Search

To compile intra-operative techniques, established imaging parameters, available equipment and software, and clinical applications of intraoperative ultrasound imaging (IOUSI) for spinal cord injury (SCI) and myelopathy.PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles. The articles were reviewed and selected by 2 independent researchers. After article selection, data were extracted and summarized into research domains. PRISMA systematic review process was followed.Of the 2477 articles screened, 16 articles met the inclusion criteria. In patients with SCI and myelopathy, common quantitative measurements obtained using IOUSI were noted: 1) ultrasound elastography, 2) midsagittal anteroposterior diameter, 3) transverse, 4) transverse diameter, 5) maximum spinal cord compression, and 6) compression ratioTo ensure adequate decompression and to look for residual compression, the lateral and the craniocaudal margins of the laminectomy site were inspected in both axial and sagittal planes. In instances where quantitative assessment was not possible, cord decompression and degree of residual compression were gauged by inspecting the interface between the ventral border of the spinal cord and any potentially compressive elements, and by searching for symmetric and rhythmic cerebrospinal fluid pulsations. Use of contrast-enhanced ultrasoundand molecular imaging are additional advances in objective assessments for SCI and myelopathy.This review outlines the potential of IOUSI in patients presenting with SCI and myelopathy. Moreover, by identifying potential for inter-operator variability in certain subjective measurements, we illustrate the need for further research to quantify and standardize those assessments.

Single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective review.To evaluate the timing of return to commonly performed activities following minimally invasive spine surgery. Identify preoperative factors associated with these outcomes.Studies have reported return to activities with open techniques, but the precise timing of when patients return to these activities after minimally invasive surgery remains uncertain.Patients who underwent either minimally invasive lumbar laminectomy (MI-L) or minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) were included. Patient-reported outcome measures, return to drive, return to work, and discontinuation of opioids data were reviewed. Regression was conducted to identify factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to work by 30 days, and for discontinuing opioids by 15 days. A composite group analysis was also performed for patients who returned to all three activities by 30 days.In total, 123 MI-L patients and 107 MI-TLIF patients were included. Overall, 88.8% of MI-L patients and 96.4% of MI-TLIF patients returned to driving in 11 and 18.5 days, respectively. In all, 91.9% of MI-L patients and 85.7% of MI-TLIF patients returned to work in 14 and 25 days. In all, 88.7% of MI-L patients and 92.6% of MI-TLIF patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and 11 days. Overall, 96.2% of MI-L patients and 100% of MI-TLIF patients returned to all three activities, with a median of 27 and 31 days, respectively. Male sex [odds ratio (OR)=3.57] and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.08) are associated with return to driving by 15 days. Male sex (OR=3.23) and preoperative 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (OR=1.07) are associated with return to work by 30 days. Preoperative Visual Analog Scale back was associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 15 days (OR=0.84).Most patients return to activity following MI-L and MI-TLIF. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been increasing interest in outpatient spine surgery. Minimally invasive techniques have created an opportunity for ambulatory lumbar fusion, and these techniques increasingly involve advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers, advantages, and future predictions for such technology in the context of outpatient lumbar fusions. METHODS: This is a narrative review of studies examining the advantages, limitations, and cost-effectiveness of navigation and spinal robotics in conjunction with the outcomes and costs of outpatient lumbar fusion. RESULTS: Outpatient lumbar fusion is a growing trend with ample evidence of its safety, favorable patient outcomes, and cost savings. Navigation and spinal robotics are associated with improved instrumentation accuracy and fewer complications, and the long-term cost savings can make these technologies financially practical in the outpatient setting. Future capabilities with robotics will only increase their value. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced technologies such as navigation and robotics are strategic long-term investments in the context of outpatient lumbar fusion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The favorable outcomes and costs associated with navigation and robotics will be relevant to any spine surgeon interested in developing an outpatient lumbar fusion program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.To analyze the postoperative factors that led delayed discharge in patients who would have been eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion (ALF).Assessing postoperative inefficiencies is vital to increase the feasibility of ALF.Patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and would have met the eligibility criteria for ALF were included. Length of stay (LOS); time in postanesthesia recovery unit (PACU); alertness and neurological examination, and pain scores at three and six hours; type of analgesia; time to physical therapy (PT) visit; reasons for PT nonclearance; time to per-oral (PO) intake; time to voiding; time to readiness for discharge were assessed. Time taken to meet each discharge criterion was calculated. Multiple regression analyses were performed to study the effect of variables on postoperative parameters influencing discharge.Of 71 patients, 4% were discharged on the same day and 69% on postoperative day 1. PT clearance was the last-met discharge criterion in 93%. Sixty-six percent did not get PT evaluation on the day of surgery. Seventy-six percent required intravenous opioids and60% had adequate pain control. Twenty-six percent had orthostatic intolerance. The median postoperative LOS was 26.9 hours, time in PACU was 4.2 hours, time to PO intake was 6.5 hours, time to first void was 6.3 hours, time to first PT visit was 17.7 hours, time to PT clearance was 21.8 hours, and time to discharge readiness was 21.9 hours. Regression analysis showed that time to PT clearance, time to PO intake, time to voiding, time in PACU, and pain score at three hours had a significant effect on LOS.Unavailability of PT, surgery after 1 pm , orthostatic intolerance, inadequate pain control, prolonged PACU stay, and long feeding and voiding times were identified as modifiable factors preventing same-day discharge.4.

Study Design: Literature review. Objectives: To review the evidence for surface-based navigation in minimally-invasive spine surgery (MIS), provide an outline for its workflow, and present a wide range of MIS case examples in which surface-based navigation may be advantageous. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings related to surface-based navigation in MIS was performed. Workflow and case examples utilizing surface-based navigation were described. Results: The nascent literature regarding surface-based intraoperative navigation (ION) in spine surgery is encouraging and initial studies have shown that surface-based navigation can allow for accurate pedicle screw placement and decreased operative time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation exposure when compared to traditional fluoroscopic imaging. Surface-based navigation may be particularly useful in MIS cervical and lumbar decompressions and MIS lumbar instrumentation cases. Conclusions: Overall, it is possible that surface-based ION will become a mainstay in the armamentarium of enabling technologies utilized by minimally-invasive spine surgeons, but further studies are needed assessing its accuracy, complications, and cost-effectiveness.

