Search

OBJECTIVE Axial neck pain is a prevalent condition that causes significant morbidity and productivity loss. This study aimed to review the current literature and define the impact of surgical intervention on the management of cervical axial neck pain. METHODS A search was conducted of three databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies written in the English language with a minimum 6-month follow-up. The analysis was limited to patients with axial neck pain/cervical radiculopathy and preoperative/postoperative Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Literature reviews, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, surveys, and case studies were excluded. Two patient groups were analyzed: the arm pain predominant (pAP) cohort and the neck pain predominant (pNP) cohort. The pAP cohort had preoperative VAS neck scores that were lower than the arm scores, whereas the pNP cohort was defined as having preoperative VAS neck scores higher than the arm scores. A 30% reduction in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores from the baseline represented the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS Five studies met the inclusion criteria, involving a total of 5221 patients. Patients with pAP showed a slightly higher percent reduction in PROM scores from baseline than those with pNP. The NDI reduction in patients with pNP was 41.35% (mean change in NDI score 16.3/mean baseline NDI score 39.42) (p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had a reduction of 45.12% (15.86/35.15) (p < 0.0001). Surgical improvement was slightly but similarly greater in pNP patients compared with pAP patients (16.3 vs 15.86 points, respectively; p = 0.3193). Regarding VAS scores, patients with pNP had a greater reduction in neck pain, with a change from baseline of 53.4% (3.60/6.74, p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had a change from baseline of 50.3% (2.46/4.89, p < 0.0001). The difference in VAS scores for neck pain improvement was significant (3.6 vs 2.46, p < 0.0134). Similarly, patients with pNP had a 43.6% (1.96/4.5) improvement in VAS scores for arm pain (p < 0.0001), whereas those with pAP had 66.12% (4.43/6.7) improvement (p < 0.0001). The VAS scores for arm pain were significantly greater in patients with pAP (4.43 vs 1.96 points, respectively; p < 0.0051). CONCLUSIONS Overall, despite significant variations in the existing literature, there is mounting evidence that surgical intervention can lead to clinically meaningful improvements in patients with primary axial neck pain. The studies suggest that patients with pNP tend to have better improvement in neck pain than in arm pain. In both groups, the average improvements exceeded the MCID values and reached substantial clinical benefit in all studies. Further research is necessary to identify which patients and underlying pathologies will benefit most from surgical intervention for axial neck pain because it is a multifaceted condition with many causes.

ImportanceThe optimal clinical management of central cord syndrome (CCS) remains unclear; yet this is becoming an increasingly relevant public health problem in the face of an aging population.ObjectiveTo provide a head-to-head comparison of the neurologic and functional outcomes of early (Design, Setting, and ParticipantsPatients who underwent surgery for CCS (lower extremity motor score [LEMS] − upper extremity motor score [UEMS] ≥ 5) were included in this propensity score–matched cohort study. Data were collected from December 1991 to March 2017, and the analysis was performed from March 2020 to January 2021. This study identified patients with CCS from 3 international multicenter studies with data on the timing of surgical decompression in spinal cord injury. Participants were included if they had a documented baseline neurologic examination performed within 14 days of injury. Participants were eligible if they underwent surgical decompression for CCS.ExposuresEarly surgery was compared with late surgery.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPropensity scores were calculated as the probability of undergoing early compared with late surgery using the logit method and adjusting for relevant confounders. Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio by an optimal-matching technique. The primary end point was motor recovery (UEMS, LEMS, American Spinal Injury Association [ASIA] motor score [AMS]) at 1 year. Secondary end points were Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor score and complete independence in each FIM motor domain at 1 year.ResultsThe final study cohort consisted of 186 patients with CCS. The early-surgery group included 93 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.8 [16.8] years; 66 male [71.0%]), and the late-surgery group included 93 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.0 [15.5] years; 75 male [80.6%]). Early surgical decompression resulted in significantly improved recovery in upper limb (mean difference [MD], 2.3; 95% CI, 0-4.5; P = .047), but not lower limb (MD, 1.1; 95% CI, −0.8 to 3.0; P = .30), motor function. In an a priori–planned subgroup analysis, outcomes were comparable with early or late decompressive surgery in patients with ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade D injury. However, in patients with AIS grade C injury, early surgery resulted in significantly greater recovery in overall motor score (MD, 9.5; 95% CI, 0.5-18.4; P = .04), owing to gains in both upper and lower limb motor function.Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found early surgical decompression to be associated with improved recovery in upper limb motor function at 1 year in patients with CCS. Treatment paradigms for CCS should be redefined to encompass early surgical decompression as a neuroprotective therapy.

