Average Lumbar Hounsfield Units Predicts Osteoporosis-Related Complications Following Lumbar Spine Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Study. OBJECTIVE: To compare methods of assessing pre-operative bone density to predict risk for osteoporosis related complications (ORC), defined as proximal junctional kyphosis, pseudarthrosis, accelerated adjacent segment disease, reoperation, compression fracture, and instrument failure following spine fusions. METHODS: Chart review of primary posterior thoracolumbar or lumbar fusion patients during a 7 year period. Inclusion criteria: preoperative dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test within 1 year and lumbar CT scan within 6 months prior to surgery with minimum of 1 year follow-up. Exclusion criteria: <18 years at time of index procedure, infection, trauma, malignancy, skeletal dysplasia, neuromuscular disorders, or anterior-posterior procedures. RESULTS: 140 patients were included. The average age was 67.9 years, 83 (59.3%) were female, and 45 (32%) had an ORC. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between those with and without an ORC. Multilevel fusions were associated with ORCs (46.7% vs 26.3%, p = 0.02). Patients with ORCs had lower DXA t-scores (-1.62 vs -1.10, p = 0.003) and average Hounsfield units (HU) (112.1 vs 148.1, p ≤ 0.001). Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis showed lower average HU (Adj. OR 0.00 595% CI 0.0001-0.1713, p = 0.001) was an independent predictor of an ORC. The odds of an ORC increased by 1.7-fold for every 25 point decrease in average HU. CONCLUSIONS: The gold standard for assessing bone mineral density has been DXA t-scores, but the best predictor of ORC remains unclear. While both lower t-scores and average HU were associated with ORC, only HU was an independent predictor of ORC.

A Multicenter Evaluation of the Feasibility, Patient/Provider Satisfaction, and Value of Virtual Spine Consultation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, patient/provider satisfaction, and perceived value of telehealth spine consultation after rapid conversion from traditional in-office visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Data were obtained for patients undergoing telehealth visits with spine surgeons in the first 3 weeks after government restriction of elective surgical care at 4 sites (March 23, 2020, to April 17, 2020). Demographic factors, technique-specific elements of the telehealth experience, provider confidence in diagnostic and therapeutic assessment, patient/surgeon satisfaction, and perceived value were collected. RESULTS: A total of 128 unique visits were analyzed. New (74 [58%]), preoperative (26 [20%]), and postoperative (28 [22%]) patients were assessed. A total of 116 (91%) visits had successful connection on the first attempt. Surgeons felt very confident 101 times (79%) when assessing diagnosis and 107 times (84%) when assessing treatment plan. The mean and median patient satisfaction was 89% and 94%, respectively. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher for video over audio-only visits (P < 0.05). Patient satisfaction was not significantly different with patient age, location of chief complaint (cervical or thoracolumbar), or visit type (new, preoperative, or postoperative). Providers reported that 76% of the time they would choose to perform the visit again in telehealth format. Sixty percent of patients valued the visit cost as the same or slightly less than an in-office consultation. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate the feasibility and high patient/provider satisfaction of virtual spine surgical consultation, and appropriate reimbursement and balanced regulation for spine telehealth care is essential to continue this existing work.

Is there consensus on the perioperative management of Xa inhibitors in patients undergoing elective spine surgery?-A survey of current spine surgeon practices.

BACKGROUND: Factor Xa inhibitors (Xai) are an increasingly common consideration in perioperative anticoagulation management. However, there no existing guidelines established for use in Spine Surgery. This survey study aims to capture current practice trends regarding the perioperative management of Xai among spine surgeons. METHODS: An 11-question survey was sent to all surgeon members of 3 spinal surgery societies. Responses were remitted anonymously. Questions characterized the background and experience of the respondent and inquired into their current perioperative Xai and other anticoagulant management. Questions were all single-best option, multiple-choice. RESULTS: A total of 116 surveys were received. Twenty-six (22.4%) were from neurosurgeons and 90 (77.6%) were from orthopedic surgeons. Practiced preoperative Xai hold length tended to be longer than recommended by the respondent's medical colleagues. Only 65.2% (P≤0.0001) of respondents practiced in agreement with the recommendations of their medical colleagues. Postoperative Xai holds trended toward longer holds than that of other anticoagulants with 37.9% (P=0.0125) of respondents showed differences within their own practice between length of Xai hold and length of other anticoagulant holds. One out of four respondents reported noticing a change in the rate of perioperative bleeding complications among Xai patients. Despite reported increased bleeding issues, only 39% of those who noted this increase in bleeding complications reported they would hold a Xai longer than other anticoagulants. CONCLUSIONS: There exists a wide range of recommended and practiced chronic anticoagulant hold lengths. This inconsistency likely highlights conflicting risk aversion among surgeons, between complications which are viewed as medical (i.e., thromboembolism and stroke) vs. surgical (i.e., compressive hematoma). Yet, survey responses suggest the length of Xai hold times did not necessarily reflect the surgeon's experience with postoperative bleeding complications in Xai patients. These inconsistent practices highlight the need for further research that can establish guidelines for perioperative management of Xai patients undergoing spine surgery. KEYWORDS: Anticoagulants; factor Xa inhibitors (factor Xai); spine; orthopedic surgery; neurosurgery.

Osteoporosis in spine surgery patients: what is the best way to diagnose osteoporosis in this population?

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare different recognized definitions of osteoporosis in patients with degenerative lumbar spine pathology undergoing elective spinal fusion surgery to determine which patient population should be considered for preoperative optimization. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients in whom lumbar spine surgery was planned at 2 academic medical centers was performed, and the rate of osteoporosis was compared based on different recognized definitions. Assessments were made based on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), CT Hounsfield units (HU), trabecular bone score (TBS), and fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX). The rate of osteoporosis was compared based on different definitions: 1) the WHO definition (T-score ≤ -2.5) at total hip or spine; 2) CT HU of < 110; 3) National Bone Health Alliance (NBHA) guidelines; and 4) "expanded spine" criteria, which includes patients meeting NBHA criteria and/or HU < 110, and/or "degraded" TBS in the setting of an osteopenic T-score. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with a DXA scan of the total hip and/or spine performed within 1 year and a lumbar spine CT scan within 6 months of the physician visit. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four patients were included. The mean age was 68.3 years, with 70.5% female, 96.7% Caucasian, and the mean BMI was 28.8. Fracture history was reported in 53.8% of patients. The proportion of patients identified with osteoporosis on DXA, HUs, NBHA guidelines, and the authors' proposed "expanded spine" criteria was 25.4%, 36.5%, 75%, and 81.9%, respectively. Of the patients not identified with osteoporosis on DXA, 31.3% had osteoporosis based on HU, 55.1% had osteoporosis with NBHA, and 70.4% had osteoporosis with expanded spine criteria (p < 0.05), with poor correlations among the different assessment tools. CONCLUSIONS: Limitations in the use of DXA T-scores alone to diagnose osteoporosis in patients with lumbar spondylosis has prompted interest in additional methods of evaluating bone health in the spine, such as CT HU, TBS, and FRAX, to inform guidelines that aim to reduce fracture risk. However, no current osteoporosis assessment was developed with a focus on improving outcomes in spinal surgery. Therefore, the authors propose an expanded spine definition for osteoporosis to identify a more comprehensive cohort of patients with potential poor bone health who could be considered for preoperative optimization, although further study is needed to validate these results in terms of clinical outcomes.