Clinical outcomes in revision lumbar spine fusions: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compared primary lumbar spine fusions with revision fusions by using patient Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores to evaluate the impact of the North American Spine Society (NASS) evidence-based medicine (EBM) lumbar fusion indications on patient-reported outcome measures of revision surgeries. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients who underwent elective lumbar fusion between January 2018 and December 2019 at a single quaternary spine surgery service and had a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. A prospective quality improvement database was constructed that included the data from all elective lumbar spine surgeries, which were categorized prospectively as primary or revision surgeries and EBM-concordant or EBM-discordant revision surgeries based on the NASS coverage EBM policy. In total, 309 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The ODIs of all groups (primary, revision, revision EBM concordant, and revision EBM discordant) were statistically compared. Differences in frequencies between cohorts were evaluated using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. The unpaired 2-tailed Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test for nonparametric data were used to compare continuous variables. Logistic regression was performed to determine the associations between independent variables (surgery status and NASS criteria indications) and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Primary lumbar fusions were significantly associated with improved functional outcomes compared with revisions, as evidenced by ODI scores (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16-2.95 to achieve a minimal clinically important difference, p = 0.01). The percentage of patients whose functional status had declined at the 6-month postoperative evaluation was significantly higher in patients who had undergone a revision surgery than in those who underwent a primary surgery (23% vs 12.3%, respectively). An increase in ODI score, indicating worse clinical outcome after surgery, was greater in patients who underwent revision procedures (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.17-3.91, p = 0.0014). Patients who underwent EBM-concordant revision surgery had significantly improved mean ODI scores compared with those who underwent EBM-discordant revision surgery (7.02 ± 5.57 vs -4.6 ± 6.54, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective quality improvement program investigation illustrate that outcomes of primary lumbar fusions were superior to outcomes of revisions. However, revision procedures that met EBM guidelines were associated with greater improvements in ODI scores, which indicates that the use of defined EBM guideline criteria for reoperation can improve clinical outcomes of revision lumbar fusions.

Independent Predictors of Revision Lumbar Fusion Outcomes and the Impact of Spine Surgeon Variability: Does It Matter Whether the Primary Surgeon Revises?

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information regarding treatment strategies and variables affecting outcomes of revision lumbar fusions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of primary vs different surgeon on functional outcomes of revisions. METHODS: All elective lumbar fusion revisions, March 2018 to August 2019, were retrospectively categorized as performed by the same or different surgeon who performed the primary surgery. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and clinical variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression identified multivariable-adjusted odds ratio (OR) of independent variables analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 130 cases, 117 (90%) had complete data. There was a slight difference in age in the same (median: 59; interquartile range [IQR], 54-66) and different surgeon (median: 67; IQR, 56-72) groups (P = .02); all other demographic variables were not significantly different (P > .05). Revision surgery with a different surgeon had an ODI improvement (median: 8; IQR, 2-14) greater than revisions performed by the same surgeon (median: 1.5; IQR, -3 to 10) (P < .01). Revisions who achieved minimum clinically important difference (MCID) performed by different surgeon (59.7%) were also significantly greater than the ones performed by the same surgeon (40%) (P = .042). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a different surgeon revising (OR, 2.37; [CI]: 1.007-5.575, P = .04) was an independent predictor of MCID achievement, each additional 2 years beyond the last surgery conferred a 2.38 ([CI]: 1.36-4.14, P < .01) times greater odds of MCID achievement, and the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach decreased the chance of achieving MCID (OR, 0.19; [CI]: 0.04-0.861, P = .03). CONCLUSION: All revision lumbar spinal fusion approaches may not achieve the same outcomes. This analysis suggests that revision surgeries may have better outcomes when performed by a different surgeon.

An Investigation of a Novel Dural Repair Device for Intraoperative Incidental Durotomy Repair.

