Postoperative complications after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, assessment using two different data sources.

PURPOSE: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent disorder, and surgery for LSS is a common procedure. Postoperative complications occur after any surgery and impose costs for society and costs and additional morbidity for patients. Since complications are relatively rare, medical registries of large populations may provide valuable knowledge. However, recording of complications in registries can be incomplete. To better estimate the true prevalence of complications after LSS surgery, we reviewed two different sources of data and recorded complications for a sample of Norwegian LSS patients. METHODS: 474 patients treated surgically for LSS during 2015 and 2016 at four hospitals reported to a national spine registry (NORspine). Postoperative complications were recorded by patients in NORspine, and we cross-referenced complications documented in NORspine with the patients´ electronic patient records (EPR) to re-test the complication rates. We performed descriptive statistics of complication rates using the two different data sources above, and analyzed the association between postoperative complications and clinical outcome with logistic regression. RESULTS: The mean (95%CI) patient age was 66.3 (65.3-67.2) years, and 254 (53.6%) were females. All patients were treated with decompression, and 51 (10.7%) received an additional fusion during the index surgery. Combining the two data sources, we found a total rate for postoperative complications of 22.4%, the NORspine registry reported a complication rate of 15.6%, and the EPR review resulted in a complication rate of 16.0%. However, the types of complications were inconsistent across the two data sources. According to NORspine, the frequency of reoperation within 90 days was 0.9% and according to EPR 3.4%. The rates of wound infection were for NORspine 3.1% and EPR review 2.1%. There was no association between postoperative complication and patient reported outcome. CONCLUSION: Postoperative complications occurred in 22% of LSS patients. The frequency of different postoperative complications differed between the two data sources.

Incidental dural tears associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients operated for lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Incidental dural (ID) tear is a common complication of spine surgery with a prevalence of 4-10%. The association between ID and clinical outcome is uncertain. Former studies found only minor differences in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). We aimed to examine the association of ID with treatment failure after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: Between 2007 and 2017, 11,873 LSS patients reported to the national Norwegian spine registry (NORspine), and 8,919 (75.1%) completed the 12-month follow-up. We used multivariate logistic regression to study the association between ID and failure after surgery, defined as no effect or any degrees of worsening; we also compared mean ODI between those who suffered a perioperative ID and those who did not. RESULTS: The mean (95% CI) age was 66.6 (66.4-66.9) years, and 52% were females. The mean (95% CI) preoperative ODI score (95% CI) was 39.8 (39.4-40.1); all patients were operated on with decompression, and 1125 (12.6%) had an additional fusion procedure. The prevalence of ID was 4.9% (439/8919), and the prevalence of failure was 20.6% (1829/8919). Unadjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) for failure for ID was 1.51 (1.22-1.88); p < 0.001, adjusted OR (95% CI) was 1.44 (1.11-1.86); p = 0.002. Mean postoperative ODI 12 months after surgery was 27.9 for ID vs. 23.6 for no ID. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated a significant association between ID and increased odds for patient-reported failure 12 months after surgery. However, the magnitude of the detrimental effect of ID on the clinical outcome was small.

The use of electronic PROMs provides same outcomes as paper version in a spine surgery registry. Results from a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient-Reported Measured Outcomes (PROMs) are essential to gain a full understanding of a patient's condition, and in spine surgery, these questionnaires are of help when tailoring a surgical strategy. Electronic registries allow for a systematic collection and storage of PROMs, making them readily available for clinical and research purposes. This study aimed to investigate the reliability between the electronic and paper form of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index), SF-36 (Short Form Health Survey 36) and COMI-back (Core Outcome Measures Index for the back) questionnaires. METHODS: A prospective analysis was performed of ODI, SF-36 and COMI-back questionnaires collected in paper and electronic format in two patients' groups: Pre-Operatively (PO) or at follow-up (FU). All patients, in both groups, completed the three questionnaires in paper and electronic form. The correlation between both methods was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: The data from 100 non-consecutive, volunteer patients with a mean age of 55.6 ± 15.0 years were analysed. For all of the three PROMs, the reliability between paper and electronic questionnaires results was excellent (ICC: ODI = 0.96; COMI = 0.98; SF36-MCS = 0.98; SF36-PCS = 0.98. For all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study proved an excellent reliability between the electronic and paper versions of ODI, SF-36 and COMI-back questionnaires collected using a spine registry. This validation paves the way for stronger widespread use of electronic PROMs. They offer numerous advantages in terms of accessibility, storage, and data analysis compared to paper questionnaires.

