The Impact of Social Determinants of Health on Discharge Disposition Following One- and Two-Level Posterior Interbody Fusion.

Background Current research is limited in exploring the impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) on the discharge location within elective spine surgery. Further understanding of the influence of SDOH on disposition is necessary to improve outcomes. This study explores how SDOH influence discharge disposition for patients undergoing one- or two-level posterior interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF). Methods This was a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study. Patients who underwent TLIF/PLIF between 2017 and 2020 at a single academic medical center were identified. The chart review gathered demographics, perioperative characteristics, intra/post-operative complications, discharge disposition, and 90-day outcomes. Discharge dispositions included subacute nursing facility (SNF), home with self-care (HSC), home with health services (HHS), and acute rehab facility (ARF). Demographic, perioperative, and disposition outcomes were analyzed by chi-square analysis and one-way ANOVA based on gender, race, and income quartiles. Results Propensity score matching for significant demographic factors isolated 326 patients. The rate of discharge to SNF was higher in females compared to males (25.00% vs 10.56%; p=0.001). Men were discharged to home at a higher rate than women (75.4% vs 61.95%; p=0.010). LatinX patients had the highest rate of home discharge, followed by Asians, Caucasians, and African Americans (83.33% vs 70.31% vs 66.45% vs 65.90%; p<0.001). The post hoc Tukey test demonstrated statistically significant differences between Asians and all other races in the context of age and BMI. Additionally, patients discharged to SNF showed the highest Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score, followed by those at ARF, HHS, and HSC (4.36 vs 4.05 vs 2.87 vs 2.37; p<0.001). The estimated median income for the cohort ranged from $52,000 to $250,001, with no significant differences in income seen across comparisons. Conclusion Discharge disposition following one- or two-level TLIF/PLIF shows significant association with gender and race. No association was seen when comparing discharge rates among zip code-level median income quartiles.

Reoperation Rates Due to Adjacent Segment Disease Following Primary 1 to 2-Level Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the approach of the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF; open vs . minimally invasive (MIS)] on reoperation rates due to ASD at 2 to 4-year follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adjacent segment degeneration is a complication of lumbar fusion surgery, which may progress to adjacent segment disease (ASD) and cause debilitating postoperative pain potentially requiring additional operative management for relief. MIS TLIF surgery has been introduced to minimize this complication but the impact on ASD incidence is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For a cohort of patients undergoing 1 or 2-level primary TLIF between 2013 and 2019, patient demographics and follow-up outcomes were collected and compared among patients who underwent open versus MIS TLIF using the Mann-Whitney U test, Fischer exact test, and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference in revision rates due to ASD between MIS and open TLIFs at 2 (5.8% vs . 15.4%, P =0.021) and 3 (8% vs . 23.2%, P =0.03) year follow-up, with open TLIFs demonstrating significantly higher revision rates. The surgical approach was the only independent predictor of reoperation rates at both 2 and 3-year follow-ups (2 yr, P =0.009; 3 yr, P =0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Open TLIF was found to have a significantly higher rate of reoperation due to ASD compared with the MIS approach. In addition, the surgical approach (MIS vs . open) seems to be an independent predictor of reoperation rates.

Multidisciplinary conference for complex surgery leads to improved quality and safety.

INTRODUCTION: Complex surgery for adult spinal deformity has high rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Preoperative discussions of high-risk operative spine patients at a multidisciplinary conference may contribute to decreased rates of these adverse outcomes through appropriate patient selection and surgical plan optimization. With this goal, we implemented a high-risk case conference involving orthopedic and neurosurgery spine, anesthesia, intraoperative monitoring neurology, and neurological intensive care. METHODS: Included in this retrospective review were patients ≥ 18 years old meeting one of the following high-risk criteria: 8 + levels fused, osteoporosis with 4 + levels fused, three column osteotomy, anterior revision of the same lumbar level, or planned significant correction for severe myelopathy, scoliosis (> 75˚), or kyphosis (> 75˚). Patients were categorized as Before Conference (BC): surgery before 2/19/2019 or After Conference (AC): surgery after 2/19/2019. Outcome measures include intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperations. RESULTS: 263 patients were included (96 AC, 167 BC). AC was older than BC (60.0 vs 54.6, p = 0.025) and had lower BMI (27.1 vs 28.9, p = 0.047), but had similar CCI (3.2 vs 2.9 p = 0.312), and ASA Classification (2.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.790). Surgical characteristics, including levels fused (10.6 vs 10.7, p = 0.839), levels decompressed (1.29 vs 1.25, p = 0.863), 3 column osteotomies (10.4% vs 18.6%, p = 0.080), anterior column release (9.4% vs 12.6%, p = 0.432), and revision cases (53.1% vs 52.4%, p = 0.911) were similar between AC and BC. AC had lower EBL (1.1 vs 1.9L, p < 0.001) and fewer total intraoperative complications (16.7% vs 34.1%, p = 0.002), including fewer dural tears (4.2% vs 12.6%, p = 0.025), delayed extubations (8.3% vs 22.8%%, p = 0.003), and massive blood loss (4.2% vs 13.2%, p = 0.018). Length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups (7.2 vs 8.2 days, 0.251). AC had a lower incidence of deep surgical site infections (SSI, 1.0% vs 6.6%, p = 0.038), but a higher rate of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy (18.8% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). Other postoperative complications were similar between groups. AC had lower rates of reoperation at 30 (2.1% vs 8.4%, p = 0.040) and 90 days (3.1 vs 12.0%, p = 0.014) and lower readmission rates at 30 (3.1% vs 10.2%, p = 0.038) and 90 days (6.3 vs 15.0%, p = 0.035). On logistic regression, AC patients had higher odds of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy and lower odds of delayed extubation, intraoperative RBC, and intraoperative salvage blood. CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of a multidisciplinary high-risk case conference, 30- and 90-day reoperation and readmission rates, intraoperative complications, and postoperative deep SSIs decreased. Hypotensive events requiring vasopressors increased, but did not result in longer LOS or greater readmissions. These associations suggest a multidisciplinary conference may help improve quality and safety for high-risk spine patients. particularly through minimizing complications and optimizing outcomes in complex spine surgery.