With this manuscript the authors sought to write a succinct review of the origins, as well as the latest advancements in endoscopic spine surgery to serve as a reference frame for physicians looking to learn this approach.At its infancy, the indications for posterolateral and transforaminal endoscopic decompression remained narrow, which prevented the procedure from gaining rapid traction during those days. However, more recently the tides have turned and an increasing number of surgeons are starting to adopt this technique given all its advantages. With the advent of higher quality camera systems and instruments, indications to use a minimally invasive option have gotten significantly broader. The most basic indication for the use of this technology is a soft disc herniation causing compromise of a neural structure that has failed to be managed successfully with non-surgical therapies. The use of endoscopic techniques provides significant advantages to patient outcomes and patient recovery. Endoscopic procedures should not be used as a blanket approach to nerve root decompression, as they certainly have limitations. Most contraindications to this procedure are relative and serve mostly as points to consider when selecting the methods to address neural compression. As these techniques become more widely accepted, we expect its reach and indications to continue to broaden and diversify. The full integration of navigation technologies will likely leapfrog this procedure into the mainstream use.

Retrospective cohort study.The aim was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with significant cervical spondylosis treated with cervical disc replacement (CDR) compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).As CDR utilization has increased over the past decade, recent studies have investigated the outcomes of CDR in patients with more significant spondylotic changes and demonstrated improved postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). However, no prior study has investigated clinical outcomes of patients with significant spondylotic changes treated with CDR in comparison to ACDF.Patients who underwent 1-level or 2-level CDR or ACDF with significant cervical spondylosis, quantified using a validated grading scale, were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. The following PROs were analyzed: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale-Neck, visual analog scale-Arm, and PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) Computer Adaptive Test Score. Demographic, operative, and radiographic variables, and achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for each PRO were compared between the 2 groups.A total of 66 patients were included in the present study, of which 35 (53%) were treated with CDR and 31 (47%) with ACDF. The preoperative cervical spondylotic grade was similar between the 2 groups (1.8 vs. 2.2, P=0.27). At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in the absolute value for each PRO between the 2 groups (P0.19) and both groups demonstrated significant improvement in each PRO compared with preoperative values (P0.01). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO when comparing CDR to ACDF (P0.09).A similar percentage of patients with significant degenerative cervical spondylosis achieved the MCID across multiple PROs when treated with CDR or ACDF. Patients in both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in all PROs assessed when compared with preoperative values.Level III.

Retrospective cohort study.The aim of this study was to examine sagittal alignment over time in adult spinal deformity (ASD) and to understand whether these changes vary by choice of upper instrumented vertebra (UIV).Recent ASD literature has focused on specific alignment goals. Less is known about how sagittal parameters evolve over time after surgical correction and whether these changes differ by choice of UIV.This was a retrospective review of ASD patients from a single institution. Routine 36″ sagittal x-rays were obtained preoperatively, before hospital discharge, and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years and sagittal parameters were measured. Patients with UIV T6 and above were classified as upper thoracic (UT) and T7 and below as lower thoracic (LT).A total of 102 patients with mean age 66.0 years (±7.7) were included in the analysis (49 UT, 53 LT). All sagittal and coronal alignment parameters demonstrated significant improvement from preoperatively to any postoperative time point. Although multiple parameters maintained correction over time, others (TK, TPA, and PT) demonstrated significant increase from discharge to 2 years postoperatively, with changes occurring relatively early after surgery, whereas overall global alignment was maintained. Both UT/LT groups demonstrated significantly greater TK from preoperatively to discharge to 6 months (P 0.05), stabilizing at that time point out to 2 years, whereas TLK preferentially increased in the LT group. There was significant improvement in sagittal vertical axis after surgery, which was maintained out to 2years of follow-up (P 0.05).Our data suggest that although several key parameters are maintained over time out to 2years postopera- tively, TK tends to worsen over time for all patients, whereas TLK preferentially increases in the LT group. Nevertheless, despite these trends, compensatory changes are seen in PT such that global alignment is relatively maintained.Level of Evidence: 3.

Over the past decade, several review articles have evaluated the techniques and outcomes of robotics vs traditional methods in spine surgery. Recently, robot-assisted pedicle screw placement has emerged, representing an important milestone in the evolution of spine surgery. In the present article, the authors aim to provide the historical context regarding the use and growth of spinal robotics through the lens of the Industrial Revolution and the personal computer revolution. While the former provides insight into the current implications of robotics in spine surgery, the latter predicts future steps in this arena.

Objective: To review the evidence for the use of electromyography (EMG), motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) strategies during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), as well as discuss the limitations associated with each technique.Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings relating to clinical studies investigating the efficacy of EMG, MEP, SSEP, or combined IONM strategies during LLIF.Results: The evidence for the use of EMG is mixed with some studies demonstrating the efficacy of EMG in preventing postoperative neurologic injuries and other studies demonstrating a high rate of postoperative neurologic deficits with EMG monitoring. Multimodal IONM strategies utilizing MEPs or saphenous SSEPs to monitor the lumbar plexus may be promising strategies based on results from a limited number of studies.Conclusion: The use of traditional EMG during LLIF remains without consensus. There is a growing body of evidence utilizing multimodal IONM with MEPs or saphenous SSEPs demonstrating a possible decrease in postoperative neurologic injuries after LLIF. Future prospective studies, with clear definitions of neurologic injury, that evaluate different multimodal IONM strategies are needed to better assess the efficacy of IONM during LLIF.

