Anterior cervical hybrid constructs reduce superior adjacent segment burden compared to multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.

Background: Traditional surgical treatment for symptomatic cervical degenerative disc disease is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), yet the increased risk of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) requiring additional surgery exists and may result in limiting long-term surgical success when it occurs. Disc arthroplasty can preserve or restore physiologic range of motion (ROM), decreasing adjacent level stress and subsequent surgery. For patients with multilevel pathology requiring at least a 1-level fusion, interest is growing in anterior cervical hybrid (ACH) surgery as a partial motion-preserving procedure to decrease the adjacent level burden. This radiographic study compares postoperative superior adjacent segment motion between ACH and ACDF. Secondarily, total global motion, construct motion, inferior adjacent segment motion, and sagittal alignment parameters were compared. Methods: This is a single-center, multi-surgeon, retrospective cohort study of 2- and 3-level ACH and ACDF cases between 2013 and 2021. Degrees of motion were analyzed on flexion/extension views using Cobb angles to measure global (C2-C7) construct and adjacent segment lordosis. Neutral lateral X-rays were analyzed for alignment parameters, including global lordosis, cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), and T1 slope (T1S). Differences were determined by independent t-test and Fisher's exact test. Results: Of 100 patients, 38% were 2-level cases (47% ACH, 53% ACDF) and 62% were 3-level cases: (52% ACH, 48% ACDF). Postoperatively, superior adjacent segment motion increased with ACDF and decreased with ACH (-1.3°±5.3° ACH, 1.6°±4.6° ACDF, P=0.005). Postoperatively, the ACH group had greater ROM across the construct (16.3°±8.7° ACH, 4.7°±3.3° ACDF, P<0.001) and total global ROM (38.0°±12.8° ACH, 28.0°±11.1° ACDF, P<0.001). ACH resulted in a significant reduction of motion loss across the construct (-10.0°±11.7° ACH, -18.1°±10.8° ACDF, P<0.001). Postoperative alignment restoration was similar between both cohorts (-2.61°±8.36° ACH, 0.04°±12.24° ACDF, P=0.21). Conclusions: Compared to ACDF, hybrid constructs partially preserved motion across operative levels and had greater postoperative global ROM without increasing superior adjacent segment mobility or sacrificing alignment restoration. This supports the consideration of ACH in patients with multilevel degenerative cervical pathology requiring at least a 1-level fusion and suggests a propensity for long-term success by reducing the superior adjacent segment burden.

Patient expectations impact patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prior studies suggest that patient expectations impact postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). However, no consensus exists on an appropriate expectations tool. PURPOSE: To examine the impact of patient expectations using a modified version of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction 1 year after lumbar fusion for degenerative pathologies. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal cohort. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adults undergoing 1 to 2 level lumbar fusion were identified from four tertiaty spine centers. OUTCOME MEASURES: ODI, EuroQol-5D, Numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. METHODS: Preoperatively, patients completed the ODI, as well as a modified ODI reflecting their expected improvement across the 10 ODI items. For example, item 1 in the ODI asks about Pain Intensity at the moment whereas the Expectations ODI asks "One year after surgery, I expect to have…" The difference between this modified ODI score and the baseline ODI score (Baseine ODI minus Expectations ODI) was defined as the Patient Expectation Score. Patients were stratified into tertiles based on their Expectations score into High (HE), Moderate (ME), and Low (LE) Expectations and compared. RESULTS: There were 30 patients in the HE, 35 in the ME, and 26 in the LE Group, with similar demographics and surgical parameters. Patients in the HE group had worse ODI scores preoperatively (54.96 vs 41.42, p<.001) and were expecting a greater improvement in ODI (43.8 vs 13.5, p<.001). There were fewer patients in the HE group (13, 43%) who reported that they were satisfied with the results compared to either the ME (20, 71%) or LE group (22, 85%, p=.041) despite having similar ODI scores and change in ODI scores 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSION: An expectations tool, linked to a disease-specific measure may provide the clinician with a practical method of assessing a patient's expectation of results after treatment and aid in the shared decision-making during the preoperative surgical process.

Technological Advances in Spine Surgery: Navigation, Robotics, and Augmented Reality.

Accurate screw placement is critical to avoid vascular or neurologic complications during spine surgery and to maximize fixation for fusion and deformity correction. Computer-assisted navigation, robotic-guided spine surgery, and augmented reality surgical navigation are currently available technologies that have been developed to improve screw placement accuracy. The advent of multiple generations of new technologies within the past 3 decades has presented surgeons with a diverse array of choices when it comes to pedicle screw placement. Considerations for patient safety and optimal outcomes must be paramount when selecting a technology.

