Impact of Metabolic Syndrome on Early Postoperative Outcomes After Cervical Disk Replacement: A Propensity-matched Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the demographics, perioperative variables, and complication rates following cervical disk replacement (CDR) among patients with and without metabolic syndrome (MetS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The prevalence of MetS-involving concurrent obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia-has increased in the United States over the last 2 decades. Little is known about the impact of MetS on early postoperative outcomes and complications following CDR. METHODS: The 2005-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients who underwent primary 1- or 2-level CDR. Patients with and without MetS were divided into 2 cohorts. MetS was defined, according to other National Surgical Quality Improvement Program studies, as concurrent diabetes mellitus, hypertension requiring medication, and body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 . Rates of 30-day readmission, reoperation, complications, length of hospital stay, and discharge disposition were compared using χ 2 and Fisher exact tests. One to 2 propensity-matching was performed, matching for demographics, comorbidities, and number of operative levels. RESULTS: A total of 5395 patients were included for unmatched analysis. Two hundred thirty-six had MetS, and 5159 did not. The MetS cohort had greater rates of 30-day readmission (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P =0.023), morbidity (2.5% vs. 0.9%; P =0.032), nonhome discharges (3% vs. 0.6%; P =0.002), and longer hospital stays (1.35±4.04 vs. 1±1.48 days; P =0.029). After propensity-matching, 699 patients were included. All differences reported above lost significance ( P >0.05) except for 30-day morbidity (superficial wound infections), which remained higher for the MetS cohort (2.5% vs. 0.4%, P =0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We identified MetS as an independent predictor of 30-day morbidity in the form of superficial wound infections following single-level CDR. Although MetS patients experienced greater rates of 30-day readmission, nonhome discharge, and longer lengths of stay, MetS did not independently predict these outcomes after controlling for baseline differences in patient characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference following cervical disc replacement.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: While cervical disc replacement (CDR) has been emerging as a reliable and efficacious treatment option for degenerative cervical spine pathology, not all patients undergoing CDR will achieve minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) postoperatively-risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in PROMs following CDR have not been established. PURPOSE: To identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in Neck Disability Index (NDI, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck and arm following primary 1- or 2-level CDRs in the early and late postoperative periods. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who had undergone primary 1- or 2-level CDR for the treatment of degenerative cervical pathology at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 6 weeks between 2017 and 2022. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported outcomes: Neck disability index (NDI), Visual analog scale (VAS) neck and arm, MCID. METHODS: Minimal clinically important difference achievement rates for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm within early (within 3 months) and late (6 months to 2 years) postoperative periods were assessed based on previously established thresholds. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed for each PROM and evaluation period, with failure to achieve MCID assigned as the outcome variable, to establish models to identify risk factors for failure to achieve MCID and predictors for achievement of MCID. Predictor variables included in the analyses featured demographics, comorbidities, diagnoses/symptoms, and perioperative characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients achieved MCID for NDI, VAS-Neck, and VAS-Arm for both early and late postoperative periods-79% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the early postoperative period, while 80% achieved MCID for at least one of the PROMs in the late postoperative period. Predominant neck pain was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for NDI in the early (OR: 3.13 [1.10-8.87], p-value: .032) and late (OR: 5.01 [1.31-19.12], p-value: .018) postoperative periods, and VAS-Arm for the late postoperative period (OR: 36.63 [3.78-354.56], p-value: .002). Myelopathy was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the early postoperative period (OR: 3.40 [1.08-10.66], p-value: .036). Anxiety was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID for VAS-Neck in the late postoperative period (OR: 6.51 [1.91-22.18], p-value: .003). CDR at levels C5C7 was identified as a risk factor for failure to achieve MCID in NDI for the late postoperative period (OR: 9.74 [1.43-66.34], p-value: .020). CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several risk factors for failure to achieve MCID in common PROMs following CDR including predominant neck pain, myelopathy, anxiety, and CDR at levels C5-C7. These findings may help inform the approach to counseling patients on outcomes of CDR as the evidence suggests that those with the risk factors above may not improve as reliably after CDR.

Recovery Kinetics After Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multisurgeon registry. OBJECTIVE: To study recovery kinetics and associated factors after cervical spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Few studies have described return to activities cervical spine surgery. This is a big gap in the literature, as preoperative counseling and expectations before surgery are important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent either anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disk replacement (CDR) were included. Data collected included preoperative patient-reported outcome measures, return to driving, return to working, and discontinuation of opioids data. A multivariable regression was conducted to identify the factors associated with return to driving by 15 days, return to working by 15 days, and discontinuing opioids by 30 days. RESULTS: Seventy ACDF patients and 70 CDR patients were included. Overall, 98.2% of ACDF patients and 98% of CDR patients returned to driving in 16 and 12 days, respectively; 85.7% of ACDF patients and 90.9% of CDR patients returned to work in 16 and 14 days; and 98.3% of ACDF patients and 98.3% of CDR patients discontinued opioids in a median of seven and six days. Though not significant, minimal (odds ratio (OR)=1.65) and moderate (OR=1.79) disability was associated with greater odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Sedentary work (OR=0.8) and preoperative narcotics (OR=0.86) were associated with decreased odds of returning to driving by 15 days. Medium (OR=0.81) and heavy (OR=0.78) intensity occupations were associated with decreased odds of returning to work by 15 days. High school education (OR=0.75), sedentary work (OR=0.79), and retired/not working (OR=0.69) were all associated with decreased odds of discontinuing opioids by 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery kinetics for ACDF and CDR are comparable. Most patients return to all activities after ACDF and CDR within 16 days. These findings serve as an important compass for preoperative counseling.

