Periprosthetic fractures are osteoporotic fractures: missed opportunities for osteoporosis diagnosis.

Joint replacement surgery is common in older adults, leading to increasing periprosthetic fracture (PPFx) occurrence. We reviewed all PPFx seen over a 4-year period at an academic hospital. Clinical osteoporosis could be diagnosed based on existing data in 104 (67%) at the time of PPFx. Periprosthetic fractures are generally osteoporosis-related. PURPOSE: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFx) cause morbidity, mortality, and cost. This study's purpose was to describe osteoporosis-related data available at the time of PPFx. METHODS: The electronic medical record (EMR) of PPFx patients seen over 4 years in a university orthopedic practice were reviewed. Demographic data and osteoporosis relevant parameters were collected. Prior DXA studies were reviewed, and L1 Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements were performed on CT scans obtained within 2 years before PPFx. Clinical osteoporosis was defined as prior diagnosis, prescribed osteoporosis treatment, T-score ≤ - 2.5, HU ≤ 100, or prior fracture. RESULTS: Records of 156 PPFx patients (115 F/41 M), mean (SD) age 75.4 (11.9), were reviewed. Almost all 153/156 (98%) of these fractures were femoral. Falls caused 139 (89%); 12 (8%) were spontaneous. Mean time post-arthroplasty was 7.9 (6.3) years. Prior fragility fracture(s) occurred in 72 (46%); 14 were PPFx. Osteoporosis was previously diagnosed in 45 (29%) and medications prescribed in 41 (26%). Prior to PPFx, DXA data were available in 62, mean (SD) lowest T-score was - 1.9 (0.9) and was ≤ - 2.5 in 19. CT data were available in 46; mean (SD) L1 HU was 79.0 (29.4) and was ≤ 100 in 35. Based on existing data, clinical osteoporosis could have been diagnosed in 104 (67%) at the time of PPFx. CONCLUSION: Periprosthetic fractures are osteoporosis-related. They occur in older adults, often female, and result from falls; BMD, when assessed, is low. Data available at the time of PPFx often allows osteoporosis diagnosis; this should prompt evaluation and pharmacologic treatment consideration.

Proposed bone health screening protocol to identify total knee arthroplasty patients for preoperative DXA.

This study evaluates a novel, simple bone health screening protocol composed of patient sex, age, fracture history, and FRAX risk to identify total knee arthroplasty patients for preoperative DXA. Findings supported effectiveness, with sensitivity of 1.00 (CI 0.92-1.00) and specificity of 0.54 (CI 0.41-0.68) when evaluating for clinical osteoporosis. PURPOSE: Bone health optimization is a process where osteoporotic patients are identified, evaluated via modalities such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and treated when indicated. There are currently no established guidelines to determine who needs presurgical DXA. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a simple screening protocol to identify TKA patients for preoperative DXA. METHODS: This prospective cohort study began on September 1, 2019, and included 100 elective TKA patients. Inclusion criteria were ≥ 50 years and primary TKA. All patients obtained routine clinical DXA. The screening protocol defining who should obtain DXA included meeting any of the following: female ≥ 65, male ≥ 70, fracture history after age 50, or FRAX major osteoporotic fracture risk without bone mineral density (BMD) adjustments ≥ 8.4%. Osteoporosis was defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria (T-score ≤ - 2.5) or clinically (T-score ≤ - 2.5, elevated BMD-adjusted FRAX risk, or prior hip/spine fracture). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: The study included 68 females and 32 males, mean age 67.2 ± 7.7. T-score osteoporosis was observed in 16 patients while 43 had clinical osteoporosis. Screening criteria recommending DXA was met by 69 patients. Screening sensitivity was 1.00 (CI 0.79-1.00) and specificity was 0.37 (CI 0.27-0.48) for identifying patients with T-score osteoporosis. Similar sensitivity of 1.00 (CI 0.92-1.00) and specificity of 0.54 (CI 0.41-0.68) were found for clinical osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: A simple screening protocol identifies TKA patients with T-score and clinical osteoporosis for preoperative DXA with high sensitivity in this prospective cohort study.

