Improved Surgical Correction Relative to Patient-Specific Ideal Spinopelvic Alignment Reduces Pelvic Nonresponse for Severely Malaligned Adult Spinal Deformity Patients.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pelvic compensation following adult spinal deformity (ASD) corrective surgery may impair quality of life and result in persistent pathologic lower extremity compensation. Ideal age-specific alignment targets have been proposed to improve surgical outcomes, though it is unclear whether reaching these ideal targets reduces rates of pelvic nonresponse following surgery. Our aim was to assess the relationship between pelvic nonresponse, age-specific alignment, and lower-limb compensation following surgery for ASD. METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study. ASD patients were grouped: those who did not improve in Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab pelvic tilt (PT) modifier (pelvic nonresponders [PNR]), and those who improved (pelvic responders [PR]). Groups were propensity score matched for preoperative PT and assessed for differences in spinal and lower extremity alignment. Rates of pelvic nonresponse were compared across patient groups who were undercorrected, overcorrected, or matched age-specific postoperative alignment targets. RESULTS: A total of 146 surgical ASD patients, 47.9% of whom showed pelvic nonresponse following surgery, were included. After propensity score matching, PNR (N = 29) and PR (N = 29) patients did not differ in demographics, preoperative alignment, or levels fused; however, PNR patients have less preoperative knee flexion (9° vs 14°, P = 0.043). PNR patients had inferior postoperative pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) alignment (17° vs 3°) and greater pelvic shift (53 vs 31 mm). PNR and PR patients did not differ in rates of reaching ideal age-specific postoperative alignment for sagittal vertical axis (SVA) or PI-LL, though patients who matched ideal PT had lower rates of PNR (25.0% vs 75.0%). For patients with moderate and severe preoperative SVA, more aggressive correction relative to either ideal postoperative PT or PI-LL was associated with significantly lower rates of pelvic nonresponse (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with moderate to severe baseline truncal inclination, more aggressive surgical correction relative to ideal age-specific PI-LL was associated with lower rates of pelvic nonresponse. Postoperative alignment targets may need to be adjusted to optimize alignment outcomes for patients with substantial preoperative sagittal deformity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings increase our understanding of the poor outcomes that occur despite ideal realignment. Surgical correction of severe global sagittal deformity should be prioritized to mitigate these occurrences.

The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Better Reflects the Impact of Length of Stay and the Occurrence of Complications Within 90 Days Than Legacy Outcome Measures for Lumbar Degenerative Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and legacy outcome measures like the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) have not been compared for their sensitivity in reflecting the impact of perioperative complications and length of stay (LOS) in a surgical thoracolumbar population. The purpose of this study is to assess the strength of PROMIS and ODI scores as they correlate with LOS and complication outcomes of surgical thoracolumbar patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Included: patients ≥18 years undergoing thoracolumbar surgery with available preoperative and 3-month postoperative ODI and PROMIS scores. Pearson correlation assessed the linear relationships between LOS, complications, and scores for PROMIS (physical function, pain intensity, pain interference) and ODI. Linear regression predicted the relationship between complication incidence and scores for ODI and PROMIS. RESULTS: Included: 182 patients undergoing thoracolumbar surgery. Common diagnoses were stenosis (62.1%), radiculopathy (48.9%), and herniated disc (47.8%). Overall, 58.3% of patients underwent fusion, and 50.0% underwent laminectomy. Patients showed preoperative to postoperative improvement in ODI (50.2 to 39.0), PROMIS physical function (10.9 to 21.4), pain intensity (92.4 to 78.3), and pain interference (58.4 to 49.8, all P < .001). Mean LOS was 2.7 ± 2.8 days; overall complication rate was 16.5%. Complications were most commonly cardiac, neurologic, or urinary (all 2.2%). Whereas preoperative to postoperative changes in ODI did not correlate with LOS, changes in PROMIS pain intensity (r = 0.167, P = .024) and physical function (r = -0.169, P = .023) did. Complications did not correlate with changes in ODI or PROMIS score; however, postoperative scores for physical function (r = -0.205, P = .005) and pain interference (r = 0.182, P = .014) both showed stronger correlations with complication occurrence than ODI (r = 0.143, P = .055). Regression analysis showed postoperative physical function (R 2 = 0.037, P = .005) and pain interference (R 2 = 0.028, P = .014) could predict complications; ODI could not. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS domains of physical function and pain interference better reflected perioperative complications and LOS than the ODI. These results suggest PROMIS may offer more utility as an outcomes assessment instrument. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Expandable cages increase the risk of intraoperative subsidence but do not improve perioperative outcomes in single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Expandable cages (EXP) are being more frequently utilized in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF). EXP were designed to reduce complications related to neurological retraction, enable better lordosis restoration, and improve ease of insertion, particularly in the advent of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques, however they are exponentially more expensive than the nonexpandable (NE) alternative. PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical results of expandable cages in single level TLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review at a single institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: Two hundred and fifty-two single level TLIFs from 2012 to 2018 were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical characteristics, perioperative and neurologic complication rates, and radiographic measures. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age who underwent single level TLIF with minimum 1 year follow-up were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: clinical characteristics, perioperative and neurologic complications. Radiographic analysis included pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, segmental lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, disc height restoration, and subsidence ≥2 mm. Statistical analysis included independent t tests and chi-square analysis. For nonparametric variables, Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman partial correlation were utilized. Multivariate regression was performed to assess relationships between surgical variables and recorded outcomes. For univariate analysis significance was set at p<.05. Due to the multiple comparisons being made, significance for regressions was set at p<.025 utilizing Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-two TLIFs between 2012 and 2018 were included, with 152 NE (54.6% female, mean age 59.28±14.19, mean body mass index (BMI) 28.65±5.38, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) 2.20±1.89) and 100 EXP (48% female, mean age 58.81±11.70, mean BMI 28.68±6.06, mean CCI 1.99±1.66) with no significant differences in demographics. Patients instrumented with EXP cages had a shorter length of stay (3.11±2.06 days EXP vs. 4.01±2.64 days NE; Z=-4.189, p<.001) and a lower estimated blood loss (201.31±189.41 mL EXP vs. 377.82±364.06 mL NE; Z=-6.449, p<.001). There were significantly more MIS-TLIF cases and bone morphogenic protein (BMP) use in the EXP group (88% MIS, p<.001 and 60% BMP, p<.001) as illustrated in Table 1. There were no significant differences between the EXP and NE groups in rates of radiculitis and neuropraxia. In multivariate regression analysis, EXP were not associated with a difference in perioperative outcomes or complications. Radiographic analyses demonstrated that the EXP group had a lower PI-LL mismatch than the NE cage group at baseline (3.75±13.81° EXP vs. 12.75±15.81° NE; p=.001) and at 1 year follow-up (3.81±12.84° EXP vs. 8.23±12.73° NE; p=.046), but change in regional and segmental alignment was not significantly different between groups. Multivariate regression demonstrated that EXP use was a risk factor for intraoperative subsidence (2.729[1.185-6.281]; p=.018). CONCLUSIONS: Once technique was controlled for, TLIFs utilizing EXP do not have significantly improved neurologic or radiographic outcomes compared with NE. EXP increase risk of intraoperative subsidence. These results question the value of the EXP given the higher cost.

