Decreased Prevalence of New-Onset Adhesive Capsulitis in Patients Prescribed Angiotensin Receptor Blockers.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly prescribed antihypertensive agents that have well-known antifibrotic properties. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between ARB use and the rates of new-onset adhesive capsulitis as well as adhesive capsulitis requiring operative treatment. METHODS: Using a large national insurance database, a randomly generated cohort of patients with at least 3 continuous months of ARB use between January 2010 and December of 2019 (n=1,000,000) was compared to a separate randomly generated cohort without ARB use (n=3,000,000) . Rates of newly diagnosed adhesive capsulitis and associated manipulation under anesthesia and/or arthroscopic capsulotomy were calculated over a one- and two-year period following the completion of at least 3 continuous months of ARB therapy. Rates were compared using multivariable logistic regression to control for demographics and comorbidities. Both unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and reported for each comparison. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. RESULTS: The mean age in the ARBs cohort was 61.8 years (SD = 10.0), while in the control cohort, it was 54.8 years (SD = 12.3) (p < 0.001). The ARBs cohort had significantly lower rates of newly diagnosed adhesive capsulitis compared to the control cohort at both one year (0.15% vs. 0.55%, p < 0.001) and two years (0.3% vs. 0.78%, p < 0.001). Similar findings were observed for the arthroscopic capsular release/MUA cohort associated with adhesive capsulitis. After adjusting for confounding factors, the lower rates of adhesive capsulitis and arthroscopic capsular release/MUA associated with adhesive capsulitis in the ARBs cohort remained statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients prescribed ARBs experienced a decrease rate of newly diagnosed adhesive capsulitis, as well as adhesive capsulitis requiring surgical intervention when compared to a control cohort. These findings suggest a potential protective effect of ARBs against the development of adhesive capsulitis. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and establish a causal relationship.

Same-Day Versus Staged Spinal Fusion: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Meta-Analysis. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to compare same-day versus staged spine surgery, assessing their effects on patient care and healthcare system efficiency. BACKGROUND: In spinal surgery, the debate between whether same-day and staged surgeries are better for patients continues, as the decision may impact patient related outcomes, healthcare resources and overall costs. While some surgeons advocate for staged surgeries citing reduced risks of complications, others proclaim same-day surgeries may minimize costs and length of hospital stays. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar (Pages 1-20) were searched up until February 2024. The studied outcomes were operative room (OR) time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, venous thromboembolism (VTE), death, reoperations and non-home discharge. RESULTS: Sixteen retrospective studies were included in this meta-analysis, representing a total of 2346 patients of which 644 underwent staged spinal fusion surgeries and 1702 same-day surgeries. No statistically significant difference was observed in EBL between staged and same-day surgery groups. However, the staged group exhibited a statistically significant longer OR time (P= 0.05) and LOS (P=0.004). A higher rate of overall complications (P=0.002) and VTE (P=0.0008) was significantly associated with the staged group. No significant differences were found in the rates of death, reoperations, and non-home discharge between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Both staged and same-day spinal fusion surgeries showed comparable rates of death, reoperations and non-home discharges for patients undergoing spinal surgeries. However, given the increased OR time, LOS and complications associated with staged spinal surgeries, this study supports same-day surgeries when possible to minimize the burden on healthcare resources and enhance efficiency.

Preoperative Resilience and Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Currently, it is incompletely understood how pre-operative resilience affects 1-year post-operative outcomes following lumbar spinal fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing open lumbar spinal fusion at a single-center institution were identified between November 2019 to September 2022. Pre-operative resilience was assessed using the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). Demographic data at baseline including age, gender, comorbidities, and BMI was extracted. Patient reported outcome measures including ODI, PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH), PROMIS Global Mental Health (GMH), and EuroQol5 scores were collected before the surgery and at 3-months and 1-year post-operatively. Bivariate correlation was conducted between BRS scores and outcome measures at 3-months and 1-year post-operatively. RESULTS: 93 patients had baseline and 1-year outcome data. Compared to patients with high resilience, patients in the low resilience group had a higher percentage of females (69.4% vs 43.9%, p=0.02), a higher BMI (32.7 vs 30.1, p=0.03), and lower preoperative GPH (35.8 vs 38.9, p=0.045), GMH (42.2 vs 49.2, p<0.001), and EuroQol scores (0.56 vs 0.61, p=0.01). At 3-months post-operatively, resilience was moderately correlated with GMH (r=0.39) and EuroQol (r=0.32). Similarly, at 1 year post-operatively, resilience was moderately correlated with GMH (r=0.33), and EuroQol (r=0.34). Comparable results were seen in multivariable regression analysis controlling for age, gender, number of levels fused, BMI, CCI, procedure, anxiety/depression, and complications. CONCLUSION: Low pre-operative resilience can negatively affect patient reported outcomes 1-year after lumbar spinal fusion. Resiliency is a potentially modifiable risk factor, and surgeons should consider targeted interventions for at-risk patient groups.

