Factors Related to Clinical Performance in Spine Surgery Fellowship: Can We Predict Success.

INTRODUCTION: The factors most important in the spine fellowship match may not ultimately correlate with quality of performance during fellowship. This study examined the spine fellow applicant metrics correlated with high application rank compared with the metrics associated with the strongest clinical performance during fellowship. METHODS: Spine fellow applications at three academic institutions were retrieved from the San Francisco Match database (first available to 2021) and deidentified for application review. Application metrics pertaining to research, academics, education, extracurriculars, leadership, examinations, career interests, and letter of recommendations were extracted. Attending spine surgeons involved in spine fellow selection at their institutions were sent a survey to rank (1) fellow applicants based on their perceived candidacy and (2) the strength of performance of their previous fellows. Pearson correlation assessed the associations of application metrics with theoretical fellow rank and actual performance. RESULTS: A total of 37 spine fellow applications were included (Institution A: 15, Institution B: 12, Institution C: 10), rated by 14 spine surgeons (Institution A: 6, Institution B: 4, Institution C: 4). Theoretical fellow rank demonstrated a moderate positive association with overall research, residency program rank, recommendation writer H-index, US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, and journal reviewer positions. Actual fellow performance demonstrated a moderate positive association with residency program rank, recommendation writer H-index, USMLE scores, and journal reviewer positions. Linear regressions identified journal reviewer positions (ß = 1.73, P = 0.002), Step 1 (ß = 0.09, P = 0.010) and Step 3 (ß = 0.10, P = 0.002) scores, recommendation writer H-index (ß = 0.06, P = 0.029, and ß = 0.07, P = 0.006), and overall research (ß = 0.01, P = 0.005) as predictors of theoretical rank. Recommendation writer H-index (ß = 0.21, P = 0.030) and Alpha Omega Alpha achievement (ß = 6.88, P = 0.021) predicted actual performance. CONCLUSION: Residency program reputation, USMLE scores, and a recommendation from an established spine surgeon were important in application review and performance during fellowship. Research productivity, although important during application review, was not predictive of fellow performance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort Study.

The impact of robotic assistance for lumbar fusion surgery on 90-day surgical outcomes and 1-year revisions.

Objectives: To evaluate the (1) 90-day surgical outcomes and (2) 1-year revision rate of robotic versus nonrobotic lumbar fusion surgery. Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary lumbar fusion surgery at our institution were identified and propensity-matched in a 1:1 fashion based on robotic assistance during surgery. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and surgical outcomes, including 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revisions, were collected. Multivariable regression analysis was performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05. Results: Four hundred and fifteen patients were identified as having robotic lumbar fusion and were matched to a control group. Bivariant analysis revealed no significant difference in total 90-day surgical complications (P = 0.193) or 1-year revisions (P = 0.178). The operative duration was longer in robotic surgery (287 + 123 vs. 205 + 88.3, P ≤ 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that robotic fusion was not a significant predictor of 90-day surgical complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76 [0.32-1.67], P = 0.499) or 1-year revisions (OR = 0.58 [0.28-1.18], P = 0.142). Other variables identified as the positive predictors of 1-year revisions included levels fused (OR = 1.26 [1.08-1.48], P = 0.004) and current smokers (OR = 3.51 [1.46-8.15], P = 0.004). Conclusion: Our study suggests that robotic-assisted and nonrobotic-assisted lumbar fusions are associated with a similar risk of 90-day surgical complications and 1-year revision rates; however, robotic surgery does increase time under anesthesia.

The impact of demineralized bone matrix characteristics on pseudarthrosis and surgical outcomes after posterolateral lumbar decompression and fusion.

