Spinopelvic fixation failure in the adult spinal deformity population: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite modern fixation techniques, spinopelvic fixation failure (SPFF) after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery ranges from 4.5 to 38.0%, with approximately 50% requiring reoperation. Compared to other well-studied complications after ASD surgery, less is known about the incidence and predictors of SPFF. AIMS/OBJECTIVES: Given the high rates of SPFF and reoperation needed to treat it, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to report the incidence and failure mechanisms of SPF after ASD surgery. MATERIALS/METHODS: The literature search was executed across four databases: Medline via PubMed and Ovid, SPORTDiscus via EBSCO, Cochrane Library via Wiley, and Scopus. Study inclusion criteria were patients undergoing ASD surgery with spinopelvic instrumentation, report rates of SPFF and type of failure mechanism, patients over 18 years of age, minimum 1-year follow-up, and cohort or case-control studies. From each study, we collected general demographic information (age, gender, and body mass index), primary/revision, type of ASD, and mode of failure (screw loosening, rod breakage, pseudarthrosis, screw failure, SI joint pain, screw protrusion, set plug dislodgment, and sacral fracture) and recorded the overall rate of SPF as well as failure rate for each type. For the assessment of failure rate, we required a minimum of 12 months follow-up with radiographic assessment. RESULTS: Of 206 studies queried, 14 met inclusion criteria comprising 3570 ASD patients who underwent ASD surgery with pelvic instrumentation (mean age 65.5 ± 3.6 years). The mean SPFF rate was 22.1% (range 3-41%). Stratification for type of failure resulted in a mean SPFF rate of 23.3% for the pseudarthrosis group; 16.5% for the rod fracture group; 13.5% for the iliac screw loosening group; 7.3% for the SIJ pain group; 6.1% for the iliac screw group; 3.6% for the set plug dislodgement group; 1.1% for the sacral fracture group; and 1% for the iliac screw prominence group. CONCLUSION: The aggregate rate of SPFF after ASD surgery is 22.1%. The most common mechanisms of failure were pseudarthrosis, rod fracture, and iliac screw loosening. Studies of SPFF remain heterogeneous, and a consistent definition of what constitutes SPFF is needed. This study may enable surgeons to provide patient specific constructs with pelvic fixation constructs to minimize this risk of failure.

Who Can Be Discharged Home after Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery?

Introduction: After adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, patients often require postoperative rehabilitation at an inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) center or a skilled nursing facility (SNF). However, home discharge is often preferred by patients and hsas been shown to decrease costs. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we sought to (1) report the incidence of discharge to home, (2) determine the factors significantly associated with discharge to home in the form of a simple scoring system, and (3) evaluate the impact of discharge disposition on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was undertaken for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and at least 2-year follow-up. Exposure variables included preoperative, perioperative, and radiographic data. The primary outcome was discharge status (dichotomized as home vs. IPR/SNF). Secondary outcomes included PROMs, such as the numeric rating scales (NRSs) for back and leg pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EQ-5D. A subanalysis comparing IPR to SNF discharge was conducted. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: Of 221 patients undergoing ASD surgery with a mean age of 63.6 ± 17.6, 112 (50.6%) were discharged home, 71 (32.2%) were discharged to an IPR center, and 38 (17.2%) were discharged to an SNF. Patients discharged home were significantly younger (55.7 ± 20.1 vs. 71.8 ± 9.1, p < 0.001), had lower rate of 2+ comorbidities (38.4% vs. 45.0%, p = 0.001), and had less hypertension (57.1% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, patients who were discharged home had significantly fewer levels instrumented (10.0 ± 3.0 vs. 11.0 ± 3.4 levels, p = 0.030), shorter operative times (381.4 ± 139.9 vs. 461.6 ± 149.8 mins, p < 0.001), less blood loss (1101.0 ± 977.8 vs. 1739.7 ± 1332.9 mL, p < 0.001), and shorter length of stay (5.4 ± 2.8 vs. 9.3 ± 13.9 days, p < 0.001). Radiographically, preoperative SVA (9.1 ± 6.5 vs. 5.2 ± 6.8 cm, p < 0.001), PT (27.5 ± 11.1° vs. 23.4 ± 10.8°, p = 0.031), and T1PA (28.9 ± 12.7° vs. 21.6 ± 13.6°, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients who were discharged to an IPR center/SNF. Additionally, the operating surgeon also significantly influenced the disposition status (p < 0.001). A scoring system of the listed factors was proposed and was validated using univariate logistic regression (OR = 1.55, 95%CI = 1.34-1.78, p < 0.001) and ROC analysis, which revealed a cutoff value of > 6 points as a predictor of non-home discharge (AUC = 0.75, 95%CI = 0.68-0.80, p < 0.001, sensitivity = 63.3%, specificity = 74.1%). The factors in the scoring system were age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, TIL ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15°. When comparing IPR (n = 71) vs. SNF (n = 38), patients discharged to an SNF were significantly older (74.4 ± 8.6 vs. 70.4 ± 9.1, p = 0.029) and were more likely to be female (89.5% vs. 70.4%, p = 0.024). Conclusions: Approximately 50% of patients were discharged home after ASD surgery. A simple scoring system based on age > 56, comorbidities ≥ 2, hypertension, total instrumented levels ≥ 10, operative time > 357 mins, EBL > 1200 mL, preop SVA > 6.6 cm, preop PT > 33.6°, and preop T1PA > 15° was proposed to predict non-home discharge. These findings may help guide postoperative expectations and resource allocation after ASD surgery.