Comparison of multilevel low-grade techniques versus three-column osteotomies in adult spinal deformity surgery: does harmonious correction matter?

OBJECTIVE: Recent debate has arisen between whether to use a three-column osteotomy (3CO) or multilevel low-grade (MLG) techniques to treat severe sagittal malalignment in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The goal of this study was to compare the outcomes of 3CO and MLG techniques performed in corrective surgeries for ASD. METHODS: ASD patients who had a baseline PI-LL > 30° and 2-year follow-up data were included. Patients underwent either 3CO or MLG (thoracolumbar posterior column osteotomies at ≥ 3 levels or anterior lumbar interbody fusion at ≥ 3 levels with no 3CO). The segmental utility ratio was used to assess relative segmental correction (segmental correction divided by overall correction in lordosis divided by the number of thoracolumbar interventions [interbody fusion, thoracolumbar posterior column osteotomies, and 3CO]). The paired t-test was used to assess lordotic distribution by differences in lordosis between adjacent lumbar disc spaces (e.g., L1-2 to L2-3). Multivariate analysis, controlling for age, sex, BMI, osteoporosis, baseline pelvic incidence, and T1 pelvic angle, was used to evaluate the complication rates and radiographic and patient-reported outcomes between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were included, 53% of whom underwent MLG and 47% of whom underwent 3CO. The MLG group had a lower BMI (p < 0.05). MLG patients received fewer previous fusions than 3CO patients (31% vs 80%, p < 0.001). MLG patients had 24% less blood loss but a 22% longer operative time (565 vs 419 minutes, p = 0.008). Using adjusted analysis, the 3CO group had greater segmental and relative correction at each level (segmental utility ratio mean 69% for 3CO vs 23% for MLG, p < 0.001). However, the 3CO group had lordotic differences between two adjacent lumbar disc pairs (range -0.5° to 9.0°, p = 0.009), while MLG was more harmonious (range 2.2°-6.5°, p > 0.4). MLG patients were more likely to undergo realignment to age-adjusted standards (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.2-46.4; p = 0.033). MLG patients were less likely to develop neurological complications or undergo reoperation (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-0.9; p = 0.041). Adjusted analysis revealed that MLG patients more often met a substantial clinical benefit in the Oswestry Disability Index score (OR 5.3, 95% CI 1.1-26.8; p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: MLG techniques showed better utility in lumbar distribution and age-adjusted global correction while minimizing neurological complications and reoperation rates by 2 years postoperatively. In selected instances, these techniques may offer the spine deformity surgeon a safer alternative when correcting severe adult spinal deformity.

Analysis of tranexamic acid usage in adult spinal deformity patients with relative contraindications: does it increase the risk of complications?

OBJECTIVE: Complex spinal deformity surgeries may involve significant blood loss. The use of antifibrinolytic agents such as tranexamic acid (TXA) has been proven to reduce perioperative blood loss. However, for patients with a history of thromboembolic events, there is concern of increased risk when TXA is used during these surgeries. This study aimed to assess whether TXA use in patients undergoing complex spinal deformity correction surgeries increases the risk of thromboembolic complications based on preexisting thromboembolic risk factors. METHODS: Data were analyzed for adult patients who received TXA during surgical correction for spinal deformity at 21 North American centers between August 2018 and October 2022. Patients with preexisting thromboembolic events and other risk factors (history of deep venous thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE], myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, peripheral vascular disease, or cancer) were identified. Thromboembolic complication rates were assessed during the postoperative 90 days. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess thromboembolic outcomes in high-risk and low-risk patients who received intravenous TXA. RESULTS: Among 411 consecutive patients who underwent complex spinal deformity surgery and received TXA intraoperatively, 130 (31.6%) were considered high-risk patients. There was no significant difference in thromboembolic complications between patients with and those without preexisting thromboembolic risk factors in univariate analysis (high-risk group vs low-risk group: 8.5% vs 2.8%, p = 0.45). Specifically, there were no significant differences between groups regarding the 90-day postoperative rates of DVT (high-risk group vs low-risk group: 1.5% vs 1.4%, p = 0.98), PE (2.3% vs 1.8%, p = 0.71), acute MI (1.5% vs 0%, p = 0.19), or stroke (0.8% vs 1.1%, p > 0.99). On multivariate analysis, high-risk status was not a significant independent predictor for any of the thromboembolic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of intravenous TXA during the correction procedure did not change rates of thromboembolic events, acute MI, or stroke in this cohort of adult spinal deformity surgery patients.

