Search

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is commonly performed in patients with radiculopathy and myelopathy. Although the goal of surgery in patients with radiculopathy is to improve function and reduce pain, patients with myelopathy undergo surgery to halt disease progression. Although the expectations between these preoperative diagnoses are generally understood to be disparate by spine surgeons, there is limited literature demonstrating their discordant outcomes.To compare improvements in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing ACDF for myelopathy or radiculopathy. Secondarily, we analyzed the proportion of patients who attain the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) postoperatively using thresholds derived from radiculopathy, myelopathy, and mixed cohort studies.Single institution retrospective cohort study PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary, elective ACDF with a preoperative diagnosis of radiculopathy or myelopathy and a complete set of preoperative and one-year postoperative PROMs.Outcome measures included the following PROMs: Short-Form 12 Physical Component (PCS-12) and Mental Component (MCS-12) scores, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Arm score, and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Hospital readmissions and revision surgery were also collected and evaluated.Patients undergoing an ACDF from 2014 to 2020 were identified and grouped based on preoperative diagnosis (radiculopathy or myelopathy). We utilized "general MCID" thresholds from a cohort of patients with degenerative spine conditions, and "specific MCID" thresholds generated from cohorts of patients with myelopathy or radiculopathy, respectively. Multivariate linear regressions were performed for delta (∆) PROMs and multivariate logistic regressions were performed for both general and specific MCID improvements.A total of 798 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients with myelopathy had better baseline function and arm pain (MCS-12: 49.6 vs 47.6, p=.018; VAS Arm: 3.94 vs 6.02, p.001; and NDI: 34.1 vs 41.9, p.001), were older (p.001), had more comorbidities (p=.014), more levels fused (p.001), and had decreased improvement in PROMs following surgery compared to patients with radiculopathy (∆PCS-12: 4.76 vs 7.21, p=.006; ∆VAS Arm: -1.69 vs -3.70, p.001; and ∆NDI: -11.94 vs -18.61, p.001). On multivariate analysis, radiculopathy was an independent predictor of increased improvement in PCS-12 (β=2.10, p=.019), ∆NDI (β=-5.36, p.001), and ∆VAS Arm (β=-1.93, p.001). Radiculopathy patients were more likely to achieve general MCID improvements following surgery (NDI: Odds ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.035 and VAS Arm: OR: 2.98, p.001), but there was no difference between patients with radiculopathy or myelopathy when using radiculopathy and myelopathy specific MCID thresholds (MCS-12: p=.113, PCS-12: p=.675, NDI: p=.108, and VAS Arm: p=.314).Patients undergoing ACDF with myelopathy or radiculopathy represent two distinct patient populations with differing treatment indications and clinical outcomes. Compared to radiculopathy, patients with myelopathy have better baseline function, decreased improvement in PROMs, and are less likely to reach MCID using general threshold values, but there is no difference in the proportion reaching MCID when using specific threshold values.IRB.

Indications for revision lumbar fusion are variable, but include recurrent stenosis (RS), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and pseudarthrosis. The efficacy of revision lumbar fusion has been well established, but their outcomes compared to primary procedures is not well documented.The purpose of this study was to compares surgical and clinical outcomes between (1) revision and primary lumbar fusion, (2) revision lumbar fusion based on indication (ASD, pseudarthrosis, or RS), and (3) revision lumbar fusion based on whether the index procedure included an isolated decompression or decompression with fusion.Retrospective single-institution cohort study.Four thousand six hundred seventy-one consecutive lumbar fusions from 2011 to 2021, of which 892 (23.6%) were revision procedures. The indication for revision procedures included 502 (56.3%) for ASD, 153 (17.2%) for pseudarthrosis, and 237 (26.6%) for RS. Of the 892 revision procedures, 694 (77.8%) underwent an index fusion while 198 (22.2%) underwent an index decompression without fusion.Hospital readmissions, all-cause reoperation, need for subsequent revision and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline, 3-months postoperatively, and 1-year postoperatively, including the Mental Health Component score (MCS-12) and Physical Health Component score (PCS-12) of the Short Form 12 survey, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Back and Leg pain.Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records. Twenty-eight percent of patients had preoperative and postoperative PROMs. A delta PROM score was calculated for the 3-month and 1-year postoperative timepoints, which was the change from the preoperative to postoperative value. Univariate comparisons were performed to compare revision fusions to primary fusions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for all-cause reoperation and subsequent revision surgery, while multivariate linear regression was performed for ∆PROMs at 3-months and 1-year. Revision procedures were then separately regrouped based on indication for revision fusion and whether they underwent a fusion for their index procedure. Univariate comparisons and multivariate linear regressions for ∆PROMs were then repeated based on the new groupings.There was no difference in hospital readmission rate (5.38% vs. 4.60%, p=.372) or length of stay (4.10 days vs. 3.94 days, p=.129) between revision and primary lumbar fusion, but revision fusions had a higher rate of all-cause reoperation (16.1% vs. 11.2%, p.001) and subsequent revision (13.7% vs. 9.71%, p=.001), which was confirmed on multivariate logistic regression (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.001 and OR: 1.37, p=.007, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a revision procedure was an independent risk factor for worse improvement ∆ODI, ∆VAS Back, ∆VAS Leg, and ∆PCS-12 and 1-year postoperatively. Regardless of the indication for revision lumbar fusion, patients significantly improved in the 3-month and 1-year postoperative PCS-12, ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg, with the exception of the 3-month PCS-12 for pseudarthrosis (p=.620). Patients undergoing revision for ASD had significantly worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (32.3 vs. Pseudarthrosis: 35.6 and RS: 37.0, p=.026), but there were no differences in ∆PROMs. There was no difference in hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, or subsequent revision based on whether a patient had an index lumbar fusion or isolated decompression. Multivariate linear regression analysis found that a surgical indication of pseudarthrosis was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in 3-month ∆VAS Leg (ref: ASD, β=2.26, p=.036), but having an index fusion did not significantly predict worse improvement in ∆PROMs when compared to isolated decompressions.Revision lumbar fusions had a higher rate of reoperation and subsequent revision surgery when compared to primary lumbar fusions, but there were no difference in hospital readmission rates. Patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion experience improvements in all patient reported outcome measures, but their baseline, postoperative, and magnitude of improvement are worse than primary procedures. Regardless of whether the lumbar fusion is a primary or revision procedure, all patients have significant improvements in pain, disability and physical function. Further, the indication for the revision procedure is not correlated with the expected magnitude of improvement in patient reported outcomes. Finally, no differences in baseline, postoperative, and ∆PROMs for revision fusions were identified when stratifying by whether the patient had an index decompression or fusion.