The outcomes of cervical incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI) are heterogeneous. This study sought to dissociate subgroups of cervical incomplete SCI patients with distinct longitudinal temporal profiles of recovery in upper limb motor function. Patients with cervical incomplete SCI (American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS] B-D; C1-C8) were identified from four prospective, multi-center SCI datasets. A group-based trajectory model was fit to longitudinal upper extremity motor scores out to 1 year. Multi-variable multinomial logistic regression was performed to identify features that characterize each trajectory group. A classification system for predicting trajectory group at baseline was developed by recursive partitioning. In total, 801 patients were eligible. Four distinct trajectory groups were identified: 1) "Poor outcome": Severe injury, very minimal recovery; 2) "Moderate recovery": Moderate-to-severe injury, moderate recovery; most recovery occurs by 6 months, with mild, gradual recovery continuing thereafter; 3) "Good recovery": Moderate injury, good recovery; most recovery occurs by 3 months, with mild, gradual recovery continuing thereafter; and 4) "Excellent outcome": Mild injury, recovery to normal/near-normal by 3 months. On adjusted analyses, older age was associated with lower likelihood of "excellent outcome" (

This present study evaluates the pre-clinical evidence on the efficacy of NS/PC and scaffold (NS/PC + scaffold) transplantation on locomotor recovery after traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).Two independent reviewers screened the records gathered through a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases. Studies on rats/mice evaluating the efficacy of simultaneous transplantation of NS/PCs and scaffold in the treatment of SCI were included. The results were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI).Forty-seven articles were retrieved. Analyses showed that NS/PC + scaffold transplantation significantly improved locomotion in animals with SCI compared to that of the non-treatment group (SMD = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.89 to 3.54; IThe findings showed that using NS/PCs with scaffold not only improves locomotion recovery, but also is superior to NS/PCs alone and scaffold alone. Future experiments and translational clinical studies are recommended to focus on the assessment of the safety and efficacy of the application of NS/PC + scaffold on SCI recovery.

The present study design was that of a single center, retrospective cohort study to evaluate the influence of surgeon-specific factors on patient functional outcomes at 6 months following lumbar fusion. Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis identified the present study population.This study seeks to evaluate surgeon-specific variable effects on patient-reported outcomes such as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the effect of North American Spine Society (NASS) concordance on outcomes in the setting of variable surgeon characteristics.Lumbar fusion is one of the fastest growing procedures performed in the United States. Although the impact of surgeon-specific factors on patient-reported outcomes has been contested, studies examining these effects are limited.This is a single center, retrospective cohort study analyzing a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent neurosurgical lumbar instrumented arthrodesis by 1 of 5 neurosurgery fellowship trained spine surgeons. The primary outcome was improvement of ODI at 6 months postoperative follow-up compared with preoperative ODI.A total of 307 patients were identified for analysis. Overall, 62% of the study population achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI score at 6 months. Years in practice and volume of lumbar fusions were statistically significant independent predictors of MCID ODI on multivariable logistic regression (P=0.0340 and P=0.0343, respectively). Concordance with evidence-based criteria conferred a 3.16 (95% CI: 1.03, 9.65) times greater odds of achieving MCID.This study demonstrates that traditional surgeon-specific variables predicting surgical morbidity such as experience and procedural volume are also predictors of achieving MCID 6 months postoperatively from lumbar fusion. Independent of surgeon factors, however, adhering to evidence-based guidelines can lead to improved outcomes.

Diffusion MRI continues to play a key role in non-invasively assessing spinal cord integrity and pre-operative injury evaluation. However, post-operative Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) acquisition of a patient with a metal implant results in severe geometric image distortion. A method has been proposed here to alleviate the technical challenges facing the acquisition of DTI in post-operative cases and to evaluate longitudinal therapeutics. The described technique is based on the combination of the reduced Field-Of-View (rFOV) strategy and the phase segmented acquisition scheme (rFOV-PS-EPI) for significantly mitigating metal-induced distortions. A custom-built phantom based on spine model with metal implant was used to collect high-resolution DTI data at 3 Tesla scanner using a home-grown diffusion MRI pulse sequence, rFOV-PS-EPI, single-shot (rFOV-SS-EPI), and the conventional full FOV techniques including SS-EPI, PS-EPI, and the readout-segmented (RS-EPI). This newly developed method provides high-resolution images with significant reduced metal-induced artifacts. In contrast to the other techniques, the rFOV-PS-EPI allows DTI measurement at the level of the metal hardware whereas the current rFOV-SS-EPI is useful when the metal is approximately 20 mm away. The developed approach enables high-resolution DTI in patients with metal implant.

Study design Narrative review. Objectives To provide an overview of contemporary therapies for the James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) question: ‘Can novel therapies, including stem-cell, gene, pharmacological and neuroprotective therapies, be identified to improve the health and wellbeing of people living with DCM and slow down disease progression?’ Methods A review of the literature was conducted to outline the pathophysiology of DCM and present contemporary therapies that may hold therapeutic value in 3 broad categories of neuroprotection, neuroregeneration, and neuromodulation. Results Chronic spinal cord compression leads to ischaemia, neuroinflammation, demyelination, and neuronal loss. Surgical intervention may halt progression and improve symptoms, though the majority do not make a full recovery leading to lifelong disability. Neuroprotective agents disrupt deleterious secondary injury pathways, and one agent, Riluzole, has undergone Phase-III investigation in DCM. Although it did not show efficacy on the primary outcome modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale, it showed promising results in pain reduction. Regenerative approaches are in the early stage, with one agent, Ibudilast, currently in a phase-III investigation. Neuromodulation approaches aim to therapeutically alter the state of spinal cord excitation by electrical stimulation with a variety of approaches. Case studies using electrical neuromuscular and spinal cord stimulation have shown positive therapeutic utility. Conclusion There is limited research into interventions in the 3 broad areas of neuroprotection, neuroregeneration, and neuromodulation for DCM. Contemporary and novel therapies for DCM are now a top 10 priority, and whilst research in these areas is limited in DCM, it is hoped that this review will encourage research into this priority.