Stronger association of objective physical metrics with baseline patient-reported outcome measures than preoperative standing sagittal parameters for adult spinal deformity patients.

OBJECTIVE: Sagittal alignment measured on standing radiography remains a fundamental component of surgical planning for adult spinal deformity (ASD). However, the relationship between classic sagittal alignment parameters and objective metrics, such as walking time (WT) and grip strength (GS), remains unknown. The objective of this work was to determine if ASD patients with worse baseline sagittal malalignment have worse objective physical metrics and if those metrics have a stronger relationship to patient-reported outcome metrics (PROMs) than standing alignment. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of a multicenter ASD cohort. ASD patients underwent baseline testing with the timed up-and-go 6-m walk test (seconds) and for GS (pounds). Baseline PROMs were surveyed, including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22r, and Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) scores. Standard spinopelvic measurements were obtained (sagittal vertical axis [SVA], pelvic tilt [PT], and mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis [PI-LL], and SRS-Schwab ASD classification). Univariate and multivariable linear regression modeling was performed to interrogate associations between objective physical metrics, sagittal parameters, and PROMs. RESULTS: In total, 494 patients were included, with mean ± SD age 61 ± 14 years, and 68% were female. Average WT was 11.2 ± 6.1 seconds and average GS was 56.6 ± 24.9 lbs. With increasing PT, PI-LL, and SVA quartiles, WT significantly increased (p < 0.05). SRS-Schwab type N patients demonstrated a significantly longer average WT (12.5 ± 6.2 seconds), and type T patients had a significantly shorter WT time (7.9 ± 2.7 seconds, p = 0.03). With increasing PT quartiles, GS significantly decreased (p < 0.05). SRS-Schwab type T patients had a significantly higher average GS (68.8 ± 27.8 lbs), and type L patients had a significantly lower average GS (51.6 ± 20.4 lbs, p = 0.03). In the frailty-adjusted multivariable linear regression analyses, WT was more strongly associated with PROMs than sagittal parameters. GS was more strongly associated with ODI and PROMIS Physical Function scores. CONCLUSIONS: The authors observed that increasing baseline sagittal malalignment is associated with slower WT, and possibly weaker GS, in ASD patients. WT has a stronger relationship to PROMs than standing alignment parameters. Objective physical metrics likely offer added value to standard spinopelvic measurements in ASD evaluation and surgical planning.

Management of traumatic spinal cord injury: A current concepts review of contemporary and future treatment.

Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) is a condition leading to inflammation, edema, and dysfunction of the spinal cord, most commonly due to trauma, tumor, infection, or vascular disturbance. Symptoms include sensory and motor loss starting at the level of injury; the extent of damage depends on injury severity as detailed in the ASIA score. In the acute setting, maintaining mean arterial pressure (MAP) higher than 85 mmHg for up to 7 days following injury is preferred; although caution must be exercised when using vasopressors such as phenylephrine due to serious side effects such as pulmonary edema and death. Decompression surgery (DS) may theoretically relieve edema and reduce intraspinal pressure, although timing of surgery remains a matter of debate. Methylprednisolone (MP) is currently used due to its ability to reduce inflammation but more recent studies question its clinical benefits, especially with inconsistency in recommending it nationally and internationally. The choice of MP is further complicated by conflicting evidence for optimal timing to initiate treatment, and by the reported observation that higher doses are correlated with increased risk of complications. Thyrotropin-releasing hormone may be beneficial in less severe injuries. Finally, this review discusses many options currently being researched and have shown promising pre-clinical results.

A guide to selecting upper thoracic versus lower thoracic uppermost instrumented vertebra in adult spinal deformity correction.

