How Does the Severity of Neuroforaminal Compression in Cervical Radiculopathy Affect Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: This study is a retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: This study aims to determine whether preoperative neuroforaminal stenosis (FS) severity is associated with motor function patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Cervical FS can significantly contribute to patient symptoms. While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used to classify FS, there has been limited research into the impact of FS severity on patient outcomes. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary, elective 1-3 level ACDF for radiculopathy at a single academic center between 2015 and 2021 were identified retrospectively. Cervical FS was evaluated using axial T2-weighted MRI images via a validated grading scale. The maximum degree of stenosis was used for multilevel disease. Motor symptoms were classified using encounters at their final preoperative and first postoperative visits, with examinations ≤3/5 indicating weakness. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. Bivariate analysis was used to compare outcomes based on stenosis severity, followed by multivariable analysis. RESULTS: This study included 354 patients, 157 with moderate stenosis and 197 with severe stenosis. Overall, 58 patients (16.4%) presented with upper extremity weakness ≤3/5. A similar number of patients in both groups presented with baseline motor weakness (13.5% vs. 16.55, p =0.431). Postoperatively, 97.1% and 87.0% of patients with severe and moderate FS, respectively, experienced full motor recovery (p =0.134). At 1-year, patients with severe neuroforaminal stenosis presented with significantly worse 12-item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score (PCS-12) (33.3 vs. 37.3, p =0.049) but demonstrated a greater magnitude of improvement (Δ PCS-12: 5.43 vs. 0.87, p =0.048). Worse stenosis was independently associated with greater ΔPCS-12 at 1-year (ß =5.59, p =0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe FS presented with worse preoperative physical health. While ACDF improved outcomes and conferred similar motor recovery in all patients, those with severe FS reported much better improvement in physical function.

Reasons for transfer and subsequent outcomes among patients undergoing elective spine surgery at an orthopedic specialty hospital.

Objective: To evaluate the reasons for transfer as well as the 90-day outcomes of patients who were transferred from a high-volume orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) following elective spine surgery. Materials and Methods: All patients admitted to a single OSH for elective spine surgery from 2014 to 2021 were retrospectively identified. Ninety-day complications, readmissions, revisions, and mortality events were collected and a 3:1 propensity match was conducted. Results: Thirty-five (1.5%) of 2351 spine patients were transferred, most commonly for arrhythmia (n = 7; 20%). Thirty-three transferred patients were matched to 99 who were not transferred, and groups had similar rates of complications (18.2% vs. 10.1%; P = 0.228), readmissions (3.0% vs. 4.0%; P = 1.000), and mortality (6.1% vs. 0%; P = 0.061). Conclusion: Overall, this study demonstrates a low transfer rate following spine surgery. Risk factors should continue to be optimized in order to decrease patient risks in the postoperative period at an OSH.

Preoperative Opioid Prescribers and Lumbar Fusion: Their Effect on Clinical Outcomes and Postoperative Opioid Usage.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of multiple preoperative opioid prescribers on postoperative patient opioid usage and patient-reported outcome measures after single-level lumbar fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior literature has identified opioid prescriptions from multiple postoperative providers increase opioid usage rates. However, there is limited evidence on how multiple preoperative opioid prescribers affect postoperative opioid usage or clinical outcomes after a single-level lumbar fusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or posterolateral lumbar fusions between September 2017 and February 2020 at a single academic institution was performed. Patients were excluded if they were not identifiable in our state's prescription drug-monitoring program. Univariate comparisons and regression analyses identified factors associated with postoperative clinical outcomes and opioid usage. RESULTS: Of 239 patients, 160 (66.9%) had one or fewer preoperative prescribers and 79 (33.1%) had >1 prescribers. On regression analysis, the presence of multiple preoperative prescribers was an independent predictor of increased improvement in Visual Analog Scale (∆VAS) Back (ß=-1.61, P =0.012) and the involvement of a nonoperative spine provider was an independent predictor of increased improvement in ∆VAS Leg (ß = -1.53, P = 0.034). Multiple preoperative opioid prescribers correlated with an increase in opioid prescriptions postoperatively (ß = 0.26, P = 0.014), but it did not significantly affect the amount of morphine milligram equivalents prescribed (ß = -48.79, P = 0.146). A greater number of preoperative opioid prescriptions predicted worse improvements in VAS Back, VAS Leg, and Oswestry Disability Index and predicted increased postoperative opioid prescriptions, prescribers, and morphine milligram equivalents. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple preoperative opioid prescribers predicted increased improvement in postoperative back pain, whereas preoperative involvement of a nonoperative spine provider predicted improvements in leg pain after surgery. The number of preoperative opioid prescriptions was a better metric for predicting poor postoperative outcomes and increased opioid consumption compared with the number of preoperative opioid prescribers.