Radiation Exposure in Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Comparison of CT Image-Guided Navigation, Robotic Assistance, and Intraoperative Fluoroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective clinical review. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of intraoperative computed tomography (CT) image-guided navigation (IGN) and robotic assistance in posterior lumbar surgery and their relationship with patient radiation exposure and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old undergoing 1- to 2-level transforaminal lateral interbody fusion in 12-month period were included. Chart review was performed for pre- and intraoperative data on radiation dose and perioperative outcomes. All radiation doses are quantified in milliGrays (mGy). Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were utilized for categorical variables. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey test was used for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were assessed: 12 IGN, 62 robotic, 56 open, 35 fluoroscopically guided minimally invasive surgery (MIS). There was a lower proportion of women in open and MIS groups (P = .010). There were more younger patients in the MIS group (P < .001). MIS group had the lowest mean posterior levels fused (P = .015). Total-procedure radiation, total-procedure radiation/level fused, and intraoperative radiation was the lowest in the open group and highest in the MIS group compared with IGN and robotic groups (all P < .001). Higher proportion of robotic and lower proportion of MIS patients had preoperative CT (P < .001). Estimated blood loss (P = .002) and hospital length of stay (P = .039) were lowest in the MIS group. Highest operative time was observed for IGN patients (P < .001). No differences were observed in body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and postoperative complications (P = .313, .051, and .644, respectively). CONCLUSION: IGN and robotic assistance in posterior lumbar fusion were associated with higher intraoperative and total-procedure radiation exposure than open cases without IGN/robotics, but significantly less than MIS without IGN/robotics, without differences in perioperative outcomes. Fluoro-MIS procedures reported highest radiation exposure to patient, and of equal concern is that the proportion of total radiation dose also applied to the surgeon and operating room staff in fluoro-MIS group is higher than in IGN/robotics and open groups.

Biologics and Minimally Invasive Approach to TLIFs: What Is the Risk of Radiculitis?

BACKGROUND: Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and allograft containing mesenchymal stem cells (live cell) are popular biologic substitutes for iliac crest autograft used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Use of these agents in the pathogenesis of postoperative radiculitis remains controversial. Recent studies have independently linked minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF with increased radiculitis risk compared to open TLIF. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of postoperative radiculitis in open and MIS TLIF patients along with its relationship to concurrent biologic adjuvant use. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years undergoing single-level TLIF from June 2012 to December 2018 with minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were rate of radiculitis, intra- and postoperative complications, revision surgery; length of stay (LOS), and estimated blood loss (EBL). RESULTS: There were 397 patients: 223 with open TLIFs, 174 with MIS TLIFs. One hundred and fifty-nine surgeries used bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), 26 live cell, 212 neither. Open TLIF: higher mean EBL, LOS, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) than MIS. Postoperative radiculitis in 37 patients (9.32% overall): 16 cases MIS BMP (15.69% of their cohort), 6 MIS without BMP (8.33%), 5 open BMP (8.77%), 10 open without BMP (6.02%). MIS TLIF versus open TLIF: no differences in 1-year reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. BMP versus non-BMP: no differences in reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. Multivariate logistic regression found that neither BMP (P = .109) nor MIS (P = .314) was an independent predictor for postoperative radiculitis when controlled for age, gender, body mass index, and CCI. Using paired open and MIS groups (N = 168 each) with propensity score matching, these variables were still not independently associated with radiculitis (P = .174 BMP, P = .398 MIS). However, the combination of MIS with BMP was associated with increased radiculitis risk in both the entire patient cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 2.259 [1.117-4.569], P = .023, N = 397) and PSM cohorts (OR: 2.196 [1.045-4.616], P = .038, N = 336) compared to other combinations of surgical approach and biologic use. CONCLUSION: Neither the MIS approach nor BMP use is an independent risk factor for post-TLIF radiculitis. However, risk of radiculitis significantly increases when they are used in tandem. This should be considered when selecting biological adjuvants for MIS TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Tethered Cord Syndrome in the United States Cluster Analysis of Presenting Anomalies and Associated.