PURPOSE: Operative treatment of adult spinal deformity (ASD) has been shown to improve patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Selection of the uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) in either the upper thoracic (UT) or lower thoracic (LT) spine is a pivotal decision with effects on operative and postoperative outcomes. This review overviews the multifaceted decision-making process for UIV selection in ASD correction. METHODS: PubMed was queried for articles using the keywords "uppermost instrumented vertebra", "upper thoracic", "lower thoracic", and "adult spinal deformity". RESULTS: Optimization of UIV selection may lead to superior deformity correction, better patient-reported outcomes, and lower risk of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and failure (PJF). Patient alignment characteristics, including preoperative thoracic kyphosis, coronal deformity, and the magnitude of sagittal correction influence surgical decision-making when selecting a UIV, while comorbidities such as poor body mass index, osteoporosis, and neuromuscular pathology should also be taken in to account. Additionally, surgeon experience and resources available to the hospital may also play a role in this decision. Currently, it is incompletely understood whether postoperative HRQOLs, functional and radiographic outcomes, and complications after surgery differ between selection of the UIV in either the UT or LT spine. CONCLUSION: The correct selection of the UIV in surgical planning is a challenging task, which requires attention to preoperative alignment, patient comorbidities, clinical characteristics, available resources, and surgeon-specific factors such as experience.

Management of Thoracolumbar Vertebral Fractures and Dislocations in Patients with Ankylosing Conditions of the Spine.

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) are bone-forming spinal conditions which inherently increase spine rigidity and place patients at a higher risk for thoracolumbar fractures. Due to the long lever-arm associated with their pathology, these fractures are frequently unstable and may significantly displace leading to catastrophic neurologic consequences. Operative and non-operative management are considerations in these fractures. However conservative measures including immobilization and bracing are typically reserved for non-displaced or incomplete fractures, or in patients for whom surgery poses a high risk. Thus, first line treatment is often surgery which has historically been an open posterior spinal fusion. Recent techniques such as minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and robotic surgery have shown promising lower complication rates as compared to open techniques, however these methods need to be further validated.

Variability in expenses related to spine oncology care: comparison of payer-negotiated rates at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: As of 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires all hospitals to publish their commercially negotiated prices. To our knowledge, price variation of spine oncology diagnosis and treatments has not been previously investigated. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to characterize the availability and variation of prices for spinal oncology services among National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers (NCI-DCC). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: Cancer centers were identified; those that did not provide patient care or participate in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective System were excluded. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted to gather commercially negotiated prices by searching online for "[center name] price transparency OR machine-readable file OR chargemaster." Data obtained was queried using 44 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for imaging, procedures, and surgeries relevant to spine oncology. Comparison of prices was achieved by normalizing the median price for each service at each center to the estimated 2022 Medicare reimbursement for the center's Medicare Administrator Contractor. The ratios between the lowest and highest median commercial negotiated price within a center and across all centers were defined as "within-center ratio" and "across-center ratio" respectively. RESULTS: In total, 49 centers disclosed commercial payer-negotiated rates. Mean rate (±SD) for cervical corpectomy was $9,134 (±$10,034), thoracic laminectomy for neoplasm excision was $5,382 (±$5502), superficial bone biopsy was $1,853 (±$1,717), and single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) was $813 (±$232). Within-center ratios ranged from 5.0 (SPECT scan) to 17.8 (radiofrequency bone ablation). Across-center ratios (for codes with > 10 centers reporting) ranged from 9.0 (corpectomy, thoracic, lateral extra-cavitary) to 418.7 (anterior approach cervical corpectomy). CONCLUSIONS: Price transparency for spinal oncology remains elusive despite recent CMS regulatory oversight, with marked heterogeneity in the quality of published rates complicating patients' ability to "shop" for care. Additionally, there continues to be significant variation in commercial rates for spine oncology diagnosis and treatment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Despite regulation by CMS, prices for spinal oncology services are not uniformly available to patients and vary between NCI-DCC. The findings of this manuscript present potential barriers for patients to compare and obtain affordable care.