Do Iliac Screws Placed Close to the Sciatic Notch Have Greater Pullout Strength?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Optimal iliac screw position in relation to the sciatic notch remains unknown. In 12 cadavers undergoing S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screw placement, we tested the pullout strength of screws placed in proximity to the sciatic notch (≤5 mm) vs farther away from the sciatic notch (>5 mm). METHODS: A biomechanical, cadaver-based study was performed on 12 cadavers undergoing bilateral S2AI screw insertion. The position of the S2AI screw regarding the sciatic notch was dichotomized as ≤5 mm from the sciatic notch on the right side and >5 mm on the left side, confirmed using c-arm fluoroscopy. The primary outcome was the pullout strength of the screw (N). Secondary outcomes were stiffness (N/mm), yield force (N), and work to failure (N mm). Ischial tuberosity was embedded into polymethyl methacrylate and secured to a custom 3-axis vise grip mounted to a 14.5-kN load cell. Pullout testing was performed at 5 mm/min. Force and displacement data were collected at 100 Hz and evaluated using MATLAB. The Mann-Whitney test was performed. RESULTS: Of 24 S2AI screws, 3 screws could not be tested because of cement-bone interface failure. A positive though nonsignificant trend of screw pullout strength was found for screws close to the notch compared with those farther from the notch (861.8 ± 340.7 vs 778.7 ± 350.8 N, P = .859). Similarly, screws close to the notch demonstrated a higher trend of stiffness (149.4 ± 145.4 vs 111.34 ± 128.2 N/mm, P = .320) and force to yield (806.9 ± 352.0 vs 618.6 ± 342.9 N, P = .455). Conversely, screws farther from the notch had a higher but similarly nonsignificant area under the force-displacement curve (10 867.0 ± 9565.0 vs 14 196.6 ± 9578.3 N mm, P = .455), which might be due to excess sheer/translation force that could not be reliably quantified. CONCLUSION: Although placing S2AI screws ≤5 mm of the sciatic notch provided stronger fixation in 3 of 4 biomechanical testing categories, these results were not statistically significant. Therefore, placing S2AI screws ≤5 mm of the sciatic notch did not provide stronger fixation.