Evaluation of Health-related Quality of Life Improvement in Patients Undergoing Cervical Versus Shoulder Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of outcomes in cervical spine and shoulder arthroscopy patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess differential improvements in health-related quality of life for cervical spine surgery compared with shoulder surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An understanding of outcome differences between different types of orthopedic surgeries is helpful in counseling patients about expected postoperative recovery. This study compares outcomes in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with arthroscopic shoulder surgery using computer-adaptive Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing cervical spine surgery (1-level or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement) or arthroscopic shoulder surgery (rotator cuff repair±biceps tenodesis) were grouped. Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS: Cervical spine (n=127) and shoulder (n=91) groups were similar in sex (25.8% vs. 41.8% female, P =0.731) but differed in age (51.6±11.6 vs. 58.60±11.2, P <0.05), operative time (148.3±68.6 vs. 75.9±26.9 min, P <0.05), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.0±0.5, P =0.001), smoking status (15.7% vs. 4.4%, P =0.008), and length of stay (1.1±1.0 vs. 0.3±0.1, P =0.000). Spine patients had worse physical function (36.9 ±12.6 vs. 49.4±8.6, P <0.05) and greater pain interference (67.0±13.6 vs. 61.7±4.8, P =0.001) at baseline. Significant improvements were seen in all domains by 3 months for both groups, except for physical function after shoulder surgery. Spine patients had greater physical function improvements at all timepoints (3.33 vs. -0.43, P =0.003; 4.81 vs. 0.08, P =0.001; 6.5 vs. -5.24, P =<0.05). Conversely, shoulder surgery patients showed better 6-month improvement in pain intensity over spine patients (-8.86 vs. -4.46, P =0.001), but this difference resolved by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical spine patients had greater relative early improvement in physical function compared with shoulder patients, whereas pain interference and intensity did not significantly differ between the 2 groups after surgery. This will help in counseling patients about relative difference in recovery and improvement between the 2 surgery types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Comparative Analysis of Inpatient Opioid Consumption Between Different Surgical Approaches Following Single Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate inpatient MME administration associated with different lumbar spinal fusion surgeries. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with a diagnosis of Grade I or II spondylolisthesis, stenosis, degenerative disc disease or pars defect who underwent one-level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) or one-level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) or Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) through traditional MIS, anterior-posterior position or single position approaches between L2-S1. Outcome measures included patient demographics, surgical procedure and approach, perioperative clinical characteristics, incidence of ileus and inpatient MME. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA with a post-hoc Tukey Test and Kruskal-Wallis Test with post-hoc Mann-Whitney test. MME was calculated as per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and previous literature. Significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: Mean age differed significantly between MIS TLIF (55.6 ± 12.5 years) and all other groups (Open TLIF 57.1 ± 12.5, SP ALIF/LLIF 57.9 ± 9.9, TP ALIF/LLIF 50.9 ± 12.7, Open ALIF/LLIF 58.4 ± 15.5). MIS TLIF had the shortest LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Total MME was significantly different between MIS TLIF and Open ALIF/LLIF (172.5 MME vs 261.1 MME, P = .044) as well as MIS TLIF and TP ALIF/LLIF (172.5 MME vs 245.4 MME, P = .009). There were no significant differences in MME/hour and incidence of ileus between all groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing MIS TLIF had lower inpatient opioid intake compared to TP and SP ALIF/LLIF, as well as shorter LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Thus, it appears that the advantages of minimally invasive surgery are seen in minimally invasive TLIFs.