Humeral BMD can be Measured With DXA and Is Lower in the Surgical Arm After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: As arthroplasty leads to bone loss, we hypothesized that humeral bone mineral density (BMD) is lower after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) in the operative versus non-operative arm. However, there is no clinical approach to measure humeral BMD with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The purposes of this pilot study were to develop DXA methodology to measure humerus BMD, propose humerus regions of interest (ROIs), compare TSA BMD to the non-operative arm, correlate humeral BMD with standard sites, and evaluate measurement reproducibility. METHODOLOGY: Thirty-eight adults 1-5 years post-TSA had standard clinical DXA scans plus full humerus scans using the atypical femur fracture feature; precision was assessed in a subset (n = 32). Six custom ROIs were used to measure BMD throughout the humerus. Radius and humeral BMD were compared between arms by paired t-test and correlated ipsilaterally using Pearson's Correlation. Custom ROI BMD precision was assessed using the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) advanced precision calculator. RESULTS: Study included 38 subjects (24M/14F), with mean (SD) age and time post-surgery of 69.6 (7.7) years and 2.5 (1.3) years respectively. BMD was lower (p < 0.01) at all custom humerus sites (3.8% to 8.2%) on the surgical side but not different at radius sites. Humeral BMD correlated positively with ipsilateral ultra-distal and 1/3 radius (r = 0.54 to 0.86; p < 0.05). Custom BMD precision (%CV) ranged from 6.0-16.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Humerus BMD can be measured using DXA and is lower in the TSA arm. Radius BMD correlated with humeral BMD but was not lower in the surgical arm. BMD precision was worse than usual clinical sites; use of software optimized for the femur is a notable limitation and likely contributes to suboptimal precision. Further study to assess the clinical utility of humeral BMD is needed. Automation and optimization of these measurements should improve precision.

Osteoporosis Is Common and Undertreated Prior to Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is common in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients and likely contributes to the increasing incidence of periprosthetic fracture. Despite this, the prevalence of osteoporosis in patients undergoing elective TJA is inadequately studied. We hypothesize that preoperative osteoporosis is underrecognized and undertreated in the TJA population. The purpose of this study is to report preoperative osteoporosis screening rates and prevalence prior to TJA and rates of pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment in the TJA population. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of 200 consecutive adults (106F, 94M) aged 48-92 years who underwent elective TJA (100 total hip, 100 total knee) at a single tertiary-care center. Charts were retrospectively reviewed to determine preoperative osteoporosis risk factors, prior dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) testing, and prior osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. Fracture risk was estimated using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool and the National Osteoporosis Foundation criteria for screening and treatment were applied to all patients. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen of 200 patients (59.5%) met criteria for DXA testing. Of these 119, 21 (17.6%) had DXA testing in the 2 years prior to surgery, and 33% had osteoporosis by T-score. Forty-nine patients (24.5%) met National Osteoporosis Foundation criteria for pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment, and 11 of these 49 received a prescription for pharmacotherapy within 6 months before or after surgery. CONCLUSION: One quarter of TJA patients meet criteria to receive osteoporosis medications, but only 5% receive therapy preoperatively or postoperatively. This lack of preoperative osteoporosis screening and treatment may contribute to periprosthetic fracture risk.

Unrecognized Osteoporosis Is Common in Patients With a Well-Functioning Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Peri-prosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are associated with poorer outcomes and high costs. We hypothesize that osteoporosis is under-recognized in the TKA population. The purpose of this study is to report osteoporosis prevalence in a healthy cohort of patients with well-functioning TKA and to compare prevalence between males and females. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional study of 30 adults (15 males/15 females) aged 59-80 years without known bone health issues who volunteered to undergo routine dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry 2-5 years (average 3.2 ± 0.8) after primary unilateral TKA. These data plus clinical risk factors were used to estimate fracture risk via the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool and skeletal status (normal, osteopenic, osteoporotic) was determined based on the World Health Organization definition. The National Osteoporosis Foundation criteria for treatment were applied to all patients. RESULTS: Six of 30 (20%) patients had T-score ≤ -2.5. Eighteen of 30 (60%) patients had T-score between -1 and -2.5 and 6 (20%) patients had T-score ≥ -1. Five patients with normal or osteopenic bone mineral density (BMD) had occult vertebral fractures. Eleven of 30 (36.7%) patients met National Osteoporosis Foundation criteria for pharmacologic treatment. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of occult osteoporosis meeting treatment guidelines after TKA is substantial in this sample (36.7%). BMD and osteoporosis prevalence are similar between men and women. This underappreciated prevalence of osteoporosis may contribute to peri-prosthetic fracture risk. Arthroplasty surgeons and bone health specialists must be aware of post-operative changes in bone density. These data support the further study of post-operative osteoporosis and consideration of routine BMD screening after TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

