote brace fitting by artificial intelligence (AI) can accurately determine the brace size the patient needs without in-person fitting. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were recruited to fit wrist braces. Using 2 standardized calibrated images captured by the smart device, each subject's image was loaded into the machine learning software (AI). Later, hand features were extracted, calibrated, and measured the application, calculated the correct splint size, and compared with the splint chosen by our subjects to improve its own accuracy. As a control (control 1), the subjects independently selected the best brace fit from an array of available splints. Subject selection was recorded and compared with the AI fit splint. As the second method of fitting (control 2), we compared the manufacturer recommended brace size (based on measured wrist circumference and provided sizing chart/insert brochure) with the AI fit splint. RESULTS: A total of 54 volunteers were included. Thirty-two splints predicted by the algorithm matched the exact size chosen by each subject yielding 70% accuracy with a standard deviation of 10% ( p < 0.001). The accuracy increased to 90% with 5% standard deviation if the splints were predicted within the next size category. Fit by manufacturer sizing chart was only 33% in agreement with participant selection. CONCLUSION: Remote brace fitting using AI prediction model may be an acceptable alternative to current standards because it can accurately predict wrist splint size. As more subjects were analyzed, the AI algorithm became more accurate predicting proper brace fit. In addition, AI fit braces are more than twice as accurate as relying on the manufacturer sizing chart.

Patient-specific Risk Factors Increase Episode of Care Costs After Lumbar Decompression.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine, which patient-specific risk factors increase total episode of care (EOC) costs in a population of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiaries undergoing lumbar decompression. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lumbar decompression is an effective option for the treatment of central canal stenosis or radiculopathy in patients unresponsive to nonoperative management. Given that elderly Americans are more likely to have one or more chronic medical conditions, there is a need to determine, which, if any, patient-specific risk factors increase health care costs after lumbar decompression. METHODS: Care episodes limited to lumbar decompression surgeries were retrospectively reviewed on a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service reimbursement database at our academic institution between 2014 and 2019. The 90-day total EOC reimbursement payments were collected. Patient electronic medical records were then matched to the selected care episodes for the collection of patient demographics, medical comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and clinical outcomes. A stepwise multivariate linear regression model was developed to predict patient-specific risk factors that increased total EOC costs after lumbar decompression. Significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients were included for analysis. Risk factors associated with increased total EOC cost included increased age (per year) (ß = $324.70, P < 0.001), comorbid depression (ß = $4368.30, P = 0.037), revision procedures (ß = $6538.43, P =0.012), increased hospital length of stay (per day) (ß = $2995.43, P < 0.001), discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (ß = $14,417.42, P = 0.001), incidence of a complication (ß = $8178.07, P < 0.001), and readmission (ß = $18,734.24, P < 0.001) within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Increased age, comorbid depression, revision decompression procedures, increased hospital length of stay, discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility, and incidence of a complication and readmission within 90 days were all associated with increased total episodes of care costs.

Evaluation of Hospital Compliance With Federal Price Transparency Regulations and Variability of Negotiated Rates for Spinal Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: To improve price transparency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires hospitals to post accessible pricing data for common elective procedures along with all third-party-negotiated rates. We aimed to evaluate hospital compliance with CMS regulations for both price estimators and machine-readable files for spinal fusions and to evaluate factors contributing to variability in hospital-negotiated pricing. METHODS: We reviewed the top 100 orthopaedic hospitals ranked by US News & World Report to assess compliance with CMS price transparency regulations for all spine diagnosis-related groups. We recorded gross inpatient charge, cash price, and deidentified maximum and minimum rates for the 11 spine diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Variability was compared with geographic practice costs (GPCI), expected Medicare reimbursements, and poverty rate and median income ratio. RESULTS: Only 72% of hospitals were fully compliant in reporting spinal fusions on their price estimator, and 39% were fully compliant in reporting all mandatory rates for spinal fusions. The overall estimated cash price was $96,979 ± $56,262 and $62,595 ± $40,307 for noncervical and cervical fusion, respectively. Cash prices at top 50 hospitals were higher for both noncervical and cervical fusions ( P = 0.0461 and P = 0.0341, respectively). The average minimum negotiated rates ranged from 0.88 to 1.15 times the expected Medicare reimbursement, while maximum and cash prices were 3.41 to 3.90 and 2.53 to 4.08 times greater than Medicare reimbursement. GPCI demonstrated little to no correlation with DRG pricing. However, minimum negotiated rates and cash prices demonstrated weak positive correlations with the median income ratio and weak negative correlations with the poverty rate. DISCUSSION: Most US hospitals are not fully compliant with CMS price transparency regulations for spinal fusions despite increased overall utilization of price estimators and machine-readable files. Although higher ranked hospitals charged more for spinal fusions, DRG prices remain widely variable with little to no correlation with practice cost or socioeconomic parameters.

