Search

Purpose The AO Spine PROST (Patient Reported Outcome Spine Trauma) was developed for people with spine trauma and minor or no neurological impairment. The purpose is to investigate health professionals’ perspective on the applicability of the AO Spine PROST for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), using a discussion meeting and international survey study. Methods A discussion meeting with SCI rehabilitation physicians in the Netherlands was performed, followed by a worldwide online survey among the AO Spine International community, involved in the care of people with SCI. Participants rated the comprehensibility, relevance, acceptability, feasibility and completeness of the AO Spine PROST on a 1–5 point scale (5 most positive). Comments could be provided per question. Results The discussion meeting was attended by 13 SCI rehabilitation physicians. The survey was completed by 196 participants. Comprehensibility (mean ± SD: 4.1 ± 0.8), acceptability (4.0 ± 0.8), relevance (3.9 ± 0.8), completeness (3.9 ± 0.8), and feasibility (4.1 ± 0.7) of the AO Spine PROST were rated positively for use in people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. Only a few participants questioned the relevance of items on the lower extremities (e.g., walking) or missed items on pulmonary functioning and complications. Some recommendations were made for improvement in instructions, terminology and examples of the tool. Conclusion Health professionals found the AO Spine PROST generally applicable for people with motor-complete traumatic or non-traumatic SCI. This study provides further evidence for the use of the AO Spine PROST in spine trauma care, rehabilitation and research, as well as suggestions for its further development.

To compare clinical outcomes of patients diagnosed with degenerative scoliosis undergoing short-segment versus long-segment spinal fusion.A retrospective cohort study was conducted of patients with degenerative thoracolumbar scoliosis undergoing elective spinal fusion at a single academic medical center. Cohorts were divided into short-segment (3) or long-segment (≥3) groups.A total of 197 patients (122 short, 75 long) were included. Patients undergoing short-segment fusion more frequently presented with radiculopathy (P0.001) and had greater baseline visual analog scale (VAS) leg scores (P0.001). Patients with long-segment fusions had longer hospital length of stay (short, 3.82 ± 2.98 vs. long, 7.40 ± 6.85 days; P0.001), lower home discharge rates (short, 80.3% vs. long, 51.8; P = 0.003), higher revision surgery rates (short, 10.77% vs. long, 25.3%; P = 0.012), and greater percentage curve correction (short, 37.3% ± 25.9% vs. long, 45.1% ± 23.9%; P = 0.048). No significant differences were noted in postoperative complication rates (short, 1.64% vs. long, 5.33%; P = 0.143). At 1 year, patients with long fusions had worse ΔOswestry Disability Index (ODI) (P = 0.024), ΔVAS leg score (P = 0.002), and VAS leg minimum clinically important difference % (P = 0.003). Multivariate regression found that short-segment fusions were associated with greater improvements in ODI (P = 0.029), Physical Component Summary-12 (P = 0.024), and VAS leg score at 1 year (P = 0.002).Patients undergoing short-segment fusions more frequently presented with radiculopathy and had higher preoperative VAS leg scores compared with those receiving long constructs. Short-construct fusions in appropriately selected patients may provide satisfactory improvements in patient-reported outcome measures, particularly ΔODI and ΔVAS leg score, and mitigate hospital length of stay, revision surgery rates, and nonhome discharge.

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.

