Search

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

OBJECTIVE The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was established in 2012 by the NeuroPoint Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Currently, the QOD has launched six different modules to cover a broad spectrum of neurosurgical practice—namely lumbar spine surgery, cervical spine surgery, brain tumor, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), functional neurosurgery for Parkinson’s disease, and cerebrovascular surgery. This investigation aims to summarize research efforts and evidence yielded through QOD research endeavors. METHODS The authors identified all publications from January 1, 2012, to February 18, 2023, that were produced by using data collected prospectively in a QOD module without a prespecified research purpose in the context of quality surveillance and improvement. Citations were compiled and presented along with comprehensive documentation of the main study objective and take-home message. RESULTS A total of 94 studies have been produced through QOD efforts during the past decade. QOD-derived literature has been predominantly dedicated to spinal surgical outcomes, with 59 and 22 studies focusing on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, respectively, and 6 studies focusing on both. More specifically, the QOD Study Group—a research collaborative between 16 high-enrolling sites—has yielded 24 studies on lumbar grade 1 spondylolisthesis and 13 studies on cervical spondylotic myelopathy, using two focused data sets with high data accuracy and long-term follow-up. The more recent neuro-oncological QOD efforts, i.e., the Tumor QOD and the SRS Quality Registry, have contributed 5 studies, providing insights into the real-world neuro-oncological practice and the role of patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Prospective quality registries are an important resource for observational research, yielding clinical evidence to guide decision-making across neurosurgical subspecialties. Future directions of the QOD efforts include the development of research efforts within the neuro-oncological registries and the American Spine Registry—which has now replaced the inactive spinal modules of the QOD—and the focused research on high-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis and cervical radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become the standard means to measure surgical outcomes. Insurers and policy makers are also increasingly utilizing PROs to assess the value of care and measure different aspects of a patient’s condition. For cervical myelopathy, it is currently unclear which outcome measure best reflects patient satisfaction. In this investigation, the authors evaluated patients treated for cervical myelopathy to determine which outcome questionnaires best correlate with patient satisfaction. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), a prospectively collected multi-institutional database, was used to retrospectively analyze patients undergoing surgery for cervical myelopathy. The North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction index, Neck Disability Index (NDI), numeric rating scales for neck pain (NP-NRS) and arm pain (AP-NRS), EQ-5D, and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) scale were evaluated. RESULTS The analysis included 1141 patients diagnosed with myelopathy, of whom 1099 had an NASS satisfaction index recorded at any of the follow-up time points. Concomitant radiculopathy was an indication for surgery in 368 (33.5%) patients, and severe neck pain (NP-NRS ≥ 7) was present in 471 (42.8%) patients. At the 3-month follow-up, NASS patient satisfaction index scores were positively correlated with scores for the NP-NRS (r = 0.30), AP-NRS (r = 0.32), and NDI (r = 0.36) and negatively correlated with EQ-5D (r = −0.38) and mJOA (r = −0.29) scores (all p < 0.001). At the 12-month follow-up, scores for the NASS index were positively correlated with scores for the NP-NRS (r = 0.44), AP-NRS (r = 0.38), and NDI (r = 0.46) and negatively correlated with scores for the EQ-5D (r = −0.40) and mJOA (r = −0.36) (all p < 0.001). At the 24-month follow-up, NASS index scores were positively correlated with NP-NRS (r = 0.49), AP-NRS (r = 0.36), and NDI (r = 0.49) scores and negatively correlated with EQ-5D (r = −0.44) and mJOA (r = −0.38) scores (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Neck pain was highly prevalent in patients with myelopathy. Notably, improvement in neck pain–associated disability rather than improvement in myelopathy was the most prominent PRO factor for patients. This finding may reflect greater patient concern for active pain symptoms than for neurological symptoms caused by myelopathy. As commercial payers begin to examine novel remuneration strategies for surgical interventions, thoughtful analysis of PRO measurements will have increasing relevance.

Longitudinal observational comparative cohorts.The objective of this study is to compare 3 and 12-month radiographic sagittal parameters and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients who underwent 3-level ACDF or a hybrid procedure.Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF), and hybrids (combination ACCF-ACDF) are common procedures used to treat symptomatic cervical spondylosis. Although there is a relative abundance of literature comparing 1-level ACCF versus 2-level ACDF and 2-level ACCF versus 3-level ACDF, detailed comparisons of 3-level ACDF versus hybrid procedures have not been extensively addressed.Patients who underwent a 3-Level ACDF (3L-ACDF, N=47) or 1-Level Corpectomy/1-Level ACDF (Hybrid, N=52) with at least a 12-month post-op data available were identified. Standard demographic, surgical and PROs were collected in addition to preoperative and postoperative radiographic data, including C2 plumb line (C2PL), C2-C7 lordosis (CL), segmental lordosis (SL), and T1 slope (T1S).The 2 cohorts were similar in terms of demographics. At 3 months post-op, CL (9.04° vs. -2.12°, P=0.00) and SL (6.06° vs. -2.26°, P=0.003) were significantly greater in the 3L-ACDF group versus the HYBRID group. This significant difference was maintained at 12 months postoperative for CL [(6.62° vs. -0.60°, P=0.015) but not for SL (2.36° vs. -1.09°, P=0.199)]. There were no differences in PROs between the 2 groups before surgery, at 3 months postoperative or 12 months postoperative. Seven patients required revision surgery in the 1-year study period (1 in the 3L-ACDF, and 6 in the Hybrid P0.001).Three level ACDF resulted in greater C2-C7 lordosis and segmental lordosis postoperatively, which was maintained at 1 year for cervical lordosis. While PROs were similar between the groups, patients with hybrid instrumentation required significantly more revision surgeries than those treated with 3-level ACDF.

OBJECTIVE Cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is a common progressive spine disorder affecting predominantly middle-aged and elderly populations. With increasing life expectancy, the incidence of CSM is expected to rise further. The outcomes of elderly patients undergoing CSM surgery and especially their quality of life (QOL) postoperatively remain undetermined. This study retrospectively reviewed patients to identify baseline differences and validated postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in elderly patients undergoing CSM surgery. METHODS The multi-institutional, neurosurgery-specific NeuroPoint Quality Outcomes Database was queried to identify CSM patients treated surgically at the 14 highest-volume sites from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients were divided into three groups: young (< 65 years), early elderly (65–74 years), and late elderly (≥ 75 years). Demographic and PRO measures (Neck Disability Index [NDI] score, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] score, EQ-5D score, EQ-5D visual analog scale [VAS] score, arm pain VAS, and neck pain VAS) were compared among the groups at baseline and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS A total of 1151 patients were identified: 691 patients (60%) in the young, 331 patients (28.7%) in the early elderly, and 129 patients (11.2%) in the late elderly groups. At baseline, younger patients presented with worse NDI scores (p < 0.001) and lower EQ-5D VAS (p = 0.004) and EQ-5D (p < 0.001) scores compared with early and late elderly patients. No differences among age groups were found in the mJOA score. An improvement of all QOL scores was noted in all age groups. On unadjusted analysis at 3 months, younger patients had greater improvement in arm pain VAS, NDI, and EQ-5D VAS compared with early and late elderly patients. At 12 months, the same changes were seen, but on adjusted analysis, there were no differences in PROs between the age groups. CONCLUSIONS The authors’ results indicate that elderly patients undergoing CSM surgery achieved QOL outcomes that were equivalent to those of younger patients at the 12-month follow-up.