Incidental durotomies, or dural tears, can be very difficult and time consuming to repair properly when they are encountered in confined spaces. A novel dural repair device was developed to address these situations. In this paper, the novel device was assessed against the use of traditional tools and techniques for dural repairs in two independent studies using an intricate clinical simulation model. The aim was to examine the results of the two assessments and link the outcomes to the clinical use of the novel device in the operating room. The novel device outperformed conventional techniques as measured by dural repair time, CSF leak pressure and nerve root avoidance in the simulation. The results were generally replicable clinically, however, numerous additional clinical scenarios were also encountered that the simulation model was unable to capture due to various inherent limitations. The simulation model design, potential contributors to watertightness, clinical experiences, and limitation are discussed.

Are Guidelines Important? Results of a Prospective Quality Improvement Lumbar Fusion Project.

BACKGROUND: United States (U.S.) healthcare is a volume-based inefficient delivery system. Value requires the consideration of quality, which is lacking in most healthcare disciplines. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients who met specific evidence-based medicine (EBM)-based criteria preoperatively for lumbar fusion would achieve higher rates of achieving the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) than those who did not meet the EBM indications. METHODS: All elective lumbar fusion cases, March 2018 to August 2019, were prospectively evaluated and categorized based on EBM guidelines for surgical indications. The MCID was defined as a reduction of ≥5 points in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Multiple logistic regression identified multivariable-adjusted odds ratio of EBM concordance. RESULTS: A total of 325 lumbar fusion patients were entered with 6-mo follow-up data available for 309 patients (95%). The median preoperative ODI score was 24.4 with median 6-mo improvement of 7.0 points (P < .0001). Based on ODI scores, 79.6% (246/309) improved, 3.8% (12/309) had no change, and 16% (51/309) worsened. A total of 191 patients had ODI improvement reaching the MCID. 93.2% (288/309) cases were EBM concordant, while 6.7% (21/309) were not.In multivariate analysis, EBM concordance (P = .0338), lower preoperative ODI (P < .001), lower ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) (P = .0056), and primary surgeries (P = .0004) were significantly associated with improved functional outcome. EBM concordance conferred a 3.04 (95% CI 1.10-8.40) times greater odds of achieving MCID in ODI at 6 mo (P = .0322), adjusting for other factors. CONCLUSION: This analysis provides validation of EBM guideline criteria to establish optimal patient outcomes. The EBM concordant patients had a greater than 3 times improved outcome compared to those not meeting EBM fusion criteria.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Spine Surgery.

: This next issue of Evidence-Based Recommendations for Spine Surgery examines six articles that seek to address pressing and relevant issues in contemporary spine surgery. These articles explore the safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid during lumbar surgery, the utility of post-operative MRI after spinal decompression surgery, the role of teriparatide for fusion support in osteoporotic patients, sagittal spinopelvic alignment in adults, the comparative effectiveness of lumbar disk arthroplasty and prognostic factors for satisfaction after lumbar decompression surgery. These important publications are examined rigorously - both clinically and methodologically - and recommendations regarding impact on clinical practice are provided.Level of Evidence: N/A.

Spontaneous Fusion of S2/S3 Spondyloptosis in an Adult.

BACKGROUND: Spondyloptosis is grade V on the Meyerding classification. Traumatic spondyloptosis can occur throughout the spinal column, particularly at junctional levels, and finding an ideal surgical strategy to address it remains a challenge for spinal surgeons. The sacrum is considered a united bone in adults, and sacral intersegmental spondyloptosis is extremely rare. CASE REPORT: Herein, we present an unusual case of S2/S3 spondyloptosis in a 27-year-old female patient with spontaneous solid fusion. CONCLUSIONS: This case demonstrates that similar distal sacral pathologies may be managed conservatively when there is no associated neurologic deficit, and the osteodiskoligamentous integrity of the lumbosacropelvic unit remains intact. Our report plus the very few published papers in the literature illustrate the natural history of uncomplicated traumatic spondyloptosis and support the role of in situ fusion and instrumentation as a reliable alternative to circumferential fusion in patients who cannot tolerate staged or prolonged operations.

