Depression Identified on the Mental Component Score of the Short Form-12 Affects Health Related Quality of Life After Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to further elucidate the relationship between preoperative depression and patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) following lumbar decompression surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The impact of preoperative depression on PROMs after lumbar decompression surgery is not well established. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression between 1 and 3 levels were retrospectively identified. Patients were split into 2 groups using a preoperative Mental Component Score (MCS)-12 threshold score of 45.6 or 35.0 to identify those with and without depressive symptoms. In addition, patients were also split based on a pre-existing diagnosis of depression in the medical chart. Absolute PROM scores, the recovery ratio and the percent of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference between groups were compared, and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were included, with 125 (67.9%) in the MCS-12 >45.6 group and 59 (32.1%) in the MCS-12 ≤45.6 group. The MCS-12 ≤45.6 and MCS<35.0 group had worse baseline Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (P<0.001 for both) and Visual Analogue Scale Leg (P=0.018 and 0.024, respectively) scores. The MCS ≤45.6 group had greater disability postoperatively in terms of SF-12 Physical Component Score (PCS-12) (39.1 vs. 43.1, P=0.015) and ODI (26.6 vs. 17.8, P=0.006). Using regression analysis, having a baseline MCS-12 scores ≤45.6 before surgical intervention was a significant predictor of worse improvement in terms of PCS-12 [ß=-4.548 (-7.567 to -1.530), P=0.003] and ODI [ß=8.234 (1.433, 15.035), P=0.010] scores than the MCS-12 >45.6 group. CONCLUSION: Although all patients showed improved in all PROMs after surgery, those with MCS-12 ≤45.6 showed less improvement in PCS-12 and ODI scores.

Processing and Handling Cost of Single-use Versus Traditional Instrumentation for 1 Level Lumbar Fusions.

STUDY DESIGN: A single center, observational prospective clinical study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the instrumentation-related cost and efficiency of single-use instrumentation versus traditional reusable instrument trays. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Single-use instrumentation provides the opportunity to reduce costs associated with cleaning and sterilizing instrumentation after surgery. Although previous studies have shown single-use instrumentation is effective in other orthopedic specialties, it is unclear if single-use instrumentation could provide economic advantages in spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 (20 reusable instrumentation and 20 single-use instrumentation) lumbar decompression (1-3 level) and fusion (1 level) spine surgeries were collected. Instrument handling, opening, setup, re-stocking, cleaning, sterilization, inspection, packaging, and storage were recorded by direct observation for both reusable and single-use instrumentation. The rate of infection was noted for each group. RESULTS: Mean time of handling instruments by the scrub nurse was 11.6 (±3.9) minutes for reusable instrumentation and 2.1 (±0.5) minutes for single-use instrumentation. Mean cost of handling reusable instruments was estimated to be $8.52 (±$2.96) per case, and the average cost to reprocess a single tray by Sterilization Processing Department (SPD) was $58. Thus, the median cost for sterilizing 2 reusable trays per case was $116, resulting in an average total Costresuable of $124.52 (±$2.96). Mean cost of handling single-use instrumentation was estimated to be $1.57 ($0.38) per case. CONCLUSION: Single-use instrumentation provided greater cost savings and reduced time from the opening of instrumentation to use in surgery when compared with reusable instrumentation.

Are Patient Outcomes Affected by the Presence of a Fellow or Resident in Lumbar Decompression Surgery?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence of a fellow or resident (F/R) compared to a physician assistant (PA) affected surgical variables or short-term patient outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although orthopedic spine fellows and residents must participate in minimum number of decompression surgeries to gain competency, the impact of trainee presence on patient outcomes has not been assessed. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-one patients that underwent a one- to three-level lumbar spine decompression procedure at a high-volume academic center were retrospectively identified. Operative reports from all cases were examined and patients were placed into one of two groups based on whether the first assist was a F/R or a PA. Univariate analysis was used to compare differences in total surgery duration, 30-day and 90-day readmissions, infection and revision rates, patient-reported outcome measures (Short Form-12 Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score, Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale [VAS] Back, VAS Leg) between groups. Multiple linear regression was used to assess change in each patient reported outcome and multiple binary logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of revision, infection, and 30- or 90-day readmission. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included in the F/R group compared to 93 patients in the PA group. There were no differences between groups for total surgery time, 30-day or 90-day readmissions, infection, or revision rates. Using univariate analysis, there were no differences between the two groups pre- or postoperatively (P > 0.05). Using multivariate analysis, presence of a surgical trainee did not significantly influence any patient reported outcome and did not affect infection, revision, or 30- and 90-day readmission rates. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to show that the presence of an orthopedic spine fellow or resident does not affect patient short-term outcomes in lumbar decompression surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