Incidence of dysphagia following posterior cervical spine surgery.

Abundant literature exists describing the incidence of dysphagia following anterior cervical surgery; however, there is a paucity of literature detailing the incidence of dysphagia following posterior cervical procedures. Further characterization of this complication is important for guiding clinical prevention and management. Patients ≥ 18 years of age underwent posterior cervical fusion with laminectomy or laminoplasty between C1-T1. Pre- and post-operative dysphagia was assessed by a speech language pathologist. The patient cohort was categorized by approach: Laminectomy + Fusion (LF) and Laminoplasty (LP). Patients were excluded from radiographic analyses if they did not have both baseline and follow-up imaging. The study included 147 LF and 47 LP cases. There were no differences in baseline demographics. There were three patients with new-onset dysphagia in the LF group (1.5% incidence) and no new cases in the LP group (p = 1.000). LF patients had significantly higher rates of post-op complications (27.9% LF vs. 8.5% LP, p = 0.005) but not intra-op complications (6.1% LF vs. 2.1% LP, p = 0.456). Radiographic analysis of the entire cohort showed no significant changes in cervical lordosis, cSVA, or T1 slope. Both group comparisons showed no differences in incidence of dysphagia pre and post operatively. Based on this study, the likelihood of developing dysphagia after LF or LP are similarly low with a new onset dysphagia rate of 1.5%.

Reducing Postoperative Opioid-prescribing Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion Does Not Significantly Change Patient Satisfaction.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative; LOE-3. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, an institutional opioid reduction prescribing policy following one- or two-level lumbar fusion has on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous research has demonstrated that high levels of opioid-prescribing may be related, in part, to a desire to produce superior patient satisfaction. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted on patients who underwent one- or two-level lumbar fusions L3-S1 between October 2014 and October 2019 at a single institution. Patients with complete survey information were included in the analysis. Patients with a history of trauma, fracture, spinal deformity, fusions more than two levels, or prior lumbar fusion surgery L3-S1 were excluded. Cohorts were based on date of surgery relative to implementation of an institutional opioid reduction policy, which commenced in October 1, 2018. To better compare groups, opioid prescriptions were converted into milligram morphine equivalents (MME). RESULTS: A total of 330 patients met inclusion criteria: 259 pre-protocol, 71 post-protocol. There were 256 one-level fusions and 74 two-level fusions included. There were few statistically significant differences between groups with respect to patient demographics (P > 0.05) with the exception of number of patients who saw the pain management service, which increased from 36.7% (95) pre-protocol to 59.2% (42) post-protocol; P < 0.001. Estimated blood loss (EBL) decreased from 533 ±â€Š571 mL to 346 ±â€Š328 mL (P = 0.003). Percentage of patients who underwent concomitant laminectomy decreased from 71.8% to 49.3% (P < 0.001). Average opioids prescribed on discharge in the pre-protocol period was 534 ±â€Š425 MME, compared to after initiation of the protocol, that is 320 ±â€Š174 MME (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference with respect to satisfaction with pain control, 4.49 ±â€Š0.85 pre-protocol versus 4.51 ±â€Š0.82 post-protocol (P = 0.986). CONCLUSION: A reduction in opioids prescribed at discharge after one- or two-level lumbar fusion is not associated with any statistically significant change in patient satisfaction with pain management, as measured by the HCAHPS survey.Level of Evidence: 3.

Characterizing the Effect of Perioperative Narcotic Consumption and Narcotic Prescription Dosing at Discharge on Satisfaction With Pain Control for Patients Undergoing Single-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs) between October 2014 and October 2019. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of perioperative narcotic consumption and amount of narcotic prescribed at discharge on patient satisfaction with pain control after single-level ACDF. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Prior research has demonstrated that opioid prescription habits may be related to physician desire to produce superior patient satisfaction with pain control. METHODS: Patients with complete Press-Ganey Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey information were analyzed. Inpatient opioid prescriptions were recorded and converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MME) and tablets of 5 mg oxycodone. HCAHPS scores were converted to a Likert-type 5-point scale. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Average age was 48.1±10.9 y. Average inpatient opioids prescribed was 102±106 MME. Average opioids prescribed at discharge was 437±342 MME. No statistically significant correlation was found between satisfaction with pain control and opioid consumption while in the hospital [r=-0.106, P=0.483]. Similarly, there was no statistically significant correlation between satisfaction with pain control and opioids prescribed upon discharge [r=-0.185, P=0.219]. No statistically significant correlation was found between date of surgery and inpatient MME consumption [r=-0.113, P=0.450]. Interestingly, more opioids were prescribed at discharge the earlier the date of surgery [r=-0.426, P=0.003]. For every additional month further along in the study period, the odds of a patient reporting a top box score for satisfaction with pain control increased by 5.5% [P=0.025]. CONCLUSION: Our study found no correlation between patient satisfaction with pain control and inpatient opioid dosage or outpatient prescription dosage after single-level ACDF. Moreover, satisfaction with pain control increased over time despite a decrease in MME prescribed at discharge. This suggests that factors other than narcotic consumption play a more important role in patient satisfaction with pain control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