Is disc height loss at 1 year predictive of pseudarthrosis and patient-reported outcome measures following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with structural allograft?

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

An evaluation of patients with abdominal pain after lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Context: Abdominal pain after surgery can occur for numerous reasons. Postoperative radiographs may be indicated to evaluate for ileus or other reasons for the pain. Whether outcomes are significantly different based on whether patients get radiographs following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are unclear. Aims: To investigate the postoperative outcomes of patients experiencing abdominal pain after LLIF. Settings and Design: This retrospective cohort study included patients at a tertiary academic medical center and surrounding affiliated hospitals. Materials and Methods: Patients >18 years of age who underwent elective LLIF at a single institution were retrospectively identified. Patients were stratified into two groups depending on whether they received a postoperative abdominal radiograph or computed tomography (CT) scan for postoperative abdominal pain. Statistical Analysis: Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and surgical outcomes were compared between groups utilizing independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U-tests for continuous variables or Pearson's Chi-square tests for categorical variables. Results: A total of 153 patients (18 with abdominal scans, 135 without) were included. Patients who received a postoperative abdominal radiograph or CT scan were more likely to undergo exploratory laparotomy (11.1% vs. 0.00%, P = 0.013). Ultimately, patients with abdominal scans had a longer hospital length of stay (6.67 vs. 3.79 days, P = 0.002) and were discharged home less frequently (71.4% vs. 83.7%, P = 0.002). Conclusions: Patients who received abdominal imaging after LLIF were more likely to undergo exploratory laparotomy, experience longer hospital length of stay, and were discharged home less frequently. Intra-abdominal air on postoperative imaging without corresponding physical exam findings consistent with bowel injury is not an appropriate indication for surgical intervention.

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.

Paralysis: A Rare Presentation of Lemierre's Syndrome: A Case Report.

CASE: A patient presented with acute paralysis in the setting of undiagnosed Lemierre's syndrome. Streptococcus pyogenes was the causative organism leading to internal jugular vein thrombosis, sternocleidomastoid abscess, vertebral osteomyelitis, and epidural phlegmon. The patient was treated both surgically, with abscess evacuation, hemicorpectomy, and fusion, and medically, with antibiotics and anticoagulation. Postoperatively, the patient regained upper extremity strength and lower extremity sensation, but the paraplegia remained. CONCLUSION: Lemierre's syndrome is a rare complication of oropharyngeal infection with a constellation of findings including jugular thrombophlebitis, metastatic abscesses, and frequent involvement of anaerobic pathogens that may present acutely with paralysis.

Delayed pathologic tibial fracture with chronic osteomyelitis after fibula free flap.

The reported donor site morbidity of the fibula free flap (FFF) is low; however, several uncommon complications have been reported with tibia fracture rarely being reported. We present a case of a pathological tibial fracture in the setting of chronic osteomyelitis after FFF. A 54-year-old female presented with a benign fibro-osseous lesion of the right mandible and was treated with mandibulectomy and reconstructed with a left FFF. Approximately 1 year following surgery, the patient presented to the emergency department. Imaging showed a pathological fracture of the distal third of the tibial shaft with persistent erythema and cellulitis of the lateral prior graft harvest site without signs of systemic infection. She was taken to the operating room for irrigation and debridement with culture and biopsy as well as external fixation of the tibial fracture. Intraoperative biopsy and culture demonstrated fracture site change with callus formation and negative culture. The patient was discharged on 6 weeks of IV vancomycin and ceftriaxone. In conclusion, tibial fracture following FFF is an uncommon complication, yet it can be exacerbated by chronic osteomyelitis. This report highlights the importance of close observation and comprehensive wound care of donor sites after free flap harvest for head and neck reconstruction.