Study Design A multi-disciplinary review. Objectives To provide a roadmap for implementing time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for spine surgery. This is achieved by organizing and scrutinizing publications in the spine, neurosurgical, and orthopedic literature which utilize TDABC and related methodologies. Methods PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles. The articles were selected by two independent researchers. After article selection, data was extracted and summarized into research domains. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) systematic review process was followed. Results Of the 524 articles screened, thirty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Each included article was examined and reviewed to define the primary research question and objective. Comparing different procedures was the most common primary objective. Direct observation along with one other strategy (surveys, interviews, surgical database, or EMR) was most commonly employed during process map development. Across all surgical subspecialties (spine, neurologic, and orthopedic surgery), costs were divided into direct cost, indirect cost, cost to patient, and total costs. The most commonly calculated direct costs included personnel and supply costs. Facility costs, hospital overhead costs, and utilities were the most commonly calculated indirect costs. Transportation costs and parental lost wages were considered when calculating cost to patient. The total cost was a sum of direct costs, indirect costs, and costs to the patient. Conclusion TDABC provides a common platform to accurately estimate costs of care delivery. Institutions embarking on TDABC for spine surgery should consider the breadth of methodologies highlighted in this review to determine which type of calculations are appropriate for their practice.

As robotics in spine surgery has progressed over the past 2 decades, studies have shown mixed results on its clinical outcomes and economic impact. In this review, we highlight the evolution of robotic technology over the past 30 years, discussing early limitations and failures. We provide an overview of the history and evolution of currently available spinal robotic platforms and compare and contrast the available features of each. We conclude by summarizing the literature on robotic instrumentation accuracy in pedicle screw placement and clinical outcomes such as complication rates and briefly discuss the future of robotic spine surgery.

Cervical deformity is a challenging condition to treat and requires complex decision-making. Apart from a thorough history and physical examination, a thoughtful and quantitative analysis of multiple imaging modalities is critical for understanding the nature and driver of the cervical deformity. A few classification schemes have emerged, and it is now clear that dynamic films are invaluable as they capture the extension reserve that patients can use to compensate for malalignment. These classification systems can help guide surgical planning, because the various subgroups have different properties that lend themselves to specific treatment paradigms. Here we review the clinical and radiographic evaluation, classification, and surgical planning for cervical deformity.

Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding.To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up.(1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (6 months) and late (6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated.Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work?80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again?90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy).These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

Background Context Studies have found that most patients are satisfied after spine surgery, with rates ranging from 53% to 90%. Patient satisfaction appears to be closely related to achieving clinical improvement in pain and disability after surgery. While the majority of the literature has focused on patients who report both satisfaction and clinical improvement in disability and pain, there remains an important sub-population of patients who have clinically relevant improvement but report being dissatisfied with surgery. Purpose To examine why patients who achieve clinical improvement in disability or pain also report dissatisfaction at 1-year after spinal surgery. Study Design Retrospective analysis of prospective data from a national spine registry, the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD). Patient Sample There were 32,076 participants undergoing elective surgery for degenerative spine pathology who had clinical improvement in disability or pain. Outcome Measures Satisfaction with surgery was assessed with 1-item from the North American Spine Society (NASS) lumbar spine outcome assessment. Participants with answer choices other than “treatment met my expectations” were classified as dissatisfied. Methods Patients completed a baseline and 12-month postoperative assessment to evaluate disability, pain, and satisfaction. Clinical improvement was defined as patients who achieved a 30% or greater improvement in spine related disability (Oswestry/Neck Disability Index) or extremity pain (11-point Numerical Rating Scale) from baseline to 12-months after surgery. A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to predict the odds of the patient being dissatisfied 1-year after surgery from demographic, clinical and surgical characteristics, postoperative complications and revision, and return to work and previous physical activity. Random effects were included to model the effect of both site and surgeon on dissatisfaction. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on samples who achieved 1) 30% or greater improvement in disability only, 2) 30% or greater improvement in axial (back/neck) pain only, and 3) 30% or greater improvement in both disability and axial pain. Results showed the same pattern of findings across all samples. Results Twenty-eight percent of patients were classified as dissatisfied with their spine surgery and 72% classified as satisfied. For patients with clinical improvement in disability or extremity pain at 1-year, significant predictors of higher odds of dissatisfaction included baseline psychological distress, current smoking status, worker's compensation claim, lower education, higher ASA grade, lumbar vs. cervical procedure, and increased axial pain, major complication within 90 days, and revision surgery within 12-months. The most important contributors to dissatisfaction were return to work and return to previous physical activity, with the odds of dissatisfaction being over 2 times and 4 times higher for these variables. Site and surgeon explained 3.8% of the variance in dissatisfaction, with more of the variance attributed to site than to surgeon. Conclusions Several modifiable factors, including psychological distress, current smoking status, and failure to return to work and physical activity, helped explain why patients report being dissatisfied with surgery despite clinical improvement in disability or pain. The findings of this study have the potential to help providers identify at-risk patients, set realistic expectations during preoperative counseling, and implement postoperative management strategies. A multidisciplinary approach to rehabilitation that includes functional goal setting or restoration may help to improve patients psychological distress as well as return to work and previous physical activity after spine surgery.

Retrospective cohort study.The aim was to compare the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) across multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing cervical disc replacement (CDR) for cervical spondylotic radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy.To date, a limited number of studies have demonstrated mostly similar results in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy undergoing CDR. However, each of these previous studies have focused on statistically significant differences, which may not correlate with patient perceived improvements in outcomes or success.Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level CDR with radiculopathy versus myeloradiculopathy were identified, and prospectively collected data was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic variables, preoperative diagnosis, and operative variables were collected for each patient. The following PROs were prospectively collected: Neck Disability Index (NDI), visual analog scale (VAS)-Neck, VAS-Arm, Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS), PROMIS Physical Function (PF). An MCID analysis of PROs for each diagnosis group was performed and the percentage of patients achieving the MCID was compared between the two diagnosis groups.Eight-five patients, of which 56% had radiculopathy and 44% had myeloradiculopathy. MCID analysis demonstrated that at 6-week, 12-week, and final postoperative follow-up there was no significant difference in the percentage of patients with radiculopathy or myeloradiculopathy achieving the MCID for each PRO assessed. In both diagnosis groups the percentage of patients achieving the MCID for each PRO continued to increase from the 6-week to final postoperative follow-up except for the SF-12 MCS in patients with myeloradiculopathy.The percentage of patients achieving the MCID was not significantly different at each postoperative period assessed in the radiculopathy and myeloradiculopathy groups treated with CDR. In addition, the percentage of patients achieving the MCID continued to increase from 6 weeks to final follow-up in both groups for almost all PROs assessed.