COVID-19 pandemic and elective spinal surgery cancelations - what happens to the patients?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide suspensions of elective surgeries due to reallocation of resources to the care of COVID-19 patients. Following resumption of elective cases, a significant proportion of patients continued to delay surgery, with many yet to reschedule, potentially prolonging their pain and impairment of function and causing detrimental long-term effects. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients who have and have not rescheduled their spine surgery procedures originally cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to evaluate the reasons for continued deferment of spine surgeries even after the lifting of the mandated suspension of elective surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective case series at a single institution PATIENT SAMPLE: Included were 133 patients seen at a single institution where spine surgery was canceled due to a state-mandated suspension of elective surgeries from March to June, 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: The measures assessed included preoperative diagnoses and neurological dysfunction, surgical characteristics, reasons for surgery deferment, and PROMIS scores of pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function. METHODS: Patient electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients who had not rescheduled their canceled surgery as of January 31, 2021, and did not have a reason noted in their charts were called to determine the reason for continued surgery deferment. Patients were divided into three groups: early rescheduled (ER), late rescheduled (LR), and not rescheduled (NR). ER patients had a date of surgery (DOS) prior to the city's Phase 4 reopening on July 20, 2020; LR patients had a DOS on or after that date. Statistical analysis of the group findings included analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test, independent samples T-test, and chi-square analysis with significance set at p≤.05. RESULTS: Out of 133 patients, 47.4% (63) were in the ER, 15.8% (21) in the LR, and 36.8% (49) in the NR groups. Demographics and baseline PROMIS scores were similar between groups. LR had more levels fused (3.6) than ER (1.6), p= .018 on Tukey HSD. NR (2.1) did not have different mean levels fused than LR or ER, both p= >.05 on Tukey HSD. LR had more three column osteotomies (14.3%) than ER and (1.6%) and NR (2.0%) p=.022, and fewer lumbar microdiscectomies (0%) compared to ER (20.6%) and NR (10.2%), p=.039. Other surgical characteristics were similar between groups. LR had a longer length of stay than ER (4.2 vs 2.4, p=.036). No patients in ER or LR had a nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Of NR, 2.0% have a future surgery date scheduled and 8.2% (4) are acquiring updated exams before rescheduling. 40.8% (20; 15.0% total cohort) continue to defer surgery over concern for COVID-19 exposure and 16.3% (8) for medical comorbidities. 6.1% (3) permanently canceled for symptom improvement. 8.2% (4) had follow-up recommendations for non-surgical management. 4.1% (2) are since deceased. CONCLUSION: Over 1/3 of elective spine surgeries canceled due to COVID-19 have not been performed in the 8 months from when elective surgeries resumed in our institution to the end of the study. ER patients had less complex surgeries planned than LR. NR patients continue to defer surgery primarily over concern for COVID-19 exposure. The toll on the health of these patients as a result of the delay in treatment and on their lives due to their inability to return to normal function remains to be seen.

Comparison of Plastic Surgeon and Spine Surgeon Closure in Revision Short Segment Thoracolumbar Spinal Fusions.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of plastic versus spine surgeon wound closure in revision 1 to 4 level thoracolumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Plastic surgeons perform layered musculocutaneous flap closures in high-risk spine patients such as revision posterior spinal fusion and complex deformity correction surgeries. Few studies have assessed outcomes of revision fusion performed with plastic surgical closures, particularly in nondeformity thoracolumbar spinal surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1 to 4 level revision thoracolumbar fusion performed by Orthopedic or Neurosurgical spine surgeons. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics and perioperative outcomes. Patients were divided into two cohorts: wound closures performed by spine surgeons and those closed by plastic surgeons. Outcomes were analyzed before and after propensity score match for prior levels fused, iliac fixation, and levels fused at index surgery. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-seven (87.3%) spine surgeon (SS) and 52 (12.7%) plastic surgeon (PS) closures were identified. PS group had significantly higher number of levels fused at index (PS 2.7 ±â€Š1.0 vs. SS 1.8 ±â€Š0.9, P < 0.001) and at prior surgeries (PS 1.8 ±â€Š1.2 vs. SS 1.0 ±â€Š0.9, P < 0.001), and rate of iliac instrumentation (PS 17.3% vs. SS 2.8%, P < 0.001). Plastics closure was an independent risk factor for length of stay  > 5 days (odds ratio 2.3) and postoperative seroma formation (odds ratio 7.8). After propensity score match, PS had higher rates of seromas (PS 36.5% vs. SS 3.8%, P < 0.001). There were no differences between PS and SS groups in surgical outcomes, perioperative complication, surgical site infection, seroma requiring aspiration, or return to operating room at all time points until follow-up (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Plastic spinal closure for 1 to 4 level revision posterior thoracolumbar fusions had no advantage in reducing wound complications over spine surgeon closure but increased postoperative seroma formation.Level of Evidence: 4.