Arachnolysis or cerebrospinal fluid diversion for adult-onset syringomyelia? A Systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To identify surgical practice patterns in the literature for nonpediatric syringomyelia by systematic review and to determine the following: 1) What is the best clinical practice of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion to maximize clinical improvement or to achieve the lowest recurrence rate? 2) Does arachnolysis, rather than CSF diversion, lead to prolonged times to clinical recurrence? METHODS: A database search comprising PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted to find pertinent articles on postinfectious, posttraumatic, or idiopathic syringomyelia. RESULTS: An advanced PubMed search in August 2012 yielded 1350 studies, including 12 studies meeting Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria for level IV evidence as a case series, with a total of 410 patients (mean age, 39 years). Data on 486 surgeries were collected. Mean follow-up data were available for 10 studies, with a mean follow-up time of 62 months. On regression analysis, increased age had a significant correlation with a higher likelihood of having clinically significant recurrence on mean follow-up (P < 0.05). The use of arachnolysis in surgery was associated with a longer duration until clinically symptomatic recurrence (P = 0.02). Data on mortality were unavailable. The mean number of surgeries per patient across all studies was 1.20 (range, 0.95-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: With postinfectious and posttraumatic etiologies, arachnolysis was the only surgical treatment to have a statistically significant effect on decreasing recurrence rates. More prospective, randomized, controlled studies are required to reach a clear consensus.

Correlation of posterior occipitocervical angle and surgical outcomes for occipitocervical fusion.

Study Type Retrospective cohort study. Introduction Craniocervical instability is a surgical disease, most commonly due to rheumatoid arthritis, trauma, erosive pathologies such as tumors and infection, and advanced degeneration. Treatment involves stabilization of the craniovertebral junction by occipitocervical instrumentation and fusion. However, the impact of the fixed occipitocervical angle on surgical outcomes, in particular the need for revision surgery and the incidence of dysphagia, remains unknown. Occipitocervical fusions (OCFs) at a single institution were reviewed to evaluate the relationships between postoperative neck alignment, the need for revision surgery, and dysphagia. Objective The objective of this study is to determine whether an increased posterior occipital cervical angle results in an increase in the need for revision surgery, and secondary, dysphagia. Methods A retrospective review of spinal surgery patients from January 2007 to June 2013 was conducted searching for patients who underwent an occipitocervical instrumented fusion utilizing diagnostic and procedural codes. Specifically, a current procedural code of 22590 (arthrodesis, posterior technique [craniocervical]) was queried, as well those with a description of "craniocervical" or "occipitocervical" arthrodesis. Ideal neck alignment before rod placement was judged by the attending surgeon. A review of all cases for revision surgery or evidence of dysphagia was then conducted. Results From January 2007 to June 2013, 107 patients were identified (31 male, 76 female, mean age 63). Rheumatoid arthritis causing myelopathy was the most common indication for OCF, followed by trauma. Twenty of the patients were lost to follow-up and seven died within the perioperative period. Average follow-up for the remaining 80 patients was 16.4 months. The mean posterior occipitocervical angle (POCA), defined as the angle formed by the intersection of a line drawn tangential to the posterior aspect of the occipital protuberance and a line determined by the posterior aspect of the facets of the third and fourth cervical vertebrae, calculated after stabilization, was 107.1 degrees (range, 72-140 degrees). Reoperation was required in 11 patients (11/107, 10.3%). The mean POCA for the reoperation group was 109.5 degrees (range, 72-123) and was not significantly different than patients not requiring reoperation (106.5, p > 0.05). However, for all pathologies excluding infection as a cause for reoperation, the mean POCA was significantly higher, 115.14 degrees (p = 0.039) (Table 1). Seven patients (6.5%) complained of dysphagia postoperatively with a significantly higher POCA of 115 degrees (p = 0.039). Of these seven patients, six underwent posterior-only procedures. One patient underwent anterior and posterior procedures for a severe kyphotic deformity. The dysphagia resolved in six patients over a mean of 3 weeks (range, 2-4 weeks). One patient, whose surgery was posterior only, required the insertion of a gastrostomy tube. Conclusions An elevated POCA may result in need for reoperation due to increased biomechanical stress upon adjacent segments or the construct itself due to flexion in an attempt to maintain forward gaze. Further, an elevated POCA seems to also correlate with a higher incidence of dysphagia. Further investigation is necessary to determine the ideal craniocervical angle which is likely individualized to a particular patient based on global and regional spinal alignments.