Quality Outcomes Database Spine Care Project 2012-2020: milestones achieved in a collaborative North American outcomes registry to advance value-based spine care and evolution to the American Spine Registry.

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N2QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: "1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated 'risk models' to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies." The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

Does the use of preoperative bisphosphonates in patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis affect lumbar fusion rates? Analysis from a national spine registry.

OBJECTIVE: Bisphosphonates are used to increase bone strength in treating osteopenia and osteoporosis, but their use for increasing lumbar fusion rates has been controversial. The objective of this study was to determine if preoperative treatment with bisphosphonates affects the reoperation rates for nonunions (operative nonunion rates) following lumbar fusions in patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis. METHODS: The authors conducted a cohort study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry. Patients (aged ≥ 50 years) with a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis who underwent primary elective lumbar fusions for degenerative disc disease, deformity, or spondylolisthesis were included in the cohort. Repeated spinal procedures at the index lumbar levels were noted through chart review. Reoperations for symptomatic nonunions (operative nonunions), time to nonunion, and the nonunion spine level(s) were also identified. The crude 2-year cumulative incidence of operative nonunions was calculated as 1 minus the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between preoperative bisphosphonate use and operative nonunion after adjustment for covariates. Analysis was stratified by osteopenia and osteoporosis diagnosis. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 1040 primary elective lumbar fusion patients, 408 with osteopenia and 632 with osteoporosis. Ninety-seven (23.8%) patients with osteopenia and 370 (58.5%) patients with osteoporosis were preoperative bisphosphonate users. For the osteopenia group, no operative nonunions were observed in patients with preoperative bisphosphonate, while the crude 2-year incidence was 2.44% (95% CI 0.63-4.22) in the nonuser group. For the osteoporotic group, after adjustment for covariates, no difference was observed in risk for operative nonunions between the preoperative bisphosphonate users and nonusers (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.20-4.55, p = 0.964). CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this study presents one of the largest series of patients with the diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis in whom the effects of preoperative bisphosphonates on lumbar fusions were evaluated using operative nonunion rates as an outcome measure. The results indicate that preoperative bisphosphonate use had no effect on the operative nonunion rates for patients with osteoporosis. Similar indications were not confirmed in osteopenia patients because of the low nonunion frequency. Further studies are warranted to the determine if preoperative and postoperative timing of bisphosphonate use has any effect on lumbar fusion rates.

Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a multicenter observational study based on data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery.

PURPOSE: In clinical decision-making, it is crucial to discuss the probability of adverse outcomes with the patient. A large proportion of the outcomes are difficult to classify as either failure or success. Consequently, cutoff values in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for "failure" and "worsening" are likely to be different from those of "non-success". The aim of this study was to identify dichotomous cutoffs for failure and worsening, 12 months after surgical treatment for lumbar disc herniation, in a large registry cohort. METHODS: A total of 6840 patients with lumbar disc herniation were operated and followed for 12 months, according to the standard protocol of the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). Patients reporting to be unchanged or worse on the Global Perceived Effectiveness (GPE) scale at 12-month follow-up were classified as "failure", and those considering themselves "worse" or "worse than ever" after surgery were classified as "worsening". These two dichotomous outcomes were used as anchors in analyses of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) to define cutoffs for failure and worsening on commonly used PROMs, namely, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the EuroQuol 5D (EQ-5D), and Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for back pain and leg pain. RESULTS: "Failure" after 12 months for each PROM, as an insufficient improvement from baseline, was (sensitivity and specificity): ODI change <13 (0.82, 0.82), ODI% change <33% (0.86, 0.86), ODI final raw score >25 (0.89, 0.81), NRS back-pain change <1.5 (0.74, 0.86), NRS back-pain % change <24 (0.85, 0.81), NRS back-pain final raw score >5.5 (0.81, 0.87), NRS leg-pain change <1.5 (0.81, 0.76), NRS leg-pain % change <39 (0.86, 0.81), NRS leg-pain final raw score >4.5 (0.91, 0.85), EQ-5D change <0.10 (0.76, 0.83), and EQ-5D final raw score >0.63 (0.81, 0.85). Both a final raw score >48 for the ODI and an NRS >7.5 were indicators for "worsening" after 12 months, with acceptable accuracy. CONCLUSION: The criteria with the highest accuracy for defining failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar disc herniation were an ODI percentage change score <33% for failure and a 12-month ODI raw score >48. These cutoffs can facilitate shared decision-making among doctors and patients, and improve quality assessment and comparison of clinical outcomes across surgical units. In addition to clinically relevant improvements, we propose that rates of failure and worsening should be included in reporting from clinical trials.