OBJECTIVE The authors sought to determine if postoperative disc height loss is associated with pseudarthrosis following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). They also sought to determine if the amount of postoperative disc height loss is predictive of need for revision for pseudarthrosis, as well as the impact of postoperative disc height loss on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following surgery. METHODS The authors retrospectively identified patients aged > 18 years who underwent primary one- to three-level ACDF with allograft at a single institution with 1-year postoperative lateral and flexion-extension cervical spine radiographs. Logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic curves were used for analysis. Alpha was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS Anterior or posterior disc height loss ≥ 2 mm was found in 52.5% of patients. Patients with a loss ≥ 2 mm were more likely to develop pseudarthrosis (p = 0.021) but not to undergo revision surgery due to pseudarthrosis (p = 0.459). Multivariable analysis identified male sex (OR 1.66, p = 0.013), the number of levels fused (OR 2.09, p < 0.001), and fusion at C6–7 (OR 1.52, p = 0.043) as predictors of disc height loss. The analysis also revealed that levels at the top (OR 0.383, 95% CI 0.170–0.854, p = 0.020) and middle (OR 0.174, 95% CI 0.053–0.548, p = 0.003) of fusion constructs were significant independent predictors of lower pseudarthrosis rates while disc height loss was not. Patients with disc height loss had significantly less improvement in scores for the Neck Disability Index (p = 0.002), visual analog scale (VAS) for arm pain (p = 0.018), and VAS for neck pain (p = 0.011) at 1 year following surgery. CONCLUSIONS This study is, to the authors’ knowledge, the largest study to date to assess the impact of postoperative disc height loss after ACDF. Disc height loss following ACDF was not predictive of revision surgery for pseudarthrosis or overall pseudarthrosis rates. However, pseudarthrosis was less likely to occur at the top and middle of fusion constructs. Loss in disc height postoperatively was significantly associated with less improvement in PROMs.

To determine the predictive value of the modified Frailty Index (mFI) in evaluating sarcopenia and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing 1-level or 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).Patients who underwent a 1-level or 2-level TLIF between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively identified. Frailty was compared among groups using mFI, and sarcopenia was classified by the psoas muscle cross-sectional area. Bivariate statistics compared demographics, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes. A linear regression model was developed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) or mFI as independent variables to determine potential predictors for improvement in 1-year patient-reported outcomes.Of 488 included patients, 60 were severely frail and 60 patients had sarcopenia, but sarcopenia was not associated with patient frailty (P = 0.469). Severely frail patients had worse baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (P0.001), Mental Component Score-12 (P = 0.001), and Physical Component Score-12 (P0.001), and worse improvement in ODI (P = 0.037), Physical Component Score-12 (P0.001), and visual analog scale (VAS) back (P = 0.007). mFI was an independent predictor of poorer improvement in VAS back and ODI, whereas age + CCI in addition predicted poorer improvement in VAS leg. Patients with higher mFI experienced longer length of stay, less frequent home discharge, and higher rates of complications, but similar readmission and reoperation rates.Frailer patients experience poorer improvement in back pain, physical functioning, and disability after TLIF. mFI and the combination of age and CCI comparably predict patient-reported outcomes but do not correlate to baseline sarcopenia. Frailty increased the risk of complications, length of hospital stay, and risk of nonhome discharge.

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.

To determine the effect of operative duration on the rate of postoperative symptomatic venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in patients undergoing thoracolumbar spine fusion.We identified all thoracolumbar spine fusion patients between 2012 and 2021. Operative duration was defined as time from skin incision to skin closure. A 1:1 propensity match was conducted incorporating patient and surgical characteristics. Logistic regression was performed to assess predictors of postoperative symptomatic VTE events. A receiver operating characteristic curve was created to determine a cutoff time for increased likelihood of VTE.We identified 101 patients with VTE and 1108 patients without VTE. Seventy-five patients with VTE were matched to 75 patients without VTE. Operative duration (339 vs. 262 minutes, P = 0.010) and length of stay (5.00 vs. 3.54 days, P = 0.008) were significantly longer in patients with a VTE event. Operative duration was an independent predictor of VTE on multivariate regression (odds ratio: 1.003, 95% confidence interval: 1.001-1.01, P = 0.021). For each additional hour of operative duration, the risk of VTE increased by 18%. A cutoff time of 218 minutes was identified (area under the curve [95% confidence interval] = 0.622 [0.533-0.712]) as an optimal predictor of increased risk for a VTE event.Operative duration significantly predicted symptomatic VTE, especially after surgical time cutoff of 218 minutes. Each additional hour of operative duration was found to increase VTE risk by 18%. We also identify the impact of VTE on 90-day readmission rates, suggesting significantly higher costs and opportunity for hospital acquired conditions, in line with prior literature.