Retrospective cohort study.To determine whether: (1) patients from communities of socioeconomic distress have higher readmission rates or postoperative healthcare resource utilization and (2) there are differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) based on socioeconomic distress.Socioeconomic disparities affect health outcomes, but little evidence exists demonstrating the impact of socioeconomic distress on postoperative resource utilization or PROMs.A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent lumbar fusion at a single tertiary academic center from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2021. Patients were classified according to the distressed communities index. Hospital readmission, postoperative prescriptions, patient telephone calls, follow-up office visits, and PROMs were recorded. Multivariate analysis with logistic, negative binomial regression or Poisson regression were used to investigate the effects of distressed communities index on postoperative resource utilization. Alpha was set at P0.05.A total of 4472 patients were included for analysis. Readmission risk was higher in distressed communities (odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.87; P=0.028). Patients from distressed communities (odds ratio, 3.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-9.72; P=0.003) were also more likely to be readmitted for medical, but not surgical causes (P=0.514), and distressed patients had worse preoperative (visual analog-scale Back, P0.001) and postoperative (Oswestry disability index, P=0.048; visual analog-scale Leg, P=0.013) PROMs, while maintaining similar magnitudes of clinical improvement. Patients from distressed communities were more likely to be discharged to a nursing facility and inpatient rehabilitation unit (25.5%, P=0.032). The race was not independently associated with readmissions (P=0.228).Socioeconomic distress is associated with increased postoperative health resource utilization. Patients from distressed communities have worse preoperative PROMs, but the overall magnitude of improvement is similar across all classes.Level IV.

Primary hip and knee arthroplasty represent two of the most successful orthopaedic surgical interventions in the past century. Similarly, lumbar fusion (LF) remains a valuable, evidence-based option to relieve pain and disability related to spinal degenerative conditions. This study evaluates the relative improvements in 1-year health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures among patients undergoing primary single-level LF, primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), and primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Patients older than 18 years who underwent primary single-level posterior LF (posterolateral decompression and fusion with or without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, involving any single lumbar level), TKA, and THA at a single academic institution were retrospectively identified. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics were collected. HRQOL measures were collected preoperatively and at 1-year postoperative time point including Short-Form 12 Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) along with subspecialty-specific outcomes.A total of 2,563 patients were included (346 LF, 1,035 TKA, and 1,182 THA). Change in MCS-12 and PCS-12 after LF did not vary markedly by preoperative diagnosis. LF patients had a significantly lower preoperative MCS-12 (LF: 50.8, TKA: 53.9, THA: 52.9, P0.001), postoperative MCS-12 (LF: 52.5, TKA: 54.8, THA: 54.5, P0.001), postoperative PCS-12 (LF: 40.1, TKA: 44.0, THA: 43.9, P0.001), ΔPCS-12 (LF: 7.9, TKA: 10.8, THA: 11.9, P0.001), and PCS-12 recovery ratio (LF: 10.7%, TKA: 15.1%, THA 16.6%, P0.001) compared with TKA and THA patients. In regression analysis, both TKA and LF were found to be independently associated with a smaller ΔPCS-12 improvement (TKA: β = -1.36, P = 0.009; LF: β = -4.74, P0.001) compared with THA. TKA (β = -1.42, P = 0.003) was also independently associated with a smaller ΔMCS-12 improvement compared with THA.Patients undergoing single-level LF, TKA, and THA demonstrate notable improvements in HRQOL outcomes at 1 year postoperatively compared with preoperative baseline scores. The greatest improvements were found among THA patients, followed subsequently by TKA and LF patients. Both LF and TKA were independently associated with markedly less improvement in physical disability at 1 year postoperatively compared with THA.Retrospective Cohort Study.