PURPOSE: Tethered cord syndrome (TCS) is an occult spinal dysraphism that includes low lying conus, tight filum terminale, lipomeningomyelocele, split cord malformations, dermal sinus tracts, and dermoids. This congenital disorder has been associated with musculoskeletal, neurological, and gastrointestinal abnormalities. This study presents a retrospective review of the prospectively collected data of TCS patients and their concurrent diagnoses or associated anomalies. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2003 to 2012 was used for data collection. Hospital- and year-adjusted weights allowed for accurate assessment of the incidence of TCS, as well as cardiac and gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) anomalies. K-means clustering analysis was run to discover patterns of concurrent cardiac, GI, GU, and other system anomalies in TCS patients. RESULTS: A total of 13,470 discharges with a diagnosis of TCS were identified in the NIS database, and at least one additional anomaly was identified in 40.7% of TCS patients. The most common secondary anomalies by system were: spine (24.48%), cardiac (6.27%), and urinary (5.37%). For patients with multiple anomalies, the most common combinations were GI and cardiac (4.55%), urinary and GI (4.26%), and urinary and cardiac (4.19%). The most common spinal association was spina bifida (13.65%). The most common neurological or musculoskeletal anomaly was any VACTERL association (13.45%). The top relation in GI and GU anomalies was cervix and female genitalia anomalies (69.1%). The most common specific anomalies were spina bifida, large intestine atresia, Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome, and atrial and ventral septal defects. CONCLUSION: This study provides a nationwide prospective on congenital anomalies and concurrent conditions present in tethered cord syndrome patients in the United States and demonstrates that 40.7% of TCS patients have at least one associated anomaly. The most common congenital anomalies studied were spina bifida, urogenital with or without cardiac septal defects, and cystourethral anomaly or cystic kidney disease with or without large intestinal atresia.

Complication Risk in Primary and Revision Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparable Alternative to Conventional Open Techniques?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of prospective patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar fusion at a single academic institution. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in perioperative outcomes between primary and revision MIS (minimally invasive surgical) lumbar interbody fusion patients and compare with those undergoing corresponding open procedures. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old undergoing lumbar interbody fusion were grouped by surgical technique: MIS or open. Patients within each group were propensity score matched for comorbidities and levels fused. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and perioperative complication incidences were compared between primary and revision cases using means comparison tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 214 lumbar interbody fusion patients included after propensity score matching, 44 (21%) cases were MIS, and 170 (79%) were open. For MIS patients, there were no significant differences between primary and revision cases in estimated blood loss (EBL; 344 vs 299 cm3, P = .682); however, primary cases had longer operative times (301 vs 246 minutes, P = .029). There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, readmission, and intraoperative or postoperative complications (all P > .05). For open patients, there were no differences between primary and revision cases in EBL (P > .05), although revisions had longer operative times (331 vs 278 minutes, P = .018) and more postoperative complications (61.7% vs 23.8%, P < .001). MIS revision procedures were shorter than open revisions (182 vs 213 minutes, P = .197) with significantly less EBL (294 vs 965 cm3, P < .001), shorter inpatient and intensive care unit LOS, and fewer postoperative complications (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes of revision MIS lumbar interbody fusion were similar to those of primary surgery. Additionally, MIS techniques were associated with less EBL, shorter LOS, and fewer perioperative complications than corresponding open revisions.

Evaluation of Health-related Quality of Life Improvement in Patients Undergoing Spine Versus Adult Reconstructive Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of outcomes in single-level spine and primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare baseline and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery procedures with total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to further define outcomes in orthopedic surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Computer-adaptive Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS) allows for standardized assessment of the health-related quality of life across different disease states. METHODS: Patients who underwent spine surgery (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement, lumbar laminectomy, microscopic lumbar discectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or adult reconstruction surgery [THA, TKA]) were grouped. Mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Baseline (BL), and 6-month PROMIS scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity were determined. Paired t tests compared differences in CCI, BL, 6 months, and change in PROMIS scores for spine and adult reconstruction procedures. RESULTS: A total of 304 spine surgery patients (age = 58.1 ±â€Š15.6; 42.9% female) and 347 adult reconstruction patients (age = 62.9 ±â€Š11.8; 54.1% Female) were compared. Spine surgery groups had more disability and pain at baseline than adult reconstruction patients according to physical function ([21.0, 22.2, 9.07, 12.6, 10.4] vs. [35.8, 35.0], respectively, P < 0.01), pain interference ([80.1, 74.1, 89.6, 92.5, 90.6] vs. [64.0, 63.9], respectively, P < 0.01), and pain intensity ([53.0, 53.1, 58.3, 58.5, 56.1] vs. [53.4, 53.8], respectively, P < 0.01). At 6 months, spine surgery patients remained more disabled and had more pain compared to adult reconstruction patients. Over the 6-month timespan, spine patients experienced greater improvements than adult reconstruction patients in terms of physical function ([+8.7, +22.2, +9.7, +12.9, +12.1] vs. [+5.3, +3.9], respectively, P < 0.01) and pain interference scores ([-15.4,-28.1, -14.7, -13.1, -12.3] vs. [-8.3, -6.0], respectively, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Spinal surgery patients had lower BL and 6-month PROMIS scores, but greater relative improvement in PROMIS scores compared to adult reconstruction patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