Computed tomography (CT) measurement of Hounsfield Units (HU) has been described as a tool for assessing BMD. For surgeons considering a revision lumbar fusion, knowledge of the BMD of the UIV is of value for surgical planning. However, the presence of metal artifact from instrumentation presents a potential confounder, and prior studies have not validated measurements of HU in this setting.To determine if HU can be measured reliably at the supra-adjacent and upper instrumented levels of a lumbar fusion.Retrospective observational cohort PATIENT SAMPLE: Consecutive series of patients who had lumbar CT scans after an instrumented posterior lumbar fusion.Hounsfield Units at the upper instrumented vertebra and levels proximal.We analysed pre- and postoperative CT scans of 50 patients who underwent L2 and distal instrumented lumbar fusion whose scans were no greater than 1 year apart, obtaining HU measurements of analogous axial cuts at the upper instrumented level (immediately caudal to the halo of the pedicle screw), as well as additional control levels above the construct.The HU at the pre-and postoperative UIV exhibited a strong correlation (r=0.917, p.001), as did one (r=0.887, p.001) and two (r=0.853, p.001) levels above the UIV. There were significant but predictable reductions in the postoperative HU compared to preoperative at one (-9.0±26.2) and two (-12.2±30.2) levels above the UIV, as well as T12 (-13.9±42.2). There was no significant difference in HU at the UIV (4.6±34.1).Postoperative HU at the UIV was strongly correlated with and not significantly different from the preoperative HU. Although the HU in the vertebrae proximal to the UIV were slightly lower postoperatively, this change was predictable using a correction factor.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Excessive use of postoperative imaging after lumbar surgery has been documented, becoming a target for cutting costs. This must be balanced with the patient's need for information and allay their postoperative concerns. PURPOSE To determine the incidence and associated costs of patient interactions with the healthcare system, outside the standard follow up routine, in the first postoperative year. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE Consecutive series of 200 patients who underwent lumbar fusions from 2018 to 2019 from a multi-surgeon single tertiary spine center. OUTCOME MEASURES All healthcare encounters: phone calls, office and emergency department visits, and additional testing METHODS A consecutive series of 200 patients who underwent lumbar fusions from 2018 to 2019 were identified. All non-routine healthcare encounters: phone calls, office and emergency department visits, and additional testing were collected. Direct costs for all healthcare services were determined using the Medicare Allowable rates. Indirect costs were determined using local, median income, length of office visits, and distance from the clinic to the patient's home. RESULTS Of 200 patients, 14 with thoracic fusion were excluded. The mean age of the 186 included patients was 58.26 years and 85 (46%) were male. Forty-seven percent (87/186) had only routine postoperative visits and 24 had revision surgery. Seventy-five patients made a total of 102 phone calls, 55 office visits, leading to 38 diagnostic studies none of which led to an additional intervention. Using Medicare Allowable rates, the mean direct cost was $776 per patient and the using a median income of $16/h the mean indirect cost was $124 per patient. There were no differences in the baseline characteristics among the patients who only had routine post-op encounters, had non-routine encounters or had a repeat surgery. CONCLUSIONS Forty percent of the patients undergoing lumbar surgery had a healthcare encounter outside their routine follow up that did not result in additional intervention after their index operation. These potentially unnecessary encounters create additional cost and inconvenience to both the patient and healthcare system. Providing patient reassurance is important and providers should identify ways to reduce associated costs through patient education, virtual visits, or new technologies to monitor patient's postoperative progress.

Patients with advanced pyogenic spondylodiscitis can present with neurologic deficits. However, the prevalence, severity, and outcome of the neurologic deficits are not well known. A systematic review was performed to improve the knowledge of this commonly encountered clinical scenario. The considerable number of severe neurologic deficits in addition to their poor recovery, even after surgical intervention, demonstrates that the early diagnosis of pyogenic spondylodiscitis is crucial. Prompt surgical intervention is likely associated with a greater chance of improvement of neurologic status than nonsurgical treatment.

Symptomatic postoperative epidural hematomas are rare, with an incidence of 0.10% to 0.69%. Risk factors have varied in the literature, but multiple studies have reported advanced age, preoperative or postoperative coagulopathy, and multilevel laminectomy as risk factors for hematoma. The role of pharmacologic anticoagulation after spine surgery remains unclear, but multiple studies suggest it can be done safely with a low risk of epidural hematoma. Prophylactic suction drains have not been found to lower hematoma incidence. Most symptomatic postoperative epidural hematomas present within the first 24 to 48 hours after surgery but can present later. Diagnosis of a symptomatic hematoma requires correlation of clinical signs and symptoms with a compressive hematoma on MRI. Patients will usually first complain of a marked increase in axial pain, followed by radicular symptoms in the extremities, followed by motor weakness and sphincter dysfunction. An MRI should be obtained emergently, and if it confirms a compressive hematoma, surgical evacuation should be carried out as quickly as possible. The prognosis for neurologic improvement after evacuation depends on the time delay and the degree of neurologic impairment before evacuation.