Objectives: The objectives of our study were to compare the fusion rates and surgical outcomes of lumbar fusion surgery based on the (1) type of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) carrier allograft, (2) the presence/absence of a carrier, and (3) the presence of bone fibers in DBM. Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent single-level posterolateral decompression and fusion (PLDF) between L3 and L5 between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. We assessed bone grafts based on carrier type (no carrier, sodium hyaluronate carrier, and glycerol carrier) and the presence of bone fibers. Fusion status was determined based on a radiographic assessment of bony bridging, screw loosening, or change in segmental lordosis >5°. Analyses were performed to assess fusion rates and surgical outcomes. Results: Fifty-four patients were given DBM with a hyaluronate carrier, 75 had a glycerol carrier, and 94 patients were given DBM without a carrier. DBM carrier type, bone fibers, and carrier presence had no impact on 90-day readmission rates (P = 0.195, P = 0.099, and P = 1.000, respectively) or surgical readmissions (P = 0.562, P = 0.248, and P = 0.640, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analysis found that type of carrier, presence of fibers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.106 [0.524-2.456], P = 0.797), and presence of a carrier (OR = 0.701 [0.370-1.327], P = 0.274) were also not significantly associated with successful fusion likelihood. Conclusion: Our study found no significant differences between DBM containing glycerol, sodium hyaluronate, or no carrier regarding fusion rates or surgical outcomes after single-level PLDF. Bone particulates versus bone fibers also had no significant differences regarding the likelihood of bony fusion.

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

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To compare radiographic outcomes between unilateral and bilateral cage placement in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF) and to determine if the rate of fusion at the 1-year postoperative point was different in patients who received bilateral versus unilateral cages. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There is no clear evidence to dictate whether bilateral or unilateral cages promote superior radiographic or surgical outcomes in TLIF. 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 Interbody Composition on the Development of Pseudarthrosis Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To determine if polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or titanium alloy cages increase the rate of pseudarthrosis development or revision surgery rate compared with structural allograft following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and identify if the cage type results in differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) versus structural allograft. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: PEEK and titanium alloy cages have become popular options for ACDF intervertebral spacers. However, while data is beginning to emerge on how cage types affect arthrodesis rates, the effect of their composition on PROMs is less clear. METHODS: All patients aged >18 years who underwent primary one- to four-level ACDF at a single institution were retrospectively identified. Propensity matching was performed to compare patients' PEEK or titanium alloy cages with structural allograft. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to measure the effect of interbody spacer composition on the likelihood of pseudarthrosis development. RESULTS: Of the 502 patients who received structural allograft and had 1-year postoperative dynamic radiographs, 96 patients were propensity matched to 32 patients who received a PEEK cage, and 162 patients were propensity matched to 54 patients who received a titanium alloy cage. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that PEEK cage implants (odds ratio [OR], 3.34; p =0.007) predicted pseudarthrosis development compared with structural allograft implantation. Titanium alloy cage (OR, 1.64; p =0.156) implantation was not predictive of pseudarthrosis. One-year postoperative PROMs were not significantly different between patients who received PEEK or titanium alloy cages and those who received structural allograft (all p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with structural allograft, receiving a PEEK cage increased the risk of pseudarthrosis development following ACDF, whereas receiving a titanium alloy cage had no significant effect on pseudarthrosis development. One-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes were similar between patients who received structural allograft, PEEK, and titanium alloy interbody spacers.