Patient-reported outcomes 3 months after spine surgery: is it an accurate predictor of 12-month outcome in real-world registry platforms?

OBJECT The health care landscape is rapidly shifting to incentivize quality of care rather than quantity of care. Quality and outcomes registry platforms lie at the center of all emerging evidence-driven reform models and will be used to inform decision makers in health care delivery. Obtaining real-world registry outcomes data from patients 12 months after spine surgery remains a challenge. The authors set out to determine whether 3-month patient-reported outcomes accurately predict 12-month outcomes and, hence, whether 3-month measurement systems suffice to identify effective versus noneffective spine care. METHODS All patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease at a single medical institution over a 2-year period were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal registry. Patient-reported outcome instruments (numeric rating scale [NRS], Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], EQ-5D, and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale) were recorded prospectively at baseline and at 3 months and 12 months after surgery. Linear regression was performed to determine the independent association of 3- and 12-month outcome. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine whether improvement in general health state (EQ-5D) and disability (ODI) at 3 months accurately predicted improvement and achievement of minimum clinical important difference (MCID) at 12 months. RESULTS A total of 593 patients undergoing elective lumbar surgery were included in the study. There was a significant correlation between 3-month and 12-month EQ-5D (r = 0.71; p < 0.0001) and ODI (r = 0.70; p < 0.0001); however, the authors observed a sizable discrepancy in achievement of a clinically significant improvement (MCID) threshold at 3 versus 12 months on an individual patient level. For postoperative disability (ODI), 11.5% of patients who achieved an MCID threshold at 3 months dropped below this threshold at 12 months; 10.5% of patients who did not meet the MCID threshold at 3 months continued to improve and ultimately surpassed the MCID threshold at 12 months. For ODI, achieving MCID at 3 months accurately predicted 12-month MCID with only 62.6% specificity and 86.8% sensitivity. For postoperative health utility (EQ-5D), 8.5% of patients lost an MCID threshold improvement from 3 months to 12 months, while 4.0% gained the MCID threshold between 3 and 12 months postoperatively. For EQ-5D (quality-adjusted life years), achieving MCID at 3 months accurately predicted 12-month MCID with only 87.7% specificity and 87.2% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS In a prospective registry, patient-reported measures of treatment effectiveness obtained at 3 months correlated with 12-month measures overall in aggregate, but did not reliably predict 12-month outcome at the patient level. Many patients who do not benefit from surgery by 3 months do so by 12 months, and, conversely, many patients reporting meaningful improvement by 3 months report loss of benefit at 12 months. Prospective longitudinal spine outcomes registries need to span at least 12 months to identify effective versus noneffective patient care.

The Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative: a statewide Collaborative Quality Initiative.

OBJECT Given the scrutiny of spine surgery by policy makers, spine surgeons are motivated to demonstrate and improve outcomes, by determining which patients will and will not benefit from surgery, and to reduce costs, often by reducing complications. Insurers are similarly motivated. In 2013, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care Network (BCN) established the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC) as a Collaborative Quality Initiative (CQI). MSSIC is one of the newest of 21 other CQIs that have significantly improved-and continue to improve-the quality of patient care throughout the state of Michigan. METHODS MSSIC focuses on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, specifically indications such as stenosis, disk herniation, and degenerative disease. Surgery for tumors, traumatic fractures, deformity, scoliosis, and acute spinal cord injury are currently not within the scope of MSSIC. Starting in 2014, MSSIC consisted of 7 hospitals and in 2015 included another 15 hospitals, for a total of 22 hospitals statewide. A standardized data set is obtained by data abstractors, who are funded by BCBSM/BCN. Variables of interest include indications for surgery, baseline patient-reported outcome measures, and medical history. These are obtained within 30 days of surgery. Outcome instruments used include the EQ-5D general health state score (0 being worst and 100 being the best health one can imagine) and EQ-5D-3 L. For patients undergoing lumbar surgery, a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale for leg and back pain and the Oswestry Disability Index for back pain are collected. For patients undergoing cervical surgery, a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale for arm and neck pain, Neck Disability Index, and the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score are collected. Surgical details, postoperative hospital course, and patient-reported outcome measures are collected at 90-day, 1-year, and 2-year intervals. RESULTS As of July 1, 2015, a total of 6397 cases have been entered into the registry. This number reflects 4824 eligible cases with confirmed surgery dates. Of these 4824 eligible cases, 3338 cases went beyond the 120-day window and were considered eligible for the extraction of surgical details, 90-day outcomes, and adverse events. Among these 3338 patients, there are a total of 2469 lumbar cases, 862 cervical cases, and 7 combined procedures that were entered into the registry. CONCLUSIONS In addition to functioning as a registry, MSSIC is also meant to be a platform for quality improvement with the potential for future initiatives and best practices to be implemented statewide in order to improve quality and lower costs. With its current rate of recruitment and expansion, MSSIC will provide a robust platform as a regional prospective registry. Its unique funding model, which is supported by BCBSM/BCN, will help ensure its longevity and viability, as has been observed in other CQIs that have been active for several years.