Nasal MRSA colonization: impact on surgical site infection following spine surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies published in the cardiothoracic, orthopedic and gastrointestinal surgery have identified the importance of nasal (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) MRSA screening and subsequent decolonization to reduce MRSA surgical site infection (SSI). This is the first study to date correlating nasal MRSA colonization with postoperative spinal MRSA SSI. OBJECTIVE: To assess the significance of nasal MRSA colonization in the setting of MRSA SSI. METHODS: A retrospective electronic chart review of patients from year 2011 to June 2013 was conducted for patients with both nasal MRSA colonization within 30 days prior to spinal surgery. Patients who tested positive for MRSA were put on contact isolation protocol. None of these patients received topical antibiotics for decolonization of nasal MRSA. RESULTS: A total of 519 patients were identified; 384 negative (74%), 110 MSSA-positive (21.2%), and 25 (4.8%) MRSA-positive. Culture positive surgical site infection (SSI) was identified in 27 (5.2%) cases and was higher in MRSA-positive group than in MRSA-negative and MSSA-positive groups (12% vs. 5.73% vs. 1.82%; p=0.01). The MRSA SSI rate was 0.96% (n=5). MRSA SSI developed in 8% of the MRSA-positive group as compared to only in 0.61% of MRSA-negative group, with a calculated odds ratio of 14.23 (p=0.02). In the presence of SSI, nasal MRSA colonization was associated with MRSA-positive wound culture (66.67 vs. 12.5%; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Preoperative nasal MRSA colonization is associated with postoperative spinal MRSA SSI. Preoperative screening and subsequent decolonization using topical antibiotics may help in decreasing the incidence of MRSA SSI after spine surgery. Nasal MRSA+ patients undergoing spinal surgery should be informed regarding their increased risk of developing surgical site infection.

En bloc resection of upper thoracic chordoma via a combined simultaneous anterolateral thoracoscopic and posterior approach.

BACKGROUND: En bloc resection of chordomas is associated with increased patient survival. Achievement of en bloc resection, however, may present a great surgical challenge, particularly in the mobile spine. Novel multidisciplinary techniques may enable en bloc resection of lesions presenting in anatomically challenging locations. A combined simultaneous thoracoscopic and posterior approach in a patient with an upper thoracic chordoma is presented; en bloc resection was achieved. OBJECTIVE: To show the feasibility, safety, and utility of performing a thoracoscopy-assisted en bloc resection of a chordoma involving the upper thoracic spine. METHODS: A case study is presented of a patient with biopsy-proven chordoma of T2-3 with predominantly paravertebral involvement who underwent multilevel en bloc resection via a simultaneous combined anterolateral thoracoscopic and posterior approach. Thoracoscopic assistance achieved separation of the tumor and ventral spine from the adjacent mediastinal structures. En bloc resection proceeded without complication. The spine was stabilized with posterior instrumentation. RESULTS: A multilevel en bloc resection was achieved with negative margins, preserving more than half of the remaining vertebral bodies and allowing short segment posterior fixation without extension into the cervical spine. The patient remained neurologically intact. CONCLUSION: A combined simultaneous thoracoscopic and posterior approach is safe and effective for en bloc resection of multilevel chordoma involving the upper thoracic spine. This technique allows for a plane to be established ventrally between the tumor and the mediastinum, thus assisting with safe osteotomies via the posterior approach.