Augmented Reality-Assisted Spine Surgery: An Early Experience Demonstrating Safety and Accuracy with 218 Screws.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: In spine surgery, accurate screw guidance is critical to achieving satisfactory fixation. Augmented reality (AR) is a novel technology to assist in screw placement and has shown promising results in early studies. This study aims to provide our early experience evaluating safety and efficacy with an Food and Drug Administration-approved head-mounted (head-mounted device augmented reality (HMD-AR)) device. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing AR-assisted thoracolumbar fusion between October 2020 and August 2021 with 2 -week follow-up were included. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected to include demographics, complications, revision surgeries, and AR performance. Intraoperative 3D imaging was used to assess screw accuracy using the Gertzbein-Robbins (G-R) grading scale. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (40.6% male) were included with a total of 222 screws executed using HMD-AR. Intraoperatively, 4 (1.8%) were deemed misplaced and revised using AR or freehand. The remaining 218 (98.2%) screws were placed accurately. There were no intraoperative adverse events or complications, and AR was not abandoned in any case. Of the 208 AR-placed screws with 3D imaging confirmation, 97.1% were considered clinically accurate (91.8% Grade A, 5.3% Grade B). There were no early postoperative surgical complications or revision surgeries during the 2 -week follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This early experience study reports an overall G-R accuracy of 97.1% across 218 AR-guided screws with no intra or early postoperative complications. This shows that HMD-AR-assisted spine surgery is a safe and accurate tool for pedicle, cortical, and pelvic fixation. Larger studies are needed to continue to support this compelling evolution in spine surgery.

Adoption of Enhanced Surgical Recovery (ESR) Protocol for Lumbar Fusion Decreases In-Hospital Postoperative Opioid Consumption.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the impact of ESR on in-hospital and 90-day postoperative opioid consumption, length of stay, urinary catheter removal and postoperative ambulation after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. METHODS: We evaluated patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery at a single, multi-surgeon center in the transition period prior to (N = 174) and after (N = 116) adoption of ESR, comparing in-hospital and 90-day postoperative opioid consumption. Regression analysis was used to control for confounders. Secondary analysis was preformed to evaluate the association between ESR and length of stay, urinary catheter removal and ambulation after surgery. RESULTS: Mean age study participants was 52.6 years with 62 (47%) females. Demographic characteristics were similar between the Pre-ESR and ESR groups. ESR patients had better 3-month pain scores, ambulated earlier, had urinary catheters removed earlier and decreased in-hospital opioid consumption compared to Pre-ESR patients. There was no difference in 90-day opioid consumption between the 2 groups. Regression analysis showed that ESR was strongly associated with in-hospital opioid consumption, accounting for 30% of the variability in Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME). In-hospital opioid consumption was also associated with preoperative pain scores, number of surgical levels, and insurance type (private vs government). Pre-op pain sores were associated with 90-day opioid consumption. Secondary analysis showed that ESR was associated with a shorter length of stay and earlier ambulation. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed ESR has the potential to improve recovery after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions with reduced in-hospital opioid consumption and improved postoperative pain scores.

Opioid use after elective spine surgery: Do spine surgery patients consume less than prescribed today?

Background: The opioid epidemic in the US has led prescribers to reevaluate postoperative pain control particularly in the field of spine surgery, where postoperative analgesia requirements and consumption have historically been high. There is a need to mitigate the quantity of unused pills after surgery by adjusting prescribing practices. Achieving the balance of pain control after surgery without overprescribing opioids may be accomplished by developing a modified approach to prescribing practices; however, there is a need to first understand the opioid requirements of the modern spine surgery patient with respect to their elective spine surgery. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to determine the percentage of opioids not utilized at 90-days after elective spine surgery. Secondary aims were to identify differences in the percentage of unused opioids between surgical subgroups and preoperative opioid status, to determine factors associated with opioid utilization, and to estimate the distribution of opioids consumed to control pain up to the 90th percentile in each surgical subgroup. Methods: In this prospective, observational cohort study, adults undergoing elective spine surgery at a multi-surgeon, single center were prospectively enrolled and divided into subgroups: anterior cervical, lumbar decompression, and short-segment lumbar fusion. Prescribed MMEs were identified from prescriptions, consumed MMEs were obtained from pill counts, and the percent leftover was calculated. Distributions of MMEs consumed were analyzed to compare utilization between preoperative opioid users or non-users within each surgical subgroup. Results: Of 117 patients, 41.9% were preoperative opioid users. The percentage of unused opioids by surgical subgroup was: 45.4% cervical, 57.3% lumbar decompression, and 37.4% lumbar fusion (p=0.066). The percentage of unused opioids by preoperative opioid exposure was greater in the opioid non-users (58.0%) than users (28.4%, p<0.001)). Regression analysis showed that surgical subgroup and preoperative opioid exposure were associated with leftover opioids. Conclusions: At 90-days, the percentage of unused opioids was over 45% in this cohort of elective spine surgery patients and was nearly double in the group without preoperative opioid exposure. These results suggest the modern elective spine surgery patient is using less opioids than prescribed, supporting the conclusion that the number of MMEs prescribed can be reduced to minimize quantities of leftover pills available for diversion, without sacrificing the priority of appropriate postoperative pain control.