Study Design Overview of the methods used for a James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP). Objectives The objectives of this article are to (i) provide a brief overview of the JLA—facilitated PSP process; (ii) outline how research uncertainties were initially processed in the AO Spine RECODE-DCM PSP; and (iii) delineate the methods for interim prioritization and the priority setting workshop. Methods A steering group was created to define the scope for the PSP, organize its activities, and establish protocols for decision-making. A survey was created asking what questions on the diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of DCM should be answered by future research. Results from the survey were sorted into summary questions. Several databases were searched to identify literature that already answered these summary questions. The final list of summary questions was distributed by survey for interim prioritization. Participants were asked to select the top ten most important summary questions. The questions that were ranked the highest were discussed at an in-person consensus workshop. Results The initial survey yielded a total of 3404 potential research questions. Of the in-scope submissions, 988 were related to diagnosis, 1324 to treatment, and 615 to long-term management of DCM. A total of 76 summary questions were developed to reflect the original submissions. Following a second survey, a list of the top 26 interim priorities was generated and discussed at the in-person priority setting workshop. Conclusions PSPs enable research priorities to be identified that consider the perspectives and interests of all relevant stakeholders.

Study Design: Narrative review. Objectives: To discuss the current understanding of the natural history of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Methods: Literature review summarizing current evidence pertaining to the natural history and risk factors of DCM. Results: DCM is a common condition in which progressive arthritic disease of the cervical spine leads to spinal cord compression resulting in a constellation of neurological symptoms, in particular upper extremity dysfunction and gait impairment. Anatomical factors including cord-canal mismatch, congenitally fused vertebrae and genetic factors may increase individuals’ risk for DCM development. Non-myelopathic spinal cord compression (NMSCC) is a common phenomenon with a prevalence of 24.2% in the healthy population, and 35.3% among individuals >60 years of age. Clinical radiculopathy and/or electrophysiological signs of cervical cord dysfunction appear to be risk factors for myelopathy development. Radiological progression of incidental Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament (OPLL) is estimated at 18.3% over 81-months and development of myelopathy ranges between 0-61.5% (follow-up ranging from 40 to 124 months between studies) among studies. In patients with symptomatic DCM undergoing non-operative treatment, 20-62% will experience neurological deterioration within 3-6 years. Conclusion: Current estimates surrounding the natural history of DCM, particularly those individuals with mild or minimal impairment, lack precision. Clear predictors of clinical deterioration for those treated with non-operative care are yet to be identified. Future studies are needed on this topic to help improve treatment counseling and clinical prognostication.

Study Design Literature Review (Narrative) Objective To introduce the number one research priority for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM): Raising Awareness. Methods Raising awareness has been recognized by AO Spine RECODE-DCM as the number one research priority. This article reviews the evidence that awareness is low, the potential drivers, and why this must be addressed. Case studies of success from other diseases are also reviewed, drawing potential parallels and opportunities for DCM. Results DCM may affect as many as 1 in 50 adults, yet few will receive a diagnosis and those that do will wait many years for it. This leads to poorer outcomes from surgery and greater disability. DCM is rarely featured in healthcare professional training programs and has received relatively little research funding (Conclusion Despite the devastating burden on the patient, recognition across research, clinical practice, and healthcare policy are limited. DCM represents a significant unmet need that must become an international public health priority.

Study Design Narrative Review. Objectives The objective of this review is to provide a stepwise approach to the assessment of patients with potential symptoms of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Methods N/A Results DCM is an overarching term used to describe progressive compression of the cervical spinal cord by age-related changes to the spinal axis. These alterations to normal anatomy narrow the spinal canal, reduce the space available for the spinal cord, and may ultimately compress the ascending and descending neural tracts. Patients with DCM present with a wide range of symptoms that can significantly impact quality of life, including bilateral hand numbness and paresthesia, gait impairment, motor weakness of the upper and lower extremities, and bladder and bowel dysfunction. Unfortunately, DCM is often misdiagnosed, resulting in delayed assessment and management by the appropriate specialist. The proper evaluation of a patient with suspected DCM includes obtaining a detailed patient history, conducting a comprehensive neurological examination, and ordering appropriate tests to rule in or out other diagnoses. Conclusion This review summarizes a stepwise approach to the diagnosis of patients with DCM.

Study design Narrative Review. Objective To (i) discuss why assessment and monitoring of disease progression is critical in Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM); (ii) outline the important features of an ideal assessment tool and (iii) discuss current and novel strategies for detecting subtle deterioration in DCM. Methods Literature review Results Degenerative cervical myelopathy is an overarching term used to describe progressive injury to the cervical spinal cord by age-related changes of the spinal axis. Based on a study by Smith et al (2020), the prevalence of DCM is approximately 2.3% and is expected to rise as the global population ages. Given the global impact of this disease, it is essential to address important knowledge gaps and prioritize areas for future investigation. As part of the AO Spine RECODE-DCM (Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy) project, a priority setting partnership was initiated to increase research efficiency by identifying the top ten research priorities for DCM. One of the top ten priorities for future DCM research was: What assessment tools can be used to evaluate functional impairment, disability and quality of life in people with DCM? What instruments, tools or methods can be used or developed to monitor people with DCM for disease progression or improvement either before or after surgical treatment? Conclusions With the increasing prevalence of DCM, effective surveillance of this population will require both the implementation of a monitoring framework as well as the development of new assessment tools.