Impact of occupational characteristics on return to work for employed patients after elective cervical spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In a cohort of employed patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery with an uncomplicated postoperative course, the authors sought to determine the demographic, functional, and occupational characteristics associated with return to work (RTW) following surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data was undertaken of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the Quality Outcomes Database. Study inclusion criteria were: 1) employed prior to surgery and planned to RTW, 2) no unplanned readmissions, 3) achieved 30% improvement on the Neck Disability Index (NDI), and 4) were satisfied with the surgical outcome at 3 or 12 months postoperatively. A multivariable Cox regression model was built using demographic, functional, operative, and occupational characteristic to predict time to RTW. RESULTS: Of 5110 included patients, 4788 (93.7%) returned to work within 12 months, with a median time of 35 (IQR 19-60) days. Patients who did RTW were significantly younger (51.3 ± 9.4 vs 55.8 ± 9.6 years, p < 0.001), more often underwent an anterior approach (85.8% vs 80.7%, p = 0.009), were significantly more privately insured (82.1% vs 64.0%, p < 0.001), and were less likely to have workers' disability insurance (6.7% vs 14.6%, p < 0.001) compared with patients who did not RTW. On multivariable Cox regression, demographic factors associated with a longer RTW were older age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p < 0.001) and Black race (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.81, p < 0.001). Male sex was associated with a shorter RTW time (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11-1.26, p < 0.001). Regarding baseline functional status, worse preoperative NDI (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, p < 0.001) was associated with a longer RTW, whereas the absence of myelopathy was associated with a shorter RTW (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.25, p < 0.001). Having a sedentary (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.65-1.99, p < 0.001), light-intensity (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.45-1.76, p < 0.001), and medium-intensity (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, p = 0.037) occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation at any time point. Heavy-intensity occupations were independently the strongest predictor of longer RTW. Similar predictors of shorter RTW were found in a subanalysis of occupation intensity and among operative approaches used. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective degenerative cervical spine surgery who had favorable surgical outcomes and planned to RTW before surgery, 94% had a successful RTW. Age was the strongest predictor of lower odds of RTW. Regarding time to RTW, having a sedentary, light-intensity, or medium-intensity occupation was associated with a shorter RTW time compared with a heavy-intensity occupation. These findings highlight the importance of considering the demographic and occupational characteristics when predicting postoperative RTW in patients with satisfactory surgical outcomes.

Benefits of stereotactic radiosurgical anterior capsulotomy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Anterior capsulotomy (AC) is a therapeutic option for patients with severe, treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The procedure can be performed via multiple techniques, with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) gaining popularity because of its minimally invasive nature. The risk-benefit profile of AC performed specifically with SRS has not been well characterized. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to characterize outcomes following stereotactic radiosurgical AC in OCD patients. METHODS: Studies assessing mean Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores before and after stereotactic radiosurgical AC for OCD were included in this analysis. Inverse-variance fixed-effect modeling was used for pooling, and random-effects estimate of the ratio of means and standard mean differences were calculated at 6 months, 12 months, and the last follow-up for Y-BOCS scores, as well as the last follow-up for the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)/BDI-II scores. A generalized linear mixed model was used to generate fixed- and random-effects models for categorical outcomes. Univariate random-effects meta-regression was used to evaluate associations between postoperative Y-BOCS scores and study covariates. Adverse events were summed across studies. Publication bias was assessed with Begg's test. RESULTS: Eleven studies with 180 patients were eligible for inclusion. The mean Y-BOCS score decreased from 33.28 to 17.45 at the last-follow up (p < 0.001). Sixty percent of patients were classified as responders and 10% as partial responders, 18% experienced remission, and 4% had worsened Y-BOCS scores. The degree of improvement in the Y-BOCS score correlated with time since surgery (p = 0.046). In the random-effects model, the mean BDI at the last follow-up was not significantly different from that preoperatively. However, in an analysis performed with available paired pre- and postoperative BDI/BDI-II scores, there was significant improvement in the BDI/BDI-II scores postoperatively. Adverse events numbered 235, with headaches, weight change, mood changes, worsened depression/anxiety, and apathy occurring most commonly. CONCLUSIONS: Stereotactic radiosurgical AC is an effective technique for treating OCD. Its efficacy is similar to that of AC performed via other lesioning techniques.