Low Back Pain, Disability, and Quality of Life One Year following Intradiscal Injection of Autologous Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate.

Introduction: Degenerative disc disease is a common cause of chronic low back pain. Surgical intervention is an invasive treatment associated with high costs. There is growing interest in regenerative medicine as a less invasive but direct disc treatment for chronic discogenic low back pain. Objective: To evaluate clinical improvement of primary discogenic low back pain with intradiscal injection of autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). Study Design. Prospective cohort study. Setting. Single, multiphysician center. Patients. 32 adult patients undergoing intradiscal injection of autologous BMAC for the treatment of primary discogenic low back pain. Interventions. Intradiscal injection of autologous BMAC. Main Outcome Measures. Primary outcome measure is visual analog back pain scale (VAS back pain). Secondary outcome measures include ODI, VAS leg pain, and EQ-5D-5L scores. Outcomes were compared from baseline to 1 year. Results: Thirty-two patients (56.3% male) with a mean age of 45.9 years were enrolled, giving 92 treated levels. Mean VAS back and leg pain scores improved from 5.4 to 3.0 (p < 0.001) and 2.8 to 1.3 (p = 0.005), respectively. Mean ODI scores decreased from 33.5 to 21.1 (p < 0.001), and EQ-5D-5L scores improved from 0.69 to 0.78 (p = 0.001). Using established MCID values, 59.4% had clinically significant improvement in VAS back pain, 43.8% in VAS leg pain, and 56.3% in ODI scores. Conclusion: Intradiscal injection of autologous BMAC significantly improved low back pain, disability, and quality of life at one year. This study suggests that intradiscal BMAC has the potential to be an effective nonsurgical treatment for chronic discogenic low back pain.

Novel artificial intelligence algorithm: an accurate and independent measure of spinopelvic parameters.

OBJECTIVE: The analysis of sagittal alignment by measuring spinopelvic parameters has been widely adopted among spine surgeons globally, and sagittal imbalance is a well-documented cause of poor quality of life. These measurements are time-consuming but necessary to make, which creates a growing need for an automated analysis tool that measures spinopelvic parameters with speed, precision, and reproducibility without relying on user input. This study introduces and evaluates an algorithm based on artificial intelligence (AI) that fully automatically measures spinopelvic parameters. METHODS: Two hundred lateral lumbar radiographs (pre- and postoperative images from 100 patients undergoing lumbar fusion) were retrospectively analyzed by board-certified spine surgeons who digitally measured lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and sacral slope. The novel AI algorithm was also used to measure the same parameters. To evaluate the agreement between human and AI-automated measurements, the mean error (95% CI, SD) was calculated and interrater reliability was assessed using the 2-way random single-measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). ICC values larger than 0.75 were considered excellent. RESULTS: The AI algorithm determined all parameters in 98% of preoperative and in 95% of postoperative images with excellent ICC values (preoperative range 0.85-0.92, postoperative range 0.81-0.87). The mean errors were smallest for pelvic incidence both pre- and postoperatively (preoperatively -0.5° [95% CI -1.5° to 0.6°] and postoperatively 0.0° [95% CI -1.1° to 1.2°]) and largest preoperatively for sacral slope (-2.2° [95% CI -3.0° to -1.5°]) and postoperatively for lumbar lordosis (3.8° [95% CI 2.5° to 5.0°]). CONCLUSIONS: Advancements in AI translate to the arena of medical imaging analysis. This method of measuring spinopelvic parameters on spine radiographs has excellent reliability comparable to expert human raters. This application allows users to accurately obtain critical spinopelvic measurements automatically, which can be applied to clinical practice. This solution can assist physicians by saving time in routine work and by avoiding error-prone manual measurements.