During spine surgery, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) are often utilized to monitor both spinal cord function and spinal nerve root or plexus function. While there are reports evaluating the impact of anesthesia on the ability of MEPs to monitor spinal cord function, less is known about the impact of anesthesia on the ability of MEPs to monitor spinal nerve root and plexus function.To compare the baseline monitorability and amplitude of MEPs during cervical and lumbar procedures between two cohorts based on the maintenance anesthetic regimen: a total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus a regimen balanced with volatile inhalational and intravenous agents.Baseline MEP data from a total of 16,559 cervical and 6,196 lumbar extradural spine procedures utilizing multimodality intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) including MEPs between January 2017 and March 2020 were obtained from a multi-institutional database. Two cohorts for each region of spine surgery were delineated based on the anesthetic regimen: a TIVA cohort and a Balanced anesthesia cohort.Age 18 and older. Fellowship support for 65,000 for year 2021.Percent monitorability and amplitudes of baseline MEPs.The baseline monitorability of each muscle MEP was evaluated by the IONM team in real-time and recorded in the patient's electronic medical record. The relation between anesthetic regimen and baseline monitorability was estimated using mixed effects logistic regression, with distinct models for cervical and lumbar procedures. Subsets of cervical and lumbar procedures from each anesthesia cohort in which all MEPs were deemed monitorable were randomly selected and the average peak-to-trough amplitude of each muscle MEP was retrospectively measured. Mixed-effects linear regression models were estimated (one each for cervical and lumbar procedures) to assess possible differences in average amplitude associated with anesthesia regimen.At the time of surgery, baseline MEPs were reported monitorable from all targeted muscles in 86.8% and 83.0% of cervical and lumbar procedures, respectively, for the TIVA cohort, but were reported monitorable in just 59.3% and 61.0% of cervical and lumbar procedures, respectively, in the Balanced cohort, yielding disparities of 27.5% and 22.0%, respectively. The model-adjusted monitorability disparity between cohorts for a given muscle MEP ranged from 0.2% to 16.6% but was smallest for distal intrinsic hand and foot muscle MEPs (0.2%-1.1%) and was largest for proximal muscle MEPs (deltoid: 10.8%, biceps brachii: 8.8%, triceps: 13.0%, quadriceps: 16.6%, gastrocnemius: 7.8%, and tibialis anterior: 3.7%) where the monitorability was significantly decreased in the Balanced cohort relative to the TIVA cohort (p.0001). Relative to the TIVA cohort, the model-adjusted amplitude of an MEP in the Balanced cohort was smaller for all muscles measured, ranging from 27.5% to 78.0% smaller. Relative to the TIVA cohort, the model-adjusted amplitude of an MEP was significantly decreased (p.01) in the Balanced cohort for the most proximal muscles (Percent smaller: deltoid: 74.3%, biceps: 78.0%, triceps: 54.9%, quadriceps: 54.8%).TIVA is the preferred anesthetic regimen for optimizing MEP monitoring during spine surgery. Inhalational agents significantly decrease MEP monitorability and amplitudes for most muscles, and this effect is especially pronounced for proximal limb muscles such as the deltoid, biceps, triceps, and quadriceps.

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide in industrialized nations. The pathology underlying chronic low back pain is associated with numerous factors. Lumbar degenerative disc disease is a potential major source of low back pain. There are numerous treatment modalities and options. Nonsurgical treatment options exist in the form of pain management through a combination of anti-inflammatory medications and steroid injections, physical therapy and lifestyle modifications. This article reviews the history and current trends in use for lumbar toral disc arthroplasty for degenerative disc disease treatment. Furthermore, indications, contraindications, and complications management are discussed.

Study design This was a survey of the surgeon members of the Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS). Objective The purpose of this study was to assess trends in surgical practice and patient management involving elective and emergency surgery in the early months of the coronavirus pandemic. Summary of background data The novel coronavirus has radically disrupted medical care in the first half of 2020. Little data exists regarding the exact nature of its effect on spine care. Methods A 53-question survey was sent to the surgeon members of the LSRS. Respondents were contacted via email 3 times over a 2-week period in late April. Questions concentrated on surgical and clinical practice patterns before and after the pandemic. Other data included elective surgical schedules and volumes, as well as which emergency cases were being performed. Surgeons were asked about the status of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus testing. Circumstances for performing surgical intervention on patients with and without testing as well as patients testing positive were explored. Results A total of 43 completed surveys were returned of 174 sent to active surgeons in the LSRS (25%). Elective lumbar spine procedures decreased by 90% in the first 2 months of the pandemic, but emergency procedures did not change. Patients with "stable" lumbar disease had surgeries deferred indefinitely, even beyond 8 weeks if necessary. In-person outpatient visits became increasingly rare events, as telemedicine consultations accounted for 67% of all outpatient spine appointments. In total, 91% surgeons were under some type of confinement. Only 11% of surgeons tested for the coronavirus on all surgical patients. Conclusions Elective lumbar surgery was significantly decreased in the first few months of the coronavirus pandemic, and much of outpatient spine surgery was practiced via telemedicine. Despite these constraints, spine surgeons performed emergency surgery when indicated, even when the COVID-19 status of patients was unknown. Level of evidence Level IV.