The Orthopaedic In-Training Examination (OITE) is an important metric for orthopaedic residents and residency programs to gauge a resident's orthopaedic knowledge. Because the OITE is correlated with the likelihood of passing part I of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, greater emphasis is being placed on the examination. However, a detailed look at the questions most likely to appear on the spine subsection of the OITE has not been done in the past decade.Digital copies of the OITEs during the years 2017 through 2021 were obtained online through the "ResStudy" program within the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Online Learning Platform. All spine-related questions were categorized into five different categories including type of spine question (knowledge-based, diagnosis, or evaluation/management), anatomical region, imaging modality provided, subject matter, and referenced journal or textbook. The total number and likelihood of each question type to appear on the OITE were defined as mean and percentage of the total number of spine questions, respectively.A total of 139 spine questions were identified on the OITE during the years 2017 to 2021. The most common type of spine questions were evaluation/management (N = 65) and knowledge-based questions. We identified lumbar (N = 45), cervical (N = 42), thoracolumbar (N = 13), and thoracic (N = 12) as the most commonly tested anatomical regions. Spinal trauma (N = 26), disk disease/disk herniation (N = 16), postoperative complications (N = 15), and scoliosis/sagittal balance (N = 15) were the most commonly tested material. Spine (N = 54) was almost two times more likely to be referenced as the source for the tested material compared with other journals or textbooks.Understanding the spine topics most likely to appear on the OITE may allow orthopaedic residents and residency programs to supplement educational objectives toward the highest yield spine topics and journals.

The United States opioid epidemic is a well-documented crisis stemming from increased prescriptions of narcotics. Online prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) are a potential resource to mitigate narcotic misuse by tracking controlled substance prescriptions. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate opioid prescription trends after implementation of an online PDMP in patients who underwent single-level lumbar fusion.Patients who underwent a single-level lumbar fusion between August 27, 2017, and August 31, 2020, were identified and placed categorically into one of two cohorts: an "early adoption" cohort, September 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018, and a "late adoption" cohort, September 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. This allowed for a 1-year washout period after Pennsylvania PDMP implementation on August 26, 2016. Opioid use data were obtained by searching for each patient in the state government's online PDMP and recording data from the year before and the year after the patient's procedure.No significant difference was observed in preoperative opioid prescriptions between the early and late adoption cohorts. The late adoption group independently predicted decreased postoperative opioid prescriptions (β, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.93; P = 0.007), opioid prescribers (β, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.90; P0.001), pharmacies used (β, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.97; P = 0.006), opioid pills (β, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74; P0.001), days of opioid prescription (β, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.72; P0.001), and morphine milligram equivalents prescribed (β, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.66; P0.001).PDMP implementation was associated with decreased postoperative opioid prescription patterns but not preoperative opioid prescribing behaviors.4.

A retrospective cohort study.To determine if depression and/or anxiety significantly affect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF).Mental health diagnoses are receiving increased recognition for their influence of outcomes after spine surgery. The magnitude that mental health disorders contribute to patient-reported outcomes following PCDF requires increased awareness and understanding.A review of electronic medical records identified patients who underwent a PCDF at a single institution during the years 2013-2020. Patients were placed into either depression/anxiety or nondepression/anxiety group based on their medical history. A delta score (∆) was calculated for all PROMs by subtracting postoperative from preoperative scores. χ 2 tests and t tests were utilized to analyze categorical and continuous data, respectively. Regression analysis determined independent predictors of change in PROMs. Alpha was set at 0.05.A total of 195 patients met inclusion criteria, with 60 (30.8%) having a prior diagnosis of depression/anxiety. The depression/anxiety group was younger (58.8 vs . 63.0, P =0.012), predominantly female (53.3% vs . 31.9%, P =0.007), and more frequently required revision surgery (11.7% vs . 0.74%, P =0.001). In addition, they had worse baseline mental component (MCS-12) (42.2 vs . 48.6, P0.001), postoperative MCS-12 (46.5 vs . 52.9, P =0.002), postoperative neck disability index (NDI) (40.7 vs . 28.5, P =0.001), ∆NDI (-1.80 vs . -8.93, P =0.010), NDI minimum clinically important difference improvement (15.0% vs . 29.6%, P =0.046), and postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Neck scores (3.63 vs . 2.48, P =0.018). Only the nondepression/anxiety group improved in MCS-12 ( P =0.002) and NDI ( P0.001) postoperatively. Depression and/or anxiety was an independent predictor of decreased magnitude of NDI improvement on regression analysis (β=7.14, P =0.038).Patients with history of depression or anxiety demonstrate less improvement in patient-reported outcomes and a higher revision rate after posterior cervical fusion, highlighting the importance of mental health on clinical outcomes after spine surgery.