OBJECTIVEPatient satisfaction with treatment outcome is gaining an increasingly important role in assessing the value of surgical spine care delivery. Nationwide data evaluating the predictors of patient satisfaction in elective cervical spine surgery are lacking. The authors sought to decipher the impacts of the patient, surgical practice, and surgeon on satisfaction with outcome following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients undergoing 1- to 2-level ACDF for degenerative spine disease since 2013. Patient satisfaction with the surgical outcome as measured by the North American Spine Society (NASS) scale comprised the primary outcome. A multivariable proportional odds logistic regression model was constructed with adjustments for baseline patient characteristics and surgical practice and surgeon characteristics as fixed effects.RESULTSA total of 4148 patients (median age 54 years, 48% males) with complete 12-month NASS satisfaction data were analyzed. Sixty-seven percent of patients answered that “surgery met their expectations” (n = 2803), while 20% reported that they “did not improve as much as they had hoped but they would undergo the same operation for the same results” (n = 836). After adjusting for a multitude of patient-specific as well as hospital- and surgeon-related factors, the authors found baseline Neck Disability Index (NDI) score, US geographic region of hospital, patient race, insurance status, symptom duration, and Workers’ compensation status to be the most important predictors of patient satisfaction. The discriminative ability of the model was satisfactory (c-index 0.66, overfitting-corrected estimate 0.64).CONCLUSIONSThe authors’ results found baseline NDI score, patient race, insurance status, symptom duration, and Workers’ compensation status as well as the geographic region of the hospital to be the most important predictors of long-term patient satisfaction after a 1- to 2-level ACDF. The findings of the present analysis further reinforce the role of preoperative discussion with patients on setting treatment goals and realistic expectations.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Low back pain has an immense impact on the US economy. A significant number of patients undergo surgical management in order to regain meaningful functionality in daily life and in the workplace. Return to work (RTW) is a key metric in surgical outcomes, as it has profound implications for both individual patients and the economy at large. PURPOSE In this study, we investigated the factors associated with RTW in patients who achieved otherwise favorable outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data from the lumbar module of national spine registry, the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD). PATIENT SAMPLE The lumbar module of QOD includes patients undergoing lumbar surgery for primary stenosis, disc herniation, spondylolisthesis (Grade I) and symptomatic mechanical disc collapse or revision surgery for recurrent same-level disc herniation, pseudarthrosis, and adjacent segment disease. Exclusion criteria included age under 18 years and diagnoses of infection, tumor, or trauma as the cause of lumbar-related pain. OUTCOME MEASURES The outcome of interest for this study was the return to work 12-month after surgery. METHODS The lumbar module of QOD was queried for patients who were employed at the time of surgery. Good outcomes were defined as patients who had no adverse events (readmissions/complications), had achieved 30% improvement in Oswestry disability index (ODI) and were satisfied (NASS satisfaction) at 3-month post-surgery. Distinct multivariable logistic regression models were fitted with 12-month RTW as outcome for a. overall population and b. the patients with good outcomes. The variables included in the models were age, gender, race, insurance type, education level, occupation type, currently working/on-leave status, workers’ compensation, ambulatory status, smoking status, anxiety, depression, symptom duration, number of spinal levels, diabetes, motor deficit, and preoperative back-pain, leg-pain and ODI score. RESULTS Of the total 12,435 patients, 10,604 (85.3%) had successful RTW at 1-year postsurgery. Among patients who achieved good surgical outcomes, 605 (7%) failed to RTW. For both the overall and subgroup analysis, older patients had lower odds of RTW. Females had lower odds of RTW compared with males and patients with higher back pain and baseline ODI had lower odds of RTW. Patients with longer duration of symptoms, more physically demanding occupations, worker's compensation claim and those who had short-term disability leave at the time of surgery had lower odds of RTW independent of their good surgical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS This study identifies certain risk factors for failure to RTW independent of surgical outcomes. Most of these risk factors are occupational; hence, involving the patient's employer in treatment process and setting realistic expectations may help improve the patients' work-related functionality.

Surgical management of degenerative lumbar spine disorders is effective at improving patient pain, disability, and quality of life; however, obtaining a durable posterolateral fusion after decompression remains a challenge. Interbody fusion technologies are viable means of improving fusion rates in the lumbar spine, specifically various graft materials including autograft, structural allograft, titanium, and polyether ether ketone. This study assesses the effectiveness of Tritanium posterolateral cage in the treatment of degenerative disk disease.Nearest-neighbor 1:1 matched control transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with PEEK vs. Tritanium posterior lumbar (PL) cage interbody fusion patients were identified using propensity scoring from patients that underwent elective surgery for degenerative disk diseases. Line graphs were generated to compare the trajectories of improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from baseline to 3 and 12 months postoperatively. The nominal data were compared via the χThe two groups had no difference regarding either the 3- or 12-month Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D), numeric rating scale (NRS) leg pain, and NRS back pain; however, the Tritanium interbody cage group had better Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores compared to the control group of the PEEK interbody cage at both 3 and 12 months (p=0.013 and 0.048).Our results indicate the Tritanium cage is an effective alternative to the previously used PEEK cage in terms of PROs, surgical safety, and radiological parameters of surgical success. The Tritanium cohort showed better ODI scores, higher fusion rates, lower subsidence, and lower indirect costs associated with surgical management, when compared to the propensity-matched PEEK cohort.