ODI Cannot Account for All Variation in PROMIS Scores in Patients With Thoracolumbar Disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of single institution. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in thoracolumbar patients. METHODS: Included: Patients ≥18 years with a thoracolumbar spine condition (spinal stenosis, disc herniation, low back pain, disc degeneration, spondylolysis). Bivariate correlations assessed the linear relationships between ODI and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Intensity, and Pain Interference). Correlation cutoffs assessed patients with high and low correlation between ODI and PROMIS. Linear regression predicted the relationship of ODI to PROMIS. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients (age 53.7 ± 16.6 years, 49.5% female) were included. ODI correlated with PROMIS Physical Function (r = -0.763, P < .001), Pain Interference (r = 0.800, P < .001), and Pain Intensity (r = 0.706, P < .001). ODI strongly predicted PROMIS for Physical Function (R 2 = 0.58, P < .001), Pain Intensity (R 2 = 0.50, P < .001), and Pain Interference (R 2 = 0.64, P < .001); however, there is variability in PROMIS that ODI cannot account for. ODI questions about sitting and sleeping were weakly correlated across the 3 PROMIS domains. Linear regression showed overall ODI score as accounting for 58.3% (R 2 = 0.583) of the variance in PROMIS Physical Function, 63.9% (R 2 = 0.639) of the variance in Pain Interference score, and 49.9% (R 2 = 0.499) of the variance in Pain Intensity score. CONCLUSIONS: There is a large amount of variability with PROMIS that cannot be accounted for with ODI. ODI questions regarding walking, social life, and lifting ability correlate strongly with PROMIS while sitting, standing, and sleeping do not. These results reinforce the utility of PROMIS as a valid assessment for low back disability, while indicating the need for further evaluation of the factors responsible for variation between PROMIS and ODI.

Bariatric Surgery Population at Significantly Increased Risk of Spinal Disorders and Surgical Intervention Compared With Morbidly Obese Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity is associated with acceleration of musculoskeletal degenerative diseases and functional impairment secondary to spinal disorders. Bariatric surgery (BS) is an increasingly common treatment for severe obesity but can affect bone and mineral metabolism. The effect of BS on degenerative spinal disorders is yet to be fully described. The aim of our study was to analyze changes in bariatric patients' risk for spinal degenerative diseases and spinal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the prospectively collected New York State Inpatient Database (NYSID) years (2004-2013) using patient linkage codes. The incidence of degenerative spinal diagnoses and spinal surgery was queried using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD)-9 codes for morbidly obese patients (ICD-9 278.01) with and without a history of BS. The incidence of degenerative spinal diagnoses and spinal surgery was determined using χ tests for independence. Logistic testing controlled for age, sex, and comorbidity burden. RESULTS: A total of 18,176 patients were identified in the NYSID database with a history of BS and 146,252 patients were identified as morbidly obese without a history of BS. BS patients have a significantly higher rate of spinal diagnoses than morbidly obese patients without BS (19.3% vs. 8.1%, P<0.001). Bariatric patients were more likely to have spinal diagnoses and procedures than nonbariatric obese patients (P<0.001). This was mostly observed in lumbar spinal stenosis (5.0%), cervical disk herniation (3.3%), lumbar disk degeneration (3.4%), lumbar spondylolisthesis (2.9%), lumbar spondylosis (1.9%), and cervical spondylosis with myelopathy (2.0%). Spine procedure rates are higher for bariatric patients than nonbariatric overall (25.6% vs. 2.3, P<0.001) and for fusions and decompressions (P<0.001). When controlling for age, sex, and comorbidities (and diagnosis rate with regards to procedure rates), these results persist, with BS patients having a higher likelihood of spinal diagnoses and procedures. In addition, bariatric patients had a lower comorbidity burden than morbidly obese patients without a history of BS. CONCLUSIONS: Morbidly obese BS patients have a dramatically higher incidence of spinal diagnoses and procedures, relative to morbidly obese patients without BS. Further study is necessary to determine if there is a pathophysiological mechanism underlying this higher risk of spinal disease and intervention in bariatric patients, and the effect of BS on these rates following treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

MRI Radiological Predictors of Requiring Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy After Lumbar Disc Herniation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate radiological differences in lumbar disc herniations (herniated nucleus pulposus [HNP]) between patients receiving microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) and nonoperative patients. METHODS: Patients with primary treatment for an HNP at a single academic institution between November 2012 to March 2017 were divided into MLD and nonoperative treatment groups. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), axial HNP area; axial canal area; HNP canal compromise; HNP cephalad/caudal migration and HNP MRI signal (black, gray, or mixed) were measured. T test and chi-square analyses compared differences in the groups, binary logistic regression analysis determined odds ratios (ORs), and decision tree analysis compared the cutoff values for risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (78 MLD, 207 nonoperative) were included. Risk factors for MLD treatment included larger axial HNP area (P < .01, OR = 1.01), caudal migration, and migration magnitude (P < .05, OR = 1.90; P < .01, OR = 1.14), and gray HNP MRI signal (P < .01, OR = 5.42). Cutoff values for risks included axial HNP area (70.52 mm2, OR = 2.66, P < .01), HNP canal compromise (20.0%, OR = 3.29, P < .01), and cephalad/caudal migration (6.8 mm, OR = 2.43, P < .01). MLD risk for those with gray HNP MRI signal (67.6% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area >70.52 mm2 (75.5%, P = .01) and HNP canal compromise >20.0% (71.1%, P = .05) cutoffs. MLD risk in patients with cephalad/caudal migration >6.8 mm (40.5% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area and HNP canal compromise (52.4%, 50%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent MLD treatment had significantly different axial HNP area, frequency of caudal migration, magnitude of cephalad/caudal migration, and disc herniation MRI signal compared to patients with nonoperative treatment.