This was a retrospective cohort study.To determine if age (younger than 65) and Medicare status affect patient outcomes following lumbar fusion.Medicare is a common spine surgery insurance provider, but most qualifying patients are older than age 65. There is a paucity of literature investigating clinical outcomes for Medicare patients under the age of 65.Patients 40 years and older who underwent lumbar fusion surgery between 2014 and 2019 were queried from electronic medical records. Patients with2 levels fused,3 levels decompressed, incomplete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), revision procedures, and tumor/infection diagnosis were excluded. Patients were placed into 4 groups based on Medicare status and age: no Medicare under 65 years (NM65), no Medicare 65 years or older (NM≥65), yes Medicare under 65 (YM65), and yes Medicare 65 years or older (YM≥65). T tests and χ 2 tests analyzed univariate comparisons depending on continuous or categorical type. Multivariate regression for ∆PROMs controlled for confounders. Alpha was set at 0.05.Of the 1097 patients, 567 were NM65 (51.7%), 133 were NM≥65 (12.1%), 42 were YM65 (3.8%), and 355 were YM≥65 (32.4%). The YM65 group had significantly worse preoperative Visual Analog Scale back ( P =0.01) and preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score (MCS-12), and Physical Component Score (PCS-12). However, on regression analysis, there were no significant differences in ∆PROMs for YM65 compared with YM≥65, and NM65. NM65 (compared with YM65) was an independent predictor of decreased improvement in ∆ODI following surgery (β=12.61, P =0.007); however, overall the ODI was still lower in the NM65 compared with the YM65.Medicare patients younger than 65 years undergoing lumbar fusion had significantly worse preoperative and postoperative PROMs. The perioperative improvement in outcomes was similar between groups with the exception of ∆ODI, which demonstrated greater improvement in Medicare patients younger than 65 compared with non-Medicare patients younger than 65.Level III (treatment).

Introduction Symptomatic disc degeneration is a common cause of low back pain. Recently, the prevalence of low back pain has swiftly risen leading to increased patient disability and loss of work. The increase in back pain also coincides with a rapid rise in patient medical comorbidities. However, a comprehensive study evaluating a link between patient's medical comorbidities and their influence on lumbar intervertebral disc morphology is lacking in the literature. Methods Electronic medical records (EMR) were retrospectively reviewed to determine patient-specific medical characteristics. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated for lumbar spine intervertebral disc desiccation and height loss according to the Griffith-modified Pfirrmann grading system. Bivariate and multivariable linear regression analyses assessed strength of associations between patient characteristics and lumbar spine Pfirrmann grade severity (Pfirrmann grade of the most affected lumbar spine intervertebral disc) and cumulative grades (summed Pfirrmann grades for all lumbar spine intervertebral discs). Results In total, 605 patients (304 diabetics and 301 non-diabetics) met inclusion criteria. Bivariate analysis identified older age, diabetes, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), peripheral vascular disease, and hypothyroidism as being strongly associated with an increasing cumulative Pfirrmann grades. Multivariable models similarly found an association linking increased cumulative Pfirrmann grades with diabetes, hypothyroidism, and hypertension, while additionally identifying non-white race, heart disease, and previous lumbar surgery. Chronic pain, depression, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were associated with increased Pfirrmann grades at the most affected level without an increase in cumulative Pfirrmann scores. Glucose control was not associated with increasing severity or cumulative Pfirrmann scores. Conclusion These findings provide specific targets for future studies to elucidate key mechanisms by which patient-specific medical characteristics contribute to the development and progression of lumbar spine disc desiccation and height loss. Level of evidence III (retrospective cohort).

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Prior upper cervical spine injury classification systems have focused on injuries to the craniocervical junction (CCJ), atlas, and dens independently. However, no previous system has classified upper cervical spine injuries using a comprehensive system incorporating all injuries from the occiput to the C2-3 joint. PURPOSE To (1) determine the accuracy of experts at correctly classifying upper cervical spine injuries based on the recently proposed AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System (2) to determine their interobserver reliability and (3) identify the intraobserver reproducibility of the experts. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING International Multi-Center Survey PATIENT SAMPLE: A survey of international spine surgeons on 29 unique upper cervical spine injuries OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, intraobserver reproducibility METHODS: Thirteen international AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma members participated in two live webinar-based classifications of 29 upper cervical spine injuries presented in random order, four weeks apart. Percent agreement with the gold-standard and kappa coefficients (ƙ) were calculated to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS Raters demonstrated 80.8% and 82.7% accuracy with identification of the injury classification (combined location and type) on the first and second assessment, respectively. Injury classification intraobserver reproducibility was excellent (mean, [range] ƙ = 0.82 [0.58-1.00]). Excellent interobserver reliability was found for injury location (ƙ = 0.922 and ƙ= 0.912) on both assessments, while injury type was substantial (ƙ=0.689 and 0.699) on both assessments. This correlated to a substantial overall interobserver reliability (ƙ = 0.729 and 0.732). CONCLUSION Early phase validation demonstrated classification of upper cervical spine injuries using the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System to be accurate, reliable, and reproducible. Greater than 80% accuracy was detected for injury classification. The intraobserver reproducibility was excellent, while the interobserver reliability was substantial.