This was an observational study.This study aims to determine the correlation between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) pulled from a national spine registry and physician ratings from physician review websites (PRWs).PRWs are frequently utilized by patients to make health care decisions; however, many PRWs appear to incorporate subjective experiences unrelated to a surgeon's clinical performance into ratings. As such, their utility as a health care decision-making tool remains unclear.This study evaluated 8834 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) who underwent 1-level elective lumbar spine surgery. The lumbar module of QOD was queried to rank 124 surgeons using PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, Numerical Rating Scale-back/leg pain, and patient satisfaction). The QOD PRO-ranking system was compared against PRWs including Healthgrades, Vitals, WebMD, and Google. The Spearman correlation coefficients, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and multiple linear regression models were used for statistical comparison. The primary outcome was the correlation between PRW scores and PROs.Surgeon PRO-derived ranking showed high intercorrelational congruence with coefficients between the 3 PROs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQOL, Numerical Rating Scale back/leg) ranging between 0.70 and 0.88. Low correlations were observed between PRO-derived rankings and PRWs, ranging from 0.23 to 0.37. Healthgrades performed most similarly to PRO-derived rankings, correlating best with patient satisfaction, though the correlation was low (ρ=0.37).While PRWs are often used to evaluate surgeon competency, these results demonstrate they poorly correlate with a surgeon's clinical ability measured by PROs. PRWs should be used with caution when making health care decisions by patients, payers, and administrators.Level III.

Background: The gold standard for percutaneous pedicle screw placement is 2-dimensional (2D) fluoroscopy. Data are sparse on the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) navigation percutaneous screw placement in minimally invasive spine procedures. Objective: We sought to compare a single surgeon’s percutaneous pedicle screw placement accuracy using 2D fluoroscopy versus 3D navigation, as well as to investigate the effect of facet orientation on facet violation when using 2D fluoroscopy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective radiographic study of consecutive cohort of patients who underwent percutaneous lumbar instrumentation using either 2D fluoroscopy or 3D navigation. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon at 2 academic institutions between 2011 and 2018. Radiographic measurement of screw accuracy was assessed using a postoperative computed tomographic scan. The primary outcome was facet violation, and secondary outcomes were endplate/tip breaches, the Gertzbein-Robbins classification for cortical breaches, and the Simplified Screw Accuracy grade. Statistical comparisons were made between screws placed using 2D fluoroscopy versus 3D navigation. Axial facet angles were also measured to correlate with facet violation rates. Results: In the 138 patients included, 376 screws were placed with fluoroscopy and 193 with navigation. Superior (unfused) level facet violation was higher with 2D fluoroscopy than with 3D navigation (9% vs 0.5%), which comprises the main cause for poor screw placement. Axial facet angles exceeding 45° at L4 and 60° at L5 were correlated with facet violations. Conclusion: This retrospective study found that 3D navigation is associated with lower facet violation rates in percutaneous lumbar pedicle screw placement when compared with 2D fluoroscopy. These findings suggest that 3D navigation may be of particular value when facet joints are coronally oriented.

BACKGROUND Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a progressive disease resulting from cervical cord compression. The modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) is commonly used to grade myelopathic symptoms, but its persistent postoperative improvement has not been previously explored. OBJECTIVE To utilize the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) to evaluate the trajectory of outcomes in those operatively treated for DCM. METHODS This study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The QOD was queried for patients undergoing elective surgery for DCM. Patients were divided into mild (≥14), moderate (9-13), or severe (

Background Modern healthcare reforms focus on identifying and measuring the quality and value of care. Patient satisfaction is particularly important in the management of degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR) since it leads to significant neck pain and disability primarily affecting the patients' quality of life. Objective To determine the association of baseline and 12-mo Neck Disability Index (NDI) with patient satisfaction after elective surgery for DCR. Methods The Quality Outcomes Database cervical module was queried for patients who underwent elective surgery for DCR. A multivariable proportional odds regression model was fitted with 12-mo satisfaction as the outcome. The covariates for this model included patients' demographics, surgical characteristics, and baseline and 12-mo patient reported outcomes (PROs). Wald-statistics were calculated to determine the relative importance of each independent variable for 12-mo patient satisfaction. Results The analysis included 2206 patients who underwent elective surgery for DCR. In multivariable analysis, after adjusting for baseline and surgery specific variables, the 12-mo NDI score showed the highest association with 12-mo satisfaction (Waldχ2-df = 99.17, 58.1% of total χ2). The level of satisfaction increases with decrease in 12-mo NDI score regardless of the baseline NDI score. Conclusion Our study identifies 12-mo NDI score as a very influential driver of 12-mo patient satisfaction after surgery for DCR. In addition, there are lesser contributions from other 12-mo PROs, baseline Numeric Rating Scale for arm pain and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. The baseline level of disability was found to be irrelevant to patients. They seemed to only value their current level of disability, compared to baseline, in rating satisfaction with surgical outcome.

Longitudinal Cohort Study.Determine 1-year patient-reported outcomes associated with preoperative chronic opioid therapy and high-preoperative opioid dosages in patients undergoing elective spine surgery.Back pain is the most disabling condition worldwide and over half of patients presenting for spine surgery report using opioids. Preoperative dosage has been correlated with poor outcomes, but published studies have not assessed the relationship of both preoperative chronic opioids and opioid dosage with patient-reported outcomes.For patients undergoing elective spine surgery between 2010 and 2017, our prospective institutional spine registry data was linked to opioid prescription data collected from our state's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program to analyze outcomes associated with preoperative chronic opioid therapy and high-preoperative opioid dosage, while adjusting for confounders through multivariable regression analyses. Outcomes included 1-year meaningful improvements in pain, function, and quality of life. Additional outcomes included 1-year satisfaction, return to work, 90-day complications, and postoperative chronic opioid use.Of 2128 patients included, preoperative chronic opioid therapy was identified in 21% and was associated with significantly higher odds (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) of not achieving meaningful improvements at 1-year in extremity pain (aOR:1.5 [1.2-2]), axial pain (aOR:1.7 [1.4-2.2]), function (aOR:1.7 [1.4-2.2]), and quality of life (aOR:1.4 [1.2-1.9]); dissatisfaction (aOR:1.7 [1.3-2.2]); 90-day complications (aOR:2.9 [1.7-4.9]); and postoperative chronic opioid use (aOR:15 [11.4-19.7]). High-preoperative opioid dosage was only associated with postoperative chronic opioid use (aOR:4.9 [3-7.9]).Patients treated with chronic opioids prior to spine surgery are significantly less likely to achieve meaningful improvements at 1-year in pain, function, and quality of life; and less likely to be satisfied at 1-year with higher odds of 90-day complications, regardless of dosage. Both preoperative chronic opioid therapy and high-preoperative dosage are independently associated with postoperative chronic opioid use.2.