Preoperative MRI predictors of health-related quality of life improvement after microscopic lumbar discectomy.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) is a common spinal pathology often treated by microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD), though prior reports have not demonstrated which preoperative MRI factors may contribute to significant clinical improvement after MLD. PURPOSE: To analyze the MRI characteristics in patients with HNP that predict meaningful clinical improvement in health-related quality of life scores (HRQoL) after MLD. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective clinical and radiological study of patients undergoing MLD for HNP at a single institution over a 2-year period. PATIENT SAMPLE: Eighty-eight patients receiving MLD treatment for HNP. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cephalocaudal Canal Migration; Canal & HNP Anterior-Posterior (AP) Lengths and Ratio; Canal & HNP Axial Areas and Ratio; Hemi-Canal & Hemi-HNP Axial Areas and Ratio; Disc appearance (black, gray, or mixed); Baseline (BL); and 3-month (3M) postoperative HRQoL scores. METHODS: Patients >18 years old who received MLD for HNP with BL and 3M HRQoL scores of PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Pain Intensity), ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg scores were included. HNP and spinal canal measurements of cephalocaudal migration, AP length, area, hemi-area, and disc appearance were performed using T2 axial and sagittal MRI. HNP measurements were divided by corresponding canal measurements to calculate AP, Area, and Hemi-Area ratios. Using known minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for each ΔHRQoL score, patients were separated into two groups based on whether they reached MCID (MCID+) or did not reach MCID (MCID-). The MCID for PROMIS pain intensity was calculated using a decision tree. A linear regression illustrated correlations between PROMIS vs ODI and VAS Back/Leg scores. Independent t-tests and chi-squared tests were utilized to investigate significant differences in HNP measurements between the MCID+ and MCID- groups. RESULTS: There were 88 MLD patients included in the study (Age=44.6±14.9, 38.6% female). PROMIS pain interference and pain intensity were strongly correlated with ODI and VAS Back/Leg (R≥0.505), and physical function correlated with ODI and VAS Back/Leg (R=-0.349) (all p<.01). The strongest MRI predictors of meeting HRQoL MCID were gray disc appearance, HNP area (>116.6 mm2), and Hemi-Area Ratio (>51.8%). MCID+ patients were 2.7 times more likely to have a gray HNP MRI signal than a mixed or black HNP MRI signal in five out of six HRQoL score comparisons (p<.025). MCID+ patients had larger HNP areas than MCID- patients had in five out of six HRQoL score comparisons (116.6 mm2±46.4 vs 90.0 mm2±43.2, p<.04). MCID+ patients had a greater Hemi-Area Ratio than MCID- patients had in four out of six HRQoL score comparisons (51.8%±14.7 vs 43.9%±14.9, p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who met MCID after MLD had larger HNP areas and larger Hemi-HNP Areas than those who did not meet MCID. These patients were also 2.7× more likely to have a gray MRI signal than a mixed or black MRI signal. When accounting for HNP area relative to canal area, patients who met MCID had greater Hemi-HNP canal occupation than patients who did not meet MCID. The results of this study suggest that preoperative MRI parameters can be useful in predicting patient-reported improvement after MLD.

Pelvic Compensation in Sagittal Malalignment: How Much Retroversion Can the Pelvis Accommodate?