Background Opioid use disorders in the United States have rapidly increased, yet little is known about the relationship between preoperative opioid duration and dose and patient outcomes after spine surgery. Likewise, the utility of preoperative opioid weaning is poorly understood. Objective The purpose of this evidence-based clinical practice guideline is to determine if duration and dose of preoperative opioids or preoperative opioid weaning is associated with patient-reported outcomes or adverse events after elective spine surgery for degenerative conditions. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using the National Library of Medicine/PubMed database and Embase for studies relevant to opioid use among adult patients undergoing spine surgery. Clinical studies evaluating preoperative duration, dose, and opioid weaning and outcomes were selected for review. Results A total of 41 of 845 studies met the inclusion criteria and none were Level I evidence. The use of any opioids before surgery was associated with longer postoperative opioid use, and longer duration of opioid use was associated with worse outcomes, such as higher complications, longer length of stay, higher costs, and increased utilization of resources. There is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of opioid weaning on postoperative opioid use, improving outcome, or reducing adverse events after spine surgery. Conclusion This evidence-based clinical guideline provides Grade B recommendations that preoperative opioid use and longer duration of preoperative opioid use are associated with chronic postoperative opioid use and worse outcome after spine surgery. Insufficient evidence supports the efficacy of an opioid wean before spine surgery (Grade I).The full guidelines can be accessed at https://www.cns.org/guidelines/browse-guidelines-detail/1-preoperative-opioid-evaluation.

Preoperative malnutrition has been implicated in adverse events after elective surgery, potentially impacting patient outcomes.As a potentially modifiable risk factor, we sought to determine which assessments of nutritional status were associated with specific adverse events after spine surgery. In addition, we explored if a preoperative nutritional improvement intervention may be beneficial in lowering the rates of these adverse events.The literature search yielded 115 abstracts relevant to the PICO (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) questions included in this chapter. The task force selected 105 articles for full text review, and 13 met criteria for inclusion in this systematic review.Malnutrition, assessed preoperatively by a serum albumin3.5 g/dL or a serum prealbumin20 mg/dL, is associated with a higher rate of surgical site infections (SSIs), other wound complications, nonunions, hospital readmissions, and other medical complications after spine surgery. A multimodal nutrition management protocol decreases albumin and electrolyte deficiencies in patients with normal preoperative nutritional status. It also improves overall complication rates but does not specifically impact SSIs.It is recommended to assess nutritional status using either serum albumin or prealbumin preoperatively in patients undergoing spine surgery.The full guidelines can be accessed at https://www.cns.org/guidelines/browse-guidelines-detail/4-preoperative-nutritional-assessment.

BACKGROUND Osteoporosis is a metabolic bone disease that commonly affects the elderly. Degenerative spinal disease that may require surgical intervention is also prevalent in this susceptible population. If undiagnosed or untreated before spine surgery, osteoporosis may result in an increased risk of postoperative adverse events. Nontreatment of osteoporosis preoperatively may be related to a poor understanding of bone physiology, a lack of standardized treatment algorithms, limited cost-effective interventions, and reluctance by spine surgeons to be the primary provider of osteoporosis management. OBJECTIVE The objective of this evidence-based review is to develop guidelines for the preoperative assessment and treatment of osteoporosis in patients undergoing spine surgery. METHODS A systematic review of the literature was performed using the National Library of Medicine/PubMed database and Embase for studies relevant to preoperative diagnostic studies that predict increased risk of osteoporosis-related postoperative adverse events and whether the preoperative treatment of low bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with osteoporosis improves outcome. RESULTS Out of 281 studies, 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included for systematic review. The task force affirmed a Grade B recommendation that preoperative osteoporosis testing with a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan (T-score < -2.5), a computed tomography scan (Hounsfield units

IntroductionProgress in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is hindered by inconsistent measurement and reporting of outcomes. This can, for example, impede the aggregation of data and comparison of outcomes between studies. This limitation can be reversed by developing a core measurement set (CMS) for use in DCM research. Previously, the AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for DCM (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) defined ‘what’ should be measured in DCM: specifically, the core data elements and core outcome set of the disease. The next step of this initiative is to determine ‘how’ to measure these features. The current protocol outlines the steps necessary for the development of a CMS for DCM research and audit.Methods and analysisThe CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). The process will involve five phases: (1) agreement on the measurement constructs and approaches to their evaluation; (2) the formation of a long list of potential measurement instruments, by identifying existing instruments and assessing their psychometric properties; (3) the aggregation of evidence concerning ‘when’ measurements should be taken; (4) consensus about which instruments to include in the CMS; and (5) implementation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge. Dissemination strategies to promote awareness and adoption of the CMS include peer-reviewed scientific publications; conference presentations; podcasts; the identification of AO Spine RECODE-DCM ambassadors; and engagement with relevant journals, funders, and the DCM community.Impact of this workThe proposed project will enable standardised and comprehensive measurement in DCM clinical trials. The CMS will be established using a robust, global, and multi-stakeholder consensus process, with broad representation of healthcare professionals and individuals living with the disease. It will focus on measurement instruments currently in use. This ensures that the CMS will be immediately usable and suited for widespread adoption. The development of better outcome instruments in DCM remains a top 10 research priority and this work will hence facilitate knowledge generation for this important disease.