Clinical photographs in the assessment of adult spinal deformity: a comparison to radiographic parameters.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to reliably predict sagittal and coronal spinal alignment with clinical photographs by using markers placed at easily localized anatomical landmarks. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients with adult spinal deformity were enrolled from a single center. Full-length standing radiographs were obtained at the baseline visit. Clinical photographs were taken with reflective markers placed overlying C2, S1, the greater trochanter, and each posterior-superior iliac spine. Sagittal radiographic parameters were C2 pelvic angle (CPA), T1 pelvic angle (TPA), and pelvic tilt. Coronal radiographic parameters were pelvic obliquity and T1 coronal tilt. Linear regressions were performed to evaluate the relationship between radiographic parameters and their photographic "equivalents." The data were reanalyzed after stratifying the cohort into low-body mass index (BMI) (< 30) and high-BMI (≥ 30) groups. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was assessed for clinical measures via intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: A total of 38 patients were enrolled (mean age 61 years, mean BMI 27.4 kg/m2, 63% female). All regression models were significant, but sagittal parameters were more closely correlated to photographic parameters than coronal measurements. TPA and CPA had the strongest associations with their photographic equivalents (both r2 = 0.59, p < 0.001). Radiographic and clinical parameters tended to be more strongly correlated in the low-BMI group. Clinical measures of TPA and CPA had high intraobserver reliability (all ICC > 0.99, p < 0.001) and interobserver reliability (both ICC > 0.99, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The photographic measures of spinal deformity developed in this study were highly correlated with their radiographic counterparts and had high inter- and intraobserver reliability. Clinical photography can not only reduce radiation exposure in patients with adult spinal deformity, but also be used to assess deformity when full-spine radiographs are unavailable.

Age and Gender Confound PROMIS Scores in Spine Patients With Back and Neck Pain.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center retrospective review. OBJECTIVES: To explore how age and gender affect PROMIS scores compared with traditional health-related quality of life (HRQL) in spine patients. METHODS: Patients presenting with a primary complaint of back pain (BP) or neck pain (NP) were included. Legacy HRQLs were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Intensity (Int), and Pain Interference (Inf) were also administered to patients in a clinical setting. Patients were grouped by chief complaint, age (18-44, 45-64, 65+ years) and gender. Two parallel analyses were conducted to identify the effects of age and gender on patient-reported outcomes. Age groups were compared after propensity-score matching by VAS-pain and gender. Separately, genders were compared after propensity-score matching by age and VAS-pain. RESULTS: A total of 484 BP and 128 NP patients were matched into gender cohorts (n = 201 in each BP group, 46 in each NP group). Among BP patients, female patients demonstrated worse disability by ODI (44.15 vs 38.45, P = .005); PROMIS-PF did not differ by gender. Among NP patients, neither legacy HRQLs nor PROMIS differed by gender when controlling for NP and age. BP and NP patients were matched into age cohorts (n = 135 in each BP group and n = 14 in each BP group). Among BP patients, ANOVA revealed differences between groups when controlling for BP and gender: ODI (P < .001), PROMIS-PF (P = .018), PROMIS-Int (P < .001) PROMIS-Inf (P < .001). Among NP patients, matched age groups differed significantly in terms of NDI (P = .032) and PROMIS-PF (P = .022) but not PROMIS-Int or PROMIS-Inf. CONCLUSIONS: Age and gender confound traditional HRQLs as well as PROMIS domains. However, PROMIS offers age and gender-specific scores, which traditional HRQLs lack.

Biologics and Minimally Invasive Approach to TLIFs: What Is the Risk of Radiculitis?