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective single center propensity-matched observational cohort study that included patients who underwent 1- to 3-level lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. OBJECTIVE To compare 90-day complication rates between robotic-assisted and non-robotic-assisted lumbar spinal fusions in propensity-matched cohorts. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA A recent administrative database (PearlDiver) study reported increased 30-day complications with the utilization of robotic-assisted enabling technology. METHODS Of 146 robotic-assisted cases that met inclusion criteria, 114 were successfully propensity matched to 114 patients from 214 cases who had 1 to 3 level lumbar fusion without robotic assistance based on age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologist grade, number of surgical levels, primary versus revision, and surgical approach (posterior-only or anterior-posterior). We excluded tumor, trauma, infection, or deformity cases. Outcomes included surgical and medical (major/minor) complications at intraoperative, immediately postoperative, 30- and 90-day postoperative intervals, including reoperations, and readmissions within 90 days. RESULTS All cause intraoperative complication rates were similar between non-robotic-assisted (5.3%) and robotic-assisted groups (10.5%, P = 0.366). Immediate postoperative medical complication rate was also similar between non-robotic-assisted (6.1%) and robotic-assisted groups (1.8%, P = 0.089). Thirty-day complication rates, 90-day complication rates, reoperation rates, and readmission rates showed no difference between non-robotic-assisted and robotic-assisted groups. There was no difference between return to OR for infection between the cohorts (non-robotic-assisted: 6 [5%] vs. robotic-assisted: 1 [0.8%], P = 0.119). There was however improved length of stay (LOS) in the robotic-assisted group compared with non-robotic-assisted group (2.5 vs. 3.17 days, P = 0.018). CONCLUSION In propensity-matched cohorts, patients undergoing 1- to 3-level robotic-assisted posterior lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions did not have increased 90-day complication rate, and had a shorter length of stay compared with non-robotic-assisted patients. There findings differ from a prior administrative database study as the robotic-assisted group in the current study had 0% return to OR for malpositioned screws and 0.8% return to OR for infection.Level of Evidence: 2.

OBJECTIVE Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been used to treat degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis and is associated with expedited recovery, reduced operative blood loss, and shorter hospitalizations compared to those with traditional open TLIF. However, the impact of MI-TLIF on long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is less clear. Here, the authors compare the outcomes of MI-TLIF to those of traditional open TLIF for grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 60 months postoperatively. METHODS The authors utilized the prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry and queried for patients with grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who had undergone single-segment surgery via an MI or open TLIF method. PROs were compared 60 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes included the numeric rating scale (NRS) for back pain (NRS-BP), NRS for leg pain (NRS-LP), EQ-5D, North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction, and cumulative reoperation rate. Multivariable models were constructed to assess the impact of MI-TLIF on PROs, adjusting for variables reaching p < 0.20 on univariable analyses and respective baseline PRO values. RESULTS The study included 297 patients, 72 (24.2%) of whom had undergone MI-TLIF and 225 (75.8%) of whom had undergone open TLIF. The 60-month follow-up rates were similar for the two cohorts (86.1% vs 75.6%, respectively; p = 0.06). Patients did not differ significantly at baseline for ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, or EQ-5D (p > 0.05 for all). Perioperatively, MI-TLIF was associated with less blood loss (108.8 ± 85.6 vs 299.6 ± 242.2 ml, p < 0.001) and longer operations (228.2 ± 111.5 vs 189.6 ± 66.5 minutes, p < 0.001) but had similar lengths of hospitalizations (MI-TLIF 2.9 ± 1.8 vs open TLIF 3.3 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.08). Discharge disposition to home or home health was similar (MI-TLIF 93.1% vs open TLIF 91.1%, p = 0.60). Both cohorts improved significantly from baseline for the 60-month ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). In adjusted analyses, MI-TLIF, compared to open TLIF, was associated with similar 60-month ODI, ODI change, odds of reaching ODI minimum clinically important difference, NRS-BP, NRS-BP change, NRS-LP, NRS-LP change, EQ-5D, EQ-5D change, and NASS satisfaction (adjusted p > 0.05 for all). The 60-month reoperation rates did not differ significantly (MI-TLIF 5.6% vs open TLIF 11.6%, p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS For symptomatic, single-level grade I degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, MI-TLIF was associated with decreased blood loss perioperatively, but there was no difference in 60-month outcomes for disability, back pain, leg pain, quality of life, or satisfaction between MI and open TLIF. There was no difference in cumulative reoperation rates between the two procedures. These results suggest that in appropriately selected patients, either procedure may be employed depending on patient and surgeon preferences.

Background Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is a common problem. When surgical treatment is required, the intervention is typically decompression without fusion. Successful return-to-work (RTW) is a standard expectation with these limited procedures. Occasionally, the size or location of the disc herniation suggests the need for fusion, but the inability to RTW is a significant concern in these cases. The purpose of this study is to determine if the addition of lumbar fusion, as compared to decompression alone, will substantially diminish RTW in patients with lumbar disc herniation. Methods This is a longitudinal cohort study using prospectively collected data from the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD). Patients with LDH, eligible to RTW (not retired, a student, or on disability) with complete 12-month follow-up data, were identified. Standard demographic and surgical variables, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and RTW status at 3 and 12 months were collected. Results Of the 5062 patients identified, 4560 (90%) had decompression alone and 502 (10%) had a concurrent fusion. Age and gender were similar in the two groups. The fusion group had worse back pain (NRS 6.52 vs. 5.96) and less leg pain (6.31 vs. 7.01) at baseline compared to the no fusion group. Statistically significant improvement in all PROs was seen in both groups. RTW at 3 months post-op was seen in 85% of decompression cases and 66% of cases with supplemental fusion. At 12 months post-op, RTW increased to 93% and 82%, respectively. Conclusion The need for fusion in LDH cases is unusual, seen in only 10% of cases in this series. The addition of fusion decreased the RTW rate from 85 to 66% at 3 months and from 93 to 82% at 12 months post-op. While the difference is significant, the ultimate deterioration in RTW may be less than anticipated. A reasonable RTW rate can still be expected in the rare patient who requires fusion as part of their treatment for LDH.