Adult versus adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: While the natural history of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and adult idiopathic scoliosis (AdIS) is well documented in the literature, the impact of age on postoperative outcomes remains an active area of research. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare patients undergoing surgery for AIS and AdIS with respect to: (1) postoperative Cobb correction, (2) perioperative variables, and (3) postoperative complications. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. INCLUSION CRITERIA: studies published between 2002 and 2022, retrospective, and comparing AIS vs. AdIS patients undergoing deformity surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative Cobb correction. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, total instrumented levels, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Random-effects models were performed according to the method of DerSimonian and Laird. RESULTS: Of 190 identified articles, 14 fit the inclusion criteria. A total of 1788 patients were included, 1275(71.3%) with AIS, and 513(28.7%) with AdIS. There was a significant age difference between AIS and AdIS (15.3 vs. 36.7 years, mean difference (MD) = 21.3 years, 95%CI = 14.3-28.4,p < 0.001). Mean postoperative Cobb percentage correction was reported in 5 articles and was significantly higher in AIS (68.4%) vs. AdIS (61.4%) (MD = -7.2, 95%CI = -11.6,-2.7,p = 0.001). EBL was not significantly different between AIS and AdIS (695.6 mL vs 817.7 mL,p = 0.204). Furthermore, no difference was found in operative time (MD = 37.9 min,95%CI = -10.7;86.6,p = 0.127), total instrumented level (MD = 0.88,95%CI = -0.7,2.4,p = 0.273), and LOS (MD = 0.5, 95%CI = -0.2;1.2, p = 0.188). Four articles reported postoperative complications in AIS vs AdIS, with no difference in neurological deficit, instrumentation-related complications, and medical complications. CONCLUSION: AIS patients had better radiographic correction compared to AdIS. Though no difference was found in perioperative outcomes and complications, these findings emphasize the importance of counseling patients regarding the optimal timing of surgical correction.

Combined Anterior-Posterior vs. Posterior-Only Approach in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Which Strategy Is Superior?

Introduction: Whether a combined anterior-posterior (AP) approach offers additional benefits over the posterior-only (P) approach in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery remains unknown. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we compared the combined AP vs. the P-only approach in: (1) preoperative/perioperative variables, (2) radiographic measurements, and (3) postoperative outcomes. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. The primary exposure was the operative approach: a combined AP approach or P alone. Postoperative outcomes included mechanical complications, reoperation, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), defined as 30% of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Multivariable linear regression was controlled for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Results: Among 238 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 34 (14.3%) patients underwent the AP approach and 204 (85.7%) underwent the P-only approach. The AP group consisted mostly of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1 (73.5%) and/or L4/L5 (38.0%). Preoperatively, the AP group had more previous fusions (64.7% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001), higher pelvic tilt (PT) (29.6 ± 11.6° vs. 24.6 ± 11.4°, p = 0.037), higher T1 pelvic angle (T1PA) (31.8 ± 12.7° vs. 24.0 ± 13.9°, p = 0.003), less L1-S1 lordosis (-14.7 ± 28.4° vs. -24.3 ± 33.4°, p < 0.039), less L4-S1 lordosis (-25.4 ± 14.7° vs. 31.6 ± 15.5°, p = 0.042), and higher sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (102.6 ± 51.9 vs. 66.4 ± 71.2 mm, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, the AP approach had longer operative time (553.9 ± 177.4 vs. 397.4 ± 129.0 min, p < 0.001), more interbodies placed (100% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001), and longer length of stay (8.4 ± 10.7 vs. 7.0 ± 9.6 days, p = 0.026). Radiographically, the AP group had more improvement in T1PA (13.4 ± 8.7° vs. 9.5 ± 8.6°, p = 0.005), L1-S1 lordosis (-14.3 ± 25.6° vs. -3.2 ± 20.2°, p < 0.001), L4-S1 lordosis (-4.7 ± 16.4° vs. 3.2 ± 13.7°, p = 0.008), and SVA (65.3 ± 44.8 vs. 44.8 ± 47.7 mm, p = 0.007). These outcomes remained statistically significant in the multivariable analysis controlling for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found in mechanical complications, reoperations, or MCID of PROMs. Conclusions: Preoperatively, patients undergoing the combined anterior-posterior approach had higher PT, T1PA, and SVA and lower L1-S1 and L4-S1 lordosis than the posterior-only approach. Despite increased operative time and length of stay, the anterior-posterior approach provided greater sagittal correction without any difference in mechanical complications or PROMs.