BACKGROUND: Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and allograft containing mesenchymal stem cells (live cell) are popular biologic substitutes for iliac crest autograft used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Use of these agents in the pathogenesis of postoperative radiculitis remains controversial. Recent studies have independently linked minimally invasive (MIS) TLIF with increased radiculitis risk compared to open TLIF. The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of postoperative radiculitis in open and MIS TLIF patients along with its relationship to concurrent biologic adjuvant use. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years undergoing single-level TLIF from June 2012 to December 2018 with minimum 1-year follow-up were included. Outcome measures were rate of radiculitis, intra- and postoperative complications, revision surgery; length of stay (LOS), and estimated blood loss (EBL). RESULTS: There were 397 patients: 223 with open TLIFs, 174 with MIS TLIFs. One hundred and fifty-nine surgeries used bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), 26 live cell, 212 neither. Open TLIF: higher mean EBL, LOS, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) than MIS. Postoperative radiculitis in 37 patients (9.32% overall): 16 cases MIS BMP (15.69% of their cohort), 6 MIS without BMP (8.33%), 5 open BMP (8.77%), 10 open without BMP (6.02%). MIS TLIF versus open TLIF: no differences in 1-year reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. BMP versus non-BMP: no differences in reoperation rates, infection/wound complication, pseudarthrosis, or postoperative complication rate. Multivariate logistic regression found that neither BMP (P = .109) nor MIS (P = .314) was an independent predictor for postoperative radiculitis when controlled for age, gender, body mass index, and CCI. Using paired open and MIS groups (N = 168 each) with propensity score matching, these variables were still not independently associated with radiculitis (P = .174 BMP, P = .398 MIS). However, the combination of MIS with BMP was associated with increased radiculitis risk in both the entire patient cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 2.259 [1.117-4.569], P = .023, N = 397) and PSM cohorts (OR: 2.196 [1.045-4.616], P = .038, N = 336) compared to other combinations of surgical approach and biologic use. CONCLUSION: Neither the MIS approach nor BMP use is an independent risk factor for post-TLIF radiculitis. However, risk of radiculitis significantly increases when they are used in tandem. This should be considered when selecting biological adjuvants for MIS TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Complication Risk in Primary and Revision Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparable Alternative to Conventional Open Techniques?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of prospective patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar fusion at a single academic institution. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in perioperative outcomes between primary and revision MIS (minimally invasive surgical) lumbar interbody fusion patients and compare with those undergoing corresponding open procedures. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old undergoing lumbar interbody fusion were grouped by surgical technique: MIS or open. Patients within each group were propensity score matched for comorbidities and levels fused. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and perioperative complication incidences were compared between primary and revision cases using means comparison tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 214 lumbar interbody fusion patients included after propensity score matching, 44 (21%) cases were MIS, and 170 (79%) were open. For MIS patients, there were no significant differences between primary and revision cases in estimated blood loss (EBL; 344 vs 299 cm3, P = .682); however, primary cases had longer operative times (301 vs 246 minutes, P = .029). There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, readmission, and intraoperative or postoperative complications (all P > .05). For open patients, there were no differences between primary and revision cases in EBL (P > .05), although revisions had longer operative times (331 vs 278 minutes, P = .018) and more postoperative complications (61.7% vs 23.8%, P < .001). MIS revision procedures were shorter than open revisions (182 vs 213 minutes, P = .197) with significantly less EBL (294 vs 965 cm3, P < .001), shorter inpatient and intensive care unit LOS, and fewer postoperative complications (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcomes of revision MIS lumbar interbody fusion were similar to those of primary surgery. Additionally, MIS techniques were associated with less EBL, shorter LOS, and fewer perioperative complications than corresponding open revisions.

ODI Cannot Account for All Variation in PROMIS Scores in Patients With Thoracolumbar Disorders.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of single institution. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in thoracolumbar patients. METHODS: Included: Patients ≥18 years with a thoracolumbar spine condition (spinal stenosis, disc herniation, low back pain, disc degeneration, spondylolysis). Bivariate correlations assessed the linear relationships between ODI and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Intensity, and Pain Interference). Correlation cutoffs assessed patients with high and low correlation between ODI and PROMIS. Linear regression predicted the relationship of ODI to PROMIS. RESULTS: A total of 206 patients (age 53.7 ± 16.6 years, 49.5% female) were included. ODI correlated with PROMIS Physical Function (r = -0.763, P < .001), Pain Interference (r = 0.800, P < .001), and Pain Intensity (r = 0.706, P < .001). ODI strongly predicted PROMIS for Physical Function (R 2 = 0.58, P < .001), Pain Intensity (R 2 = 0.50, P < .001), and Pain Interference (R 2 = 0.64, P < .001); however, there is variability in PROMIS that ODI cannot account for. ODI questions about sitting and sleeping were weakly correlated across the 3 PROMIS domains. Linear regression showed overall ODI score as accounting for 58.3% (R 2 = 0.583) of the variance in PROMIS Physical Function, 63.9% (R 2 = 0.639) of the variance in Pain Interference score, and 49.9% (R 2 = 0.499) of the variance in Pain Intensity score. CONCLUSIONS: There is a large amount of variability with PROMIS that cannot be accounted for with ODI. ODI questions regarding walking, social life, and lifting ability correlate strongly with PROMIS while sitting, standing, and sleeping do not. These results reinforce the utility of PROMIS as a valid assessment for low back disability, while indicating the need for further evaluation of the factors responsible for variation between PROMIS and ODI.