Trends in Short Construct Lumbar Fusions Over the Past Decade at a Single Institution.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: (1) To compare the rates of fusion techniques over the last decade; (2) to identify whether surgeon experience affects a surgeon's preferred fusion technique; (3) to evaluate differences in complications, readmissions, mortality, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) based on fusion technique. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Database studies indicate the number of lumbar fusions have been steadily increasing over the last two decades; however, insufficient granularity exists to detect if surgeons' preferences are altered based on additive surgical experience. METHODS: A retrospective review of continuously collected patients undergoing lumbar fusion at a single urban academic center was performed. Rates of lumbar fusion technique: posterolateral decompression fusion (PLDF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion + PLDF (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion + PLDF (LLIF) were recorded. Inpatient complications, 90-day readmission, and inpatient mortality were compared with χ 2 test and Bonferroni correction. The Δ 1-year PROMs were compared with the analysis of variance. RESULTS: Of 3938 lumbar fusions, 1647 (41.8%) were PLDFs, 1356 (34.4%) were TLIFs, 885 (21.7%) were ALIFs, and 80 (2.0%) were lateral lumbar interbody fusions. Lumbar fusion rates increased but interbody fusion rates (2012: 57.3%; 2019: 57.6%) were stable across the study period. Surgeons with <10 years of experience performed more PLDFs and less ALIFs, whereas surgeons with >10 years' experience used ALIFs, TLIFs, and PLDFs at similar rates. Patients were more likely to be discharged home over the course of the decade (2012: 78.4%; 2019: 83.8%, P <0.001). No differences were observed between the techniques in regard to inpatient mortality ( P =0.441) or Δ (postoperative minus preoperative) PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Preferred lumbar fusion technique varies by surgeon preference, but typically remains stable over the course of a decade. The preferred fusion technique did not correlate with differences in PROMs, inpatient mortality, and patient complication rates. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: 3-treatment.

Is Deep Vein Thrombosis Chemoprophylaxis Indicated After Spinal Irrigation and Débridement?

OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for development of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in patients undergoing spinal irrigation and débridement for an infection with subsequent peripherally inserted central catheter placement and to determine if chemoprophylaxis mitigates the risk of developing DVT. METHODS: Patients with spinal infection and peripherally inserted central catheter placement at an academic medical center between 2009 and 2020 were retrospectively identified. Patients were grouped based on whether they had postoperative DVT. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared to determine their association with postoperative DVT. A multivariate logistic regression model was developed to measure the effect of postoperative DVT chemoprophylaxis on the likelihood of DVT development. RESULTS: Of 335 patients included in the analysis, 48 (14.3%) developed DVT, and 287 (85.7%) did not develop DVT. Patients who developed DVT had a greater number of irrigation and débridement procedures (1.90 ± 1.49 vs. 1.44 ± 0.86, P = 0.024). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified a history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-4.92; P = 0.045), DVT/pulmonary embolism (OR = 4.49; 95% CI, 1.93-10.34; P < 0.001), and number of irrigation and débridement procedures (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.13-2.06; P = 0.006) as significant positive predictors of postoperative DVT. Chemoprophylaxis (OR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.32-1.45; P = 0.324) was not a significant negative predictor of postoperative DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing spinal débridement with subsequent peripherally inserted central catheter placement are at high risk for postoperative DVT. Multiple spine débridement procedures, a history of diabetes, and previous DVT are risk factors for postoperative DVT. Chemoprophylaxis does not mitigate patients' risk for postoperative DVT.

Patients with Dual Shoulder-Spine Disease: Does Operative Order Affect Clinical Outcomes?

OBJECTIVE: 1) To analyze the effect of operative sequence (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion [ACDF] first or rotator cuff repair [RCR] first) on surgical outcomes after both procedures for patients with dual shoulder-spine injuries and 2) to determine how operative sequence affects patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after surgery. METHODS: Patients >18 years of age who underwent primary ACDF and primary RCR at our institution were retrospectively identified. Only patients with overlapping symptoms before the first procedure were included. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts (ACDF first or RCR first). Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, surgical outcomes, and PROMs were compared between groups. Multivariate linear regression models were developed to determine if operative order was predictive of improvements in PROM scores at the 1-year postoperative point after the second procedure. Alpha was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 85 patients included, 44 patients (51.8%) underwent ACDF first, whereas 41 patients (48.2%) underwent RCR first. There were no significant differences in the rate of 90-day readmission, spine reoperations, and rotator cuff reoperations between groups (all, P > 0.05). Multivariate linear regression showed that undergoing an ACDF first was not a significant predictor of Δ Mental Component Score of the Short-Form 12 (ß = -2.78; P = 0.626) and Δ Physical Component Score of the Short-Form 12 (ß = 7.74; P = 0.077) at the 1-year postoperative point after the second procedure. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with dual shoulder-spine injuries who are appropriate surgical candidates, undergoing ACDF first compared with RCR first does not result in significant differences in clinical surgical or patient-reported outcomes.