What Are the 30-day Readmission Rates Across Orthopaedic Subspecialties?

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) now include hip and knee replacements in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. The 30-day readmission rate is an important quality metric; however, the incidence has not yet been defined across the numerous orthopaedic subspecialties. Elucidating the readmission rate for each subspecialty may indicate that certain services are being disincentivized by the CMS reimbursement program. Furthermore, the "planned" and "unplanned" definitions of readmission have not been well examined to determine their clinical relevance and representation of safe patient care. Therefore, reducing the 30-day readmission rate has become a top priority in orthopaedic quality assurance. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the 30-day readmission rates for the different orthopaedic subspecialties? (2) What are the risk factors associated with readmission within 30 days? (3) What are the causes of 30-day readmissions? (4) What is the interrater agreement among CMS, hospital, and clinician definitions of planned and unplanned readmissions? METHODS: We retrospectively examined one tertiary care academic hospital's quality improvement database and identified 4792 discharges from the department of orthopaedics during a continuous 24-month period. Discharges were divided and analyzed according to the subspecialty of orthopaedic care. Demographics and comorbidities were extracted from the database and subjected to univariate and multivariate analysis to determine risk factors for 30-day readmission. Further chart review was conducted on all cases of 30-day readmission to identify causes. The authors' determination of planned versus unplanned was compared with two other definitions (hospital and CMS) and analyzed for agreement by using Fleiss' kappa for multiple rater. RESULTS: The all-cause 30-day readmission rate was 4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-4.8). The unplanned readmission rate was 3% (95% CI, 2.8-3.8). After controlling for relevant confounding variables, we found that length of stay (odds ratio [OR], 1.10 per day; p < 0.001), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (OR, 1.89 per point; p < 0.001), and care under trauma (OR, 2.55; p < 0.001) or "other" (OR, 1.65; p = 0.009) as compared with joint subspecialty were associated with increased risk of readmission. Of the 160 unplanned readmissions, 93 (58%) were surgical and 67 (42%) were medical. The most common surgical cause was surgical site infection (38% of surgical readmissions) and the most common medical causes were gastrointestinal bleed, pulmonary embolus, and unrelated trauma (each 9% of medical readmissions). There was poor agreement (Fleiss' kappa = 0.120) among the three definitions of planned readmission. CONCLUSIONS: There are important differences in the risk of readmission by subspecialty across orthopaedics and the CMS-driven disincentives may be applied unequally across these subspecialties. This could result in hospitals deemphasizing those service lines and could potentially limit access to care for the patients most in need. Avenues of readmission reduction should be further studied including telephone followup programs and outpatient management of threatened wounds. Clinical, hospital, and CMS definitions of planned readmission have poor agreement, suggesting that hospitals are being unnecessarily penalized. The CMS should develop a more clinically relevant definition of 30-day readmission to more accurately evaluate the rate of readmissions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Thirty-day readmission rates in spine surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECT The rate of 30-day readmissions is rapidly gaining significance as a quality metric and is increasingly used to evaluate performance. An analysis of the present 30-day readmission rate in the spine literature is needed to aid the development of policies to decrease the frequency of readmissions. The authors examine 2 questions: 1) What is the 30-day readmission rate as reported in the spine literature? 2) What study factors impact the rate of 30-day readmissions? METHODS This study was registered with Prospera (CRD42014015319), and 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were searched for articles. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the current 30-day readmission rate in spine surgery. Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. The readmission rate as well as data source, time from enrollment, sample size, demographics, procedure type and spine level, risk factors for readmission, and causes of readmission were extrapolated from each study. RESULTS The pooled 30-day readmission rate was 5.5% (95% CI 4.2%-7.4%). Studies from single institutions reported the highest 30-day readmission rate at 6.6% (95% CI 3.8%-11.1%), while multicenter studies reported the lowest at 4.7% (95% CI 2.3%-9.7%). Time from enrollment had no statistically significant effect on the 30-day readmission rate. Studies including all spinal levels had a higher 30-day readmission rate (6.1%, 95% CI 4.1%-8.9%) than exclusively lumbar studies (4.6%, 95% CI 2.5%-8.2%); however, the difference between the 2 rates was not statistically significant (p = 0.43). The most frequently reported risk factors associated with an increased odds of 30-day readmission on multivariate analysis were an American Society of Anesthesiology score of 4+, operative duration, and Medicare/Medicaid insurance. The most common cause of readmission was wound complication (39.3%). CONCLUSIONS The 30-day readmission rate following spinal surgery is between 4.2% and 7.4%. The range, rather than the exact result, should be considered given the significant heterogeneity among studies, which indicates that there are factors such as demographics, procedure types, and individual institutional factors that are important and affect this outcome variable. The pooled analysis of risk factors and causes of readmission is limited by the lack of reporting in most of the spine literature.