Study Design Systematic Review. Objectives To systematically review the current literature and perform a meta-analysis on patients with cervical or lumbar spine Modic changes to determine if their baseline axial back pain and disability are comparable to patients without Modic changes. Methods A systematic review of the PubMed database was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the mean differences in back pain, leg pain, and disability based on the presence of cervical or lumbar spine Modic changes. A subgroup analysis of the different types of Modic changes was conducted to determine if Modic type affected back pain or disability. Results – After review of 259 articles, 17 studies were included for meta-analysis and ten studies were included for qualitative synthesis. In the lumbar spine, 10 high-quality studies analyzed Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back pain, 10 evaluated VAS leg pain, and 8 analyzed Oswestry Disability Index. VAS back pain (mean difference (MD), −.38; 95% CI, -.61 – .16) and Oswestry disability index (MD −2.52; 95% CI, −3.93 – −1.12) were significantly lower in patients without Modic changes. Modic change subtype was not associated with differences in patient-reported outcomes. Patients with cervical spine Modic changes did not experience more severe pain than those without MC. Conclusions Modic changes in the lumbar spine are not associated with clinically significant axial low back pain severity or patient disability. Similar to the lumbar spine, Modic changes in the cervical spine are not associated with symptom severity, but they are associated with pain duration.

STUDY DESIGN This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to quantify the rates of complication following surgical treatment for symptomatic degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis and to examine the association between slip reduction and complication rates. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA It is unclear if the degree of spondylolisthesis reduction during lumbar spine fusion in adults influences the rate of surgical complications. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study of 1-level and 2-level adult fusion patients with degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis. The degree of reduction and complications were calculated, and complication rates between those with and without reduction were compared. RESULTS The surgical reduction was improved by 1 Meyerding grade in 56.5% of the 140 patients included in this analysis. Of those patients, 60% had a grade 1 spondylolisthesis. In addition, 62.5% of grade 2 slips had an improvement by 1 grade. Surgical reduction during lumbar fusion did not result in a higher rate of complications compared with in situ fusion. CONCLUSIONS During 1-level or 2-level lumbar fusion for degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis, a 1-grade reduction of the slip was achieved in 56% of patients in this retrospective case series. Reduction of the spondylolisthesis was not associated with a higher rate of complication when compared with in situ fusion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV.

Determining important links between medical comorbidities and cervical spine degenerative disc disease (DDD) will help elucidate pathomechanisms of disc degeneration. Electronic medical records and magnetic resonance imaging were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate 799 patients assessed for cervical spine pathology. Bivariate analysis identified older age, diabetes, ASA class, cancer, COPD, depression, hypertension, hypothyroidism, Medicare status, peripheral vascular disease, history of previous cervical spine surgery, smoking, and lower median household income as having strong associations with increased cumulative grade of cervical spine DDD. This study provides evidence suggesting aging and accumulation of medical comorbidities influence severity of cervical spine DDD.

Study Design Retrospective Cohort Objectives To (1) quantify the risk opioids impart on pseudarthrosis development, (2) analyze the effect of pseudarthrosis on clinical outcomes, and (3) identify if the amount of opioids prescribed are predictive of pseudarthrosis revision. Methods Patients who underwent ACDF at a single institution between 2017-2019 were retrospectively identified. Postoperative dynamic cervical spine radiographs were reviewed to assess fusion status. Logistic regression models measured the effect of morphine milligram equivalents (MME) prescribed on the likelihood of pseudarthrosis development. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to predict the probability of surgical revision based on MME prescribed. Results Of 298 included patients, an average of 2.01 ± 0.82 levels were included in the construct and 121 (40.9%) patients were diagnosed with a pseudarthrosis. However, only 14 (4.7%) required a pseudarthrosis revision. Patients requiring pseudarthrosis revision had worse one-year postoperative Δ PCS-12 (−1.70 vs. 7.58, P = 0.004), Δ NDI (3.33 vs. −15.26, P = 0.002), and Δ VAS Arm (2.33 vs. −2.48, P = .047). Multivariate logistic regression analyses found the three-month postoperative (OR=1.00, P = .010), one-year postoperative (OR=1.001, P = 0.025), and combined pre- and postoperative MME (OR=1.000, P = .035) increased the risk of pseudarthrosis. ROC analysis identified cutoff values to predict pseudarthrosis revision at 90.00 (area under the curve (AUC): 0.693, confidence interval (CI): 0.554-0.832), 132.86 (0.710, CI: 0.589-0.840), 224.76 (0.687, CI: 0.558-0.817) and 285.00 (0.711, CI: 0.585-0.837) MME in the preoperative, three-month postoperative, one-year postoperative, and combined pre-and postoperative period. Conclusion Increased prescription of opioid medications following ACDF procedures may increase the risk of pseudarthrosis development and revision surgery. Level of Evidence Therapeutic Level III