Background Context No consensus exists for defining chronic preoperative opioid use. Most spine studies rely solely on opioid duration to stratify patients into preoperative risk categories. Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare established opioid definitions that contain both duration and dosage to opioid models that rely solely on duration, including the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, in patients undergoing spine surgery. Study Design This was a retrospective cohort study that used opioid data from the Tennessee Controlled Substance Monitoring Database and prospective clinical data from a single-center academic spine registry. Patient Sample The study cohort consisted of 2,373 patients who underwent elective spine surgery for degenerative conditions between January 2011 and February 2017 and who completed a follow-up assessment at 12 months after surgery. Outcome Measures Postoperative opioid use and patient-reported satisfaction (NASS Satisfaction Scale), disability (Oswestry/Neck Disability Index), and pain (Numeric Rating Scale) at 12 month follow-up. Methods Six different chronic preoperative opioid use variables were created based on the number of times a prescription was filled and/or daily morphine milligram equivalent for the one year before surgery. These variables defined chronic opioid use as 1) most days for > 3 months (CDC), 2) continuous use for ≥ 6 months (Schoenfeld), 3) >4,500 mg for at least 9 months (Svendsen wide), 4) >9,000 mg for 12 months (Svendsen intermediary), 5) >18,000 mg for 12 months (Svendsen strict), 6) low-dose chronic (1-36 mg for >91 days), medium-dose chronic (36-120 mg for >91 days), and high-dose chronic (>120 mg for >91 days) (Edlund). Multivariable regression models yielding C-index and R2 values were used to compare chronic preoperative opioid use definitions by postoperative outcomes, adjusting for type of surgery. Results Chronic preoperative opioid use was reported in 470 to 725 (19.8% to 30.6%) patients, depending on definition. The Edlund definition, accounting for duration and dosage, had the highest predictive ability for postoperative opioid use (77.5%), followed by Schoenfeld (75.7%), CDC (72.6%), and Svendsen (59.9% to 72.5%) definitions. A combined Edlund and Schoenfeld duration and dosage definition in post-hoc analysis, that included 3 and 6 month duration cut-offs, performed the best overall with a C-index of 78.4%. Both Edlund and Schoenfeld definitions explained similar amounts of variance in satisfaction, disability, and pain (4.2% to 8.5%). Svendsen and CDC definitions demonstrated poorer performance for patient-reported outcomes (1.4% to 7.2%). Conclusions The Edlund definition is recommended for identifying patients at highest risk for postoperative opioid use. When opioid dosage is unavailable, the Schoenfeld definition is a reasonable choice with similar predictive ability. For patient-reported outcomes, either the Edlund or Schoenfeld definition is recommended. Future work should consider combing dosage and duration, with 3 and 6 month cutoffs, into chronic opioid use definitions.

Study design This study retrospectively analyzes prospectively collected data. Objective Here we aim to develop predictive models for 3-month medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar surgery, based on a multi-institutional, national spine registry. Summary of background data Unplanned readmissions place considerable stress on payers, hospitals, and patients. Medicare data reveals a 30-day readmission rate of 7.8% for lumbar-decompressions and 13.0% for lumbar-fusions, and hospitals are now being penalized for excessive 30-day readmission rates by virtue of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. Methods The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients undergoing elective lumbar surgery for degenerative diseases. The QOD prospectively captures 3-month readmissions through electronic medical record (EMR) review and self-reported outcome questionnaires. Distinct multivariable logistic regression models were fitted for surgery-related and medical readmissions adjusting for patient and surgery-specific variables. Results Of the total 33,674 patients included in this study 2079 (6.15%) reported at least one readmission during the 90-day postoperative period. The odds of medical readmission were significantly higher for older patients, males versus females, African Americans versus Caucasion, those with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, diabetes, coronary artery disease, higher numbers of involved levels, anterior only or anterior-posterior versus posterior approach; also, for patients who were unemployed compared with employed patients and those with high baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The odds of surgery-related readmission were significantly greater for patients with a higher body mass index (BMI), a higher ASA grade, female versus male, and African Americans versus Caucasians; also, for patients with severe depression, more involved spinal levels, anterior-only surgical approaches and higher baseline ODI scores. Conclusion In this study we present internally validated predictive models for medical and surgical readmission after elective lumbar spine surgery. These findings set the stage for targeted interventions with a potential to reduce unnecessary readmissions, and also suggest that medical and surgical readmissions be treated as distinct clinical events. Level of evidence 3.

Introduction Healthcare reform places emphasis on maximizing the value of care. Methods A prospective registry was used to analyze outcomes before (1,596 patients) and after (151 patients) implementation of standardized, evidence-based order sets for six high-impact dimensions of perioperative care for all patients who underwent elective surgery for degenerative spine disease after July 1, 2015. Results Apart from symptom duration, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prevalence, estimated blood loss, and baseline Oswestry Disability Index, no significant differences existed between pre- and post-protocol cohorts. No differences in readmissions, discharge status, or 3-month patient-reported outcomes were seen. Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated reduced length of stay (P = 0.013) and odds of 90-day complications (P = 0.009) for postprotocol patients. Conclusion Length of stay and 90-day complications for elective spine surgery improved after implementation of an evidence-based perioperative protocol. Standardization efforts can improve quality and reduce costs, thereby improving the value of spine care. Level of evidence Level III (retrospective review of prospectively collected data).

Spine pathology is among the most common, most disabling, and costliest disorders in the US health care system. Traditional reimbursement models in which volume of service rather than quality is incentivized has resulted in an unsustainable rise in cost. The focus for all stakeholders is now on value-based health care. Value is determined by the outcomes achieved per dollar spent to achieve those outcomes. Clinical registries and validated outcome tools are now making it possible for all spine practitioners to define and develop value-based care. Accurate measurement of outcomes and cost and identifying outliers are essential to improving the value in spine surgery.