MRI Vertebral Bone Quality Correlates With Interbody Cage Subsidence After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study of consecutive patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate VBQ as a predictor of interbody subsidence and to determine threshold values that portend increased risk of subsidence. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many risk factors have been reported for the subsidence of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). MRI Vertebral Bone Quality (VQB) is a relatively new radiographic parameter that can be easily obtained from preoperative MRI and has been shown to correlate with measurements of bone density such as DXA and CT Hounsfield Units. METHODS: All patients who underwent 1- to 3-level ACDF using titanium interbodies with anterior plating between the years 2018 and 2020 at our tertiary referral center were included. Subsidence measurements were performed by 2 independent reviewers on CT scans obtained 6 months postoperatively. VBQ was measured on pre-operative sagittal T1 MRI by 2 independent reviewers, and values were averaged. RESULTS: Eight-five fusion levels in 44 patients were included in the study. There were 32 levels (38%) with moderate subsidence and 12 levels with severe subsidence (14%). The average VBQ score in those patients with severe subsidence was significantly higher than those without subsidence (3.80 vs. 2.40, P<0.01). A threshold value of 3.2 was determined to be optimal for predicting subsidence (AUC=0.99) and had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 94.1% in predicting subsidence. CONCLUSIONS: VBQ strongly correlates with the subsidence of interbody grafts after ACDF. A threshold VBQ score value of 3.2 has excellent sensitivity and specificity for predicting subsidence. Spine surgeons can use VBQ as a readily available screening tool to identify patients at higher risk for subsidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-IV.

Paraspinal Sarcopenia and Lower Hounsfield Units are Independent Predictors of Increased Risk for Proximal Junctional Complications Following Thoracolumbar Fusions Terminating in the Upper Thoracic Spine.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The impact of paraspinal sarcopenia following fusions that extend to the upper thoracic spine remain unknown. The purpose of the present study was to assess the impact of sarcopenia on the development of PJK and PJF following spine fusion surgery from the upper thoracic spine to the pelvis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent spine fusion surgery that extended caudally to the pelvis and terminated cranially between T1-6. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: (1) patients without PJK or PJF and (2) patients with PJK and/or PJF. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors for the development of proximal junctional complications. RESULTS: We identified 81 patients for inclusion in this study. Mean HU at the UIV was 186.1 ± 47.5 in the cohort of patients without PJK or PJF, which was substantially higher than values recorded in the PJK/PJF subgroup (142.4 ± 40.2) (P < 0.001). Severe multifidus sarcopenia was identified at a higher rate in the subgroup of patients who developed proximal junction pathology (66.7%) than in the subgroup of patients who developed neither PJK nor PJF (7.4%; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated both low HU at the UIV and moderate-severe multifidus sarcopenia to be risk factors for the development of PJK and PJF. CONCLUSIONS: Severe paraspinal sarcopenia and diminished bone density at the UIV impart an increased risk of developing PJK and PJF in following thoracolumbar fusions from the upper thoracic spine to the pelvis.