Factors Associated with the Maintenance of Cost-Effectiveness at 5 Years in Adult Spinal Deformity Corrective Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors associated with the long-term durability of cost-effectiveness (CE) in ASD patients. BACKGROUND: A substantial increase in costs associated with the surgical treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) has given precedence to scrutinize the value and utility it provides. METHODS: We included 327 operative ASD patients with 5-year (5 Y) follow-up. Published methods were used to determine costs based on CMS.gov definitions and were based on the average DRG reimbursement rates. Utility was calculated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) utilizing the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) converted to Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D), with a 3% discount applied for its decline with life expectancy. The CE threshold of $150,000 was used for primary analysis. RESULTS: Major and minor complication rates were 11% and 47% respectively, with 26% undergoing reoperation by 5 Y. The mean cost associated with surgery was $91,095±$47,003, with a utility gain of 0.091±0.086 at 1Y, QALY gained at 2 Y of 0.171±0.183, and at 5 Y of 0.42±0.43. The cost per QALY at 2 Y was $414,885, which decreased to $142,058 at 5 Y.With the threshold of $150,000 for CE, 19% met CE at 2 Y and 56% at 5 Y. In those in which revision was avoided, 87% met cumulative CE till life expectancy. Controlling analysis depicted higher baseline CCI and pelvic tilt (PT) to be the strongest predictors for not maintaining durable CE to 5 Y (CCI OR: 1.821 [1.159-2.862], P=0.009) (PT OR: 1.079 [1.007-1.155], P=0.030). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients achieved cost-effectiveness after four years postoperatively, with 56% meeting at five years postoperatively. When revision was avoided, 87% of patients met cumulative cost-effectiveness till life expectancy. Mechanical complications were predictive of failure to achieve cost-effectiveness at 2 Y, while comorbidity burden and medical complications were at 5 Y.

Sacroplasty for Sacral Insufficiency Fractures: Narrative Literature Review on Patient Selection, Technical Approaches, and Outcomes.

Sacral insufficiency fractures commonly affect elderly women with osteoporosis and can cause debilitating lower back pain. First line management is often with conservative measures such as early mobilization, multimodal pain management, and osteoporosis management. If non-operative management fails, sacroplasty is a minimally invasive intervention that may be pursued. Candidates for sacroplasty are patients with persistent pain, inability to tolerate immobilization, or patients with low bone mineral density. Before undergoing sacroplasty, patients' bone health should be optimized with pharmacotherapy. Anabolic agents prior to or in conjunction with sacroplasty have been shown to improve patient outcomes. Sacroplasty can be safely performed through a number of techniques: short-axis, long-axis, coaxial, transiliac, interpedicular, and balloon-assisted. The procedure has been demonstrated to rapidly and durably reduce pain and improve mobility, with little risk of complications. This article aims to provide a narrative literature review of sacroplasty including, patient selection and optimization, the various technical approaches, and short and long-term outcomes.

Are insufficient corrections a major factor in distal junctional kyphosis? A simulated analysis of cervical deformity correction using in-construct measurements.

OBJECTIVE: The present study utilized recently developed in-construct measurements in simulations of cervical deformity surgery in order to assess undercorrection and predict distal junctional kyphosis (DJK). METHODS: A retrospective review of a database of operative cervical deformity patients was analyzed for severe DJK and mild DJK. C2-lower instrumented vertebra (LIV) sagittal angle (SA) was measured postoperatively, and the correction was simulated in the preoperative radiograph in order to match the C2-LIV by using the planning software. Linear regression analysis that used C2 pelvic angle (CPA) and pelvic tilt (PT) determined the simulated PT that matched the virtual CPA. Linear regression analysis was used to determine the C2-T1 SA, C2-T4 SA, and C2-T10 SA that corresponded to DJK of 20° and cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA) of 40 mm. RESULTS: Sixty-nine cervical deformity patients were included. Severe and mild DJK occurred in 11 (16%) and 22 (32%) patients, respectively; 3 (4%) required DJK revision. Simulated corrections demonstrated that severe and mild DJK patients had worse alignment compared to non-DJK patients in terms of cSVA (42.5 mm vs 33.0 mm vs 23.4 mm, p < 0.001) and C2-LIV SVA (68.9 mm vs 57.3 mm vs 36.8 mm, p < 0.001). Linear regression revealed the relationships between in-construct measures (C2-T1 SA, C2-T4 SA, and C2-T10 SA), cSVA, and change in DJK (all R > 0.57, p < 0.001). A cSVA of 40 mm corresponded to C2-T4 SA of 10.4° and C2-T10 SA of 28.0°. A DJK angle change of 10° corresponded to C2-T4 SA of 5.8° and C2-T10 SA of 20.1°. CONCLUSIONS: Simulated cervical deformity corrections demonstrated that severe DJK patients have insufficient corrections compared to patients without DJK. In-construct measures assess sagittal alignment within the fusion separate from DJK and subjacent compensation. They can be useful as intraoperative tools to gauge the adequacy of cervical deformity correction.