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) continues to evolve, and the advent of robotic spine technology may play a role in further facilitating MISS techniques, increasing safety, and improving patient outcomes. In this chapter we review early limitations of spinal robotic systems and go over currently available spinal robotic systems. We then summarize the evidence-based advantages of robotic spine surgery, with an emphasis on pedicle screw placement. Additionally, we review some common and expanded clinical applications of robotic spine technology to facilitate MISS. The chapter concludes with a discussion regarding the current limitations and future directions of this relatively novel technology as it applies to MISS.

Study Design: Retrospective review of private neuromonitoring databases. Objectives: To review neuromonitoring alerts in a large series of patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and determine whether alerts occurred more frequently when more lumbar levels were accessed or more frequently at particular lumbar levels. Methods: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) databases were reviewed and patients were identified undergoing LLIF between L1 and L5. All cases in which at least one IONM modality was used (motor evoked potentials (MEP), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), evoked electromyography (EMG)) were included in this study. The type of IONM used and incidence of alerts were collected from each IONM report and analyzed. The incidence of alerts for each IONM modality based on number of levels at which at LLIF was performed and the specific level an LLIF was performed were compared. Results: A total of 628 patients undergoing LLIF across 934 levels were reviewed. EMG was used in 611 (97%) cases, SSEP in 561 (89%), MEP in 144 (23%). The frequency of IONM alerts for EMG, SSEP and MEPs did not significantly increase as the number of LLIF levels accessed increased. No EMG, SSEP, or MEP alerts occurred at L1-L2. EMG alerts occurred in 2-5% of patients at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 and did not significantly vary by level ( P = .34). SSEP and MEP alerts occurred more frequently at L4-L5 versus L2-L3 and L3-L4 ( P < .03). Conclusions: IONM may provide the greatest utility at L4-L5, particularly MEPs, and may not be necessary for more cephalad LLIF procedures such as at L1-L2.

Cervical spine deformity is a debilitating condition that can be challenging to treat. For patients with fixed, focal, kyphotic deformities near the cervicothoracic junction, a pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) can be considered. Classifying a given cervical spine deformity and quantifying the mismatch between current and desired alignment are critical steps in determining whether a PSO should be done. It is also important to understand the relative contraindications for a cervical PSO and the radiographic and patient-reported outcomes associated with the procedure. Here, we review these topics and the details of our surgical technique and postoperative considerations. Specific nuances of the setup, exposure/approach, osteotomy, closure, and postoperative protocol are highlighted. A surgical video is also included (Video 1). Our aim is to provide a conceptual framework for understanding when a cervical PSO should be considered, how it can be performed effectively, and the outcomes that can be expected.

Study design This study is a retrospective review of patients' charts and data from longitudinally collected clinical outcomes and opioid use. Objective In the current study, we aim to compare short-term outcomes data for 139 Open transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) patients to recently published data for tubular and endoscopic MIS-TLIF. Background context In response to the downsides associated with Open TLIF, such as large incision, blood loss, delayed ambulation, prolonged hospitalization, and opioid-reliance, spine surgeons developed tubular retractor based "minimally-invasive" TLIF. However, the traditional Open TLIF retains its significance in terms of providing successful fusion and improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods We adapted several techniques with an aim to improve short-term outcomes for our Open TLIF patients that combined extensive perioperative counselling, an emphasis on early mobilization, avoidance of overuse of opioid analgesics, early discharge with home care arrangements, use of a posthospitalization drainage tube with intraoperative surgical modifications using small incisions (4-5 cm), a narrow 20 mm retractor, minimal muscle injury, and use of a cell saver to minimize net blood loss. The demographics and perioperative results were compared with data from recent MIS-TLIF studies using Student t test for continuous and χ2/exact test for categorical variables. Results Among the total 139 patients, 115 underwent a single-level procedure, 90% of whom were discharged on the first postoperative day (length of stay=1.13±0.47 d) with an average net estimated blood loss of 176.17±87.88 mL. There were 24 two-level procedures with an average length of stay of 1.57±0.84 days, average net estimated blood loss was 216.96±85.70 mL. The patients had statistically significant improvements in PROs at 3 and 12 months. Conclusions The results of this study identify that patients who underwent modified Open TLIF demonstrated favorable short-term outcomes, as compared with the tubular MIS-TLIF, by virtue of avoidance of blood transfusions, shorter hospital stays, and significantly less opioid usage while experiencing satisfactory PROs.

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected registry data. OBJECTIVE To develop and validate prediction models for 12-month patient-reported outcomes of disability, pain, and myelopathy in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Predictive models have the potential to be utilized preoperatively to set expectations, adjust modifiable characteristics, and provide a patient-centered model of care. METHODS This study was conducted using data from the cervical module of the Quality Outcomes Database. The outcomes of interest were disability (Neck Disability Index:), pain (Numeric Rating Scale), and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for myelopathy. Multivariable proportional odds ordinal regression models were developed for patients with cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. Patient demographic, clinical, and surgical covariates as well as baseline patient-reported outcomes scores were included in all models. The models were internally validated using bootstrap resampling to estimate the likely performance on a new sample of patients. RESULTS Four thousand nine hundred eighty-eight patients underwent surgery for radiculopathy and 2641 patients for myelopathy. The most important predictor of poor postoperative outcomes at 12-months was the baseline Neck Disability Index score for patients with radiculopathy and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for patients with myelopathy. In addition, symptom duration, workers' compensation, age, employment, and ambulatory and smoking status had a statistically significant impact on all outcomes (P

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVES Using a national cohort of patients undergoing elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in an inpatient/outpatient setting, the current objectives were to: (1) outline preoperative factors that were associated with complications, and (2) describe potentially catastrophic complications so that this data can help stratify the best suited patients for an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) compared with a hospital setting. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA ASCs are increasingly utilized for spinal procedures and represent an enormous opportunity for cost savings. However, ASCs have come under scrutiny for profit-driven motives, lack of adequate safety measures, and inability to handle complications. METHODS Adults who underwent ACDF between 2008 and 2014 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Inclusion criteria were: principal procedure ACDF [Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 22551, 22552], elective, neurological/orthopedic surgeons, length of stayof 0/1 day, and being discharged home. The primary outcome was presence of any complication. The secondary outcome was occurrence of potentially catastrophic complications. RESULTS A total of 12,169 patients underwent elective ACDF with a length of stay of 0/1 day and were discharged directly home. A total of 179 (1.47%) patients experienced a complication. Multivariate logistic regression revealed the following factors were significantly associated with a complication: Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) >3, history of transient ischemic attack/cerebrovascular accident, abnormal bilirubin, and operative time of >2 hours. Approximate comorbidity score cutoffs associated with

OBJECTIVE The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups. RESULTS Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of “ideal” pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the “optimal screw,” maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.