Bone Health Optimization (BHO) in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVE: To educate spine surgeons on the importance of bone health optimization in surgical patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Osteoporosis is common and underdiagnosed in spine surgery patients. Poor bone health has been linked to worse outcomes and complications after spine surgery. Guidelines are available to inform decision making on screening and treatment in this population. METHODS: Available literature is reviewed regarding bone health screening and treatment. Studies reporting outcomes related to osteoporosis, bone density, and vitamin D status are summarized. Pharmacologic treatment and nutritional considerations are discussed. Bone health optimization practice models and outcomes are also reviewed. RESULTS: Bone health screening should be considered in all adults over age 50. Gender-specific guidelines are available to determine which patients need dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Osteoporosis can be diagnosed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry T-score, fracture risk calculator or by history of low-energy fracture. Advanced imaging including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging can be used to opportunistically assess bone health. If diagnosed, osteoporosis can be treated with either antiresorptive or anabolic agents. These medications can be started preoperatively or postoperatively and, in high-risk patients, surgical delay can be considered. The implementation of bone health optimization programs has been shown to greatly increasing screening and treatment rates. CONCLUSION: Bone health assessment and optimization are important for decreasing surgical risks and improving outcomes in spine surgery patients.

CT required to perform robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty can identify previously undiagnosed osteoporosis and guide femoral fixation strategy.

Osteoporosis can determine surgical strategy for total hip arthroplasty (THA), and perioperative fracture risk. The aims of this study were to use hip CT to measure femoral bone mineral density (BMD) using CT X-ray absorptiometry (CTXA), determine if systematic evaluation of preoperative femoral BMD with CTXA would improve identification of osteopenia and osteoporosis compared with available preoperative dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) analysis, and determine if improved recognition of low BMD would affect the use of cemented stem fixation. Retrospective chart review of a single-surgeon database identified 78 patients with CTXA performed prior to robotic-assisted THA (raTHA) (Group 1). Group 1 was age- and sex-matched to 78 raTHAs that had a preoperative hip CT but did not have CTXA analysis (Group 2). Clinical demographics, femoral fixation method, CTXA, and DXA data were recorded. Demographic data were similar for both groups. Preoperative femoral BMD was available for 100% of Group 1 patients (CTXA) and 43.6% of Group 2 patients (DXA). CTXA analysis for all Group 1 patients preoperatively identified 13 osteopenic and eight osteoporotic patients for whom there were no available preoperative DXA data. Cemented stem fixation was used with higher frequency in Group 1 versus Group 2 (28.2% vs 14.3%, respectively; p = 0.030), and in all cases where osteoporosis was diagnosed, irrespective of technique (DXA or CTXA). Preoperative hip CT scans which are routinely obtained prior to raTHA can determine bone health, and thus guide femoral fixation strategy. Systematic preoperative evaluation with CTXA resulted in increased recognition of osteopenia and osteoporosis, and contributed to increased use of cemented femoral fixation compared with routine clinical care; in this small study, however, it did not impact short-term periprosthetic fracture risk.

Fractures in the ankylosed spine are associated with poor bone quality and lower hounsfield units.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study INTRODUCTION: Patients with ankylosing spinal disorders have a higher risk of fractures, highlighting the need for bone health surveillance. Bone assessment by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is challenging due to abnormal bone formation but measurements by quantitative computed tomography (qCT) have demonstrated higher sensitivity and specificity. However, no studies have analyzed bone quality using qCT in the ankylosed spine population to assess three-column fracture characteristics and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: 106 patients with 115 three-column fractures were identified from 1999 to 2020. Patient demographics, Charlson comorbidity index, and injury severity score were extracted. Bone quality measured in Hounsfield units (HU), fracture characteristics, neurologic injury, and mortality were obtained. RESULTS: Most injuries occurred in the thoracic spine (70.4%) following a ground level fall (60.5%). HU adjacent to the fracture (127 HU) was significantly lower than the mobile segments (173 HU) (p < 0.001). Fracture adjacent HU was significantly lower in AS patients compared to DISH (109 vs 150 HU, p = 0.02, respectively) and were lower in fractures that resulted in a non-union or revision surgery (88 vs 137 HU, p = 0.04). Patients with longer fused segments were associated with multilevel and displaced fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Fracture adjacent HUs within the autofused segments were significantly lower than in the mobile segments, and longer fusion segments were associated with displaced, multilevel fractures. This study reinforces the importance of assessing patients for decreased HUs as well as better understand how the length of fused segments is associated with displaced, multilevel fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Iatrogenic vertebral artery injury with concomitant contralateral idiopathic vertebral artery dissection managed with intravascular intervention: a case report.

