Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Incidental Durotomy during Lumbar Spine Decompression with or without Fusion

Methods@#Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with or without fusion at a single tertiary care center were grouped based on the presence of a durotomy. Multivariate analysis was performed for length of stay (LOS), hospital readmissions, and changes in PROMs. To identify surgical risk factors for durotomy, 3:1 propensity matching was performed using stepwise logistic regression. The sensitivity and specificity of the International Classification of Disease, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes (G96.11 and G97.41) were also assessed. @*Results@#Of the 3,684 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar decompressions, 533 (14.5%) had durotomies, and a complete set of PROMs (preoperative and 1-year postoperative) were available for 737 patients (20.0%). Incidental durotomy was an independent predictor of increased LOS but not hospital readmission or worse PROMs. The durotomy repair method was not associated with hospital readmission or LOS. However, repair with collagen graft and suture predicted reduced improvement in Visual Analog Scale back (β =2.56, p=0.004). Independent risk factors for incidental durotomies included revisions (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; p<0.001), levels decompressed (OR, 1.11; p=0.005), and preoperative diagnosis of spondylolisthesis or thoracolumbar kyphosis. The sensitivity and specificity of ICD-10 codes were 5.4% and 99.9%, respectively, for identifying durotomies. @*Conclusions@#The durotomy rate for lumbar decompressions was 14.5%. No differences in outcomes were detected except for increased LOS. Database studies relying on ICD codes should be interpreted with caution due to the limited sensitivity in identifying incidental durotomies.

A Comparison of Radiographic Alignment between Bilateral and Unilateral Interbody Cages in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Methods@#Patients >18 years old who underwent primary one- or two-level TLIFs at our institution were identified and propensitymatched in a 3:1 fashion (unilateral:bilateral). Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and radiographic outcomes, including vertebral endplate obliquity, segmental lordosis, subsidence, and fusion status, were compared between groups. @*Results@#Of the 184 patients included, 46 received bilateral cages. Bilateral cage placement was associated with greater subsidence (1.06±1.25 mm vs. 0.59±1.16 mm, p=0.028) and enhanced restoration of segmental lordosis (5.74°±14.1° vs. −1.57°±10.9°, p=0.002) at the 1-year postoperative point, while unilateral cage placement was associated with an increased correction of endplate obliquity (−2.02°±4.42° vs. 0.24°±2.81°, p<0.001). Bilateral cage placement was significantly associated with radiographic fusion on bivariate analysis (89.1% vs. 70.3%, p=0.018) and significantly predicted radiographic fusion on multivariable regression analysis (estimate, 1.35; odds ratio, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.51–12.05; p=0.010). @*Conclusions@#Bilateral interbody cage placement in TLIF procedures was associated with restoration of lumbar lordosis and increased fusion rates. However, endplate obliquity correction was significantly greater for patients who received a unilateral cage.

Effect of Drain Duration and Output on Perioperative Outcomes and Readmissions after Lumbar Spine Surgery

Methods@#Patients aged ≥18 years who underwent lumbar fusion with a postoperative drain between 2017 and 2020 were included and grouped based on hospital readmission status, last 8-hour drain output (<40 mL cutoff), or drain duration (2 days cutoff). Total output of all drains, total output of the primary drain, drain duration in days, drain output per day, last 8-hour output, penultimate 8-hour output, and last 8-hour delta (last 8-hour output subtracted by penultimate 8-hour output) were collected. Continuous and categorical data were compared between groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were performed to determine whether drain variables can predict hospital readmission, postoperative blood transfusions, and postoperative anemia. Alpha was 0.05. @*Results@#Our cohort consisted of 1,166 patients with 111 (9.5%) hospital readmissions. Results of regression analysis did not identify any of the drain variables as independent predictors of hospital readmission, postoperative blood transfusion, or postoperative anemia. ROC analysis demonstrated the drain variables to be poor predictors of hospital readmission, with the highest area under curve of 0.524 (drain duration), corresponding to a sensitivity of 61.3% and specificity of 49.9%. @*Conclusions@#Drain output or duration did not affect readmission rates following lumbar spine surgery.

Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Increases Pseudarthrosis Rates in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusions

Methods@#Patients with 1-year postoperative dynamic cervical spine radiographs following ACDF were grouped into serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescriptions (SSRI, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor [SNRI], or tricyclic antidepressant [TCA]) and no prescription (atypical antidepressant or no antidepressant). Pseudarthrosis was defined as ≥1 mm interspinous process motion on dynamic radiographs. Logistic regression models were controlled for confounding to analyze pseudarthrosis rates. Alpha was set at p - values of <0.05. @*Results@#Of the 523 patients who meet the inclusion criteria, 137 (26.2%) were prescribed an SSRI, SNRI, or TCA. Patients with these prescriptions were more likely to have pseudarthrosis (p =0.008) but not a revision surgery due to pseudarthrosis (p =0.219). Additionally, these patients had worse 1-year postoperative mental component summary (MCS)-12 (p =0.015) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) (p =0.006). The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified SSRI/SNRI/TCA use (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11–2.99; p =0.018) and construct length (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.50–2.44; p <0.001) as pseudarthrosis predictors. A SSRI/SNRI/TCA prescription was a revision surgery predictor due to adjacent segment disease on univariate analysis (OR, 2.51; p =0.035) but not on multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR, 2.24; p =0.10). @*Conclusions@#Patients taking serotonin reuptake-inhibiting antidepressants are at increased risk of worse postoperative outcome scores, including NDI and MCS-12, likely due to their underlying depression. This may contribute to their greater likelihood of having adjacent segment surgery. Additionally, preoperative use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors in patients undergoing an ACDF is a predictor of radiographic pseudarthrosis but not pseudarthrosis revision.

Modified Frailty Index as a Predictor of Postoperative Complications and Patient-Reported Outcomes after Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion

Methods@#Patients undergoing elective PCDF at our urban academic medical center from 2014 to 2020 were included. Patients were categorized by mFI scores (0–0.08, 0.09–0.17, 0.18–0.26, and ≥0.27). Univariate statistics compared demographics, comorbidities, and clinical/surgical outcomes. Multiple linear regression analysis evaluated the magnitude of improvement in PROMs at 1 year. @*Results@#A total of 165 patients were included and grouped by mFI scores: 0 (n=36), 0.09 (n=62), 0.18 (n=42), and ≥0.27 (n=30). The severe frailty group (mFI ≥0.27) was significantly more likely to be diabetic (p <0.001) and have a greater Elixhauser comorbidity index (p =0.001). They also had worse baseline Physical Component Score-12 (PCS-12) (p =0.011) and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) (p =0.012) scores and worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (p =0.008) and mJOA (p =0.001) scores. On regression analysis, an mFI score of 0.18 was an independent predictor of greater improvement in ΔVisual Analog Scale neck (β =−2.26, p =0.022) and ΔVAS arm (β =−1.76, p =0.042). Regardless of frailty status, patients had similar 90-day readmission rates (p =0.752), complication rates (p =0.223), and revision rates (p =0.814), but patients with severe frailty were more likely to have longer hospital length of stay (p =0.006) and require non-home discharge (p <0.001). @*Conclusions@#Similar improvements across most PROMs can be expected irrespective of the frailty status of patients undergoing PCDF. Complication rates, 90-day readmission rates, and revision rates are not significantly different when stratified by frailty status. However, patients with severe frailty are more likely to have longer hospital stays and require non-home discharge.

Review of Physician Referrals to Orthopedic Spine versus Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported what patients value while choosing their surgeon, but there are no studies exploring the patterns of referral to spine surgeons among primary care physicians (PCPs). This study aims to identify any trends in PCPs' referral to orthopedic surgery versus neurosurgery for spinal pathology.METHODS: In total, 450 internal medicine, family medicine, emergency medicine, neurology, and pain management physicians who practice at one of three locations (suburban community hospital, urban academic university hospital, and urban private practice) were asked to participate in the study. Consenting physicians completed our 24-question survey addressing their beliefs according to pathologies, locations of pathologies, and surgical interventions.RESULTS: Overall, 108 physicians (24%) completed our survey. Fifty-seven physicians (52.8%) felt that neurosurgeons would provide better long-term comprehensive spinal care. Overall, 66.7% of physicians would refer to neurosurgery for cervical spine radiculopathy; 52.8%, to neurosurgery for thoracic spine radiculopathy; and 56.5%, to orthopedics for lumbar spine radiculopathy. Most physicians would refer all spine fractures to orthopedics for treatment except cervical spine fractures (56.5% to neurosurgeons). Most physicians would refer to neurosurgery for extradural tumors (91.7%) and intradural tumors (96.3%). Most would refer to orthopedic surgeons for chronic pain. Finally, physicians would refer to orthopedics for spine fusion (61.1%) and discectomy (58.3%) and to neurosurgery for minimally invasive surgery (59.3%).CONCLUSIONS: Even though both orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons are intensively trained to treat a similar breath of spinal pathology, physicians vary in their referring patterns according to spinal pathology, location of pathology, and intended surgery. Education on the role of spine surgeons among PCPs is essential in ensuring unbiased referral patterns.