A multicenter study of the 5-year trends in robot-assisted spine surgery outcomes and complications.

Background: Although a growing amount of literature that suggests robots are safe and can achieve comparable outcomes to conventional techniques, much of this literature is limited by small sample sizes and single-surgeon or single center series. Furthermore, it is unclear what the impact of robotic technology has made on operative and clinical outcomes over time. This is the first and largest multicenter study to examine the trends in outcomes and complications after robot-assisted spine surgery over a 5-year period. Methods: Adult (≥18 years old) patients who underwent spine surgery with robot-assistance between 2015 and 2019 at four unique spine centers. The robotic systems used included the Mazor Renaissance, Mazor X, and Mazor Stealth Edition. Patients with incomplete data were excluded from this study. The minimum follow-up was 90 days. Results: A total of 722 adult patients were included (117 Renaissance, 477 X, 128 Stealth). Most patient and operative factors (e.g., sex, tobacco status, total instrumented levels, and pelvic fixation,) were similar across the years. Mean ± standard deviation Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was 1.5±1.5. The most commonly reported diagnoses included high grade spondylolisthesis (40.6%), degenerative disc disease (18.4%), and degenerative scoliosis (17.6%). Mean (standard deviation) number of instrumented levels was 3.8±3.4. From 2015 to 2019, average robot time per screw improved from 7.2 to 5.5 minutes (P=0.004, R2=0.649). Average fluoroscopy time per screw improved from 15.2 to 9.4 seconds (P=0.002). Rates of both intraoperative screw exchange for misplaced screw (2015-2016: 2.7%, 2019: 0.8%, P=0.0115, R2=0.1316) and robot abandonment (2015-2016: 7.1%, 2019: 1.1%, P=0.011, R2=0.215) improved significantly over time. The incidence of other intraoperative complications (e.g., dural tear, loss of motor/sensory function, blood transfusion) remained consistently low, but similar throughout the years. The length of stay (LOS) decreased by nearly 1 day from 2015 to 2019 (P=0.007, R2=0.779). 90-day reoperation rates did not change significantly. Conclusions: At four institutions among seven surgeons, we demonstrate robot screw accuracy, reliability, operative efficiency, and radiation exposure improved significantly from 2015 to 2019. 90-day complication rates remained low and LOS decreased significantly with time. These findings further validate continued usage of robot-assisted spine surgery and the path toward improved value-based care.

Robotic-guidance allows for accurate S2AI screw placement without complications.

The study design is retrospective, multi-surgeon, single-center review. The objective is to evaluate complication rates, revision rates, and accuracy grading for robotic-guided S2 alar-iliac (S2AI) screws. Sixty-five consecutive patients underwent S2AI fixation (118 screws) as part of a posterior spine fusion using robotic-guidance. Screws were placed percutaneously in 14 cases and 51 were placed in an open fashion by three board-certified spine surgeons using the Mazor core technology robotic systems (Mazor X, n = 42; Mazor XSE, n = 23). Medical charts were retrospectively reviewed for revisions and complications. All patients were followed for 90 days or greater. Postoperative CT scans were obtained in 22 of the 51 patients, allowing for 46 screws to be reviewed by an independent neuroradiologist who graded the screws for accuracy. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications associated with S2AI screw placement. There were no revisions found to be related to the S2AI screw placement. All 46 screws evaluated with postoperative CT scans were reported as being at the highest level of accuracy, grade A, with a breach distance of 0 mm (no breach). The robotic-guided technique for S2AI screw placement is a reliable method to achieving pelvic fixation with low complication and revision rates. In addition, a high degree of accuracy can be achieved without relying on visible and tactile landmarks needed for the freehand technique or the additional radiation associated with fluoroscopic-guidance.

Adoption of enhanced surgical recovery (ESR) protocol for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery decreases in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption.