Improvement in predominant back pain following minimally invasive decompression for spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of patients with predominant back pain (pBP) undergoing minimally invasive decompression surgery compared with patients with nonpredominant back pain (npBP). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presenting complaint: 1) pBP, defined as visual analog scale (VAS) back pain score > VAS leg pain score; and 2) npBP. Changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared at the early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months) postoperative time points. Outcomes measures were: 1) PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], VAS back and leg pain scores, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Score [SF-12 PCS], and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function [PROMIS PF]), and 2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rate and time. For the late MCID achievement point, a second analysis was conducted restricting VAS back and leg pain scores only to patients with preoperative scores ≥ 5. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety patients were included (126 with pBP and 264 with npBP). There were no differences in patient demographics and operated levels. There were no differences in preoperative ODI, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF scores. The pBP cohort had a significantly greater preoperative VAS back pain score than the npBP cohort, whereas the npBP cohort had a significantly greater preoperative VAS leg pain score than the pBP cohort. There were no differences in the absolute values or changes in ODI, VAS back pain, SF-12 PCS, and PROMIS PF scores at any time point. There was a significant difference in the early VAS leg pain scores (greater in npBP) that disappeared by the late postoperative time point. There was no difference in the MCID achievement rate in the ODI, SF-12 PCS, or PROMIS PF scores. By the late postoperative time point, 51.2% and 55.3% achieved an MCID on the ODI, 58.1% and 62.7% on the SF-12 PCS, 60% and 67.6% on the PROMIS PF, 81.1% and 73.2% on VAS back pain scores for those with preoperative scores ≥ 5, and 72% and 83.6% on VAS leg pain scores for those with preoperative scores ≥ 5 for the pBP and npBP cohorts, respectively. Additionally, there were no differences in time to MCID achievement for any PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: The pBP and npBP cohorts showed similar improvement in PROMs and MCID achievement rates. This result shows that minimally invasive laminectomy is equally effective for patients presenting with pBP or npBP.

Female Sex and Supine Proximal Lumbar Lordosis Are Associated With the Size of the LLIF "Safe Zone" at L4-L5.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. OBJECTIVE: Identify demographic and sagittal alignment parameters that are independently associated with femoral nerve position at the L4-L5 disk space. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Iatrogenic femoral nerve or lumbar plexus injury during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) can result in neurological complications. The LLIF "safe zone" is the anterior half to two third of the disk space. However, femoral nerve position varies and is inconsistently identifiable on magnetic resonance imaging. The safe zone is also narrowest at L4-L5. METHODS: An analysis of patients with symptomatic lumbar spine pathology and magnetic resonance imaging with a visibly identifiable femoral nerve evaluated at a single large academic spine center from January 1, 2017, to January 8, 2020, was performed. Exclusion criteria were transitional anatomy, severe hip osteoarthritis, coronal deformity with cobb >10 degrees, > grade 1 spondylolisthesis at L4-L5 and anterior migration of the psoas.Standing and supine lumbar lordosis (LL) and its proximal (L1-L4) and distal (L4-S1) components were measured. Femoral nerve position on sagittal imaging was then measured as a percentage of the L4 inferior endplate. A stepwise multivariate linear regression of sagittal alignment and LL parameters was then performed. Data are written as estimate, 95% CI. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 58.2±14.7 years, 25 (34.2%) were female and 26 (35.6%) had a grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Mean femoral nerve position was 26.6±10.3% from the posterior border of L4. Female sex (-6.6, -11.1 to -2.1) and supine proximal lumbar lordosis (0.4, 0.1-0.7) were independently associated with femoral nerve position. CONCLUSIONS: Patient sex and proximal LL can serve as early indicators of the size of the femoral nerve safe zone during a transpsoas LLIF approach at L4-L5.