Machine learning clustering of adult spinal deformity patients identifies four prognostic phenotypes: a multicenter prospective cohort analysis with single surgeon external validation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Among adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients, heterogeneity in patient pathology, surgical expectations, baseline impairments, and frailty complicates comparisons in clinical outcomes and research. This study aims to qualitatively segment ASD patients using machine learning-based clustering on a large, multicenter, prospectively gathered ASD cohort. PURPOSE: To qualitatively segment adult spinal deformity patients using machine learning-based clustering on a large, multicenter, prospectively gathered cohort. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Machine learning algorithm using patients from a prospective multicenter study and a validation cohort from a retrospective single center, single surgeon cohort with complete 2-year follow up. PATIENT SAMPLE: About 805 ASD patients; 563 patients from a prospective multicenter study and 242 from a single center to be used as a validation cohort. OUTCOME MEASURES: To validate and extend the Ames-ISSG/ESSG classification using machine learning-based clustering analysis on a large, complex, multicenter, prospectively gathered ASD cohort. METHODS: We analyzed a training cohort of 563 ASD patients from a prospective multicenter study and a validation cohort of 242 ASD patients from a retrospective single center/surgeon cohort with complete two-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinical/radiographic follow-up. Using k-means clustering, a machine learning algorithm, we clustered patients based on baseline PROs, Edmonton frailty, age, surgical history, and overall health. Baseline differences in clusters identified using the training cohort were assessed using Chi-Squared and ANOVA with pairwise comparisons. To evaluate the classification system's ability to discern postoperative trajectories, a second machine learning algorithm assigned the single-center/surgeon patients to the same 4 clusters, and we compared the clusters' two-year PROs and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: K-means clustering revealed four distinct phenotypes from the multicenter training cohort based on age, frailty, and mental health: Old/Frail/Content (OFC, 27.7%), Old/Frail/Distressed (OFD, 33.2%), Old/Resilient/Content (ORC, 27.2%), and Young/Resilient/Content (YRC, 11.9%). OFC and OFD clusters had the highest frailty scores (OFC: 3.76, OFD: 4.72) and a higher proportion of patients with prior thoracolumbar fusion (OFC: 47.4%, OFD: 49.2%). ORC and YRC clusters exhibited lower frailty scores and fewest patients with prior thoracolumbar procedures (ORC: 2.10, 36.6%; YRC: 0.84, 19.4%). OFC had 69.9% of patients with global sagittal deformity and the highest T1PA (29.0), while YRC had 70.2% exhibiting coronal deformity, the highest mean coronal Cobb Angle (54.0), and the lowest T1PA (11.9). OFD and ORC had similar alignment phenotypes with intermediate values for Coronal Cobb Angle (OFD: 33.7; ORC: 40.0) and T1PA (OFD: 24.9; ORC: 24.6) between OFC (worst sagittal alignment) and YRC (worst coronal alignment). In the single surgeon validation cohort, the OFC cluster experienced the greatest increase in SRS Function scores (1.34 points, 95%CI 1.01-1.67) compared to OFD (0.5 points, 95%CI 0.245-0.755), ORC (0.7 points, 95%CI 0.415-0.985), and YRC (0.24 points, 95%CI -0.024-0.504) clusters. OFD cluster patients improved the least over 2 years. Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the OFD cohort had significantly worse reoperation outcomes compared to other clusters (HR: 3.303, 95%CI: 1.085-8.390). CONCLUSION: Machine-learning clustering found four different ASD patient qualitative phenotypes, defined by their age, frailty, physical functioning, and mental health upon presentation, which primarily determines their ability to improve their PROs following surgery. This reaffirms that these qualitative measures must be assessed in addition to the radiographic variables when counseling ASD patients regarding their expected surgical outcomes.

Assessing the Accuracy and Reliability of AI-Generated Responses to Patient Questions Regarding Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In today's digital age, patients increasingly rely on online search engines for medical information. The integration of large language models such as GPT-4 into search engines such as Bing raises concerns over the potential transmission of misinformation when patients search for information online regarding spine surgery. METHODS: SearchResponse.io, a database that archives People Also Ask (PAA) data from Google, was utilized to determine the most popular patient questions regarding 4 specific spine surgery topics: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, lumbar fusion, laminectomy, and spinal deformity. Bing's responses to these questions, along with the cited sources, were recorded for analysis. Two fellowship-trained spine surgeons assessed the accuracy of the answers on a 6-point scale and the completeness of the answers on a 3-point scale. Inaccurate answers were re-queried 2 weeks later. Cited sources were categorized and evaluated against Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Interrater reliability was measured with use of the kappa statistic. A linear regression analysis was utilized to explore the relationship between answer accuracy and the type of source, number of sources, and mean JAMA benchmark score. RESULTS: Bing's responses to 71 PAA questions were analyzed. The average completeness score was 2.03 (standard deviation [SD], 0.36), and the average accuracy score was 4.49 (SD, 1.10). Among the question topics, spinal deformity had the lowest mean completeness score. Re-querying the questions that initially had answers with low accuracy scores resulted in responses with improved accuracy. Among the cited sources, commercial sources were the most prevalent. The JAMA benchmark score across all sources averaged 2.63. Government sources had the highest mean benchmark score (3.30), whereas social media had the lowest (1.75). CONCLUSIONS: Bing's answers were generally accurate and adequately complete, with incorrect responses rectified upon re-querying. The plurality of information was sourced from commercial websites. The type of source, number of sources, and mean JAMA benchmark score were not significantly correlated with answer accuracy. These findings underscore the importance of ongoing evaluation and improvement of large language models to ensure reliable and informative results for patients seeking information regarding spine surgery online amid the integration of these models in the search experience.