BMI Does Not Affect Complications or Patient Reported Outcomes After Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective comparative review. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the influence of body mass index (BMI) on postsurgical complications and patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) following lumbar decompression surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Current literature does not accurately identify the impact of BMI on postsurgical complications or outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records from a single-center, academic hospital were used to identify patients undergoing 1 to 3-level lumbar decompression surgery. Patients under 18 years of age, those undergoing surgery for infection, trauma, tumor, or revision, and those with <1-year follow-up were excluded. Patients were split into groups based on preoperative BMI: class I: BMI <25.0 kg/m; class II: BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m; class III: BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m; and class IV: BMI >35.0 kg/m. Absolute PROM scores, the recovery ratio and the percent of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference between groups were compared and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients were included with 34 (17.4%) patients in group I, 80 (41.0%) in group II, 49 (25.1%) in group III, and 32 (16.5%) in group IV. Average age was 60.0 (58.0, 62.0) years and average follow-up was 13.0 (12.6, 13.4) months. All patients improved significantly within each group, except for class III and class IV patients, who did not demonstrate significant improvements in terms of Mental Component Score (MCS-12) scores (P=0.546 and 0.702, respectively). There were no significant differences between BMI groups for baseline or postoperative PROM values, recovery ratio, or the percent of patients reaching minimum clinically important difference. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that BMI was not a significant predictor for change in outcomes for any measure. The 30-day readmission rate was 6.2% and overall revision rate at final follow-up was 5.1%, with no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: This study's results suggest that BMI may not significantly affect complications or patient outcomes at 1-year in those undergoing lumbar decompression surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Statistics for the Practicing Spine Surgeon: Fundamental Measurements.

There are vast numbers of evidenced-based clinical trials produced each year, making it increasingly difficult to stay up to date with new treatments and protocols designed to provide the most optimal patient care. A physician's ability to combine existing knowledge with new data is limited by a basic understanding of the background statistics used in these studies. Our goal is to not only define the basic statistics commonly used in clinical trials but to also ensure that practitioners are able to have a working understanding of these statistical measurements to effectively make the most informed and efficacious decisions regarding patient management. On the basis of the recent growth of empirical spine literature, it is becoming more important for spine surgeons to have the basic statistical background necessary to efficiently interpret new data, which may affect clinical decision making regarding patient care.

Preoperative Mental Health Component Scoring Is Related to Patient Reported Outcomes Following Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort review. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify depression using the Mental Component Score (MCS-12) of the Short Form-12 (SF-12) survey and to correlate with patient outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The impact of preexisting depressive symptoms on health-care related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes following lumbar spine fusion is not well understood. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar fusion between one to three levels at a single center, academic hospital were retrospectively identified. Patients under the age of 18 years and those undergoing surgery for infection, trauma, tumor, or revision, and less than 1-year follow-up were excluded. Patients with depressive symptoms were identified using an existing clinical diagnosis or a score of MCS-12 less than or equal to 45.6 on the preoperative SF-12 survey. Absolute HRQOL scores, the recovery ratio (RR) and the percent of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference (MCID) between groups were compared, and a multiple linear regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 391 patients were included in the total cohort, with 123 (31.5%) patients reporting symptoms of depression based on MCS-12 and 268 (68.5%) without these symptoms. The low MCS-12 group was found to have significantly worse preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI), visual analogue scale back pain (VAS Back) and visual analogue scale leg pain (VAS Leg) scores, and postoperative SF-12 physical component score (PCS-12), ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg pain scores (P < 0.05) than the non-depressed group. Finally, multiple linear regression analysis revealed preoperative depression to be a significant predictor of worse outcomes after lumbar fusion. CONCLUSION: Patients with depressive symptoms, identified with an MCS-12 cutoff below 45.6, were found to have significantly greater disability in a variety of HRQOL domains at baseline and postoperative measurement, and demonstrated less improvement in all outcome domains included in the analysis compared with patients without depression. However, while the improvement was less, even the low MCS-12 cohort demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all HRQOL outcome measures after surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Propensity Score Matching: A Statistical Method.