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: Investigate how differing degrees of pelvic incidence (PI) modulate the recruitment of pelvic tilt (PT) in response to similar amounts of sagittal malalignment as measured by T1-Pelvic Angle (TPA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Past research has shown that some patients do not recruit PT in response to sagittal malalignment. Given the anatomic relationship between PI and PT, we sought to determine whether differing PI is associated with variable recruitment of PT. METHODS: Single-center retrospective study of 2077 patients undergoing full body radiographs and TPA>10°. Five groups of patients (Very Low, Low, Average, High, and Very High PI) were defined utilizing PI ranges on a Gaussian distribution. Linear regression (LR) evaluated correlation of TPA to PT within each PI group. Multivariate LR evaluated whether correlation between TPA and PT differed between each PI group. RESULTS: Mean PT increased with increasing levels of PI (P < 0.05). Within the full cohort, PT correlated with TPA (r = 0.80, P < 0.001). Multivariate LR revealed significant differences between slopes and intercepts of the linear relationship between PT and TPA within the PI groups. Compared with patients with an average PI, patients with Very Low PI had 3.4° lower PT while holding TPA constant (P < 0.001). Further, patients with Very High PI displayed a PT of 1.9° higher than patients with an Average PI while holding TPA constant (P = 0.01). A similar difference of -1.8°, and 1.2° with respect to the Average PI group was observed in the Low and High PI groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Means and standard deviations of PT at varying levels of TPA were defined for PI groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first study which demonstrated that PI is associated with varied recruitment of PT while maintaining constant sagittal malalignment. The results reported herein are intended to allow surgeons to assess a patient's magnitude of compensatory PT for an individual patient's PI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The effect of vascular approach surgeons on perioperative complications in lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusions.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a popular technique used in spine surgery. It is minimally invasive, provides indirect decompression, and allows for coronal plane deformity correction. Despite these benefits, the approach to LLIF has been linked to complications associated with the lumbosacral plexus and vascular anatomy. As a result, vascular surgeons may be recruited for the exposure portion of the procedure. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare exposure-related complication and postoperative (postop) neuropraxia rates between exposure (EXP) and spine surgeon only (SSO) groups while performing the approach for LLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of patients treated at a single institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing LLIF procedures between 2012 and 2018. OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative time, estimated blood loss, fluoroscopy, length of stay (LOS), intra- and postoperative complications, and physiologic measures including pre- and postoperative motor examinations and unresolved neuropraxia. METHODS: Patients who underwent LLIF were separated into EXP and SSO groups based on the presence or absence of vascular/general surgeon during the approach. The entire clinical history of patients with a decrease in pre- and postop motor examination was reviewed for the presence of neuropraxia. All other intra- and postop exposure-related complications were recorded for comparison. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) percentage of LLIFs including L4-L5, and number of levels fused. Independent t test and chi-square analyses were used to identify significant differences between EXP and SSO groups. Statistical significance was set at p<.05. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-five patients underwent LLIF procedures, 155 SSO and 120 EXP. Postoperatively, 26 patients (11.1%) experienced a drop in any Medical Research Council (MRC) score, and two patients (0.7%) experienced unresolved quadriceps palsies. The mean recovery time for MRC scores was 84.4 days. Other complications included 2 pneumothoraces (0.7%), 1 iliac vein injury (0.4%), 14 cases of ileus (5.1%), 3 pulmonary emboli (1.1%), 2 deep vein thrombosis (0.7%), 3 cases of abdominal wall paresis (1.1%), and one abdominal hematoma (0.4%). After PSM, demographics including age, gender, body mass index, CCI, levels fused, and operative time were similar between cohorts. Twenty patients had changes in pre- to postop motor scores (SSO 9.4%, EXP 12.4%, p>.05). Iliopsoas motor scores decreased at the highest rate (EXP 12.4%, SSO 8.2%, p>.05) followed by quadriceps (EXP 5.2%, SSO 4.7%, p>.05). One SSO patient's postop course was complicated by a foot drop but returned to baseline within 1 year. One patient in EXP group developed an unresolved quadriceps palsy (EXP 1.0%, SSO 0.0%, p>.05). Intraoperative exposure complications included one pneumothorax (EXP 1.0%, SSO 0.0%, p>.05). There were no differences in PE/DVT, Ileus, or LOS. In the EXP cohort, three patients experienced abdominal wall paresis (EXP 2.9%, SSO 0.00%, p=.246). CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the LLIF exposures performed by EXP and SSO, we found no significant difference in the rates of complications. Additional research is needed to determine the etiology of the abdominal wall complications. In conclusion, neuropraxia- and approach-related complications are similarly low between exposure and spine surgeons.

Lumbar Spine Degeneration and Flatback Deformity Alter Sitting-Standing Spinopelvic Mechanics-Implications for Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Spinal degeneration and lumbar flatback deformity can decrease recruitment of protective posterior pelvic tilt when sitting, leading to anterior impingement and increased instability. We aim at analyzing regional and global spinal alignment between sitting and standing to better understand the implications of spinal degeneration and flatback deformity for hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Spinopelvic parameters of patients with full-body sitting-standing stereoradiographs were assessed: lumbar lordosis (LL), spinopelvic tilt (SPT), pelvic incidence minus LL (PI-LL), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), and T1 pelvic angle (TPA). Lumbar spines were classified as normal, degenerative (disc height loss >50%, facet arthropathy, or spondylolisthesis), or flatback (degenerative criteria and PI-LL >10°). Independent t-tests and analysis of variance were used to analyze alignment differences between groups. RESULTS: After propensity matching for age, sex, and hip osteoarthritis grade, 57 patients per group were included (62 ± 11 years, 58% female). Mean standing and sitting SPT, PI-LL, SVA, and TPA increased along the spectrum of disease severity. Increasing severity of disease was associated with decreasing standing and sitting LL. The flatback group demonstrated the greatest sitting SPT, PI-LL, SVA, and TPA. The amount of sitting-to-standing change in SPT, LL, PI-LL, SVA, and TPA decreased along the spectrum of disease severity. CONCLUSION: Spinal degeneration and lumbar flatback deformity both significantly decrease lower lumbar spine mobility and posterior SPT from standing to sitting in a stepwise fashion. The demonstrated hypomobility in flatback patients likely serves as a pathomechanism for the previously observed increased risk of dislocation in total hip arthroplasty.