OBJECTIVE Although short-term adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS) studies favor operative over nonoperative treatment, longer outcomes are critical for assessment of treatment durability, especially for operative treatment, because the majority of implant failures and nonunions present between 2 and 5 years after surgery. The objectives of this study were to assess the durability of treatment outcomes for operative versus nonoperative treatment of ASLS, to report the rates and types of associated serious adverse events (SAEs), and to determine the potential impact of treatment-related SAEs on outcomes. METHODS The ASLS-1 (Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis–1) trial is an NIH-sponsored multicenter prospective study to assess operative versus nonoperative ASLS treatment. Patients were 40–80 years of age and had ASLS (Cobb angle ≥ 30° and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ≥ 20 or Scoliosis Research Society [SRS]–22 subscore ≤ 4.0 in the Pain, Function, and/or Self-Image domains). Patients receiving operative and nonoperative treatment were compared using as-treated analysis, and the impact of related SAEs was assessed. Primary outcome measures were ODI and SRS-22. RESULTS The 286 patients with ASLS (107 with nonoperative treatment, 179 with operative treatment) had 2-year and 5-year follow-up rates of 90% (n = 256) and 74% (n = 211), respectively. At 5 years, compared with patients treated nonoperatively, those who underwent surgery had greater improvement in ODI (mean difference −15.2 [95% CI −18.7 to −11.7]) and SRS-22 subscore (mean difference 0.63 [95% CI 0.48–0.78]) (p < 0.001), with treatment effects (TEs) exceeding the minimum detectable measurement difference (MDMD) for ODI (7) and SRS-22 subscore (0.4). TEs at 5 years remained as favorable as 2-year TEs (ODI −13.9, SRS-22 0.52). For patients in the operative group, the incidence rates of treatment-related SAEs during the first 2 years and 2–5 years after surgery were 22.38 and 8.17 per 100 person-years, respectively. At 5 years, patients in the operative group who had 1 treatment-related SAE still had significantly greater improvement, with TEs (ODI −12.2, SRS-22 0.53; p < 0.001) exceeding the MDMD. Twelve patients who received surgery and who had 2 or more treatment-related SAEs had greater improvement than nonsurgically treated patients based on ODI (TE −8.34, p = 0.017) and SRS-22 (TE 0.32, p = 0.029), but the SRS-22 TE did not exceed the MDMD. CONCLUSIONS The significantly greater improvement of operative versus nonoperative treatment for ASLS at 2 years was durably maintained at the 5-year follow-up. Patients in the operative cohort with a treatment-related SAE still had greater improvement than patients in the nonoperative cohort. These findings have important implications for patient counseling and future cost-effectiveness assessments.

Retrospective chart review. To determine if the addition of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) improves the fractional curve in adult spinal deformity correction when compared to posterior surgery alone. ALIF is commonly advocated to improve lordosis and fusion in adult deformity surgery. Improved fractional curve correction may help level the pelvis and minimize proximal malalignment. Patients undergoing thoracolumbar fusion to the pelvis with S2AI screws for deformity were identified and stratified into patients who had an ALIF as part of their deformity correction procedure (ALIF + PSF), and those who had a posterior approach alone. The posterior approach (PSF) includes patients who had a posterolateral fusion with or without a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Radiographic parameters measured included pre-op and post-op fractional coronal curve Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence and sacral slope, major Cobb angle, coronal and sagittal SVA. There were 31 cases in the ALIF + PSF group and 28 in the PSF group. Baseline demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Mean pre-op fractional coronal Cobb (18.3° vs 13.4°, p = 0.027) was larger in the ALIF + PSF group, whereas lumbar lordosis (31.0° vs 33.6°, p = 0.487) and pelvic parameters were similar between the two groups. Post-op lumbar lordosis was similar (48.2° vs 43.0°, p = 0.092). Greater fractional coronal curve correction was achieved in the ALIF + PSF group (67%) compared to the PSF group (36%) with a smaller post-op fractional coronal curve in the ALIF + PSF group (6.1°) compared to the PSF group (8.6°, p = 0.053). There is a greater correction of the fractional curve in the ALIF + PSF group compared with the PSF group. While this may not be the primary indication for ALIF, it is a benefit which may facilitate overall deformity correction and leveling of the pelvis.

OBJECTIVELumbar fusion can lead to significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with degenerative conditions. It is unknown whether the presence of hip or knee arthritis confounds the responses of patients to low-back–specific PROs. This study examined PROs with lumbar fusion in patients with concomitant lower-extremity arthritis. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether patients with significant lower-extremity arthritis who undergo lumbar fusion achieve similar improvements in low-back–specific PROs compared to patients without lower-extremity arthritis.METHODSPatients were identified from a prospectively enrolled multicenter registry of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Two hundred thirty patients identified with lumbar fusion and who also had concomitant lower-extremity arthritis were propensity matched to 233 patients who did not have lower-extremity arthritis based on age, BMI, sex, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, number of levels fused, and surgical approach. One-year improvement in PROs, numeric rating scales (0–10) for back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQol-5D scores were compared for patients with and without lower-extremity arthritis.RESULTSBaseline demographics and preoperative outcome measures did not differ between the two propensity-matched groups with 110 cases each. Patients with concomitant lower-extremity arthritis achieved similar improvement in health-related quality-of-life measures to patients without lower-extremity arthritis, with no significant differences between the groups (p > 0.10).CONCLUSIONSThe presence of lower-extremity arthritis does not adversely affect the results of lumbar fusion in properly selected patients. Patients with lower-extremity arthritis who undergo lumbar fusion can achieve meaningful improvement in PROs similar to patients without arthritis.

OBJECTIVENational databases collect large amounts of clinical information, yet application of these data can be challenging. The authors present the NeuroPoint Alliance and Institute for Healthcare Improvement (NPA-IHI) program as a novel attempt to create a quality improvement (QI) tool informed through registry data to improve the quality of care delivered. Reducing the length of stay (LOS) and readmission after elective lumbar fusion was chosen as the pilot module.METHODSThe NPA-IHI program prospectively enrolled patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level lumbar fusions across 8 institutions. A three-pronged approach was taken that included the following phases: 1) Research Phase, 2) Development Phase, and 3) Implementation Phase. Primary outcomes were LOS and readmission. From January to June 2017, a learning system was created utilizing monthly conference calls, weekly data submission, and continuous refinement of the proposed QI tool. Nonparametric tests were used to assess the impact of the QI intervention.RESULTSThe novel QI tool included the following three areas of intervention: 1) preoperative discharge assessment (location, date, and instructions), 2) inpatient changes (LOS rounding checklist, daily huddle, and pain assessments), and 3) postdischarge calls (pain, primary care follow-up, and satisfaction). A total of 209 patients were enrolled, and the most common procedure was a posterior laminectomy/fusion (60.2%). Seven patients (3.3%) were readmitted during the study period. Preoperative discharge planning was completed for 129 patients (61.7%). A shorter median LOS was seen in those with a known preoperative discharge date (67 vs 80 hours, p = 0.018) and clear discharge instructions (71 vs 81 hours, p = 0.030). Patients with a known preoperative discharge plan also reported significantly increased satisfaction (8.0 vs 7.0, p = 0.028), and patients with increased discharge readiness (scale 0–10) also reported higher satisfaction (r = 0.474, p < 0.001). Those receiving postdischarge calls (76%) had a significantly shorter LOS than those without postdischarge calls (75 vs 99 hours, p = 0.020), although no significant relationship was seen between postdischarge calls and readmission (p = 0.342).CONCLUSIONSThe NPA-IHI program showed that preoperative discharge planning and postdischarge calls have the potential to reduce LOS and improve satisfaction after elective lumbar fusion. It is our hope that neurosurgical providers can recognize how registries can be used to both develop and implement a QI tool and appreciate the importance of QI implementation as a separate process from data collection/analysis.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic is at epic proportions currently in the United States. Exposure to opioids for surgery and subsequent postoperative pain management is a known risk factor for opioid dependence. In addition, opioids can have a negative impact on multiple aspects including clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and overall cost of care. Thus, the greatest effort to reduce perioperative opioid use is necessary and a multimodal pain control (MMPC) has been gaining popularity. However, its efficacy in spine surgery is not well known. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a MMPC protocol in patients undergoing lumbar single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). METHODS: This is a retrospective comparative study. From a prospective, single-surgeon, surgical database, consecutive patients undergoing single-level ALIF with or without subsequent posterior fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions were identified before and after initiation of the MMPC protocol. The MMPC protocol consisted of a preoperative oral regimen of cyclobenzaprine (10 mg), gabapentin (600 mg), acetaminophen (1 g), and methadone (10 mg). Postoperatively they received a bilateral transverse abdominis plane block with 0.5% Ropivacaine prior to extubation. We compared in-hospital opioid consumption between the MMPC and non-MMPC cohorts as well as baseline demographic, the length of hospital stay, cost, and rate of postoperative ileus. Opioid consumption was calculated and normalized to the morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). RESULTS: In total, 68 patients in the MMPC cohort and 39 in the non-MMPC cohort were identified. There was no difference in baseline demographics including sex, body mass index, smoking status, or preoperative opioid use between the two groups. Although there was no difference in the MMEs on the day of surgery (58.5 vs. 66.9, P=0.387), cumulative MMEs each day after surgery was significantly lower in the MMPC cohort, with final cumulative MMEs being reduced by 62% (120.2 vs. 314.8, P