IntroductionProgress in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is hindered by inconsistent measurement and reporting. This impedes data aggregation and outcome comparison across studies. This limitation can be reversed by developing a core measurement set (CMS) for DCM research. Previously, the AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for DCM (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) defined ‘what’ should be measured in DCM: the next step of this initiative is to determine ‘how’ to measure these features. This protocol outlines the steps necessary for the development of a CMS for DCM research and audit.Methods and analysisThe CMS will be developed in accordance with the guidance developed by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments. The process involves five phases. In phase 1, the steering committee agreed on the constructs to be measured by sourcing consensus definitions from patients, professionals and the literature. In phases 2 and 3, systematic reviews were conducted to identify tools for each construct and aggregate their evidence. Constructs with and without tools were identified, and scoping reviews were conducted for constructs without tools. Evidence on measurement properties, as well as on timing of assessments, are currently being aggregated. These will be presented in phase 4: a consensus meeting where a multi-disciplinary panel of experts will select the instruments that will form the CMS. Following selection, guidance on the implementation of the CMS will be developed and disseminated (phase 5). A preliminary CMS review scheduled at 4 years from release.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the University of Cambridge (HBREC2019.14). Dissemination strategies will include peer-reviewed scientific publications; conference presentations; podcasts; the identification of AO Spine RECODE-DCM ambassadors; and engagement with relevant journals, funders and the DCM community.

BackgroundBased on 6-month data from the InVivo Study of Probable Benefit of the Neuro-Spinal Scaffold for Safety and Neurological Recovery in Patients with Complete Thoracic Spinal Cord Injury (INSPIRE) study (NCT02138110), acute implantation of an investigational bioresorbable polymer device (Neuro-Spinal Scaffold [NSS]) appeared to be safe in patients with complete thoracic spinal cord injury (SCI) and was associated with an ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) conversion rate that exceeded historical controls.ObjectiveTo evaluate outcomes through 24 months postimplantation.MethodsINSPIRE was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, single-arm study. Eligible patients had traumatic nonpenetrating SCI with a visible contusion on MRI, AIS A classification, neurological level of injury at T2-T12, and requirement for open spine surgery ≤96 hours postinjury.ResultsNineteen patients underwent NSS implantation. Three patients had early death determined by investigators to be unrelated to the NSS or its implantation procedure. Seven of 16 evaluable patients (44%) had improvement of ≥1 AIS grade at 6 months (primary end point) to AIS B (n = 5) or AIS C (n = 2). Three patients with AIS B at 6 months had further neurological improvement to AIS C by 12 (n = 2) and 24 (n = 1) months, respectively; none have deteriorated per latest available follow-up. No unanticipated or serious adverse device effects were reported.ConclusionIn this small group of patients with complete thoracic SCI, acute NSS implantation within the spinal cord appeared to be safe with no long-term neurological issues identified during the 24-month follow-up. Patients remain stable, with additional AIS conversions observed in some patients at 12 months and beyond. These data further support the safety and probable benefit of NSS implantation in this patient population.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the investigational Neuro-Spinal Scaffold (NSS), a highly porous bioresorbable polymer device, demonstrates probable benefit for safety and neurological recovery in patients with complete (AIS grade A) T2–12 spinal cord injury (SCI) when implanted ≤ 96 hours postinjury. METHODS This was a prospective, open-label, multicenter, single-arm study in patients with a visible contusion on MRI. The NSS was implanted into the epicenter of the postirrigation intramedullary spinal cord contusion cavity with the intention of providing structural support to the injured spinal cord parenchyma. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an improvement of ≥ 1 AIS grade (i.e., conversion from complete paraplegia to incomplete paraplegia) at the 6-month follow-up visit. A preset objective performance criterion established for the study was defined as an AIS grade conversion rate of ≥ 25%. Secondary endpoints included change in neurological level of injury (NLI). This analysis reports on data through 6-month follow-up assessments. RESULTS Nineteen patients underwent NSS implantation. There were 3 early withdrawals due to death, which were all determined by investigators to be unrelated to the NSS or the implantation procedure. Seven of 16 patients (43.8%) who completed the 6-month follow-up visit had conversion of neurological status (AIS grade A to grade B [n = 5] or C [n = 2]). Five patients showed improvement in NLI of 1 to 2 levels compared with preimplantation assessment, 3 patients showed no change, and 8 patients showed deterioration of 1 to 4 levels. There were no unanticipated or serious adverse device effects or serious adverse events related to the NSS or the implantation procedure as determined by investigators. CONCLUSIONS In this first-in-human study, implantation of the NSS within the spinal cord appeared to be safe in the setting of surgical decompression and stabilization for complete (AIS grade A) thoracic SCI. It was associated with a 6-month AIS grade conversion rate that exceeded historical controls. The INSPIRE study data demonstrate that the potential benefits of the NSS outweigh the risks in this patient population and support further clinical investigation in a randomized controlled trial. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02138110 (clinicaltrials.gov)