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus cervical disc arthroplasty: an epidemiological review of 433,660 surgical patients from 2011 to 2021.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) are commonly performed operations to address cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Trends in utilization and revision surgery rates warrant investigation. PURPOSE: To explore the epidemiology, postoperative complications, and reoperation rates of ACDF and CDA DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 433,660 patients who underwent ACDF or CDA between 2011 and 2021 were included in this study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The following data were observed for all cases: patient demographics, complications, and revisions. METHODS: The PearlDiver database was queried to identify patients who underwent ACDF and CDA between 2011 and 2021. Epidemiological analyses were performed to examine trends in cervical procedure utilization by age group and year. After matching by age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), levels of operation, and reason for surgery, the early postoperative (2-week), short-term (2-year), and long-term (5-year) complications of both cervical procedures were examined. RESULTS: In total, 404,195 ACDF and 29,465 CDA patients were included. ACDF utilization rose by 25.25% between 2011 and 2014 while CDA utilization rose by 654.24% between 2011-2019 followed by relative plateauing in both procedures. Mann-Kendall trend test confirmed a significant but small rise in ACDF and large rise in CDA procedures from 2011 to 2021 (p<.001). After matching, ACDF and CDA had an overall complication rate of 12.20% and 8.77%, respectively, with the most common complications being subsequent anterior revision (4.96% and 3.35%) and dysphagia (3.70% and 2.98%). The ACDF cohort, especially multilevel ACDF patients, generally had more complications and higher revision rates than the CDA cohort (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: While ACDF utilization has plateaued since 2014, CDA rates have risen by a staggering 654.24% over the past decade. ACDF and CDA complication and revision rates were relatively low in comparison to previously published values, with significantly lower rates in CDA. Although a lack of radiographic data in this study limits its power to recommend either procedure for individual patients with cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy, CDA may be associated with minor improvement in the complication and revision profile.

Impact of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis on Full Body Sagittal Alignment and Compensation for Sagittal Spinal Deformity.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of lower extremity osteoarthritis on sagittal alignment and compensatory mechanisms in adult spinal deformity (ASD). BACKGROUND: Spine, hip, and knee pathologies often overlap in ASD patients. Limited data exists on how lower extremity osteoarthritis impacts sagittal alignment and compensatory mechanisms in ASD. METHODS: 527 pre-operative ASD patients with full body radiographs were included. Patients were grouped by Kellgren-Lawrence grade of bilateral hips and knees and stratified by quartile of T1-Pelvic Angle (T1PA) severity into low-, mid-, high-, and severe-T1PA. Full body alignment and compensation were compared across quartiles. Regression analysis examined the incremental impact of hip and knee osteoarthritis severity on compensation. RESULTS: The mean T1PA for low-, mid-, high-, and severe-T1PA groups was 7.3°, 19.5°, 27.8°, 41.6°, respectively. Mid-T1PA patients with severe hip osteoarthritis had an increased sagittal vertical axis and global sagittal alignment (P<0.001). Increasing hip osteoarthritis severity resulted in decreased pelvic tilt (P=0.001) and sacrofemoral angle (P<0.001), but increased knee flexion (P=0.012). Regression analysis revealed with increasing T1PA, pelvic tilt correlated inversely with hip osteoarthritis and positively with knee osteoarthritis (r2=0.812). Hip osteoarthritis decreased compensation via sacrofemoral angle (ß-coefficient=-0.206). Knee and hip osteoarthritis contributed to greater knee flexion (ß-coefficients=0.215, 0.101; respectively). For pelvic shift, only hip osteoarthritis significantly contributed to the model (ß-coefficient=0.100). CONCLUSIONS: For the same magnitude of spinal deformity, increased hip osteoarthritis severity was associated with worse truncal and full body alignment with posterior translation of the pelvis. Patients with severe hip and knee osteoarthritis exhibited decreased hip extension and pelvic tilt, but increased knee flexion. This examines sagittal alignment and compensation in ASD patients with hip and knee arthritis and may help delineate whether hip and knee flexion is due to spinal deformity compensation or lower extremity osteoarthritis.