Spinopelvic Compensatory Mechanisms for Reduced Hip Motion (ROM) in the Setting of Hip Osteoarthritis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review from a single institution. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of hip osteoarthritis (OA) on spinopelvic compensatory mechanisms as a result of reduced hip range of motion (ROM) between sitting and standing. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Hip OA results in reduced hip ROM and contracture, causing pain during postural changes. Hip flexion contracture is known to reduce the ability to compensate for spinal deformity while standing; however, the effects of postural spinal alignment change between sitting and standing is not well understood. METHODS: Sit-stand radiographs of patients without prior spinal fusion or hip prosthesis were evaluated. Hip OA was graded by Kellgren-Lawrence grades and divided into low-grade (LOA; grade 0-2) and severe (SOA; grade 3 or 4) groups. Radiographic parameters evaluated were pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), lumbar lordosis (LL), PI-LL, thoracic kyphosis (TK), SVA, T1-pelvic angle (TPA), T10-L2, proximal femoral shaft angle (PFSA), and hip flexion (PT change-PFSA change). Changes in sit-stand parameters were compared between LOA and SOA groups. RESULTS: 548 patients were included (LOA = 311; SOA = 237). After propensity score matching for age, body mass index, and PI, 183 LOA and 183 SOA patients were analyzed. Standing analysis demonstrated that SOA had higher SVA (31.1 vs. 21.7), lower TK (-36.2 vs. -41.1), and larger PFSA (9.1 vs. 7.4) (all p < .05). Sitting analysis demonstrated that SOA had higher PT (29.7 vs. 23.3), higher PI-LL (21.6 vs. 12.4), less LL (31.7 vs. 41.6), less TK (-33.2 vs. -38.6), and greater TPA (27.9 vs. 22.5) (all p < .05). SOA had less hip ROM from standing to sitting versus LOA (71.5 vs. 81.6) (p < .05). Therefore, SOA had more change in PT (15.2 vs. 7.3), PI-LL (20.6 vs. 13.7), LL (-21.4 vs. -13.1), and T10-L2 (-4.9 vs. -1.1) (all p < .001), allowing the femurs to change position despite reduced hip ROM. SOA had greater TPA reduction (15.1 vs. 9.6) and less PFSA change (86.7 vs. 88.8) compared with LOA (both p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Spinopelvic compensatory mechanisms are adapted for reduced hip joint motion associated with hip OA in standing and sitting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Diminishing Clinical Returns of Multilevel Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Single institution retrospective clinical review. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between levels fused and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing open and minimally invasive surgical (MIS) lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally invasive spinal fusion aims to reduce the morbidity associated with conventional open surgery. As multilevel arthrodesis procedures are increasingly performed using MIS techniques, it is necessary to weigh the risks and benefits of multilevel MIS lumbar fusion as a function of fusion length. METHODS: Patients undergoing <4 level lumbar interbody fusion were stratified by surgical technique (MIS or open), and grouped by fusion length: 1-level, 2-levels, 3+ levels. Demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), surgical factors, and perioperative complication rates were compared between technique groups at different fusion lengths using means comparison tests. RESULTS: Included: 361 patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion (88% transforaminal, 14% lateral; 41% MIS). Breakdown by fusion length: 63% 1-level, 22% 2-level, 15% 3+ level. Op-time did not differ between groups at 1-level (MIS: 233 min vs. Open: 227, P = 0.554), though MIS at 2-levels (332 min vs. 281) and 3+ levels (373 min vs. 323) were longer (P = 0.033 and P = 0.231, respectively). While complication rates were lower for MIS at 1-level (15% vs. 30%, P = 0.006) and 2-levels (13% vs. 27%, P = 0.147), at 3+ levels, complication rates were comparable (38% vs. 35%, P = 0.870). 3+ level MIS fusions had higher rates of ileus (13% vs. 0%, P = 0.008) and a trend of increased adverse pulmonary events (25% vs. 7%, P = 0.110). MIS was associated with less EBL at all lengths (all P < 0.01) and lower rates of anemia at 1-level (5% vs. 18%, P < 0.001) and 2-levels (7% vs. 16%, P = 0.193). At 3+ levels, however, anemia rates were similar between groups (13% vs. 15%, P = 0.877). CONCLUSION: MIS lumbar interbody fusions provided diminishing clinical returns for multilevel procedures. While MIS patients had lower rates of perioperative complications for 1- and 2-level fusions, 3+ level MIS fusions had comparable complication rates to open cases, and higher rates of adverse pulmonary and ileus events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

The Impact of Adult Thoracolumbar Spinal Deformities on Standing to Sitting Regional and Segmental Reciprocal Alignment.