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics and performance of current prediction models in the fields of spine metastasis and degenerative spine disease to create a scoring system that allows direct comparison of the prediction models. METHODS A systematic search of PubMed and Embase was performed to identify relevant studies that included either the proposal of a prediction model or an external validation of a previously proposed prediction model with 1-year outcomes. Characteristics of the original study and discriminative performance of external validations were then assigned points based on thresholds from the overall cohort. RESULTS Nine prediction models were included in the spine metastasis category, while 6 prediction models were included in the degenerative spine category. After assigning the proposed utility of prediction model score to the spine metastasis prediction models, only 1 reached the grade of excellent, while 2 were graded as good, 3 as fair, and 3 as poor. Of the 6 included degenerative spine models, 1 reached the excellent grade, while 3 studies were graded as good, 1 as fair, and 1 as poor. CONCLUSIONS As interest in utilizing predictive analytics in spine surgery increases, there is a concomitant increase in the number of published prediction models that differ in methodology and performance. Prior to applying these models to patient care, these models must be evaluated. To begin addressing this issue, the authors proposed a grading system that compares these models based on various metrics related to their original design as well as internal and external validation. Ultimately, this may hopefully aid clinicians in determining the relative validity and usability of a given model.

Study Design: Narrative Review. Objectives: The increasing cost of healthcare overall and for spine surgery, coupled with the growing burden of spine-related disease and rising demand have necessitated a shift in practice standards with a new emphasis on value-based care. Despite multiple attempts to reconcile the discrepancy between national recommendations for appropriate use and the patterns of use employed in clinical practice, resources continue to be overused—often in the absence of any demonstrable clinical benefit. The following discussion illustrates 10 areas for further research and quality improvement. Methods: We present a narrative review of the literature regarding 10 features in spine surgery which are characterized by substantial disproportionate costs and minimal—if any—clear benefit. Discussion items were generated from a service-wide poll; topics mentioned with great frequency or emphasis were considered. Items are not listed in hierarchical order, nor is the list comprehensive. Results: We describe the cost and clinical data for the following 10 items: Over-referral, Over-imaging & Overdiagnosis; Advanced Imaging for Low Back Pain; Advanced imaging for C-Spine Clearance; Advanced Imaging for Other Spinal Trauma; Neuromonitoring for Cervical Spine; Neuromonitoring for Lumbar Spine/Single-Level Surgery; Bracing & Spinal Orthotics; Biologics; Robotic Assistance; Unnecessary perioperative testing. Conclusions: In the pursuit of value in spine surgery we must define what quality is, and what costs we are willing to pay for each theoretical unit of quality. We illustrate 10 areas for future research and quality improvement initiatives, which are at present overpriced and underbeneficial.

OBJECTIVE External ventricular drain (EVD) placement is a common neurosurgical procedure. While this procedure is simple and effective, infection is a major limiting factor. Factors predictive of infection reported in the literature are not conclusive. The aim of this retrospective, single-center large series was to assess the rate and independent predictors of ventriculostomy-associated infection (VAI). METHODS The authors performed a retrospective chart review of consecutive patients who underwent EVD placement between January 2012 and January 2018. RESULTS A total of 389 patients were included in the study. The infection rate was 3.1% (n = 12). Variables that were significantly associated with VAI were EVD replacement (OR 10, p = 0.001), bilateral EVDs (OR 9.2, p = 0.009), duration of EVD placement (OR 1.1, p = 0.011), increased CSF output/day (OR 1.0, p = 0.001), CSF leak (OR 12.9, p = 0.001), and increased length of hospital stay (OR 1.1, p = 0.002). Using multivariate logistic regression, independent predictors of VAI were female sex (OR 7.1, 95% CI 1.1–47.4; p = 0.043), EVD replacement (OR 8.5, 95% CI 1.44–50.72; p = 0.027), increased CSF output/day (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.0–1.02; p = 0.023), and CSF leak (OR 15.1, 95% CI 2.6–87.1; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS The rate of VAI was 3.1%. Routine CSF collection (every other day or every 3 days) and CSF collection when needed were not associated with VAI. The authors recommend CSF collection when clinically needed rather than routinely.