Impact of Unplanned Readmission on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Cervical Spine Surgery: A National Study of 13 355 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although risk factors for unplanned readmission after cervical spine surgery have been widely reported, less is known about how readmission itself affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Using the Quality Outcomes Database registry of patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the impact of unplanned readmission on PROMs and (2) compare the effect of specific readmission reasons on PROMs. METHODS: An observational study was performed using a multi-institution, retrospective registry for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. The occurrence of 90-day unplanned readmission classified into medical, surgical, pain only, and no readmissions was the exposure variable. Outcome variables included 12-month PROMs of Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-neck/arm pain, EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), and patient dissatisfaction. Multivariable models predicting each PROM were built using readmission reasons controlling for demographics, clinical characteristics, and preoperative PROMs. RESULTS: Data from 13 355 patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery (82% anterior approach and 18% posterior approach) were analyzed. Unplanned readmission within 90 days of surgery occurred in 3.8% patients, including medical (1.6%), surgical (1.8%), and pain (0.3%). Besides medical reasons, wound infection/dehiscence was the most common reason for unplanned readmission for the total cohort (0.5%), dysphagia in the anterior approach (0.6%), and wound infection/dehiscence in the posterior approach (1.5%). Based on multivariable regression, surgical readmission was significantly associated with worse 12-month NDI, NRS-neck pain, NRS-arm pain, EQ-5D, and higher odds of dissatisfaction. Pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month NDI and NRS-neck pain scores, and worse dissatisfaction. For specific readmission reasons, pain, surgical site infection/wound dehiscence, hematoma/seroma, revision surgery, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism were significantly associated with worsened 12-month PROMs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery, 90-day unplanned surgical and pain readmissions were associated with worse 12-month PROMs compared with patients with medical readmissions and no readmissions.

Does Preoperative Bilsky Score Predict Outcome Following Surgical Resection of Primary Tumors of the Spine?

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing surgery for primary bone tumors of the spine, we sought to compare Bilsky score 0-1 versus 2-3 in: 1) preoperative presentation, 2) perioperative variables, and 3) long-term outcomes. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study was undertaken of patients undergoing surgery for extradural, primary bone tumors of the spine between January 2010 and January 2021. The primary exposure variable was Bilsky score, dichotomized as 0-1 versus 2-3. Survival analysis was performed to assess local recurrence (LR) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 38 patients undergoing resection of primary spinal tumors, 19 (50.0%) patients presented with Bilsky 0-1 and 19 (50.0%) Bilsky 2-3 grades. The most common diagnosis was chondrosarcoma (33.3%), followed by chordoma (16.7%). There were 15 (62.5%) malignant tumors. Preoperatively, there was no significant difference in demographics, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) (P > 0.999), or motor deficit (P > 0.999). Perioperatively, no difference was found in operative time (P = 0.954), blood loss (P = 0.416), length of stay (P = 0.641), neurologic deficit (P > 0.999), or discharge disposition (P = 0.256). No difference was found in Enneking resection status (69.2% vs. 54.5%, P = 0.675). Long-term, no differences were found regarding reoperation (P = 0.327), neurologic deficit (P > 0.999), postoperative KPS (P = 0.605) and modified McCormick Scale (MMS) (P = 0.870). No difference was observed in KPS (P = 0.418) and MMS (P = 0.870) at last follow-up. However, patients with Bilsky 2-3 had shorter time to LR (1715.0 vs. 513.0 ± 633.4 days, log-rank; P = 0.002) and shorter OS (2025.0 ± 1165.3 vs. 794.0 ± 952.6 days, log-rank; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Bilsky 2-3 lesions were associated with shorter time to LR and shorter OS. Patients harboring primary spinal tumors with higher grade Bilsky score appear to be at a higher risk for worse outcomes.