Objective To assess the effect depression has on outcomes after cervical epidural steroid injections (CESIs). Design Retrospective review of a prospectively collected database. Setting Single institution tertiary care center. Subjects Fifty-seven patients with cervical spondylosis and cervical radicular pain who were deemed appropriate surgical candidates but elected to undergo CESI first were included. Methods Twenty-one of 57 (37%) patients with depression (defined as Zung Depression Scale >33) were included. Patient-reported outcomes including Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scale (NRS) for arm pain (AP), NRS for neck pain (NP), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) were collected at baseline and three-month follow-up. Minimal clinically important differences were then calculated to provide dichotomous outcome measures of success. Results Overall, 24 and 28 patients achieved at least 50% improvement in AP and NP, respectively. In terms of disability, 25/57 (43.9%) patients achieved >13.2-point improvement on the NDI overall. In patients with depression, 4/21 (19.0%) and 5/21 (23.8%) achieved at least 50% improvement on the NRS for AP and NP, respectively, compared with 20/36 (55.5%) and 23/36 (63.8%) in patients without depression. This difference was statistically significant for both pain measures (P

In an era of rising health care costs, it is prudent to consider effective use of resources. Given the rapidly expanding elderly population with an anticipated increase in adult spinal deformity, identifying the significant cost drivers for the surgical management is an important step in the process of increasing sustainability and cost-effectiveness of adult spinal deformity surgery.A total of 129 patients undergoing elective spine surgery for thoraco-lumbar deformity were enrolled in a prospective longitudinal registry. Patient-reported resource use during the 3-month postoperative period, including outpatient visits, spine-related diagnostic tests, injections, emergency department room visits, rehabilitation/skilled nursing facility utilization, and use of all medications, was collected in a single-center prospective registry. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to find the significant patient coefficient for the cost variability.The study population showed significant improvement (P0.001) in all patient-reported outcomes including disability (Oswestry Disability Index), pain (Numeric Rating Scale for Back Pain and Numeric Rating Scale for Leg Pain), and quality of life (Euro-Qol-5D). In risk-adjusted multiple patient comorbidities including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes, preoperative deformity diagnosis, number of levels involved, length of surgery and hospital stay, 90-day readmission and use of inpatient rehabilitation were the significant drivers of the cost.Our study demonstrates that several patient-specific, surgery-related factors, 90-day readmission and postdischarge inpatient rehabilitation use, were associated with increased cost associated with the adult deformity spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT There have been no reported efforts to eliminate opioid use for elective spine surgery, despite its well-known drawbacks. PURPOSE We sought to test the hypothesis that opioid-free elective spine surgery, including lumbar fusions, can be performed with satisfactory pain control. STUDY DESIGN/ SETTING This study analyzes prospectively collected data from a single surgeon's patients who were enrolled into an institutional spine registry. PATIENT SAMPLE We enrolled every consecutive surgical patient of author RAB between January 1, 2018 and July 13, 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES The postsurgical opioid use, pain scores, emergency room visits, and readmissions were tracked. METHODS We developed a comprehensive program for opioid-free pain control after elective spine surgery. In the initial stage, opioids were given “PRN” only, while in the second stage, they were avoided altogether. Student's t tests were performed to compare pain scores, and regression analyses were performed to understand drivers of opioid use and pain. RESULTS Two hundred forty-four patients were studied, a third of whom underwent lumbar fusions. In the initial stage, 47% of patients took no opioids from recovery room departure until 1-month follow-up. During the second stage, 88% of patients took no opioids during that period. Pain scores were satisfactory, and there was no association between postoperative opioid use and either procedural invasiveness or pain scores. However, preoperative opioid use was associated with a nearly fivefold increased risk of postoperative use. Ninety-three percent of lumbar fusion patients who were opioid-free before surgery did not take a single opioid in the postoperative period. CONCLUSION Opioid-free elective spine surgery, including lumbar fusions, is feasible and effective. We suggest that opioid-free spine surgery be offered to patients who are opioid-naive or who can be weaned off before the operation.

BACKGROUND Considerable variability exists in the cost of surgery following spine surgery for common degenerative spine diseases. This variation in the cost of surgery can affect the payment bundling during the postoperative 90 d. OBJECTIVE To determine the drivers of variability in total 90-d cost for laminectomy and fusion surgery. METHODS A total of 752 patients who underwent elective laminectomy and fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions and were enrolled into a prospective longitudinal registry were included in the study. Total cost during the 90-d global period was derived as sum of cost of surgery, cost associated with postdischarge utilization. Multivariable regression models were built for total 90-d cost. RESULTS The mean 90-d direct cost was $29 295 (range, $28 612-$29 973). Based on our regression tree analysis, the following variables were found to drive the 90-d cost: age, BMI, gender, diagnosis, postop imaging, number of operated levels, ASA grade, hypertension, arthritis, preop and postop opioid use, length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, 90-d readmission, outpatient physical/occupational therapy, inpatient rehab, postop healthcare visits, postop nonopioid pain medication use nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxant use. The R2 for tree model was 0.64. CONCLUSION Utilizing prospectively collected data, we demonstrate that considerable variation exists in total 90-d cost, nearly 70% of which can be explained by those factors included in our modeling. Risk-adjusted payment schemes can be crafted utilizing the significant drivers presented here. Focused interventions to target some of the modifiable factors have potential to reduce cost and increase the value of care.