OBJECTIVEUnexpected nonhome discharge causes additional costs in the current reimbursement models, especially to the payor. Nonhome discharge is also related to longer length of hospital stay and therefore higher healthcare costs to society. With increasing demand for spine surgery, it is important to minimize costs by streamlining discharges and reducing length of hospital stay. Identifying factors associated with nonhome discharge can be useful for early intervention for discharge planning. The authors aimed to identify the drivers of nonhome discharge in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion.METHODSThe electronic medical records from a single-center hospital administrative database were analyzed for consecutive patients who underwent 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions during the period from 2016 to 2018. Discharge disposition was determined as home or nonhome. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine associations between nonhome discharge and age, sex, body mass index (BMI), race, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, smoking status, marital status, insurance type, residence in an underserved zip code, and operative factors.RESULTSA total of 1502 patients were included. The majority (81%) were discharged home. Factors associated with a nonhome discharge were older age, higher BMI, living in an underserved zip code, not being married, being on government insurance, and having more levels fused. Patients discharged to a nonhome facility had longer lengths of hospital stay (5.6 vs 3.0 days, p < 0.001) and significantly increased hospital costs ($21,204 vs $17,518, p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIncreased age, greater BMI, residence in an underserved zip code, not being married, and government insurance are drivers for discharge to a nonhome facility after a 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion. Early identification and intervention for these patients, even before admission, may decrease the length of hospital stay and medical costs.

OBJECTIVE Prior studies have revealed that a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 is associated with worse outcomes following surgical intervention in grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis. Using a machine learning approach, this study aimed to leverage the prospective Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) to identify a BMI threshold for patients undergoing surgical intervention for grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis and thus reliably identify optimal surgical candidates among obese patients. METHODS Patients with grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis and preoperative BMI ≥ 30 from the prospectively collected QOD lumbar spondylolisthesis module were included in this study. A 12-month composite outcome was generated by performing principal components analysis and k-means clustering on four validated measures of surgical outcomes in patients with spondylolisthesis. Random forests were generated to determine the most important preoperative patient characteristics in predicting the composite outcome. Recursive partitioning was used to extract a BMI threshold associated with optimal outcomes. RESULTS The average BMI was 35.7, with 282 (46.4%) of the 608 patients from the QOD data set having a BMI ≥ 30. Principal components analysis revealed that the first principal component accounted for 99.2% of the variance in the four outcome measures. Two clusters were identified corresponding to patients with suboptimal outcomes (severe back pain, increased disability, impaired quality of life, and low satisfaction) and to those with optimal outcomes. Recursive partitioning established a BMI threshold of 37.5 after pruning via cross-validation. CONCLUSIONS In this multicenter study, the authors found that a BMI ≤ 37.5 was associated with improved patient outcomes following surgical intervention. These findings may help augment predictive analytics to deliver precision medicine and improve prehabilitation strategies.

It remains unclear how type of insurance coverage affects long-term, spine-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This study sought to elucidate the impact of insurance on clinical outcomes after lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery.The prospective Quality Outcomes Database registry was queried for patients with grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent single-segment surgery. Twenty-four-month PROs were compared and included Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) back pain, NRS leg pain, EuroQol-5D, and North American Spine Society Satisfaction.A total of 608 patients undergoing surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (mean age, 62.5 ± 11.5 years and 59.2% women) were selected. Insurance types included private insurance (n = 319; 52.5%), Medicare (n = 235; 38.7%), Medicaid (n = 36; 5.9%), and Veterans Affairs (VA)/government (n = 17; 2.8%). One patient (0.2%) was uninsured and was removed from the analyses. Regardless of insurance status, compared to baseline, all 4 cohorts improved significantly regarding ODI, NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D scores (P 0.001). In adjusted multivariable analyses, compared with patients with private insurance, Medicaid was associated with worse 24-month postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (β = 10.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9-16.5; P = 0.002) and NRS leg pain (β =1.3; 95% CI, 0.3-2.4; P = 0.02). Medicaid was associated with worse EuroQol-5D scores compared with private insurance (β = -0.07; 95% CI -0.01 to -0.14; P = 0.03), but not compared with Medicare and VA/government insurance (P 0.05). Medicaid was associated with lower odds of reaching ODI minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.03-0.7; P = 0.02) compared with VA/government insurance. NRS back pain and North American Spine Society satisfaction did not differ by insurance coverage (P 0.05).Despite adjusting for potential confounding variables, Medicaid coverage was independently associated with worse 24-month PROs after lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery compared with other payer types. Although all improved postoperatively, those with Medicaid coverage had relatively inferior improvements.