Study Design: The following is a narrative discussion of bundled payments in spine surgery. Objective: The cost of healthcare in the United States has continued to increase. To lower the cost of healthcare, reimbursement models are being investigated as potential cost saving interventions by driving incentives and quality improvement in fields such a spine surgery. Methods: Narrative overview of literature pertaining to bundled payments in spine surgery synthesizing findings from computerized databases and authoritative texts. Results: Spine surgery is challenging to define payment modes because of high cost variability and surgical decision-making nuances. While implementing bundled care payments in spine surgery, it is important to understand concepts such as value-based purchasing, episodes of care, prospective versus retrospective payment models, one versus two-sided risk, risk adjustment, and outlier protection. Strategies for implementation underscore the importance of risk stratification and modeling, adoption of evidence based clinical pathways, and data collection and dissemination. While bundled care models have been successfully implemented, challenges facing institutions adopting bundled care payment models include financial stressors during adoption of the model, distribution of risks, incentivization of treating only low risk patients, and nuanced variation in procedures leading to variation in costs. Conclusion: An alternative for fee for service payments, bundled care payments may lead to higher cost savings and surgeon accountability in a patient’s care.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and treatment of traumatic brain injury in collision athletes, particularly those participating in American football. DATA SOURCES A literature search was conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases for publications between 1990 and 2019. The following search phrases were used: "concussion," "professional athletes," "collision athletes," "mild traumatic brain injury," "severe traumatic brain injury," "management of concussion," "management of severe traumatic brain injury," and "chronic traumatic encephalopathy." Publications that did not present epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathophysiology, radiological evaluation, or management were omitted. Classic articles as per senior author recommendations were retrieved through reference review. RESULTS The results of the literature review yielded 147 references: 21 articles discussing epidemiology, 16 discussing clinical presentation, 34 discussing etiology and pathophysiology, 10 discussing radiological evaluation, 34 articles for on-field management, and 32 articles for medical and surgical management. CONCLUSION Traumatic brain injuries are frequent in professional collision athletes, and more severe injuries can have devastating and lasting consequences. Although sport-related concussions are well studied in professional American football, there is limited literature on the epidemiology and management of severe traumatic brain injuries. This article reviews the epidemiology, as well as the current practices in sideline evaluation, acute management, and surgical treatment of concussions and severe traumatic brain injury in professional collision athletes. Return-to-play decisions should be based on individual patient symptoms and recovery.

BACKGROUND United States (U.S.) healthcare is a volume-based inefficient delivery system. Value requires the consideration of quality, which is lacking in most healthcare disciplines. OBJECTIVE To assess whether patients who met specific evidence-based medicine (EBM)-based criteria preoperatively for lumbar fusion would achieve higher rates of achieving the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) than those who did not meet the EBM indications. METHODS All elective lumbar fusion cases, March 2018 to August 2019, were prospectively evaluated and categorized based on EBM guidelines for surgical indications. The MCID was defined as a reduction of ≥5 points in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Multiple logistic regression identified multivariable-adjusted odds ratio of EBM concordance. RESULTS A total of 325 lumbar fusion patients were entered with 6-mo follow-up data available for 309 patients (95%). The median preoperative ODI score was 24.4 with median 6-mo improvement of 7.0 points (P

Although there is a strong biological rationale for early decompression of the injured spinal cord, the influence of the timing of surgical decompression for acute spinal cord injury (SCI) remains debated, with substantial variability in clinical practice. We aimed to objectively evaluate the effect of timing of decompressive surgery for acute SCI on long-term neurological outcomes.We did a pooled analysis of individual patient data derived from four independent, prospective, multicentre data sources, including data from December, 1991, to March, 2017. Three of these studies had been published; of these, only one study previously specifically analysed the effect of the timing of surgical decompression. These four datasets were selected because they were among the highest quality acute SCI datasets available and contained highly granular data. Individual patient data were obtained by request from study authors. All patients who underwent decompressive surgery for acute SCI within these datasets were included. Patients were stratified into early (24 h after spinal injury) and late (≥24 h after spinal injury) decompression groups. Neurological outcomes were assessed by American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA), or International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI), examination. The primary endpoint was change in total motor score from baseline to 1 year after spinal injury. Secondary endpoints were ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade and change in upper-extremity motor, lower-extremity motor, light touch, and pin prick scores after 1 year. One-stage meta-analyses were done by hierarchical mixed-effects regression adjusting for baseline score, age, mechanism of injury, AIS grade, level of injury, and administration of methylprednisolone. Effect sizes were summarised by mean difference (MD) for sensorimotor scores and common odds ratio (cOR) for AIS grade, with corresponding 95% CIs. As a secondary analysis, change in total motor score was regressed against time to surgical decompression (h) as a continuous variable, using a restricted cubic spline with adjustment for the same covariates as in the primary analysis.We identified 1548 eligible patients from the four datasets. Outcome data at 1 year after spinal injury were available for 1031 patients (66·6%). Patients who underwent early surgical decompression (n=528) experienced greater recovery than patients who had late decompression surgery (n=1020) at 1 year after spinal injury; total motor scores improved by 23·7 points (95% CI 19·2-28·2) in the early surgery group versus 19·7 points (15·3-24·0) in the late surgery group (MD 4·0 points [1·7-6·3]; p=0·0006), light touch scores improved by 19·0 points (15·1-23·0) vs 14·8 points (11·2-18·4; MD 4·3 [1·6-7·0]; p=0·0021), and pin prick scores improved by 18·3 points (13·7-22·9) versus 14·2 points (9·8-18·6; MD 4·0 [1·5-6·6]; p=0·0020). Patients who had early decompression also had better AIS grades at 1 year after surgery, indicating less severe impairment, compared with patients who had late surgery (cOR 1·48 [95% CI 1·16-1·89]; p=0·0019). When time to surgical decompression was modelled as a continuous variable, there was a steep decline in change in total motor score with increasing time during the first 24-36 h after injury (p0·0001); and after 36 h, change in total motor score plateaued.Surgical decompression within 24 h of acute SCI is associated with improved sensorimotor recovery. The first 24-36 h after injury appears to represent a crucial time window to achieve optimal neurological recovery with decompressive surgery following acute SCI.None.