Risk factors for not reaching minimal clinically important difference at 90 days and 1 year after elective lumbar spine surgery: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-perceived functional improvement is a core metric in lumbar surgery for degenerative disease. It is important to identify both modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors that can be evaluated and possibly optimized prior to elective surgery. This case-control study was designed to study risk factors for not achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Function 4-item Short Form (PROMIS PF) score. METHODS: The authors queried the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative database to identify patients who underwent elective lumbar surgical procedures with PROMIS PF scores. Cases were divided into two cohorts based on whether patients achieved MCID at 90 days and 1 year after surgery. Patient characteristics and operative details were analyzed as potential risk factors. RESULTS: The authors captured 10,922 patients for 90-day follow-up and 4453 patients (40.8%) did not reach MCID. At the 1-year follow-up period, 7780 patients were identified and 2941 patients (37.8%) did not achieve MCID. The significant demographic characteristic-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for both groups (RR 90 day, RR 1 year) included the following: symptom duration > 1 year (1.34, 1.41); previous spine surgery (1.25, 1.30); African American descent (1.25, 1.20); chronic opiate use (1.23, 1.25); and less than high school education (1.20, 1.34). Independent ambulatory status (0.83, 0.88) and private insurance (0.91, 0.85) were associated with higher likelihood of reaching MCID at 90 days and 1 year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Several key unique demographic risk factors were identified in this cohort study that precluded optimal postoperative functional outcomes after elective lumbar spine surgery. With this information, appropriate preoperative counseling can be administered to assist in shaping patient expectations.

Perioperative complications associated with fluoroscopy C1 lateral mass screw fixation (Goel technique) versus computed tomography-guided navigation technique: A review of 202 cases from the German Spine Registry (DWG-Register).

Background: Overview of the literature - Fractures of the C1 constitute 3%-13% of all cervical spine injuries in adults. Most isolated C1 fractures are stable and can be treated nonoperatively with external immobilization. Traditional surgical options for C1 fracture treatment are occiput-to-C2 fusion or C1 with lateral mass screws (LMSs). Purpose - The aim is to assess the management and perioperative complications of C1 fractures undergoing LMS fusion between fluoroscopy and computed tomography (CT)-guided navigation. Methods: This was a retrospective multicenter study of data from the DWG-Register of patients who underwent operative treatment for C1 traumatic fracture with LMSs from January 2017 to September 2022. Inclusion criteria - traumatic injury and age > 18 years old. Results: In total, 202 patients with traumatic C1 fracture requiring spinal surgery were identified in the registry; n = 175 (Group 1) were treated conventionally without CT-guided navigation and n = 27 were treated with CT-guided navigation (Group 2). C1-LMS was principally performed by spine surgeons n = 90 (53.4%) and n = 72 (18.5%) by neurosurgeons in both the groups. Intraoperative adverse events were as follows: dural tear in group 1 n = 0 and in group 2 n = 1, vascular injury, with one case in group 1 and no cases in group 2. General complications were: cardiovasculars in group 1 n = 6 (3.4%) and Group 2 n = 4 (14.8%) (P = 0.03), pulmonary complications in group1 n = 2 (1.1%) and n = 9 in group 2 (33.3%) (P < 0.001), stroke n = 1 (0.57%) in group1 and n = 4 in group 2 (14.8%) (P < 0.001), gastrointestinal bleeding n = 1 (0.57%) in group1 and no cases in group 2, renal insufficiency n = 2 (1.1%) in group 1 and n = 3 (11.1%) in group 2 (P = 0.01). One death was recorded in group 2 (3.7%). Conclusion: This series of 404 screws placed in 202 patients over 5 years who underwent two types of C1 fracture fixation had a considerably lower incidence of screw malposition and vertebral artery injury than has previously been reported in the literature. C1 screws can be safely placed with a low risk of vertebral artery and neurologic injury with and without CT-guided navigation support.