Propensity score matching (PSM) is a commonly used statistical method in orthopedic surgery research that accomplishes the removal of confounding bias from observational cohorts where the benefit of randomization is not possible. An alternative to multiple regression analysis, PSM attempts to reduce the effects of confounders by matching already treated subjects with control subjects who exhibit a similar propensity for treatment based on preexisting covariates that influence treatment selection. It, therefore, establishes a new control group by discarding outlier control subjects. This new control group reduces the unwanted influences of covariates, allowing for proper measurement of the intended variable. An example from orthopedic spine literature is discussed to illustrate how PSM may be applied in practice. PSM is uniquely valuable in its utility and simplicity, but it is limited in that it requires the removal of data and works primarily on binary treatments. In addition to matching, the propensity score can be used for stratification, covariate adjustments, and inverse probability of treatment weighting, but these topics are outside the scope of this paper. Personnel in the orthopedic field would benefit from learning about the function and application of this method given its common use in the orthopedic literature.

Are Outcomes of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Influenced by Presurgical Depression Symptoms on the Mental Component Score of the Short Form-12 Survey?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether preoperative depressive symptoms, measured by mental component score of the Short Form-12 survey (MCS-12), influence patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) following an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery for cervical degeneration. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is a paucity of literature regarding preoperative depression and PROMs following ACDF surgery for cervical degenerative disease. METHODS: Patients who underwent an ACDF for degenerative cervical pathology were identified. A score of 45.6 on the MCS-12 was used as the threshold for depression symptoms, and patients were divided into two groups based on this value: depression (MCS-12 ≤45.6) and nondepression (MCS-12 >45.6) groups. Outcomes including Neck Disability Index (NDI), physical component score of the Short Form-12 survey (PCS-12), and Visual Analogue Scale Neck (VAS Neck), and Arm (VAS Arm) pain scores were evaluated using independent sample t test, recovery ratios, percentage of patients reaching the minimum clinically important difference, and multiple linear regression - controlling for factors such as age, sex, and BMI. RESULTS: The depression group was found to have significantly worse baseline pain and disability than the nondepression group in NDI (P < 0.001), VAS Neck pain (P < 0.001), and VAS Arm pain (P < 0.001) scores. Postoperatively, both groups improved to a similar amount with surgery based on the recovery ratio analysis. The depression group continued to have worse scores than the nondepression group in NDI (P = 0.010), PCS-12 (P = 0.026), and VAS Arm pain (P = 0.001) scores. Depression was not a significant predictor of change in any PROMs based on regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Patients who presented with preoperative depression reported more pain and disability symptoms preoperatively and postoperatively; however, both groups achieved similar degrees of improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Consensus on the Role of Antibiotic Use in SSI Following Spinal Surgery.

In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA was held to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 17 focused on the use of antibiotics in spine surgery, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

Fellow Versus Resident: Graduate Medical Education and Patient Outcomes After Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of spine fellow versus orthopaedic surgery resident assistance on outcomes in anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) has not been well studied. The objective of this study was to determine differences in patient health-related outcomes based on the level of surgical trainees. METHODS: Consecutive cases of ACDF (n = 407) were reviewed at a single high-volume institution between 2015 and 2017 and were separated into two groups based on whether they were fellow-assisted or resident-assisted. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded, and health-related quality of life was evaluated using the Short Form-12 (SF-12) survey. The SF-12, visual analog scale pain score, and neck disability index were compared between the two groups. Surgery level, surgical time, preoperative Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated blood loss, equivalent morphine use, perioperative complications, and 30-day readmission were also recorded. Patient outcomes were compared using an unpaired t-test as well as multivariate linear regression, controlling for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, presurgical visual analog scale, SF-12, and neck disability index. Results were reported with the 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Spine surgery fellows and orthopaedic surgery residents participated in 228 and 179 ACDF cases, respectively. No notable demographic differences between the two groups were found. A higher proportion of three or more level ACDF surgeries assisted by fellows versus residents was found. Estimated blood loss was greater in fellow-assisted ACDF cases. Both surgery time and total time in the room were also longer in the fellow-assisted ACDF group. No 30-day readmissions were found in either groups, and only one case of acute hemorrhagic anemia was found in the fellow-assisted group. Overall, postoperative complications were higher in the resident group; however, no difference with regard to intraoperative complications between groups was found. DISCUSSION: This study shows that patient health-related outcomes are similar in ACDF cases that were fellow-assisted versus resident-assisted. However, fellow-assisted ACDF cases were associated with more blood loss and longer surgery time.