Effect of Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Classification on Patient-reported Outcomes and Spinopelvic Parameters for Patients With Single-level L4-L5 Degenerative Spondylolisthesis After Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether preoperative clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification is associated with differences in patient-reported outcomes and spinopelvic parameters after posterior decompression and fusion for L4-L5 degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). SUMMARY: The CARDS classification for lumbar DS, an alternative to the Meyerding system, considers additional radiographic findings such as disc space collapse and segmental kyphosis and stratifies DS into 4 radiographically distinct classes. Although CARDS has been shown to be a reliable and reproducible method for classifying DS, very few studies have assessed whether the CARDS types represent distinct clinical entities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients with L4-L5 DS who underwent posterior lumbar decompression and fusion. Changes in spinopelvic alignment and patient-reported outcomes measures, including recovery ratios and percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference, were compared among patients in each CARDS classification 1-year postoperatively using analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis H with Dunn post hoc analysis. Multiple linear regression determined whether CARDS groups significantly predicted patient-reported outcomes measures, lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) while controlling for demographic and surgical characteristics. RESULTS: Preoperative type B spondylolisthesis predicted decreased improvement in "physical component and mental component score of the short form-12" compared with type A spondylolisthesis (ß-coefficient = -5.96, P = 0.031) at 1 year. Significant differences were found between CARDS groups with regards to ΔLL (A: -1.63 degrees vs B: -1.17 degrees vs C: 2.88 degrees vs D: 3.19 degrees, P = 0.010) and ΔPI-LL (A: 1.02 degrees vs B: 2.09 degrees vs C: -2.59 degrees vs D: -3.70 degrees, P = 0.012). Preoperative type C spondylolisthesis was found to predict increased LL (ß-coefficient = 4.46, P = 0.0054) and decreased PI-LL (ß-coefficient = -3.49, P = 0.025) at 1 year compared with type A spondylolisthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and radiographic outcomes differed significantly by preoperative CARDS classification type for patients undergoing posterior decompression and fusion for L4-L5 DS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Validation of the Hierarchical Nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification and the Development of the Sacral AO Spine Injury Score.

STUDY DESIGN: Global cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to validate the hierarchical nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System and develop an injury scoring system. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although substantial interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System has been established, the hierarchical nature of the classification has yet to be validated. METHODS: Respondents numerically graded each variable within the classification system for severity. Based on the results, a Sacral AO Spine Injury Score (AOSIS) was developed. RESULTS: A total of 142 responses were received. The classification exhibited a hierarchical Injury Severity Score (ISS) progression (A1: 8 to C3: 95) with few exceptions. Subtypes B1 and B2 fractures showed no significant difference in ISS (B1 43.9 vs. B2 43.4, P =0.362). In addition, the transitions A3→B1 and B3→C0 represent significant decreases in ISS (A3 66.3 vs. B1 43.9, P <0.001; B3 64.2 vs. C0 46.4, P <0.001). Accordingly, A1 injury was assigned a score of 0. A2 and A3 received scores of 1 and 3 points, respectively. Posterior pelvic injuries B1 and B2 both received a score of 2. B3 received a score of 3 points. C0, C1, C2, and C3 received scores of 2, 3, 5, and 6 points, respectively. The scores assigned to neurological modifiers N0, N1, N2, N3, and NX were 0, 1, 2, 4, and 3, respectively. Case-specific modifiers M1, M2, M3, and M4 received scores of 0, 0, 1, and 2 points, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study validate the hierarchical nature of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. The Sacral AOSIS sets the foundation for further studies to develop a universally accepted treatment algorithm for the treatment of complex sacral injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV-Diagnostic.

Spine Surgical Subspecialty and Its Effect on Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify if intraoperative or postoperative differences in outcomes exist between orthopedic and neurological spine surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine surgeons may become board certified through orthopedic surgery or neurosurgical residency training, and recent literature has compared surgical outcomes between surgeons based on residency training background with conflicting results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, a search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted and included articles comparing outcomes between orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to determine the quality of studies. Forest plots were generated using mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odds ratios (OR) for binomial variables, and 95% CI was reported. RESULTS: Of 615 search term results, 16 studies were identified for inclusion. Evaluation of the studies found no differences in readmission rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.901, 1.09); I2 = 80%], overall complication rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 1.03 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.10); I2 = 70%], reoperation rates [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.00); I2 = 86%], or overall length of hospital stay between orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons [MD: -0.19 days (95% CI: -0.38, 0.00); I2 = 98%]. However, neurosurgeons ordered a significantly lower rate of postoperative blood transfusions [OR, ref: orthopedics: 0.49 (95% CI: 0.41, 0.57); I2 = 75%] while orthopedic spine surgeons had shorter operative times [MD: 14.28 minutes, (95% CI: 8.07, 20.49), I2 = 97%]. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is significant data heterogeneity, our meta-analysis found that neurosurgeons and orthopedic spine surgeons have similar readmission, complication, and reoperation rates regardless of the type of spine surgery performed.