Primary anterior lumbar interbody fusion, with and without posterior instrumentation: a 1,377-patient cohort from a multicenter spine registry.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar interbody instrumentation techniques are common and effective surgical options for a variety of lumbar degenerative pathologies. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has become a versatile and powerful means of decompression, stabilization, and reconstruction. As an anterior only technique, the integrity of the posterior muscle and ligaments remain intact. Adding posterior instrumentation to ALIF is common and may confer benefits in terms of higher fusion rate but could contribute to adjacent segment degeneration due to additional rigidity. Large clinical studies comparing stand-alone ALIF with and without posterior supplementary fixation (ALIF+PSF) are lacking. PURPOSE: To compare rates of operative nonunion and adjacent segment disease (ASD) in ALIF with or without posterior instrumentation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent primary ALIF for lumbar degenerative pathology between levels L4 to S1 over a 12-year period. Exclusion criteria included trauma, cancer, infection, supplemental decompression, noncontiguous fusions, prior lumbar fusions, and other interbody devices. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reoperation for nonunion and ASD compared between ALIF only and ALIF+PSF. METHODS: Reoperations were modeled as time-to-events where the follow-up time was defined as the difference between the primary ALIF procedure and the date of the outcome of interest. Crude cumulative reoperation probabilities were reported at 5-years follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate risk of operative nonunion and for ASD adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: The study consisted of 1,377 cases; 307 ALIF only and 1070 ALIF+PSF. Mean follow-up time was 5.6 years. The 5-year crude nonunion incidence was 2.4% for ALIF only and 0.5% for ALIF+PSF; after adjustment for covariates, a lower operative nonunion risk was observed for ALIF+PSF (HR=0.22, 95% CI=0.06-0.76). Of the patients who are deemed potentially suitable for ALIF alone, one would need to add posterior instrumentation in 53 patients to prevent one case of operative nonunion at a 5-year follow-up (number needed to treat). Five-year operative ASD incidence was 4.3% for ALIF only and 6.2% for ALIF+PSF; with adjustments, no difference was observed between the cohorts (HR=0.96, 95% CI=0.54-1.71). CONCLUSIONS: While the addition of posterior instrumentation in ALIFs is associated with lower risk of operative nonunion compared with ALIF alone, operative nonunion is rare in both techniques (<5%). Accordingly, surgeons should evaluate the added risks associated with the addition of posterior instrumentation and reserve the supplemental posterior fixation for patients that might be at higher risk for operative nonunion. Rates of operative ASD were not statistically higher with the addition of posterior instrumentation suggesting concern regarding future risk of ASD perhaps should not play a role in considering supplemental posterior instrumentation in ALIF.

Redefining Oswestry Disability Index success criteria to assess the effect of consecutive surgeries on lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Register studies have shown that chances of success after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) decrease with increasing numbers of previous operations. However, these studies presumed that success criteria remain constant with each consecutive spinal surgery. PURPOSE: We aimed to redefine success criteria specific for each consecutive surgery. Also, we assessed if fusion could be an effective procedure for LSS patients with previous decompression(s). STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from surgically treated LSS patients enrolled in The NORspine Register. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients operated for lumbar spinal stenosis. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMs: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) percentage (%) change and Global Perceived Effect (GPE). METHODS: We categorized the LSS cohort by number of previous spine surgeries (none to ≥3). ROC analyses gave the most accurate cut-offs for ODI% change that corresponded to success, anchored by GPE, i.e., "much improved" and "completely recovered". Areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) indicated how well ODI discriminated between success and nonsuccess for each consecutive surgery: good (0.8-0.89) and excellent (0.9-0.99). We then calculated proportions of successfully treated patients by number of consecutive surgeries. We also analyzed whether fusion succeeded in patients with previous lumbar decompression(s). RESULTS: At 12 months, 8,919 (75%) responded; 6,961 (78%) had no previous LSS surgery, 1,338 (15%) had one, 417 (5%) had 2, and 203 (2%) had ≥3 previous surgeries. Preoperative ODI (95% CI) was 38.7 (38.2-39.1) for no previous surgery versus 49.4 (46.9-51.9) for patients with ≥3 previous surgeries. The postoperative ODIs (95% CI) were 21.9 (21.4-22.4) and 37.9 (34.9-40.8) for patients with no and ≥3 previous surgeries, respectively. For patients with no previous surgeries, ODI% change of 37.6% most accurately defined success (AUC [95% CI]=0.909 [0.903-0.916]), and 57.1% reported success. For patients with ≥3 previous surgeries, success was an ODI% change of 25.0% (AUC [95%CI]=0.930 [0.890-0.971]), and 46.3% reported success. Finally, 350 patients received fusion after previous decompression(s). ODI% change of 34.6% defined success (AUC [95% CI]=0.920 [0.890-0.949]). The proportion of successfully treated fusion patients was 47.7%, compared to 54.3% for the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We redefined ODI success criteria for patients with consecutive lumbar spinal stenosis surgeries. Our register study found the detrimental effect of consecutive surgeries on success rates to be less pessimistic than previously reported; fusion may be an effective option for LSS patients with previous decompression.