The Use of Propofol for Continuous Deep Sedation at the End of Life: A Definitive Guide.

The anesthetic propofol is used in a number of medical applications including surgery, procedural sedation, refractory status epilepticus, alcohol withdrawal, and critical care sedation. The manner in which it is dosed and administered in each environment varies, tailored to the specific task at hand. Because the use of propofol in end-of-life care is uncommon, providers may lack practical experience, and resources that are specific to this specialized application are not comprehensive and largely based on dosing and administration as it is done on the intensive care unit. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence and experienced based reference for the specific use of propofol for end of life sedation.

Terminal Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation: A Hospice Perspective for the Intensivist.

The intensive care unit (ICU) and hospice inpatient unit (IPU) environments differ in many ways. Although both endeavor to provide the best care possible for their patients, the day-to-day goals of these environments are almost antithetical. Similarly, the experiences and expertise of the staff differ. When performing a similar clinical task, it may be addressed in different ways because each group is engrained in their primary day-to-day focus. Terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation is a procedure that is performed in both ICUs and some hospice IPUs. Previous examinations of this subject have been based largely upon the correlative background, practices, and perceptions of the ICU prescriber. The purpose of this review is to examine how the manner in which this procedure is performed in the hospice environment may differ in ways that the intensivist can incorporate into their own plan of care, or better appreciate when making the decision to remove mechanical ventilation in the critical care unit or transfer the patient to a hospice environment for the procedure to be completed.

A Review of Agents for Palliative Sedation/Continuous Deep Sedation: Pharmacology and Practical Applications.

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life is a specific form of palliative sedation requiring a care plan that essentially places and maintains the patient in an unresponsive state because their symptoms are refractory to any other interventions. Because this application is uncommon, many providers may lack practical experience in this specialized area and resources they can access are outdated, nonspecific, and/or not comprehensive. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence- and experience-based reference that specifically addresses those medications and regimens and their practical applications for this very narrow, but vital, aspect of hospice care. Patient goals in a hospital and hospice environments are different, so the manner in which widely used sedatives are dosed and applied can differ greatly as well. Parameters applied in end-of-life care that are based on experience and a thorough understanding of the pharmacology of those medications will differ from those applied in an intensive care unit or other medical environments. By recognizing these different goals and applying well-founded regimens geared specifically for end-of-life sedation, we can address our patients' symptoms in a more timely and efficacious manner.

Principles and tools for collaborative entity-based intelligence analysis.

Software tools that make it easier for analysts to collaborate as a natural part of their work will lead to better analysis that is informed by more perspectives. We are interested to know if software tools can be designed that support collaboration even as they allow analysts to find documents and organize information (including evidence, schemas, and hypotheses). We have modified the Entity Workspace system, described previously, to test such designs. We have evaluated the resulting design in both a laboratory study and a study where it is situated with an analysis team. In both cases, effects on collaboration appear to be positive. Key aspects of the design include an evidence notebook optimized for organizing entities (rather than text characters), information structures that can be collapsed and expanded, visualization of evidence that emphasizes events and documents (rather than emphasizing the entity graph), and a notification system that finds entities of mutual interest to multiple analysts. Long-term tests suggest that this approach can support both top-down and bottom-up styles of analysis.

Motocross medicine.

Motocross is an increasingly popular but high-risk sport. This article reviews the history of motocross, the relevant medical literature, the unique medical issues, safety equipment, and the expert recommended approach to providing support for such events. Assessment of an injured rider on or near a track requires a provider to first ensure scene safety, then assess for airway, cervical spine, and head injuries before proceeding. Although extremity injuries are the most common injury, motocross riders frequently sustain significant spine and head trauma as well. Caregivers need to have a complete understanding of the protective gear used in motocross. They also need to be able to understand what injuries can be treated at the scene and which need transport to a hospital for more definitive care.