Consensus on Risk Factors and Prevention in SSI in Spine Surgery.

In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 11 focused on risk factors and prevention questions in spine surgery, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

Is Wearable Technology Part of the Future of Orthopedic Health Care?

Wearable technology is an exciting industry that has gained exponential traction over the past few years. This technology allows individuals to track personal health and fitness parameters and is becoming more and more precise with modern advancements. As these devices continue to increase in accuracy and gain further utilities in health monitoring, their potential to influence orthopedic care will also grow. Orthopedic surgeons may use this technology to monitor the perioperative course of their patients, who can remotely communicate various parameters related to care without needing to physically be seen by their providers. Wearable devices, while of course promising in the field of medicine, still have limitations that must be overcome before they can widely be adopted into orthopedic care. Our goal is to review current wearables on the market, discuss their potential applications in health care, and postulate their future use in orthopedic care.

Consensus on Wound Care of SSI in Spine Surgery.

In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 7 focused on wound care, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

Statistics for the Practicing Spine Surgeon: Supplementary Data Analysis Measurements.

With the rapid rise of clinical spine surgery literature in the last few decades, there is a greater need for practicing spine surgeons to confidently analyze and critique published literature within the field. The conclusions drawn from published studies are often integrated into a physician's clinical decision-making. A strong knowledge in the fundamental statistical measurements used most frequently in spine surgery literature can enhance the ability to properly interpret the meaning of a study's results. However, medical education often lacks the incorporation of clinically relevant statistical analysis. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of some of the most commonly used statistical measurements in spine surgery, specifically intraclass correlation coefficient, diagnostic testing analyses, Kaplan-Meier curves, hazard ratios, distribution, and variance.

How Does Body Mass Index Influence Outcomes in Patients After Lumbar Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study is to determine how body mass index (BMI) affects patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) after lumbar fusions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although greater preoperative BMI is known to increase the rates of adverse events after surgery, there is a paucity of literature assessing the influence of BMI on PROMs after lumbar fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery between 1 and 3 levels were retrospectively identified. PROMs analyzed were the Short Form-12 Physical Component Score, Mental Component Score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Visual Analog Scale Back and Leg pain scores. Patients were divided into groups based on preoperative BMI: class 1, BMI <25.0; class 2, BMI 25.0 to 29.9; class 3, BMI 30.0 to 34.9; and class 4, BMI ≥35.0. Absolute PROM scores, the recovery ratio, and the percentage of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference between groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 54 (14.8%) patients in class 1, 140 (38.2%) in class 2, 109 (29.8%) in class 3, and 63 (17.2%) in class 4 were included. All patients improved after surgery across all outcome measures (P < 0.001) except for class 4 patients, who did not improve in terms of Short Form-12 Mental Component Score scores after surgery (P = 0.276). Preoperative Short Form-12 Physical Component Score (P = 0.002) and Oswestry Disability Index (P < 0.0001) scores were significantly different between BMI groups-with class 4 having worse disability than class 1 and 2. BMI was not a significant predictor for any outcome domain. Overall 30- and 90-day readmission rates were similar between groups, with a higher revision rate in the class 4 group (P = 0.036), due to a higher incidence of postoperative surgical site infections (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: All patients undergoing short-segment lumbar fusion for degenerative disease improved to a similar degree with respect to PROMs. Those in the highest class of obesity (BMI ≥35.0) were, however, at a greater risk for postoperative surgical site infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

General Principles in the Consensus of SSI Management After Spine Surgery.

In July of 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA was held to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 8 questions focused on general principles in spine surgery, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.

Role of Imaging, Tissue Sampling, and Biomarkers for Diagnosis of SSI in Spine Surgery.

In July 2018, the Second International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in Philadelphia, PA to discuss issues regarding infection in orthopedic patients and to provide consensus recommendations on these issues to practicing orthopedic surgeons. During this meeting, attending delegates divided into subspecialty groups to discuss topics specifics to their respective fields, which included the spine. At the spine subspecialty group meeting, delegates discussed and voted upon the recommendations for 63 questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in spinal surgery. Of the 63 questions, 15 focused on the use of imaging, tissue sampling, and biomarkers in spine surgery, for which this article provides the recommendations, voting results, and rationales.