Expectations in patients undergoing spine surgery are high and unmet.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Defining success in spine surgery lacks a standardized approach, and all existing concepts are based on registrations after surgery. PURPOSE: To examine patients' expectations before spine surgery assessed by a modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The authors asked: how do the expectations align with actual outcomes and can a patient's individual expectations be used as a success criterion in itself? STUDY DESIGN /SETTING: Prospective single-center study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients scheduled for spine surgery at Akershus University Hospital (AHUS) were included in the study. They underwent 1 of 3 procedures: decompression for spinal stenosis, disc removal for lumbar disc herniation, or spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease. OUTCOME MEASURES: Modified and standard version of ODI and NRS (back and leg pain). METHODS: Preoperatively, the patients were given a modified ODI and NRS questionnaire in which they were asked to register the minimum acceptable functional impairment and pain they anticipated to have postsurgery. The patients' expectations were compared with 3-and 12-month follow-up data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine) with ODI, NRS and Global Perceived Effect (GPE) scale. We used simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients completed the pre-op questionnaire. Of these, 65 responded to the 3-month follow-up and 53 at 12-month follow-up. The mean (95%CI) ODI before surgery was 38.3 (34.2-42.3), the mean (95% CI) preoperative NRS back pain was 6.34 (5.81-6.88), and leg pain was 6.67 (6.08-7.26). The patients expected a mean (95% CI) ODI of 10.5 (7.5-13.5), mean (95%CI) NRS back pain of 2.5 (2.1-3.0), and NRS leg pain of 1.8 (1.5-2.2). The actual clinical outcome after 12 months were a mean (95% CI) ODI of 21.7 (17.0-26.5), NRS back pain of 3.4 (2.8-4.1), and leg pain of 2.8 (2.0-3.5). Only 12 (30.8%) patients achieved their expected ODI, while 26 (65.0%) classified themselves as significantly better according to GPE. CONCLUSIONS: Patients seem to have high expectations before spine surgery, and the expectations may exceed the clinical outcome. Only 30.8% had their ODI expectations met, but perceived benefit was higher. High expectations may be due to inadequate preoperative information and/or the unsuitability of ODI for capturing expectations.

Are there differences in the reoperation rates for operative adjacent-segment disease between ALIF+PS, PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, and LLIF+PS? An analysis of a cohort of 5291 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Biomechanical factors in lumbar fusions accelerate the development of adjacent-segment disease (ASD). Stiffness in the fused segment increases motion in the adjacent levels, resulting in ASD. The objective of this study was to determine if there are differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (ALIF+PS), posterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (PLIF+PS), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (TLIF+PS), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (LLIF+PS). METHODS: A retrospective study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry identified an adult cohort (≥ 18 years old) with degenerative disc disease who underwent primary lumbar interbody fusions with pedicle screws between L3 to S1. Demographic and operative data were obtained from the registry, and chart review was used to document operative ASD. Patients were followed until operative ASD, membership termination, the end of study (March 31, 2022), or death. Operative ASD was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The final study population included 5291 patients with a mean ± SD age of 60.1 ± 12.1 years and a follow-up of 6.3 ± 3.8 years. There was a total of 443 operative ASD cases, with an overall incidence rate of reoperation for ASD of 8.37% (95% CI 7.6-9.2). The crude incidence of operative ASD at 5 years was the lowest in the ALIF+PS cohort (7.7%, 95% CI 6.3-9.4). In the adjusted models, the authors failed to detect a statistical difference in operative ASD between ALIF+PS (reference) versus PLIF+PS (HR 1.06 [0.79-1.44], p = 0.69) versus TLIF+PS (HR 1.03 [0.81-1.31], p = 0.83) versus LLIF+PS (HR 1.38 [0.77-2.46], p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of over 5000 patients with an average follow-up of > 6 years, the authors found no differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between ALIF+PS and PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, or LLIF+PS.

Representativeness of the American Spine Registry: a comparison of patient characteristics with the National Inpatient Sample.