Demographic factors contribute significantly to spine surgery outcomes. Although race and ethnicity are not proxies for disease states, the intersection between these patient characteristics and socioeconomic status significantly impact patient outcomes.The purpose of this study is to investigate the frequency of demographic reporting and analysis in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) published in the three highest impact spine journals.Systematic review.We analyzed 278 randomized control trials published in The Spine Journal, Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine between January 2012 - January 2022.Extracted manuscript characteristics included the frequency of demographic reporting, sample size, and demographic composition of studies.We conducted a systematic review of RCTs published between January 2012 - January 2022 in the three highest impact factor spine journals in 2021: The Spine Journal, Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. We determined if age, gender, BMI, race, and ethnicity were reported and analyzed for each study. The overall frequency of demographic reporting was assessed, and the reporting trends were analyzed for each individual year and journal. Among studies that did report demographics, the populations were analyzed in comparison to the national population per United States (US) census reports. Studies were evaluated for bias using Cochrane risk-of-bias.Our search identified 278 RCTs for inclusion. 166 were published in Spine, 65 in The Spine Journal, and 47 in Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Only 9.35% (N=26) and 3.9% (N=11) of studies reported race and ethnicity, respectively. Demographic reporting frequency did not vary based on the publishing journal. Reporting of age and BMI increased over time, but reporting of race and ethnicity did not. Among RCTs that reported race, 88% were conducted in the US, and 85.71% of the patients in these US studies were White. White subjects were overly represented compared to the US population (85.71% vs. 61.63%, p.001), and non-White or Black patients were most underrepresented (2.89 vs. 25.96%, p.001).RCTs published in the three highest impact factor spine journals failed to frequently report patient race or ethnicity. Among studies published in the US, study populations are increasingly represented by non-Hispanic White patients. As we strive to care for an increasingly diverse population and reduce disparities to care, spine surgeons must do a better job reporting these variables to increase the external validity and generalizability of RCTs.

Demographic factors contribute markedly to orthopaedic surgery outcomes. However, women and minorities have been historically excluded from clinical trials. The United States passed the Safety and Innovation Act (Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act [FDA-SIA]) in 2012 to increase study diversity and mandate reporting of certain demographics. The purpose of this study was to investigate demographic reporting and analysis among high-risk orthopaedic medical device trials and evaluate the effectiveness of the FDA-SIA in increasing diversity of study enrollment.The premarket approval database was queried for all original submissions approved by the Orthopedic Advisory Committee from January 1, 2003, to July 1, 2022. Study demographics were recorded. Weighted means of race, ethnicity, and sex were compared before and after FDA-SIA implementation with the US population.We identified 51 orthopaedic trials with unique study data. Most Food and Drug Administration device trials reported age (98.0%) and sex (96.1%), but only 49.0% and 37.3% reported race and ethnicity, respectively. Only 23 studies analyzed sex, six analyzed race, and two analyzed ethnicity. Compared with the US population, participants were overwhelmingly White (91.36% vs. 61.63%, P0.001) with a significant underrepresentation of Black (3.65% vs. 12.41%, P = 0.008), Asian (0.86% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.030), and Hispanic participants (3.02% vs. 18.73%, P0.001) before 2013. The FDA-SIA increased female patient enrollment (58.99% vs. 47.96%, P = 0.021) but did not increase the enrollment of racial or ethnic minorities.Despite efforts to increase the generalizability of studies within the FDA-SIA, orthopaedic medical devices still fail to enroll diverse populations and provide demographic subgroup analysis. The study populations within these trials do not represent the populations for whom these devices will be indicated in the community. The federal government must play a stronger role in mandating study diversity, enforcing appropriate statistical analysis of the demographic subgroups, and executing measures to ensure compliance.I.

Study Design: Systematic review. Objective: Spinal cord injuries (SCIs) resulting in motor deficits can be devastating injuries resulting in millions of health care dollars spent per incident. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a potential class of drugs that could improve motor function after an SCI. This systematic review utilizes PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the effectiveness of NSAIDs for SCI. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus were reviewed linking the keywords of “ibuprofen,” “meloxicam,” “naproxen,” “ketorolac,” “indomethacin,” “celecoxib,” “ATB-346,” “NSAID,” and “nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug” with “spinal.” Results were reviewed for relevance and included if they met inclusion criteria. The SYRCLE checklist was used to assess sources of bias. Results: A total of 2960 studies were identified in the PubMed/MEDLINE database using the above-mentioned search criteria. A total of 461 abstracts were reviewed in Scopus, 340 in CINAHL, 179 in PsycINFO, and 7632 in Embase. A total of 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. Conclusions: NSAIDs’ effectiveness after SCI is largely determined by its ability to inhibit Rho-A. NSAIDs are a promising therapeutic option in acute SCI patients because they appear to decrease cord edema and inflammation, increase axonal sprouting, and improve motor function with minimal side effects. Studies are limited by heterogeneity, small sample size, and the use of animal models, which might not replicate the therapeutic effects in humans. There are no published human studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of these drugs after a traumatic cord injury. There is a need for well-designed prospective studies evaluating ibuprofen or indomethacin after adult spinal cord injuries.