OBJECTIVELoss to follow-up has been shown to bias outcomes assessment among studies utilizing clinical registries. Here, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics of patients captured with those lost to follow-up at 2 years.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Only those patients enrolled in a multisite study investigating the impact of fusion on clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with grade I spondylolisthesis were evaluated.RESULTSOf the 608 patients enrolled in the study undergoing 1- or 2-level decompression (23.0%, n = 140) or 1-level fusion (77.0%, n = 468), 14.5% (n = 88) were lost to follow-up at 2 years. Patients who were lost to follow-up were more likely to be younger (59.6 ± 13.5 vs 62.6 ± 11.7 years, p = 0.031), be employed (unemployment rate: 53.3% [n = 277] for successful follow-up vs 40.9% [n = 36] for those lost to follow-up, p = 0.017), have anxiety (26.1% [n = 23] vs 16.3% [n = 85], p = 0.026), have higher back pain scores (7.4 ± 2.9 vs 6.6 ± 2.8, p = 0.010), have higher leg pain scores (7.4 ± 2.5 vs 6.4 ± 2.9, p = 0.003), have higher Oswestry Disability Index scores (50.8 ± 18.7 vs 46 ± 16.8, p = 0.018), and have lower EQ-5D scores (0.481 ± 0.2 vs 0.547 ± 0.2, p = 0.012) at baseline.CONCLUSIONSTo execute future, high-quality studies, it is important to identify patients undergoing surgery for spondylolisthesis who might be lost to follow-up. In a large, prospective registry, the authors found that those lost to follow-up were more likely to be younger, be employed, have anxiety disorder, and have worse PRO scores.

OBJECTIVEMedical comorbidities, particularly preoperatively diagnosed anxiety, depression, and obesity, may influence how patients perceive and measure clinical benefit after a surgical intervention. The current study was performed to define and compare the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds in patients with and without preoperative diagnoses of anxiety or depression and obesity who underwent spinal fusion for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis.METHODSThe Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for patients who underwent lumbar fusion for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis during the period from January 2014 to August 2017. Collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), health status (EQ-5D), and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back pain (NRS-BP) and leg pain (NRS-LP). Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods for MCID calculation were employed.RESULTSOf 462 patients included in the prospective registry who underwent a decompression and fusion procedure, 356 patients (77.1%) had complete baseline and 12-month PRO data and were included in the study. The MCID values for ODI scores did not significantly differ in patients with and those without a preoperative diagnosis of obesity (20.58 and 20.69, respectively). In addition, the MCID values for ODI scores did not differ in patients with and without a preoperative diagnosis of anxiety or depression (24.72 and 22.56, respectively). Similarly, the threshold MCID values for NRS-BP, NRS-LP, and EQ-5D scores were not statistically different between all groups. Based on both anchor-based and distribution-based methods for determination of MCID thresholds, there were no statistically significant differences between all cohorts.CONCLUSIONSMCID thresholds were similar for ODI, EQ-5D, NRS-BP, and NRS-LP in patients with and without preoperative diagnoses of anxiety or depression and obesity undergoing spinal fusion for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis. Preoperative clinical and shared decision-making may be improved by understanding that preoperative medical comorbidities may not affect the way patients experience and assess important clinical changes postoperatively.

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) is a diagnosis that encompasses heterogeneous disorders with an increasing prevalence. This increasing prevalence may be due to greater patient longevity or greater awareness of available treatments. Outcome assessment in ASD has evolved over the last 3 decades from physician-based assessments to a patient-centered perception of improvement. Outcome assessment that is reliable, accurate and responsive to change is especially important in ASD, as surgical treatment is known to carry a high cost and complication rate Glassman (Spine Deform 3:199–203, 2015); Glassman (Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32: 2764–2770, 2007); Smith (J Neurosurg Spine 25:1–14, 2016). In an era of value-based care, diagnosis associated with such heterogeneity and high cost must provide sound evidence to support the cost versus outcome ratio. Numerous general health and disease specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been utilized in ASD. We discuss these instruments in detail in the following state-of-the-art review.

OBJECTIVELumbar decompression without arthrodesis remains a potential treatment option for cases of low-grade spondylolisthesis (i.e., Meyerding grade I). Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have recently been increasingly used because of their touted benefits including lower operating time, blood loss, and length of stay. Herein, the authors analyzed patients enrolled in a national surgical registry and compared the baseline characteristics and postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients undergoing open versus MIS lumbar decompression.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis undergoing a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Among more than 200 participating sites, the 12 with the highest enrollment of patients into the lumbar spine module came together to initiate a focused project to assess the impact of fusion on PROs in patients undergoing surgery for grade I lumbar spondylolisthesis. For the current study, only patients in this cohort from the 12 highest-enrolling sites who underwent a decompression alone were evaluated and classified as open or MIS (tubular decompression). Outcomes of interest included PROs at 2 years; perioperative outcomes such as blood loss and complications; and postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, discharge disposition, and reoperations.RESULTSA total of 140 patients undergoing decompression were selected, of whom 71 (50.7%) underwent MIS and 69 (49.3%) underwent an open decompression. On univariate analysis, the authors observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of PROs at 2-year follow-up, including back pain, leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index score, EQ-5D score, and patient satisfaction. On multivariable analysis, compared to MIS, open decompression was associated with higher satisfaction (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.41–23.2, p = 0.0005). Patients undergoing MIS decompression had a significantly shorter length of stay compared to the open group (0.68 days [SD 1.18] vs 1.83 days [SD 1.618], p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIn this multiinstitutional prospective study, the authors found comparable PROs as well as clinical outcomes at 2 years between groups of patients undergoing open or MIS decompression for low-grade spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN Prospective longitudinal cohort. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine whether functional treadmill testing (FTT) demonstrates differences between patients treated operatively and nonoperatively for adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis (ASLS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA ASLS has become increasingly prevalent as the population ages. ASLS can be accompanied by neurogenic claudication, leading to difficulty walking. FTT may provide a functional tool to evaluate patients with ASLS. METHODS One hundred and eighty-seven patients who underwent nonoperative (n = 88) or operative treatment (n = 99) of ASLS with complete baseline and 2-year post-treatment FTTs and concurrent patient-reported outcomes were identified. FTT parameters included maximum speed, time to onset of symptoms, distance ambulated, time ambulated, and Back and Leg pain severity before and after testing. RESULTS At baseline, patients treated operatively reported worse post-FTT back pain (4.39 vs. 3.45, P = 0.032) than those treated nonoperatively, despite similar ODI, SRS-22 Pain and Activity domain scores. Mean time ambulated (+2.15 vs. -1.20 P = 0.001), pre-FTT back pain (+0.19 vs. -1.60, P

STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal Comparative Cohort OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to report on the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis (ASLS) using the as-treated data and provide a comparison to previously reported intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adult spinal deformity is a relatively prevalent condition for which surgical treatment has become increasingly common but concerns surrounding complications, revision rates and cost-effectiveness remain unresolved. Of these issues, cost-effectiveness is perhaps the most difficult to quantify as the requisite data is difficult to obtain. The purpose of this study is to report on the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis (ASLS) using the as-treated data and provide a comparison to previously reported intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. METHODS: Patients with at least five-year follow-up data within the same treatment arm were included. Data collected every three months included use of nonoperative modalities, medications and employment status. Costs for surgeries and non-operative modalities were determined using Medicare Allowable rates. Medication costs were determined using the RedBook and indirect costs were calculated based on reported employment status and income. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) was determined using the SF-6D. RESULTS: Of 226 patients, 195 patients (73 Non-op, 122 Op) met inclusion criteria. At five years, 29 (24%) patients in the Op group had a revision surgery of whom two had two revisions and one had three revisions. The cumulative cost for the Op group was $111,451 with a cumulative QALY gain of 2.3. The cumulative cost for the Non-Op group was $29,124 with a cumulative QALY gain of 0.4. This results in an ICER of $44,033 in favor of Op treatment. CONCLUSION: This as-treated cost effectiveness analysis demonstrates that surgical treatment for adult lumbar scoliosis becomes favorable at year-three, one year earlier than suggested by a previous intent-to-treat analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II

Study Design: Longitudinal cohort. Objectives: Posterior spinal fusion (PSF) using all-pedicle screw constructs has become the standard procedure in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). However, there have been several reports that all-pedicle screw constructs or the use of pedicle screws at the upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) increases the incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK). We aimed to evaluate the impact of instrumentation type on the incidence of PJK following PSF for AIS. Methods: We performed a stratified random sampling from 3654 patients enrolled in a multicenter database of surgically treated AIS to obtain a representative sample from all Lenke types. Patients were then allocated into 3 groups based on the instrumentation type: all-pedicle screw (PS), hook at UIV with pedicle screws distally (HT), and hybrid constructs (HB). We measured proximal junctional angle (PJA) and defined PJK as PJA ≥ 10° and PJA progression of >10° at the final follow-up. Results: Fifteen (4.3%) of 345 cases had PJK. PJK was significantly more common in PS (11%) compared with HB (1%) and HT (0%) ( P < .001). PJK patients were similar to non-PJK patients regarding age, sex, curve type, UIV, and preoperative coronal Cobb angle. Thoracic kyphosis was significantly higher in the PJK group before surgery. Patients who developed PJK had a statistically significantly larger negative sagittal balance compared with the non-PJK group. Conclusion: The incidence of PJK was 4.3% and was more common in all-pedicle screw constructs. Using hooks at UIV might be a treatment strategy to limit PJK.

BACKGROUND The factors driving the best outcomes following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis are not clearly elucidated. OBJECTIVE To investigate the factors that drive the best 24-mo patient-reported outcomes (PRO) following MIS surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS A total of 259 patients from the Quality Outcomes Database lumbar spondylolisthesis module underwent single-level surgery for degenerative grade 1 lumbar spondylolisthesis with MIS techniques (188 fusions, 72.6%). Twenty-four-month follow-up PROs were collected and included the Oswestry disability index (ODI) change (ie, 24-mo minus baseline value), numeric rating scale (NRS) back pain change, NRS leg pain change, EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire change, and North American Spine Society (NASS) satisfaction questionnaire. Multivariable models were constructed to identify predictors of PRO change. RESULTS The mean age was 64.2 ± 11.5 yr and consisted of 148 (57.1%) women and 111 (42.9%) men. In multivariable analyses, employment was associated with superior postoperative ODI change (β-7.8; 95% CI [-12.9 to -2.6]; P = .003), NRS back pain change (β -1.2; 95% CI [-2.1 to -0.4]; P = .004), EQ-5D change (β 0.1; 95% CI [0.01-0.1]; P = .03), and NASS satisfaction (OR = 3.7; 95% CI [1.7-8.3]; P

Regional differences in outcomes after spine surgery are poorly understood. We assessed disability and quality-of-life outcomes by geographic region in the United States using the NeuroPoint Alliance Quality Outcomes Database.We queried the prospective Quality Outcomes Database patient registry to identify patients who underwent elective 1- or 2-level lumbar surgery for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis from July 2014 through June 2016. Primary outcome measures included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D) reported at 24 months postoperatively. Differences in EQ-5D and ODI were compared across geographic regions of the United States (Northeast, Midwest, South, West).We identified 608 patients from 12 centers who underwent surgery. Of these, 517 (85.0%) had ODI data and 492 (80.9%) had EQ-5D data at 24 months. Southern states had the largest representation (304 patients; 5 centers), followed by Northeastern (114 patients; 3 centers), Midwestern (96 patients; 2 centers), and Western (94 patients; 2 centers) states. Baseline ODI scores were significantly different among regions, with the South having the greatest baseline disability burden (Northeast: 40.9 ± 16.9, South: 51.2 ± 15.8, Midwest: 40.9 ± 17.8, West: 45.0 ± 17.1, P0.001). The change in ODI at 24 months postoperatively was significantly different among regions, with the South showing the greatest ODI improvement (Northeast: -21.1 ± 18.2, South: -26.5 ± 20.2, Midwest: -18.2 ± 22.9, West: -21.7 ± 19.6, P0.001). All regions had ≥60% achievement of the minimum clinically important difference in ODI at 24 months postoperatively. No regional differences were observed for EQ-5D.Significant regional variation exists for disability outcomes, but not quality of life, at 24 months after spinal surgery for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVEThe Scoliosis Research Society-22r questionnaire (SRS-22r) has been shown to be reliable, valid, and responsive to change in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) undergoing surgery. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest difference in a health-related quality of life score that is considered to be worthwhile or clinically important to the individual. The authors hypothesized that the proportion of patients with ASD achieving an MCID in the SRS-22r score would be different between two culturally different cohorts. The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of patients with ASD achieving MCID for the SRS-22r domains in North American (NA) and Japanese cohorts.METHODSA total of 137 patients from North America (123 women, mean age 60.0 years) and 60 patients from Japan (56 women, mean age 65.5 years) with at least 2 years of follow-up after corrective spine surgery for ASD were included. Except for self-image, published Japanese MCID values of SRS-22r for ASD were higher (function = 0.90, pain = 0.85, self-image = 1.05, subtotal = 1.05) than the published NA MCID values (function = 0.60, pain = 0.40, self-image = 1.23, subtotal = 0.43).RESULTSThere was a statistically significant improvement in all SRS-22r domain scores at 2 years compared to baseline in both cohorts. Except for mental health (NA = 0.32, Japanese = 0.72, p = 0.005), the mean improvement from baseline to 2 years was similar between the NA and Japanese cohorts. The proportion of patients achieving MCID was higher in North America for function (NA = 51%, Japanese = 30%, p = 0.006), pain (NA = 80%, Japanese = 47%, p < 0.001), and subtotal (NA = 72%, Japanese = 35%, p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference for self-image (NA = 53%, Japanese = 58%, p = 0.454).CONCLUSIONSDespite similar improvements in SRS-22r domain scores from baseline to 2 years postoperatively, the proportion of patients reaching SRS-22r MCID for function, pain, and subtotal after ASD surgery was higher in the NA cohort than in the Japanese cohort. This may imply that patients in North America and Japan may value observed changes in clinical status differently.