OBJECTIVE: The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS: The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017-2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen's d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large. RESULTS: A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

Surgeon input can increase the value of registry data: early experience from the American Spine Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Clear diagnostic delineation is necessary for the development of a strong evidence base in lumbar spinal surgery. Experience with existing national databases suggests that International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10) coding is insufficient to support that need. The purpose of this study was to assess agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Data collection for the American Spine Registry (ASR) includes an option to denote the surgeon's specific diagnostic indication for each procedure. For cases treated between January 2020 and March 2022, surgeon-delineated diagnosis was compared with the ICD-10 diagnosis generated by standard ASR electronic medical record data extraction. For decompression-only cases, the primary analysis focused on the etiology of neural compression as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the related ICD-10 codes extracted from the ASR database. For lumbar fusion cases, the primary analysis compared structural pathology, which may have required fusion, as determined by the surgeon versus that determined on the basis of the extracted ICD-10 codes. This allowed for identification of agreement between surgeon delineation and extracted ICD-10 codes. RESULTS: In 5926 decompression-only cases, agreement between the surgeon and ASR ICD-10 codes was 89% for spinal stenosis and 78% for lumbar disc herniation and/or radiculopathy. Both the surgeon and database indicated no structural pathology (i.e., none) suggesting the need for fusion in 88% of cases. In 5663 lumbar fusion cases, agreement was 76% for spondylolisthesis but poor for other diagnostic indications. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement between surgeon-specified diagnostic indication and hospital-reported ICD-10 codes was best for patients who underwent decompression only. In the fusion cases, agreement with ICD-10 codes was best in the spondylolisthesis group (76%). In cases other than spondylolisthesis, agreement was poor due to multiple diagnoses or lack of an ICD-10 code that reflected the pathology. This study suggested that standard ICD-10 codes may be inadequate to clearly define the indications for decompression or fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative disease.

No difference in reoperation rates for nonunions (operative nonunions) in posterior cervical fusions stopping at C7 versus T1/2: a cohort of 875 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The challenges of posterior cervical fusions (PCFs) at the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) are widely known, including the development of adjacent-segment disease by stopping fusions at C7. One solution has been to cross the CTJ (T1/T2) rather than stopping at C7. This approach may have undue consequences, including increased reoperations for symptomatic nonunion (operative nonunion). The authors sought to investigate if there is a difference in operative nonunion in PCFs that stop at C7 versus T1/T2. METHODS: A retrospective analysis identified patients from the authors' spine registry (Kaiser Permanente) who underwent PCFs with caudal fusion levels at C7 and T1/T2. Demographics, diagnoses, operative times, lengths of stay, and reoperations were extracted from the registry. Operative nonunion was adjudicated via chart review. Patients were followed until validated operative nonunion, membership termination, death, or end of study (March 31, 2020). Descriptive statistics and 2-year crude incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals for operative nonunion for PCFs stopping at C7 or T1/T2 were reported. Time-dependent crude and adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate operative nonunion rates. RESULTS: The authors identified 875 patients with PCFs (beginning at C3, C4, C5, or C6) stopping at either C7 (n = 470) or T1/T2 (n = 405) with a mean follow-up time of 4.6 ± 3.3 years and a mean time to operative nonunion of 0.9 ± 0.6 years. There were 17 operative nonunions, and, after adjustment for age at surgery and smoking status, the cumulative incidence rates were similar between constructs stopping at C7 and those that extended to T1/T2 (C7: 1.91% [95% CI 0.88%-3.60%]; T1/T2: 1.98% [95% CI 0.86%-3.85%]). In the crude model and model adjusted for age at surgery and smoking status, no difference in risk for constructs extended to T1/T2 compared to those stopping at C7 was found (adjusted HR 1.09 [95% CI 0.42-2.84], p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In one of the largest cohort of patients with PCFs stopping at C7 or T1/T2 with an average follow-up of > 4 years, the authors found no statistically significant difference in reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunion (operative nonunion). This finding shows that there is no added risk of operative nonunion by extending PCFs to T1/T2 or stopping at C7.