Perioperative antibiotics are critical in reducing the risk of postoperative spine infections. However, the efficacy and optimal weight-based prophylactic cefazolin dosing is unclear.To determine (1) if inadequate weight-based prophylactic dosing of cefazolin affects infection rates after spinal fusions, and (2) identify the optimal dosing of cefazolin.Single center retrospective cohort PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing posterior cervical or lumbar spinal fusion between January 2000 and October 2020 OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative surgical site infection status METHODS: Patients were grouped based on our institutionally derived dosing adequacy standards, 1 g for60 kg, 2 g for 60 to 120 kg, and 3 g for120 kg. Univariate comparisons and multivariate regressions identified the effect of inadequate dosing on infection rate. Patients were subsequently regrouped into cefazolin dose (grams) administered and logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curves were compiled to determine the probability of infection based on cefazolin dose and patient weight. Alpha was set at 0.05.A total of 2,643 patients met inclusion criteria and 95 infections (3.6%) were identified. The infection rate was higher in the inadequate dosing group (5.86% vs. 2.58%, p.001). Adequate dosing was a predictor of decreased infections after lumbar fusion (OR: 0.43, p.001), but not posterior cervical fusions (OR: 0.47, p=.065). Patients were subsequently regrouped into 1 g or 2 g of cefazolin administered resulting in a 5.01% and 2.77% infection rate, respectively (p=.005). The area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval for one (0.850 [0.777-0.924]) and two (0.575 [0.493-0.657]) g of cefazolin demonstrated lower infection rates for patients given 2 g cefazolin.Patients receiving an inadequate weight-based dose of preoperative cefazolin had an increased risk of infection following spinal fusion surgery. Two grams prophylactic cefazolin significantly reduces the likelihood of infection.

Retrospective cohort study.To compare infection rates before and after the implementation of a quality improvement protocol focused on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening and decolonization in patients undergoing lumbar fusion and/or decompression.Prior studies have demonstrated MRSA infections comprise a sizable portion of SSIs. Additional studies are required to improve our understanding of the risks and benefits of MRSA decolonization with vancomycin prophylaxis.A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients who underwent spinal fusion or laminectomy before (2008-2011) and after (2013-2016) the implementation of an MRSA screening and treatment protocol. Odds ratios for MRSA, methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), and Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) infection before and after screening was calculated. Multivariate analysis assessed demographic characteristics as potential independent predictors of infection.A total of 8425 lumbar fusion and 2558 lumbar decompression cases met inclusion criteria resulting in a total cohort of 10,983 patients. There was a significant decrease in the overall rate of infections (P0.001), MRSA infections (P0.001), and MSSA infections (P0.001) after protocol implementation. Although VRE infections after protocol implementation were not significantly different (P=0.066), VRE rates as a percentage of all postoperative infections were substantially increased (0 vs. 3.36%, P=0.007). On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of the infection included younger age (OR=0.94[0.92-0.95]), shorter length of procedure (OR=1.00[0.99-1.00]), spinal fusion (OR=18.56[8.22-53.28]), higher ASA class (OR=5.49[4.08-7.44]), male sex (OR=1.61[1.18-2.20]), and history of diabetes (OR=1.58[1.08-2.29]).The implemented quality improvement protocol demonstrated that preoperative prophylactically treating MRSA colonized patients decreased the rate of overall infections, MSSA infections, and MRSA infections. In addition, younger age, male sex, diabetic status, greater ASA scores, and spinal fusions were risk factors for postoperative infection.

Postoperative dynamic radiographs are used to assess fusion status after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with comparable accuracy to computed tomography (CT) scans.To (1) determine if dynamic radiographs accurately predict pseudarthrosis revision in a cohort of largely asymptomatic patients who underwent ACDF, (2) determine how adjacent segment motion is affected by fusion status, and (3) analyze how clinical outcomes differ between patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic pseudarthrosis.Retrospective cohort study.Patients ≥ 18 years who underwent primary one- to four-level ACDF at a single institution over a 10-year period.Interspinous motion on preoperative and postoperative flexion-extension radiographs and preoperative and postoperative Visual Analogue Scale for Neck Pain (VAS Neck) and Arm Pain (VAS Arm), Neck Disability Index (NDI), Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale (mJOA), Mental and Physical Component Scores of the Short-Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey (MCS-12 and PCS-12) METHODS: The difference in spinous process motion between flexion and extension radiographs was used to determine motion at each level of the ACDF construct. Pseudarthrosis was defined as ≥ 1 mm spinous process motion on dynamic radiographs. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to predict the probability of surgical revision for pseudarthrosis based on millimeters of interspinous motion at each instrumented level. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were used to assess the effect of pseudarthrosis on clinical outcomes. Alpha was set at p.05.A total of 597 patients met inclusion criteria including 1,203 ACDF levels. Of those, 215 patients (36.0%) were diagnosed with a pseudarthrosis on dynamic radiographs with 29 patients (4.9%) requiring pseudarthrosis revision. ROC analysis identified a "cutoff" value of 1.00 mm of interspinous process motion for generating an optimal area under the curve (AUC). The negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.6%, whereas the positive predictive value (PPV) was 13.7%. When analyzing adjacent segment motion, the Δ supra-adjacent interspinous process motion (ISM) was significantly lower for patients with a superior construct pseudarthrosis (-1.06 mm vs. 1.80 mm, p.001), whereas the Δ infra-adjacent level ISM was significantly lower for patients with an inferior construct pseudarthrosis (-1.21 mm vs. 2.15 mm, p.001). Patients with a pseudarthrosis not requiring revision had worse postoperative NDI (29.3 vs. 23.4, p=.027), VAS Neck (3.40 vs. 2.63, p=.012), and VAS Arm (3.09 vs. 1.85, p=.001) scores at 3 months, but not 1-year, compared with patients who were fused. Patients requiring pseudarthrosis revision had higher 1-year postoperative NDI (38.0 vs. 23.7, p=.047) and lower 1-year postoperative Δ VAS Arm (-0.22 vs. -2.97, p=.016) scores.One-year postoperative dynamic radiographs have a greater than 99% negative predictive value for identifying patients requiring pseudarthrosis revision, but they have a low positive predictive value. Most patients with a pseudarthrosis remain asymptomatic with similar 1-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes compared with patients without a pseudarthrosis.

The Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthese fragen Spine Sacral Injury Classification hierarchically separates fractures based on their injury severity with A-type fractures representing less severe injuries and C-type fractures representing the most severe fracture types. C0 fractures represent moderately severe injuries and have historically been referred to as nondisplaced "U-type" fractures. Injury management of these fractures can be controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this narrative review is to first discuss the Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Osteosynthese fragen Spine Sacral Injury Classification System and describe the different fracture types and classification modifiers, with particular emphasis on C0 fracture types. The narrative review will then focus on the epidemiology and etiology of C0 fractures with subsequent discussion focused on the clinical presentation for patients with these injuries. Next, we will describe the imaging findings associated with these injuries and discuss the injury management of these injuries with particular emphasis on operative management. Finally, we will outline the outcomes and complications that can be expected during the treatment of these injuries.

Study Design Global cross-sectional survey. Objective To explore the influence of geographic region on the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. Methods A total of 158 AO Spine and AO Trauma members from 6 AO world regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin and South America, Middle East, and North America) participated in a live webinar to assess the reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy of classifying sacral fractures using the AO Spine Sacral Classification System. This evaluation was performed with 26 cases presented in randomized order on 2 occasions 3 weeks apart. Results A total of 8320 case assessments were performed. All regions demonstrated excellent intraobserver reproducibility for fracture morphology. Respondents from Europe (k = .80) and North America (k = .86) achieved excellent reproducibility for fracture subtype while respondents from all other regions displayed substantial reproducibility. All regions demonstrated at minimum substantial interobserver reliability for fracture morphology and subtype. Each region demonstrated >90% accuracy in classifying fracture morphology and >80% accuracy in fracture subtype compared to the gold standard. Type C morphology (p2 = .0000) and A3 (p1 = .0280), B2 (p1 = .0015), C0 (p1 = .0085), and C2 (p1 =.0016, p2 =.0000) subtypes showed significant regional disparity in classification accuracy (p1 = Assessment 1, p2 = Assessment 2). Respondents from Asia (except in A3) and the combined group of North, Latin, and South America had accuracy percentages below the combined mean, whereas respondents from Europe consistently scored above the mean. Conclusions In a global validation study of the AO Spine Sacral Classification System, substantial reliability of both fracture morphology and subtype classification was found across all geographic regions.

STUDY DESIGN Global Cross Sectional Survey. OBJECTIVE To determine the classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on an international group of AO Spine members. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Previous upper cervical spine injury classifications have primarily been descriptive without incorporating a hierarchical injury progression within the classification system. Further, upper cervical spine injury classifications have focused on distinct anatomical segments within the upper cervical spine. The AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System incorporates all injuries of the upper cervical spine into a single classification system focused on a hierarchical progression from isolated bony injuries (type A) to fracture dislocations (type C). METHODS A total of 275 AO Spine members participated in a validation aimed at classifying 25 upper cervical spine injuries via computed tomography (CT) scans according to the AO Spine Upper Cervical Classification System. The validation occurred on two separate occasions, three weeks apart. Descriptive statistics for percent agreement with the gold-standard were calculated and Pearson's chi square test evaluated significance between validation groups. Kappa coefficients (ƙ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The accuracy of AO Spine members to appropriately classify upper cervical spine injuries was 79.7% on assessment 1 (AS1) and 78.7% on assessment 2 (AS2). The overall intraobserver reproducibility was substantial (ƙ=0.70), while the overall interobserver reliability for AS1 and AS2 was substantial (ƙ=0.63 and ƙ=0.61, respectively). Injury location had higher interobserver reliability (AS1: ƙ = 0.85 and AS2: ƙ=0.83) than the injury type (AS1: ƙ=0.59 and AS2: 0.57) on both assessments. CONCLUSION The global validation of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial interobserver agreement and intraobserver reproducibility. These results support the universal applicability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System.