OBJECTIVEDischarge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility or another acute-care facility not only constitutes a postoperative challenge for patients and their care team but also contributes significantly to healthcare costs. In this era of changing dynamics of healthcare payment models in which cost overruns are being increasingly shifted to surgeons and hospitals, it is important to better understand outcomes such as discharge disposition. In the current article, the authors sought to develop a predictive model for factors associated with nonroutine discharge after surgery for grade I spondylolisthesis.METHODSThe authors queried the Quality Outcomes Database for patients with grade I lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent a surgical intervention between July 2014 and June 2016. Only those patients enrolled in a multisite study investigating the impact of fusion on clinical and patient-reported outcomes among patients with grade I spondylolisthesis were evaluated. Nonroutine discharge was defined as those who were discharged to a postacute or nonacute-care setting in the same hospital or transferred to another acute-care facility.RESULTSOf the 608 patients eligible for inclusion, 9.4% (n = 57) had a nonroutine discharge (8.7%, n = 53 discharged to inpatient postacute or nonacute care in the same hospital and 0.7%, n = 4 transferred to another acute-care facility). Compared to patients who were discharged to home, patients who had a nonroutine discharge were more likely to have diabetes (26.3%, n = 15 vs 15.7%, n = 86, p = 0.039); impaired ambulation (26.3%, n = 15 vs 10.2%, n = 56, p < 0.001); higher Oswestry Disability Index at baseline (51 [IQR 42–62.12] vs 46 [IQR 34.4–58], p = 0.014); lower EuroQol-5D scores (0.437 [IQR 0.308–0.708] vs 0.597 [IQR 0.358–0.708], p = 0.010); higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (3 or 4: 63.2%, n = 36 vs 36.7%, n = 201, p = 0.002); and longer length of stay (4 days [IQR 3–5] vs 2 days [IQR 1–3], p < 0.001); and were more likely to suffer a complication (14%, n = 8 vs 5.6%, n = 31, p = 0.014). On multivariable logistic regression, factors found to be independently associated with higher odds of nonroutine discharge included older age (interquartile OR 9.14, 95% CI 3.79–22.1, p < 0.001), higher body mass index (interquartile OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.31–3.25, p < 0.001), presence of depression (OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.96–9.35, p < 0.001), fusion surgery compared with decompression alone (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6, p < 0.001), and any complication (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.4–10.9, p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIn this multisite study of a defined cohort of patients undergoing surgery for grade I spondylolisthesis, factors associated with higher odds of nonroutine discharge included older age, higher body mass index, presence of depression, and occurrence of any complication.

Expert opinion-modified Delphi study.We used a modified Delphi approach to obtain consensus among leading spinal deformity surgeons and their neuroanesthesiology teams regarding optimal practices for obtaining reliable motor evoked potential (MEP) signals.Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of transcranial MEPs provides the best method for assessing spinal cord integrity during complex spinal surgeries. MEPs are affected by pharmacological and physiological parameters. It is the responsibility of the spine surgeon and neuroanesthesia team to understand how they can best maintain high-quality MEP signals throughout surgery. Nevertheless, varying approaches to neuroanesthesia are seen in clinical practice.We identified 19 international expert spinal deformity treatment teams. A modified Delphi process with two rounds of surveying was performed. Greater than 50% agreement on the final statements was considered "agreement";75% agreement was considered "consensus."Anesthesia regimens and protocols were obtained from the expert centers. There was a large amount of variability among centers. Two rounds of consensus surveying were performed, and all centers participated in both rounds of surveying. Consensus was obtained for 12 of 15 statements, and majority agreement was obtained for two of the remaining statements. Total intravenous anesthesia was identified as the preferred method of maintenance, with few centers allowing for low mean alveolar concentration of inhaled anesthetic. Most centers advocated for150 μg/kg/min of propofol with titration to the lowest dose that maintains appropriate anesthesia depth based on awareness monitoring. Use of adjuvant intravenous anesthetics, including ketamine, low-dose dexmedetomidine, and lidocaine, may help to reduce propofol requirements without negatively effecting MEP signals.Spine surgeons and neuroanesthesia teams should be familiar with methods for optimizing MEPs during deformity and complex spinal cases. Although variability in practices exists, there is consensus among international spinal deformity treatment centers regarding best practices.5.

Study design Secondary analysis of subjects in the control anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) arm of Medtronic Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trials for cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). Objectives To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with radiographic nonunion to patients with a solid fusion. Summary of background data The true prevalence of nonunion after ACDF is unknown. Nonunion may be under-reported, as some patients are not symptomatic enough to justify radiographic evaluation. Methods Three hundred forty-five subjects enrolled in the control arm of IDE trials for CDA who had single-level ACDF with allograft and plate with 24 month data formed the study cohort. Using the 24-month postop evaluation, subjects were divided into those who had radiographic fusion and those who did not using strict study criteria. SF-36, NDI, Neck and Arm pain NRS scores were reported at 12, 24, 36, 60, and 84 months postop. For subjects who had secondary surgery failures, the last observations before the secondary surgery were carried forward to future visits for the analysis. Results Forty-four (13%) patients had radiographic nonunion and 301 (87%) were fused at 24 months postop. At 24 months, PROs were similar between the two groups. Seven patients in the Nonunion group (16%) and 10 (3%) in the Fused group had additional surgery at the index level prior to the 24 follow-up (P = 0.003). Over the 84-month follow-up a total of 9 patients in the Nonunion group (21%) and 22 (7%) in the Fused group had additional surgery at the index level (P = 0.009). Conclusion While the radiographic nonunion rate at 24 months was 13%, PROs show that many of the radiographic nonunions were asymptomatic. Although the majority of patients with radiographic nonunion did not undergo additional surgery, the rate of secondary surgeries at the index level was significantly higher in the radiographic nonunion group. Level of evidence 2.

OBJECTIVEThe midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF.METHODSFrom a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D.RESULTSOf 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551).CONCLUSIONSCompared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.