Background: Vertebral artery injury (VAI) is a known potential complication of posterior cervical fusion surgery. Pre-operative imaging is used to determine the patency of bilateral vertebral arteries during the planning and execution of surgery. This case illustrates an example of a staged anterior/posterior cervical reconstruction in which an iatrogenic VAI combined with a contralateral idiopathic vertebral artery dissection not identified on pre-operative imaging resulted in absent basilar artery anterograde flow. Case Description: A 61-year-old female underwent planned staged anterior cervical decompression C4-T1 with posterior cervical fusion C2-T4 for the treatment of degenerative cervical myeloradiculopathy. During the second stage posterior fusion, iatrogenic VAI occurred during drilling for placement of the right C2 pars screw. Upon post-operative angiography, in addition to the known right VAI, there was a new left vertebral artery dissection that occurred during/after the anterior stage. The basilar artery was only filled in retrograde fashion from the right internal carotid artery across the right posterior communicating artery. The left vertebral artery dissection was treated with telescoping flow diverting stents to restore flow to the basilar artery and the right VAI was treated with coiling. Conclusions: Surgeons should be aware of the possibility, while rare, that an occult injury to the non-injured artery is always a possibility if significant deformity correction or alignment change has occurred during cervical spine surgery. Working closely with neurointerventional colleagues can be invaluable to quickly assess and if necessary, restore blood flow to the brain through these life saving techniques.

Intraoperative Surgeon Assessment of Bone: Correlation to Bone Mineral Density, CT Hounsfield units and Vertebral Bone Quality.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study of consecutive patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study is to determine if a surgeon's qualitative assessment of bone intraoperatively correlates with radiologic parameters of bone strength. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Preoperative radiologic assessment of bone can include modalities such as CT Hounsfield Units (HUs), dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry bone mineral density (DXA BMD) with trabecular bone score (TBS) and MRI vertebral bone quality (VBQ). Quantitative analysis of bone with screw insertional torque and pull-out strength measurement has been performed in cadaveric models and has been correlated to these radiologic parameters. However, these quantitative measurements are not routinely available for use in surgery. Surgeons anecdotally judge bone strength, but the fidelity of the intraoperative judgement has not been investigated. METHODS: All adult patients undergoing instrumented posterior thoracolumbar spine fusion by one of seven surgeons at a single center over a 3-month period were included. Surgeons evaluated the strength of bone based on intraoperative feedback and graded each patient's bone on a 5-point Likert scale. Two independent reviewers measured preoperative CT HUs and MRI VBQ. BMD, lowest T-score and TBS were extracted from DXA within 2 years of surgery. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were enrolled and 16, 28, 31, 13 and 1 patients had Likert grade 1 (strongest bone), 2, 3, 4, and 5 (weakest bone), respectively. The surgeon assessment of bone correlated with VBQ (τ=0.15, P=0.07), CT HU (τ=-0.31, P<0.01), lowest DXA T-score (τ=-0.47, P<0.01), and TBS (τ=-0.23, P=0.06). CONCLUSION: Spine surgeons' qualitative intraoperative assessment of bone correlates with preoperative radiologic parameters, particularly in posterior thoracolumbar surgeries. This information is valuable to surgeons as this supports the idea that decisions based on feel in surgery have statistical foundation.

A Novel Osteoporosis Screening Protocol to Identify Orthopedic Surgery Patients for Preoperative Bone Health Optimization.