Prevalence of Risk Factors for Hospital-Acquired Venous Thromboembolism in Neurosurgery and Orthopedic Spine Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired venous thromboembolisms (HA-VTE) are a significant source of morbidity and mortality in spine surgery patients. The purpose of this study was to review HA-VTE rates at our institution and evaluate the prevalence of known risk factors in patients who developed HA-VTE among both neurosurgical and orthopedic spine surgeries. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were conducted of all spine surgery patients from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2017, to evaluate rates of HA-VTE and prevalence of known HA-VTE risk factors among these patients. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis for categorical variables and independent Student t test for continuous variables were utilized with significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: The overall HA-VTE rate was 0.94% (0.61% orthopedic, 1.87% neurosurgery). Patients with VTEs had higher rates of thoracic procedure (P = .002), posterior approach (P = .001), diagnosis of fracture (P = .013) or flatback syndrome (P = .028), neurosurgery division (P < .001), and diagnosis-related group (DRG) of noncervical malignancy (P = .001). Patients with VTEs had lower rates of cervical procedure (P < .001), diagnosis of herniated nucleus pulposus (P = .006) and degenerative disc disease (P = .001), and DRG of cervical spine fusion (P < .001). In the patients who sustained VTE, the neurosurgical patients had higher rates of active cancer (22.86% vs 0%, P = .004) and age >60 (80% vs 50%, P < .001), and orthopedic patients had higher estimated blood loss (EBL) (2436 ml vs 1176 mL, P = .006) and rates of anterior-posterior surgery (22.58% vs 0%, P = .003). Neurosurgery department, diagnosis of fracture, and DRG of noncervical malignancy were found to be significant independent risks for developing HA-VTE. Cervical procedures were independently associated with significantly lower risk. Postoperative anticoagulation initiated sooner in neurosurgery patients (postoperative day 1.26 vs 3.19, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall HA-VTE rate at our institution was 0.94% (0.61% orthopedic, 1.87% neurosurgery). In patients who sustained VTE, neurosurgical patients had higher rates of active cancer and age >60 years, and orthopedic patients had higher EBL and rates of anterior-posterior surgery. This highlights the different patient populations between the 2 departments and the need for individualized thromboprophylaxis regimens. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

MRI Radiological Predictors of Requiring Microscopic Lumbar Discectomy After Lumbar Disc Herniation.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To investigate radiological differences in lumbar disc herniations (herniated nucleus pulposus [HNP]) between patients receiving microscopic lumbar discectomy (MLD) and nonoperative patients. METHODS: Patients with primary treatment for an HNP at a single academic institution between November 2012 to March 2017 were divided into MLD and nonoperative treatment groups. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), axial HNP area; axial canal area; HNP canal compromise; HNP cephalad/caudal migration and HNP MRI signal (black, gray, or mixed) were measured. T test and chi-square analyses compared differences in the groups, binary logistic regression analysis determined odds ratios (ORs), and decision tree analysis compared the cutoff values for risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (78 MLD, 207 nonoperative) were included. Risk factors for MLD treatment included larger axial HNP area (P < .01, OR = 1.01), caudal migration, and migration magnitude (P < .05, OR = 1.90; P < .01, OR = 1.14), and gray HNP MRI signal (P < .01, OR = 5.42). Cutoff values for risks included axial HNP area (70.52 mm2, OR = 2.66, P < .01), HNP canal compromise (20.0%, OR = 3.29, P < .01), and cephalad/caudal migration (6.8 mm, OR = 2.43, P < .01). MLD risk for those with gray HNP MRI signal (67.6% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area >70.52 mm2 (75.5%, P = .01) and HNP canal compromise >20.0% (71.1%, P = .05) cutoffs. MLD risk in patients with cephalad/caudal migration >6.8 mm (40.5% alone) increased when combined with axial HNP area and HNP canal compromise (52.4%, 50%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent MLD treatment had significantly different axial HNP area, frequency of caudal migration, magnitude of cephalad/caudal migration, and disc herniation MRI signal compared to patients with nonoperative treatment.

Management of Adult Lumbar Spine Problems for General Orthopaedic Surgeons: A Practical Guide.