Comparison of Outcomes in Patients with Cervical Spine Metastasis After Different Surgical Approaches: A Single-Center Experience.

OBJECTIVE: In patients undergoing cervical spine surgery for metastatic spine disease, we sought to 1) compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes among 3 different operative approaches, 2) report fusion rates, and 3) compare different types of anterior vertebral body replacement. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing extradural cervical/cervicothoracic spine metastasis surgery between February 2010 and January 2021 was conducted. Operative approaches were anterior-alone, posterior-alone, or combined anterior-posterior, and the grafts/cages used in the anterior fusions were cortical allografts, static cages, or expandable cages. All cages were filled with autograft/allograft. Outcomes included perioperative/postoperative variables, along with fusion rates, functional status, local recurrence (LR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Sixty-one patients underwent cervical spine surgery for metastatic disease, including 11 anterior (18.0%), 28 posterior (45.9%), and 22 combined (36.1%). New postoperative neurologic deficit was the highest in the anterior approach group (P = 0.038), and dysphagia was significantly higher in the combined approach group (P = 0.001). LR (P > 0.999), OS (P = 0.655), and time to both outcomes (log-rank test, OS, P = 0.051, LR, P = 0.187) were not significantly different. Of the 51 patients alive at 3 months, only 19 (37.2%) obtained imaging ≥3 months. Fusion was seen in 11/19 (57.8%) at a median of 8.3 months (interquartile range, 4.6-13.7). Among the anterior corpectomies, the following graft/cage was used: 6 allografts (54.5%), 4 static cages (36.3%), and 1 expandable cage (9.0%), with no difference found in outcomes among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The only discernible differences between operative approaches were that patients undergoing an anterior approach had higher rates of new postoperative neurologic deficit, and the combined approach group had higher rates of postoperative dysphagia.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes, Complications, Readmissions, and Revisions in Posterior Lumbar Fusion With, Versus Without, an Interbody Device.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES: To compare posterior lumbar fusions with versus without an interbody in: (1) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 1 year and (2) postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Elective lumbar fusion is commonly used to treat various lumbar pathologies. Two common approaches for open posterior lumbar fusion include posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone without an interbody and with an interbody through techniques, like transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Whether fusion with or without an interbody leads to better outcomes remains an area of active research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Lumbar Module of the Quality Outcomes Database was queried for adults undergoing elective primary posterior lumbar fusion with or without an interbody. Covariates included demographic variables, comorbidities, primary spine diagnosis, operative variables, and baseline PROs, including Oswestry Disability Index, North American Spine Society satisfaction index, numeric rating scale-back/leg pain, and Euroqol 5-dimension. Outcomes included complications, reoperations, readmissions, return to work/activities, and PROs. Propensity score matching and linear regression modeling were used to estimate the average treatment effect on the treated to assess the impact of interbody use on patient outcomes. RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1044 patients with interbody and 215 patients undergoing PLF. The average treatment effect on the treated analysis showed that having an interbody or not had no significant impact on any outcome of interest, including 30-day complications and reoperations, 3-month readmissions, 12-month return to work, and 12-month PROs. CONCLUSION: There were no discernible differences in outcomes between patients undergoing PLF alone versus with an interbody in elective posterior lumbar fusion. These results add to the growing body of evidence that posterior lumbar fusions with and without an interbody seem to have similar outcomes up to 1 year postoperatively when treating degenerative lumbar spine conditions.