Supine and Dynamic Extension Radiographs as the Strongest Predictors of Post-operative Alignment in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: Failure to achieve alignment goals may result in accelerated adjacent segment degeneration and poorer outcomes. In "open" spine surgery, intraoperative tools can fine tune alignment; minimally invasive spine surgery techniques may not allow for this type of intraoperative adjustment. The aim of this study was to identify pre-operative radiographic parameters that accurately predict post-operative alignment after minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. We hypothesized that pre-operative supine and extension sagittal alignment would predict post-operative standing alignment. METHODS: 50 consecutive patients underwent lateral or anterior lumbar interbody fusion with or without percutaneous posterior instrumentation by a single-surgeon. Sagittal alignment parameters were evaluated on pre-operative standing scoliosis radiographs, dynamic radiographs, supine CT scout, and 6-week post-operative standing radiographs. Demographic and perioperative data were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age was 67.8 years. The mean BMI was 29.7. On average, 3 levels were instrumented (range, 2-6). Surgical time was 4.5 ± 1.8 hours. Following surgery, global lordosis increased from 44.7 ± 17° to 48.6 ± 16° (P = .001). However, there was no significant difference between the pre-operative supine (48.5 ± 15°), pre-operative extension (49.2 ± 18°), or 6-week post-operative standing radiographs (48.6 ± 16°). There were strong correlations between post-operative alignment and pre-operative supine (r = .825) and extension (r = .851) alignment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that pre-operative supine and extension radiographs could be a gold standard for minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery alignment correction as they predict post-operative alignment. The extension alignment was the strongest predictor of post-operative alignment.

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding. PURPOSE: To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy). CONCLUSIONS: These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

Factors Causing Delay in Discharge in Patients Eligible for Ambulatory Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the postoperative factors that led delayed discharge in patients who would have been eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion (ALF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Assessing postoperative inefficiencies is vital to increase the feasibility of ALF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and would have met the eligibility criteria for ALF were included. Length of stay (LOS); time in postanesthesia recovery unit (PACU); alertness and neurological examination, and pain scores at three and six hours; type of analgesia; time to physical therapy (PT) visit; reasons for PT nonclearance; time to per-oral (PO) intake; time to voiding; time to readiness for discharge were assessed. Time taken to meet each discharge criterion was calculated. Multiple regression analyses were performed to study the effect of variables on postoperative parameters influencing discharge. RESULTS: Of 71 patients, 4% were discharged on the same day and 69% on postoperative day 1. PT clearance was the last-met discharge criterion in 93%. Sixty-six percent did not get PT evaluation on the day of surgery. Seventy-six percent required intravenous opioids and <60% had adequate pain control. Twenty-six percent had orthostatic intolerance. The median postoperative LOS was 26.9 hours, time in PACU was 4.2 hours, time to PO intake was 6.5 hours, time to first void was 6.3 hours, time to first PT visit was 17.7 hours, time to PT clearance was 21.8 hours, and time to discharge readiness was 21.9 hours. Regression analysis showed that time to PT clearance, time to PO intake, time to voiding, time in PACU, and pain score at three hours had a significant effect on LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Unavailability of PT, surgery after 1  pm , orthostatic intolerance, inadequate pain control, prolonged PACU stay, and long feeding and voiding times were identified as modifiable factors preventing same-day discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Improvement following minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients 80 years or older compared with younger age groups.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients ≥ 80 years of age and compare them with those of younger age groups. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent primary unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) (any number of levels) and had a minimum of 1 year of follow-up were included and divided into three groups by age: < 60 years, 60-79 years, and ≥ 80 years. The outcome measures were 1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (visual analog scale [VAS] back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-12] Physical Component Summary [PCS] and Mental Component Summary [MCS] scores, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function [PROMIS PF]); 2) percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the time taken to do so; and 3) complications and reoperations. Two postoperative time points were defined: early (< 6 months) and late (≥ 6 months). RESULTS: A total of 345 patients (< 60 years: n = 94; 60-79 years: n = 208; ≥ 80 years: n = 43) were included in this study. The groups had significantly different average BMIs (least in patients aged ≥ 80 years), age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Indices (greatest in the ≥ 80-year age group), and operative times (greatest in 60- to 79-year age group). There was no difference in sex, number of operated levels, and estimated blood loss between groups. Compared with the preoperative values, the < 60-year and 60- to 79-year age groups showed a significant improvement in most PROMs at both the early and late time points. In contrast, the ≥ 80-year age group only showed significant improvement in PROMs at the late time point. Although there were significant differences between the groups in the magnitude of improvement (least improvement in ≥ 80-year age group) at the early time point in VAS back and leg, ODI, and SF-12 MCS, no significant difference was seen at the late time point except in ODI (least improvement in ≥ 80-year group). The overall MCID achievement rate decreased, moving from the < 60-year age group toward the ≥ 80-year age group at both the early (64% vs 51% vs 41% ) and late (72% vs 58% vs 52%) time points. The average time needed to achieve the MCID in pain and disability increased, moving from the < 60-year age group toward the ≥ 80-year age group (2 vs 3 vs 4 months). There was no significant difference seen between the groups in terms of complications and reoperations except in immediate postoperative complications (5.3% vs 4.8% vs 14%). CONCLUSIONS: Although in this study minimally invasive decompression led to less and slower improvement in patients ≥ 80 years of age compared with their younger counterparts, there was significant improvement compared with the preoperative baseline.