BACKGROUND: Regional and segmental changes of the lumbar spine have previously been described as patients transition from standing to sitting; however, alignment changes in the cervical and thoracic spine have yet to be investigated. So, the aim of this study was to assess cervical and thoracic regional and segmental changes in patients with thoracolumbar deformity versus a nondeformed thoracolumbar spine population. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort study of a single center's database of full-body stereoradiographic imaging and clinical data. Patients were ≥ 18 years old with nondeformed spines (nondegenerative, nondeformity spinal pathologies) or thoracolumbar deformity (ASD: PI-LL > 10°). Patients were propensity-score matched for age and maximum hip osteoarthritis grade and were stratified by Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-Schwab classification by PI-LL, SVA, and PT. Patients with lumbar transitional anatomy or fusions were excluded. Outcome measures included changes between standing and sitting in global alignment parameters: sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), pelivc tilt (PT), thoracic kyphosis, cervical alignment, cervical SVA, C2-C7 lordosis (CL), T1 slop minus CL (TS-CL), and segmental alignment from C2 to T12. Another analysis was performed using patients with cervical and thoracic segmental measurements. RESULTS: A total of 338 patients were included (202 nondeformity, 136 ASD). After propensity-score matching, 162 patients were included (81 nondeformity, 81 ASD). When categorized by SRS-Schwab classification, all nondeformity patients were nonpathologically grouped for PI-LL, SVA, and PT, whereas ASD patients had mix of moderately and markedly deformed modifiers. There were significant differences in pelvic and global spinal alignment changes from standing to sitting between nondeformity and ASD patients, particularly for SVA (nondeformed: 49.5 mm versus ASD: 27.4 mm; P < .001) and PI-LL (20.12° versus 13.01°, P < .001). With application of the Schwab classification system upon the cohort, PI-LL (P = .040) and SVA (P = .007) for severely classified deformity patients had significantly less positional alignment change. In an additional analysis of patients with segmental measurements from C2 to T12, nondeformity patients showed significant mobility of T2-T3 (-0.99° to -0.54°, P = .023), T6-T7 (-3.39° to -2.89°, P = .032), T7-T8 (-2.68° to -2.23°, P = .048), and T10-T11 (0.31° to 0.097°, P = .006) segments from standing to sitting. ASD patients showed mobility of the C6-C7 (1.76° to 3.45°, P < .001) and T11-T12 (0.98° to 0.54°, P = 0.014) from standing to sitting. The degree of mobility between nondeformity and ASD patients was significantly different in C6-C7 (-0.18° versus 1.69°, P = .003), T2-T3 (0.45° versus -0.27°, P = .034), and T10-T11 (0.45° versus -0.30°, P = .001) segments. With application of the Schwab modifier system upon the cohort, mobility was significant in the C6-C7 (nondeformed: 0.18° versus moderately deformed: 2.12° versus markedly deformed: 0.92°, P = .039), T2-T3 (0.45° versus -0.08° versus -0.63°, P = .020), T6-T7 (0.48° versus 0.36° versus -1.85°, P = .007), and T10-T11 (0.45° versus -0.21° versus -0.23°, P = .009) segments. CONCLUSIONS: Nondeformity patients and ASD patients have significant differences in mobility of global spinopelvic parameters as well as segmental regions in the cervical and thoracic spine between sitting and standing. This study aids in our understanding of flexibility and compensatory mechanisms in deformity patients, as well as the possible impact on unfused segments when considering deformity corrective surgery.

Association Between Frailty Status and Odontoid Fractures After Traumatic Falls: Investigation of Varying Injury Mechanisms Among 70 Elderly Odontoid Fracture Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine significant associations between patient frailty status and odontoid fractures across common traumatic mechanisms of injuries (MOIs) in the elderly. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Single, academic-affiliated hospital with full surgical services. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients 65 years or older with traumatic odontoid fractures were included. INTERVENTION: Nonoperative management (soft/hard collar, halo, traction tongs, and Minerva) and/or operative fixation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Modified frailty index (mFI), MOI, concurrent injuries, inpatient length of stay (LOS), reoperation, and mortality rates. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included (80.6 ± 8.5 years, 60% F, 88% European, 10% Maori/Pacific, 1.4% Asian, Charlson Comorbidity Index 5.3 ± 2.2, mFI 0.21 ± 0.15). The most common MOIs were falls (74.3%), high-speed motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) (17.1%), low-speed MVAs (5.7%), and pedestrian versus car (2.9%). Patients with traumatic falls exhibited significantly higher mFI scores (0.25) compared with low-speed MVAs (0.16), high-speed MVAs (0.08), and pedestrian versus car (0.01) (P = 0.003). Twenty-seven patients with odontoid fractures were frail, 33 were prefrail, and 10 were robust. Ninety-two percent of frail patients had a traumatic fall as their MOI, as opposed to 73% of prefrail and 30% of robust patients (P < 0.001). Prefrail and frail patients were 4.3 times more likely than robust patients to present with odontoid fractures through traumatic fall [odds ratio (OR): 4.33 (1.47-12.75), P = 0.008], and frailty increased likelihood of reoperation [OR: 4.2 (1.2-14.75), P = 0.025] and extended LOS [OR: 5.71 (1.05-10.37), P = 0.017]. Frail patients had the highest 30-day (P = 0.017) and 1-year mortality (P < 0.001) compared with other groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with traumatic odontoid fractures from falls were significantly more frail in comparison with any other MOIs, with worse short- and long-term outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study at a single institution. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) and bilateral minimally invasive surgery (MIS) Wiltse approach TLIF (Wil-TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several studies have compared open TLIF to MIS TLIF; however, comparing the techniques using a large cohort of one-level TLIFs has not been fully explored. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of patients undergoing a single-level primary posterior lumbar interbody fusion between 2012 and 2017. The cases were categorized as Open TLIF (traditional midline exposure including lateral exposure of transverse processes) or bilateral paramedian Wiltse TLIF approach. Differences between groups were assessed by t tests. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-seven patients underwent one-level primary TLIF (116 O-TLIF, 111 Wil-TLIF). There was no difference in age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), or body mass index (BMI) between groups. Wil-TLIF had the lowest estimated blood loss (EBL; 197 vs. 499 mL O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001), length of stay (LOS; 2.7 vs. 3.6 days O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001), overall complication rate (12% vs. 24% O-TLIF, P = 0.015), minor complication rate (7% vs. 16% O-TLIF, P = 0.049), and 90-day readmission rate (1% vs. 8% O-TLIF, P = 0.012). Wil-TLIF was associated with the higher fluoroscopy time (83 vs. 24 seconds O-TLIF, P ≤ 0.001). There was not a significant difference in operative time, intraoperative or neurological complications, extubation time, reoperation rate, or infection rate. CONCLUSION: In comparing Wiltse MIS TLIF to Open TLIF, the minimally invasive paramedian Wiltse approach demonstrated the lowest EBL, LOS, readmission rates, and complications, but longer fluoroscopy times when compared with the traditional open approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.