OBJECTIVE For patients with cervical and thoracolumbar AO Spine type C injuries, the authors sought to 1) identify whether preoperative vertebral column translation is predictive of a complete spinal cord injury (SCI) and 2) identify whether preoperative or postoperative vertebral column translation is predictive of neurological improvement after surgical decompression. METHODS All patients who underwent operative treatment for cervical and thoracolumbar AO Spine type C injuries at the authors’ institution between 2006 and 2021 were identified. CT and MRI were utilized to measure vertebral column translation in millimeters prior to and after surgery. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to predict the probability of sustaining a complete SCI on the basis of the amount of preoperative vertebral column translation. ROC curves were then used to predict the probability of neurological recovery on the basis of preoperative and postoperative vertebral column translation. RESULTS ROC analysis of 67 patients identified 6.10 mm (area under the curve [AUC] 0.77, 95% CI 0.650–0.892) of preoperative vertebral column translation as predictive of complete SCI. Additionally, ROC curve analysis found that 10.4 mm (AUC 0.654, 95% CI 0.421–0.887) of preoperative vertebral column translation was strongly predictive of no postoperative neurological improvement. Residual postoperative vertebral column translation after fracture reduction and instrumentation had no predictive value on neurological recovery (AUC 0.408, 95% CI 0.195–0.622). CONCLUSIONS For patients with cervical and thoracolumbar AO Spine type C injuries, the amount of preoperative vertebral column translation is highly predictive of complete SCI and the likelihood of postoperative neurological recovery.

To compare rates of different fusion techniques using a nationwide database over the last decade and identify differences in complications and readmissions based on fusion technique.All elective, single-level lumbar fusions performed by orthopaedic surgeons from 2011 to 2020 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Rates of lumbar fusion technique posterolateral decompression and fusion [PLDF], combined transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and PLDF, anterior lumbar or lateral lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF/LLIF], and combined ALIF/LLIF and PLDF were recorded, and 30-day complications and readmissions were compared. Secondary analysis included multiple logistic regression to determine independent predictors of each outcome.Inclusion criteria were met by 28,413 fusions: 8749 (30.8%) PLDFs, 11,973 (42.1%) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions, 4769 (16.8%) ALIF/LLIFs, and 2922 (10.3%) combined ALIF/LLIF and PLDFs. The number of fusions increased over time with 1227 fusions performed in 2011 and 3958 fusions performed in 2019. Interbody fusions also increased over time with a subsequent decrease in PLDFs (39.0% in 2011, 25.2% in 2020). Patients were more likely to be discharged home over the course of the decade (85.4% in 2011, 95.0% in 2020). No difference was observed between the techniques regarding complications or readmissions. The modified 5-item frailty index was predictive of complications (odds ratio, 2.05; P = 0.001) and readmissions (odds ratio, 2.61; P0.001).Lumbar fusions have continued to increase over the last decade with an increasing proportion of interbody fusions. Complications and readmissions appear to be driven by patient comorbidity and not fusion technique.