Introduction: Osteoporosis is highly prevalent in elective orthopedic surgery. While preoperative bone health optimization decreases osteoporosis-related complications, there is an unmet need to establish who may benefit from preoperative dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). This study assesses a novel, simple screening protocol to identify orthopedic surgical patients for preoperative DXA. Materials/Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 628 patients undergoing total knee, hip, or shoulder arthroplasty or thoracolumbar spine fusion. Inclusion criteria were ≥40 years undergoing primary elective surgery. Screening criteria defining who should obtain DXA due to high osteoporosis risk included: female ≥65, male ≥70, fracture history when ≥50 years, or FRAX major osteoporotic fracture risk (without bone mineral density [BMD]-adjustments) ≥8.4%. Osteoporosis was defined by World Health Organization criteria [T-score ≤ -2.5], clinical National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) criteria [T-score ≤ -2.5, elevated BMD-adjusted FRAX risk, or prior hip/spine fracture], and modified clinical criteria [NOF criteria simplified to include any non-traumatic prior fracture and FRAX without BMD]. Results: The study included 100 TKAs, 100 THAs, 251 TSAs, and 177 spine fusions, average age 65.6 ± 9.8. DXA was available for 209 patients. Screening criteria recommending DXA was met by 362 patients. For those with DXA, screening sensitivity was .96 (CI: .78 to .99) and specificity was .19 (CI: .14 to .25) for identifying T-score osteoporosis. Similar sensitivity of .99 (CI: .91 to .99) and specificity of .61 (CI: .56 to .66) were found for modified clinical osteoporosis. For modified clinical osteoporosis, 192 patients with osteoporosis met criteria (true pos.), 1 patient with osteoporosis did not meet criteria (false neg.), 170 patients without osteoporosis met criteria (false pos.), and 265 patients without osteoporosis did not meet criteria (true neg.). Discussion/Conclusion: A simple screening protocol identifies orthopedic surgical candidates at risk of T-score or clinical osteoporosis for preoperative DXA with high sensitivity.

Effect of Bone Health Optimization on Osteoporosis Screening and Treatment Before Thoracolumbar Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoporosis is not rare in thoracolumbar spine fusion patients and may portend poorer surgical outcomes. Implementation of a bone health optimization (BHO) clinic improves osteoporosis screening and treatment in the total joint arthroplasty population. We hypothesize that preoperative osteoporosis is common, under-recognized, and undertreated in thoracolumbar fusion patients and that a BHO clinic will increase preoperative osteoporosis screening rates and pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment in this population. METHODS: This retrospective case series includes adults older than 30 years who underwent elective thoracolumbar spine fusion at a single tertiary care center before and after creation of a BHO referral clinic. Data collected included preoperative osteoporosis risk factors, prior dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry testing, and prior osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. Fracture risk was estimated using the fracture risk assessment tool with and without bone mineral density (BMD), and the US National Osteoporosis Foundation criteria for screening and treatment were applied. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included in the pre-BHO group; 53 patients met criteria for BMD measurement, but only 10 were tested within 2 years preoperatively. Sixteen patients (18%) met criteria for osteoporosis pharmacotherapy, but only 5 of the 16 (31%) received osteoporosis medication within 6 months of surgery. There were 87 patients in the post-BHO group, and 19 were referred to the BHO clinic. BMD measurement was done in 17 of the patients (89%) referred to the BHO clinic compared with 10% for those not referred. All patients (n = 7) referred to the BHO clinic meeting treatment criteria received treatment within 6 months before surgery, whereas only 25% of the patients not referred received treatment. DISCUSSION: Osteoporosis is not rare in adults undergoing thoracolumbar spine fusion with ∼13% to 18% meeting criteria for pharmacotherapy. Preoperative BHO referral increases screening and treatment.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adjacent Segment Degeneration.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Assessment of outcomes in patients undergoing lateral interbody fusion as part of the surgical treatment of adjacent segment deterioration after previous lumbar spine fusion. METHODS: Adult patients with previous lumbar posterior spinal fusion who presented with adjacent segment degeneration and stenosis refractory to nonoperative treatment and who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed and comparisons made between preoperative baseline and postoperative values. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration at 46 motion segments were included. Thirty (83.3%) of the 36 patients had complete relief of both preoperative lower extremity pain and back pain at the time of final follow-up. Six (16.7%) of the 36 patients had persistent pain, though in all 6 cases, the pain was less postoperatively than preoperatively. Oswestry Disability Index scores were improved significantly at final follow-up (P = .001). Compared with preoperative baseline parameters, initial and final postoperative radiographs had an increase in segmental lordosis (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively), increase in overall lumbar lordosis (P < .05 and P = .094, respectively), decrease in segmental coronal angulation (P = .63 and P < .01, respectively), decrease in overall coronal angulation (P = .063 and P = .009, respectively), and increase in intervertebral height (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion achieves favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes for the treatment of adjacent segment degeneration after previous lumbar fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Opportunistic use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to evaluate lumbar scoliosis.