Criteria for failure and worsening after surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis: a prospective national spine registry observational study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Criteria for success after surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) have been defined previously; however, there are no clear criteria for failure and worsening after surgery as assessed by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PURPOSE: We aimed to quantify changes in standard PROMs that most accurately identified failure and worsening after surgery for LSS. STUDY DESIGN /SETTING: Retrospective analysis of prospective national spine registry data with 12-months follow-up. PATIENT SAMPLE: We analyzed 10,822 patients aged 50 years and older operated in Norway during a decade, and 8,258 (76%) responded 12 months after surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES (PROMS): We calculated final scores, absolute changes, and percentage changes for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain (0-10), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). These 12 PROM derivates were compared to the Global Perceived Effect (GPE), a 7-point Likert scale. METHODS: We used ODI, NRS back and leg pain, and EQ-5D 12 months after surgery to identify patients with failure (no effect) and worsening (clinical deterioration). The corresponding GPE at 12-months was graded as failure (GPE=4-7) and worsening (GPE=6-7) and used as an external criterion. To quantify the most accurate cut-off values corresponding to failure and worsening, we calculated areas under the curves (AUCs) of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for the respective PROM derivates. RESULTS: Mean (95% CI) age was 68.3 (68.1 - 68.5) years, and 52% were females. There were 1,683 (20%) failures, and 476 (6%) patients were worse after surgery. The mean (95% CI) pre- and postoperative ODIs were 39.8 (39.5 - 40.2) and 23.7 (23.3 - 24.1), respectively. At 12 months, the mean difference (95% CI) in ODI was 16.1 (15.7 - 16.4), and the mean (95% CI) percentage improvement 38.8% (37.8 - 38.8). The PROM derivates identified failure and worsening accurately (AUC>0.80), except for the absolute change in EQ-5D. The ODI derivates were most accurate to identify both failure and worsening. We found that less than 20% improvement in ODI most accurately identified failure (AUC=0.89 [95% CI: 0.88 to 0.90]), and an ODI final score of 39 points or more most accurately identified worsening (AUC =0.91 [95% CI: 0.90 - 0.92]). CONCLUSIONS: In this national register study, ODI derivates were most accurate to identify both failure and worsening after surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. We recommend use of ODI percentage change and ODI final score for further studies of failure and worsening in elective spine surgery.

Operative Nonunion Rates in Posterolateral Lumbar Fusions: Analysis of a Cohort of 2591 Patients from a National Spine Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Radiographic nonunion rates in the literature for posterolateral lumbar fusions with pedicle screws (PLFs) range from 8.1% to 43.3% but may not represent nonunion rates. A few small studies have reported reoperations for symptomatic nonunions (operative nonunions) to range from 3.2% to 13.9%. The objective of this study is to determine operative nonunion rates for 1-level, 2-level, 3-level, and ≥4-level PLFs and to determine the risks for these nonunions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry, identified adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent PLFs for degenerative disc disease. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates using the log-rank statistic were used to evaluate operative nonunion rates. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 2591 patients with single-level and multilevel PLFs with mean follow-up of 4.6 years, time to operative nonunion of 1.52 years, and 2-year operative nonunion rate of 1.08%. Compared with single-level fusions, patients with 3-level and ≥4-level fusion had 2.8 and 3.7 times higher risk of operative nonunions. Patients with PLFs involving L5-S1 had 2.5 times the risk of an operative nonunion compared with those without. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reports results from one of the largest cohort of patients for the first time with single-level and multilevel instrumented PLFs and found a 2-year operative nonunion rate of 1.08% with increased risk of nonunion for constructs that included L5-S1 and ≥3-level fusions. Operative nonunion combines clinical and radiographic data and provides an alternative measure of fusion rates.

The Influence of Baseline Clinical Status and Surgical Strategy on Early Good to Excellent Result in Spinal Lumbar Arthrodesis: A Machine Learning Approach.

The study aims to create a preoperative model from baseline demographic and health-related quality of life scores (HRQOL) to predict a good to excellent early clinical outcome using a machine learning (ML) approach. A single spine surgery center retrospective review of prospectively collected data from January 2016 to December 2020 from the institutional registry (SpineREG) was performed. The inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, both sexes, lumbar arthrodesis procedure, a complete follow up assessment (Oswestry Disability Index-ODI, SF-36 and COMI back) and the capability to read and understand the Italian language. A delta of improvement of the ODI higher than 12.7/100 was considered a "good early outcome". A combined target model of ODI (Δ ≥ 12.7/100), SF-36 PCS (Δ ≥ 6/100) and COMI back (Δ ≥ 2.2/10) was considered an "excellent early outcome". The performance of the ML models was evaluated in terms of sensitivity, i.e., True Positive Rate (TPR), specificity, i.e., True Negative Rate (TNR), accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC). A total of 1243 patients were included in this study. The model for predicting ODI at 6 months' follow up showed a good balance between sensitivity (74.3%) and specificity (79.4%), while providing a good accuracy (75.8%) with ROC AUC = 0.842. The combined target model showed a sensitivity of 74.2% and specificity of 71.8%, with an accuracy of 72.8%, and an ROC AUC = 0.808. The results of our study suggest that a machine learning approach showed high performance in predicting early good to excellent clinical results.