Low back pain is one of the most common reasons for physician visits, leading to high heath care costs and disability. Patients may present to primary care physicians, pain management physicians, chiropractors, physical therapists, or surgeons with these complaints. A thorough history and physical examination coupled with judicious use of advanced imaging studies will aid in determining the etiology of the pain. As most cases of low back pain are self-limited and will not develop into chronic pain, nonsurgical treatment is the mainstay. First-line treatment includes exercise, superficial heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation. Pharmacologic treatment should be reserved for patients unresponsive to nonpharmacologic treatment and may include NSAIDs or muscle relaxants. Surgery is reserved for patients with pain nonresponsive to a full trial of nonsurgical interventions and with imaging studies which are concordant with physical examination findings.

Predictors of long-term opioid dependence in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a focus on pre-operative opioid usage.

PURPOSE: Predictors of long-term opioid usage in TLIF patients have not been previously explored in the literature. We examined the effect of pre-operative narcotic use in addition to other predictors of the pattern and duration of post-operative narcotic usage. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single academic institution of patients undergoing a one- or two-level primary TLIF between 2014 and 2017. Total oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) for inpatient use were calculated and used as the common unit of comparison. RESULTS: A multivariate binary logistic regression (R2 = 0.547, specificity 95%, sensitivity 58%) demonstrated that a psychiatric or chronic pain diagnosis (OR 3.95, p = 0.013, 95% CI 1.34-11.6), pre-operative opioid use (OR 8.65, p < 0.001, 95% CI 2.59-29.0), ASA class (OR 2.95, p = 0.025, 95% CI 1.14-7.63), and inpatient total MME (1.002, p < 0.001, 95% CI 1.001-1.003) were positive predictors of prolonged opioid use at 6-month follow-up, while inpatient muscle relaxant use (OR 0.327, p = 0.049, 95% CI 0.108-0.994) decreased the probability of prolonged opioid use. Patients in the pre-operative opioid use group had a significantly higher rate of opioid usage at 6 weeks (79% vs. 46%, p < 0.001), 3 months (51% vs. 14%, p < 0.001), and 6 months (40% vs. 5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative opioid usage is associated with higher total inpatient opioid use and a significantly higher risk of long-term opiate usage at 6 months. Approximately 40% of pre-operative narcotic users will continue to consume narcotics at 6-month follow-up, compared with 5% of narcotic-naïve patients. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Trends in Pain Medication Prescriptions and Satisfaction Scores in Spine Surgery Patients at a Single Institution.

BACKGROUND: As the opioid crisis has gained national attention, there have been increasing efforts to decrease opioid usage. Simultaneously, patient satisfaction has been a crucial metric in the American health care system and has been closely linked to effective pain management in surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to examine rates of pain medication prescription and concurrent patient satisfaction in spine surgery patients. METHODS: A total of 1729 patients undergoing spine surgery between June 25, 2017, and June 30, 2018, at a single institution by surgeons performing ≥20 surgeries per quarter, with medication data during hospitalization available, were assessed. Patients were evaluated for nonopioid pain medication prescription rates and morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of opioids used during hospitalization. Of the total cohort, 198 patients were evaluated for Press Ganey Satisfaction Survey responses. A χ2 test of independence was used to compare percentages, and 1-way analysis of variance was used to compare means across quarters. RESULTS: The mean total MME per patient hospitalization was 574.46, with no difference between quarters. However, mean MME per day decreased over time (P = .048), with highest mean 91.84 in Quarter 2 and lowest 77.50 in Quarter 4. Among all procedures, acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and steroid prescription rates increased, whereas benzodiazepine and γ-aminobutyric acid-analog prescriptions decreased. There were no significant differences between quarters for mean hospital ratings (P = .521) nor for responses to questions from the Press Ganey Satisfaction Survey regarding how often staff talk about pain (P = .164), how often staff talk about pain treatment (P = .595), or whether patients recommended the hospital (P = .096). There were also no differences between quarters for responses in all other patient satisfaction questions (P value range, .359-.988). CONCLUSIONS: Over the studied time period, opioid use decreased and nonopioid prescriptions increased during hospitalization, whereas satisfaction scores remained unchanged. These findings indicate an increasing effort in reducing opioid use among providers and suggest the ability to do so without affecting overall satisfaction rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The opioid epidemic has highlighted the need to reduce opioid usage in orthopedic spine surgery. This study reviews the trends for inpatient management of post-op pain in orthopedic spine surgery patients in relation to patient satisfaction. There was a significant increase in non-opioid analgesic pain medications, and a reduction in opioids during the study period. During this time, patient satisfaction as measured by Press-Ganey surveys did not show a decrease. This demonstrates that treatment of post-operative pain in orthopedic spine surgery patients can be managed with less opioids, more multimodal analgesia, and patient satisfaction will not be affected.