Low bone mineral density is associated with spinal deformity. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a modality that assesses bone density, portends a theoretical means to also assess spinal deformity. We found that DXA can reliably assess spine alignment. DXA may permit surveillance of spine alignment, i.e., scoliosis in the clinical setting. PURPOSE: Osteoporosis and scoliosis are interrelated disease processes. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), used to assess bone density, can also be used to evaluate spinal deformity since it captures a posteroanterior (PA) image of the lumbar spine. We assessed the use of DXA to evaluate lumbar spine alignment. METHODS: A lumbar spine DXA phantom was used to assess the effects of axial and sagittal plane rotation on lumbar bone mineral content (BMC), density (BMD), and L1-L4 Cobb angle measurements. Using two subject cohorts, intra- and inter-observer reliability and validity of using DXA for L1-L4 Cobb angle measurements in the coronal and sagittal planes were assessed. RESULTS: Axial and sagittal plane rotation greater than 15° and 10°, respectively, significantly reduced measured BMD and BMC; there was minimal effect on Cobb angle measurement reliability. In human subjects, excellent intra- and inter-observer reliability was observed using lumbar PA DXA images for Cobb angle measurements. Agreement between Cobb angles derived from lumbar PA DXA images and AP lumbar radiographs ranged from good to excellent. The mean difference in Cobb angles between supine lumbar PA DXA images and upright AP lumbar radiographs was 2.8° in all subjects and 5.8° in those with scoliosis. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar spine rotation does not significantly affect BMD and BMC within 15° and 10° of axial and sagittal plane rotation, respectively, and minimally affects Cobb angle measurement. Spine alignment in the coronal plane can be reliably assessed using lumbar PA DXA images.

Factors Considered in Ranking Spine Surgery Fellowship Applicants: A Survey of Program Directors.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors spine surgery fellowship program directors (PDs) consider most important when ranking applicants. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spine surgery is a popular orthopedic subspecialty. As such, the spine fellowship match process is highly competitive. Surveys of fellowship PDs in orthopedic sports medicine and hand surgery have demonstrated differing opinions regarding factors considered most important when ranking fellowship applicants. The factors considered important to spine surgery fellowship PDs have not been evaluated. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was sent to the PDs of all spine surgery fellowships participating in the San Francisco (SF) Match Program. The questions were designed to identify criteria considered most important in ranking spine surgery fellowship applicants. A list of 12 criteria was presented and PDs were asked to rank these in order of importance. A weighted score for each criterion was calculated using the following scale: 5 points for each criterion ranked 1st, 4 points for 2nd, 3 points for 3rd, 2 points for 4th, and 1 point for 5th. RESULTS: Of the 73 PDs queried, 52 responded (71% response rate). The interview was the most important factor when ranking fellowship applicants. The other criteria deemed most important in order of weighted scoring were letters of recommendation and personal connections to the applicant and/or familiarity with the applicant's letter writer(s). CONCLUSION: Spine surgery fellowship PDs consider the interview, letters of recommendation, and personal connections with the applicant/letter writers to be the most important factors when ranking candidates. These results may be valuable to orthopedic residents and mentors of those pursuing fellowship training in spine surgery.Level of Evidence: 4.