Early NRS Leg and Back Thresholds Predict Clinical Recovery after MIS Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spine Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective study included patients who underwent primary one-level minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative lumbar spine conditions. OBJECTIVE: To identify early predictors of failing to achieve the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) minimum clinically important difference (MCID) one-year post-surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Early identification of patients at risk of failing to achieve ODI-MCID is crucial for early intervention and improved postoperative counseling. Currently, no specific thresholds guide patient follow-up for optimal recovery. METHODS: The assessment included demographic information, surgical details, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs were collected postoperatively at 2-, 6-, and 12-week time points, as well as at 6- and 12-months. RESULTS: The study included 166 patients, with 34% failing to achieve ODI-MCID at one year. Early VAS back and leg scores were found to be significant predictors of ODI-MCID achievement. The optimal thresholds identified were 2.25 for early VAS back and 4.25 for early VAS leg. A rerun regression identified the thresholds as independent predictors of ODI-MCID, with odds ratios of 0.31 for both measures. CONCLUSION: VAS back and leg score thresholds at 6-12 weeks can predict ODI-MCID achievement one year after MIS TLIF. Patients exceeding the identified thresholds may be at risk of failing ODI-MCID and should be monitored closely. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Practical Answers to Frequently Asked Questions in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery for Degenerative Conditions.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical counseling enables shared decision making and optimal outcomes by improving patients' understanding about their pathologies, surgical options, and expected outcomes. Here, we aimed to provide practical answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) from patients undergoing an anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) for the treatment of degenerative conditions. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary one-level or two-level ACDF or CDR for the treatment of degenerative conditions with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. Data were used to answer 10 FAQs that were generated from author's experience of commonly asked questions in clinic before ACDF or CDR. RESULTS: A total of 395 patients (181 ACDF, 214 CDR) were included. (1, 2, and 3) Will my neck/arm pain and physical function improve? Patients report notable improvement in all patient-reported outcome measures. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? 13% (ACDF) and 5% (CDR) reported worsening. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? Patients on average received a 3.7 (ACDF) and 5.5 mGy (CDR) dose during. (6) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one. (7) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 13% (8% minor and 5% major) experienced in-hospital complications (ACDF) and 5% (all minor) did (CDR). (8) Will I need another surgery? 2.2% (ACDF) and 2.3% (CDR) of patients required a revision surgery. (9 & 10) When will I be able to return to work/driving? Most patients return to working (median of 16 [ACDF] and 14 days [CDR]) and driving (median of 16 [ACDF] and 12 days [CDR]). CONCLUSIONS: The answers to the FAQs can assist surgeons in evidence-based patient counseling.

Impact of Preoperative Symptom Duration on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cervical Disc Replacement for Cervical Radiculopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of preoperative symptom duration on postoperative functional outcomes after cervical disc replacement (CDR) for radiculopathy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDR has emerged as a reliable and efficacious treatment option for degenerative cervical spine pathologies. The relationship between preoperative symptom duration and outcomes after CDR is not well established. METHODS: Patients with radiculopathy without myelopathy who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDRs were included and divided into shorter (<6 mo) and prolonged (≥6 mo) cohorts based on preoperative symptom duration. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included neck disability index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm. Changes in PROM scores and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) rates were calculated. Analyses were conducted on the early (within 3 mo) and late (6 mo-2 y) postoperative periods. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients (43.6±8.7 y, 33.3% female) were included. In both early and late postoperative periods, the shorter preoperative symptom duration cohort experienced significantly greater change from preoperative PROM scores compared with the prolonged symptom duration cohort for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm. The shorter symptom duration cohort achieved MCID in the early postoperative period at a significantly higher rate for NDI (78.9% vs. 54.9%, P =0.001), VAS-Neck (87.0% vs. 56.0%, P <0.001), and VAS-Arm (90.5% vs. 70.7%, P =0.002). Prolonged preoperative symptom duration (≥6 mo) was identified as an independent risk factor for failure to achieve MCID at the latest timepoint for NDI (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-6.9, P =0.016), VAS-Neck (OR: 9.8, 95% CI: 3.7-26.0, P <0.001), and VAS-Arm (OR: 7.5, 95% CI: 2.5-22.5, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates improved patient-reported outcomes for those with shorter preoperative symptom duration undergoing CDR for radiculopathy, suggesting delayed surgical intervention may result in poorer outcomes and greater postoperative disability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.