The objective was to evaluate medical comorbidities and surgical variables as independent risk factors for increased health care costs in Medicare patients undergoing lumbar fusion. Care episodes limited to lumbar fusions were retrospectively reviewed on the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) reimbursement database at a single academic institution. Total episode of care cost was also collected. A multivariable linear regression model was developed to identify independent risk factors for increased total episode of care cost, and logistic models for surgical complications and readmission. A total of 500 Medicare patients were included. Risk factors associated with increased total episode of care cost included transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) (β = $5,399, P0.001) and ALIF+PLF (AP) fusions (β = $24,488, P0.001), levels fused (β = $3,989, P0.001), congestive heart failure (β = $6,161, P = 0.022), hypertension with end-organ damage (β = $10,138, P0.001), liver disease (β = $16,682, P0.001), inpatient complications (β = $4,548, P = 0.001), 90-day complications (β = $10,012, P = 0.001), and 90-day readmissions (β = $15,677, P0.001). The most common surgical complication was postoperative anemia, which was associated with significantly increased costs (β = $18,478, P0.001). Female sex (OR = 2.27, P = 0.001), AP fusion (OR = 2.59, P = 0.002), levels fused (OR = 1.45, P = 0.005), cerebrovascular disease (OR = 4.19, P = 0.003), cardiac arrhythmias (OR = 2.32, P = 0.002), and fluid electrolyte disorders (OR = 4.24, P = 0.002) were independent predictors of surgical complications. Body mass index (OR = 1.07, P = 0.029) and AP fusions (OR = 2.87, P = 0.049) were independent predictors of surgical readmission. Among medical comorbidities, congestive heart failure, hypertension with end-organ damage, and liver disease were independently associated with a significant increase in total episode of care cost. Interbody devices were associated with increased admission cost.

The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the effect of tranexamic acid (TXA) on reducing perioperative blood loss and length of stay after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Spine surgery is associated with the potential for significant blood loss, and adequate hemostasis is essential to visualizing crucial structures during the approach and procedure. Although TXA use has been extensively studied in the pediatric and adult spinal deformity literature, there is a dearth of literature on its efficacy in reducing blood loss for patients who undergo 1- to 3-level TLIF.All patients requiring 1- to 3-level TLIF who received a preoperative loading dose of TXA were grouped and compared with patients who didn't receive TXA. Demographic, surgical, and laboratory values were collected and analyzed. Continuous and categorical variables were analyzed with χPatients who received preoperative TXA had more comorbidities (P = 0.006), longer surgery length (P0.001), and longer length of stay (P = 0.004). TXA was independently associated with a decreased day 0, 1, 2, and total drain output (P0.001, P = 0.001, P = 0.007, P0.001, respectively), but was not associated with a change in EBL, total blood loss, or length of stay.The application of preoperative TXA for patients undergoing 1- to 3-level TLIF reduced drain output in the first 2 postoperative days, but it did not affect hospital length of stay, total blood loss, or EBL.

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.

Survey among spine experts.To investigate the different views and opinions of clinically relevant spinal post-traumatic deformity (SPTD).There is no clear definition of clinically relevant SPTD. This leads to a wide variation in characteristics used for diagnosis and treatment indications of SPTD. To understand the current concepts of SPTD a survey was conducted among spine trauma surgeons.Members of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma participated in an online survey. The survey was divided in 4 domains: Demographics, criteria to define SPTD, risk factors, and management. The data were collected anonymously and analyzed using descriptive statistics, absolute, and relative frequencies. Consensus on dichotomous outcomes was set to 80% of agreement.Fifteen members with extensive experience in treatment of spinal trauma participated, representing the 5 AO Spine Regions. Back pain was the only criterion for definition of SPTD with complete agreement. Consensus (≥80%) was reached for kyphotic angulation outside normative ranges and impaired function. Eighty-seven percent and 100% agreed that a full-spine conventional radiograph was necessary in diagnosing and treating SPTD, respectively. The "missed B-type injury" was rated at most important by all but 1 participant. There was no agreement on other risk factors leading to clinically relevant SPTD. Concerning the management, all participants agreed that an asymptomatic patient should not undergo surgical treatment and that neurological deficit is an absolute surgical indication. For most of the participants the preferred surgical treatment of acute injury in all spine regions but the subaxial region is posterior fixation.Some consensus exists among leading experts in the field of spine trauma care concerning the definition, diagnosis, risk factors, and management of SPTD. This study acts as the foundation for a Delphi study among the global spine community.