Predictors of pelvic tilt normalization: a multicenter study on the impact of regional and lower-extremity compensation on pelvic alignment after complex adult spinal deformity surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the degree of regional decompensation to pelvic tilt (PT) normalization after complex adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. METHODS: Operative ASD patients with 1 year of PT measurements were included. Patients with normalized PT at baseline were excluded. Predicted PT was compared to actual PT, tested for change from baseline, and then compared against age-adjusted, Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab, and global alignment and proportion (GAP) scores. Lower-extremity (LE) parameters included the cranial-hip-sacrum angle, cranial-knee-sacrum angle, and cranial-ankle-sacrum angle. LE compensation was set as the 1-year upper tertile compared with intraoperative baseline. Univariate analyses were used to compare normalized and nonnormalized data against alignment outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to develop a model consisting of significant predictors for normalization related to regional compensation. RESULTS: In total, 156 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean ± SD age 64.6 ± 9.1 years, BMI 27.9 ± 5.6 kg/m2, Charlson Comorbidity Index 1.9 ± 1.6). Patients with normalized PT were more likely to have overcorrected pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis and sagittal vertical axis at 6 weeks (p < 0.05). GAP score at 6 weeks was greater for patients with nonnormalized PT (0.6 vs 1.3, p = 0.08). At baseline, 58.5% of patients had compensation in the thoracic and cervical regions. Postoperatively, compensation was maintained by 42% with no change after matching in age-adjusted or GAP score. The patients with nonnormalized PT had increased rates of thoracic and cervical compensation (p < 0.05). Compensation in thoracic kyphosis differed between patients with normalized PT at 6 weeks and those with normalized PT at 1 year (69% vs 35%, p < 0.05). Those who compensated had increased rates of implant complications by 1 year (OR [95% CI] 2.08 [1.32-6.56], p < 0.05). Cervical compensation was maintained at 6 weeks and 1 year (56% vs 43%, p = 0.12), with no difference in implant complications (OR 1.31 [95% CI -2.34 to 1.03], p = 0.09). For the lower extremities at baseline, 61% were compensating. Matching age-adjusted alignment did not eliminate compensation at any joint (all p > 0.05). Patients with nonnormalized PT had higher rates of LE compensation across joints (all p < 0.01). Overall, patients with normalized PT at 1 year had the greatest odds of resolving LE compensation (OR 9.6, p < 0.001). Patients with normalized PT at 1 year had lower rates of implant failure (8.9% vs 19.5%, p < 0.05), rod breakage (1.3% vs 13.8%, p < 0.05), and pseudarthrosis (0% vs 4.6%, p < 0.05) compared with patients with nonnormalized PT. The complication rate was significantly lower for patients with normalized PT at 1 year (56.7% vs 66.1%, p = 0.02), despite comparable health-related quality of life scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PT normalization had greater rates of resolution in thoracic and LE compensation, leading to lower rates of complications by 1 year. Thus, consideration of both the lower extremities and thoracic regions in surgical planning is vital to preventing adverse outcomes and maintaining pelvic alignment.

Sagittal Alignment in the Degenerative Lumbar Spine: Surgical Planning.

➤ Sagittal alignment of the spine has gained attention in the field of spinal deformity surgery for decades. However, emerging data support the importance of restoring segmental lumbar lordosis and lumbar spinal shape according to the pelvic morphology when surgically addressing degenerative lumbar pathologies such as degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis.➤ The distribution of caudal lordosis (L4-S1) and cranial lordosis (L1-L4) as a percentage of global lordosis varies by pelvic incidence (PI), with cephalad lordosis increasing its contribution to total lordosis as PI increases.➤ Spinal fusion may lead to iatrogenic deformity if performed without attention to lordosis magnitude and location in the lumbar spine.➤ A solid foundation of knowledge with regard to optimal spinal sagittal alignment is beneficial when performing lumbar spinal surgery, and thoughtful planning and execution of lumbar fusions with a focus on alignment may improve patient outcomes.