Comparison of Outcomes Including or Excluding the Level of Listhesis After ACDF in the Setting of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients with cervical degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), specifically comparing surgeries that include versus exclude the DS level. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: DS has been extensively studied in the lumbar spine associated with both back and leg pain leading to worse patient quality of life measures. Conversely, there is a relative dearth of literature regarding surgical and clinical outcomes in the setting of cervical DS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 315 patients undergoing ACDF between 2014 and 2018 with minimum of 1-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were retrospectively reviewed. Forty-six patients were found to have DS and were categorized based on whether an ACDF was performed at the same level (SL) or at a different level (DL) than the spondylolisthesis. Patient demographics, surgical parameters, preoperative and postoperative radiographs, and PROMs were compared between groups. RESULTS: Of the 315 patients, a total of 46 met the inclusion criteria including 21 SL and 25 DL patients. There were no significant differences in patient demographics between the groups. The SL cohort had a significantly worse preoperative sagittal vertical axis (SL: 34.4 vs. 26.1, P=0.025) but no difference in postoperative or delta sagittal vertical axis. Both patient cohorts reported significant postoperative improvement in all PROMs, except Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score in the SL group. There were no differences between the groups regarding Visual Analog Scale Neck, Visual Analog Scale Arm, Neck Disability Index, or Short-Form 12 Physical Component Score. Regression analysis demonstrated SL to be a significant negative predictor for improvement in Short-Form 12 Mental Component Score (ß: -11.27, P=0.10). CONCLUSION: Patients treated only at their neurologically symptomatic levels, excluding asymptomatic listhesis in their construct, can expect equivalent radiographic as well as physical function, disability, and pain outcomes 1 year after ACDF compared with patients whose listhetic level was included in their construct. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Non-mobile Adjacent Level Cervical Spondylolisthesis Does Not Always Require Fusion in Patients Undergoing ACDF.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes following anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) between patients with no adjacent level spondylolisthesis (NAS) and adjacent level spondylolisthesis (AS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are no prior studies evaluating the effect of preoperative adjacent-level cervical spondylolisthesis on outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent ACDF for degenerative cervical disease was performed. Adjacent level spondylolisthesis was defined on radiographs as anterior displacement (> 1 mm) of the vertebra in relation to an adjacent "to be fused" level. Patients were categorized as either AS or NAS. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative outcomes including Short Form-12 Physical and Mental Component Scores, Neck Disability Index, Visual Analog Score for arm and neck pain, and rate of revision surgery were compared between the two groups. Radiographic changes were also analyzed for patients with AS. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were 53 patients (20.1%) with AS and 211 patients (79.9%) with NAS. Both groups improved significantly from baseline with respect to all patient outcomes and there were no significant differences between the two groups. After accounting for confounding variables, the presence of an AS was not a predictor of any postoperative outcome. Revision rates did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with an AS had similar postoperative clinical outcomes compared with NAS. Furthermore, the presence of an AS was not a predictor of poorer clinical outcomes. This is the first study to investigate the effect of AS in patients undergoing ACDF and suggests that an adjacent-level spondylolisthesis does not need to be included in a fusion construct if it is not part of the primary symptom generating pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

How to Write an Effective Introduction.

Ideally, the Introduction is an essential attention grabbing section of a research paper. If written correctly, the Introduction peaks the reader's interest as well as serves as a roadmap for the rest of the paper. An effective Introduction builds off related empirical research and demonstrates a gap in which the current study fills. Finally, the Introduction proposes the research question(s) which will be answered in subsequent sections of the paper. A strong Introduction also requires the use of a simple and well-organized format as well as the avoidance of common pitfalls.

Evaluating initial spine trauma response: injury time to trauma center in PA, USA.

Historical perceptions regarding the severity of traumatic spinal cord injury has led to considerable disparity in triage to tertiary care centers. This article retrospectively reviews a large regional trauma database to analyze whether the diagnosis of spinal trauma affected patient transfer timing and patterns. The Pennsylvania Trauma database was retrospectively reviewed. All acute trauma patient entries for level I and II centers were categorized for diagnosis, mechanism, and location of injury, analyzing transportation modality and its influence on time of arrival. A total of 1162 trauma patients were identified (1014 blunt injuries, 135 penetrating injuries and 12 other) with a mean transport time of 3.9 hours and a majority of patients arriving within 7 hours (>75%). Spine trauma patients had the longest mean arrival time (5.2 hours) compared to blunt trauma (4.2 hours), cranial neurologic injuries (4.35 hours), and penetrating injuries (2.13 hours, p<0.0001). There was a statistically significant correlation between earlier arrivals and both cranial trauma (p=0.0085) and penetrating trauma (p<0.0001). The fastest modality was a fire rescue (0.93 hours) or police (0.63 hours) vehicle with Philadelphia County (1.1 hour) having the quickest arrival times. Most trauma patients arrived to a specialty center within 7 hours of injury. However subsets analysis revealed that spine trauma patients had the greatest transit times. Present research trials for spinal cord injuries suggest earlier intervention may lead to improved recovery. Therefore, it is important to focus on improvement of the transportation triage system for traumatic spinal patients.