PURPOSE: Retrospective observational cohort study of primary adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery during the transitional period prior to and after the implementation of Enhanced Surgical Recovery (ESR) at a single center. We sought to determine if ESR reduces in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption for ASD surgery. METHODS: We evaluated patients undergoing primary ASD surgery in the transition period prior to (N = 29) and after (N = 56) adoption of ESR, comparing in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption. Regression analysis was used to control for confounders including age, number of surgical levels, surgical approach, staged vs same-day surgery, insurance type and pre-op opioid use. RESULTS: Mean age of the cohort was 53 years with 57 (60%) females. Regression analysis showed that pre-operative opioid use and number of levels fused were associated with higher in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption, while use of ESR was associated with lower in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption. Secondary analysis showed that patients on ESR ambulated earlier (0.6 days vs 1.1, p = 0.028) and had their urinary catheter removed earlier (2.7 days vs 3.9, p = 0.006) compared to non-ESR patients. CONCLUSIONS: ESR was associated with a significantly decreased in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption and earlier mobilization with earlier urinary catheter removal in patients undergoing primary ASD surgery. These results demonstrate ESR's potential to improve outcomes in ASD perioperative care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

What Is the Comparison in Robot Time per Screw, Radiation Exposure, Robot Abandonment, Screw Accuracy, and Clinical Outcomes Between Percutaneous and Open Robot-Assisted Short Lumbar Fusion?: A Multicenter, Propensity-Matched Analysis of 310 Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter cohort. OBJECTIVE: To compare the robot time/screw, radiation exposure, robot abandonment, screw accuracy, and 90-day outcomes between robot-assisted percutaneous and robot-assisted open approach for short lumbar fusion (1- and 2-level). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is conflicting literature on the superiority of robot-assisted minimally invasive spine surgery to open techniques. A large, multicenter study is needed to further elucidate the outcomes and complications between these two approaches. METHODS: We included adult patients (≥18 yrs old) who underwent robot-assisted short lumbar fusion surgery from 2015 to 2019 at four independent institutions. A propensity score matching algorithm was employed to control for the potential selection bias between percutaneous and open surgery. The minimum follow-up was 90 days after the index surgery. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 310 patients remained. The mean (standard deviation) Charlson comorbidity index was 1.6 (1.5) and 53% of patients were female. The most common diagnoses included high-grade spondylolisthesis (grade >2) (48%), degenerative disc disease (22%), and spinal stenosis (25%), and the mean number of instrumented levels was 1.5(0.5). The operative time was longer in the open (198 min) versus the percutaneous group (167 min, P value = 0.007). However, the robot time/screw was similar between cohorts (P value > 0.05). The fluoroscopy time/ screw for percutaneous (14.4 s) was longer than the open group (10.1 s, P value = 0.021). The rates for screw exchange and robot abandonment were similar between groups (P value > 0.05). The estimated blood loss (open: 146 mL vs. percutaneous: 61.3 mL, P value < 0.001) and transfusion rate (open: 3.9% vs. percutaneous: 0%, P value = 0.013) were greater for the open group. The 90-day complication rate and mean length of stay were not different between cohorts (P value > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous robot-assisted spine surgery may increase radiation exposure, but can achieve a shorter operative time and lower risk for intraoperative blood loss for short-lumbar fusion. Percutaneous approaches do not appear to have an advantage for other short-term postoperative outcomes. Future multicenter studies on longer fusion surgeries and the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes are needed.Level of Evidence: 3.

Ninety-day complication, revision, and readmission rates for current-generation robot-assisted thoracolumbar spinal fusion surgery: results of a multicenter case series.

OBJECTIVE: Robotics is a major area for research and development in spine surgery. The high accuracy of robot-assisted placement of thoracolumbar pedicle screws is documented in the literature. The authors present the largest case series to date evaluating 90-day complication, revision, and readmission rates for robot-assisted spine surgery using the current generation of robotic guidance systems. METHODS: An analysis of a retrospective, multicenter database of open and minimally invasive thoracolumbar instrumented fusion surgeries using the Mazor X or Mazor X Stealth Edition robotic guidance systems was performed. Patients 18 years of age or older and undergoing primary or revision surgery for degenerative spinal conditions were included. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate rates of malpositioned screws requiring revision, as well as overall complication, revision, and readmission rates within 90 days. RESULTS: In total, 799 surgical cases (Mazor X: 48.81%; Mazor X Stealth Edition: 51.19%) were evaluated, involving robot-assisted placement of 4838 pedicle screws. The overall intraoperative complication rate was 3.13%. No intraoperative implant-related complications were encountered. Postoperatively, 129 patients suffered a total of 146 complications by 90 days, representing an incidence of 16.1%. The rate of an unrecognized malpositioned screw resulting in a new postoperative radiculopathy requiring revision surgery was 0.63% (5 cases). Medical and pain-related complications unrelated to hardware placement accounted for the bulk of postoperative complications within 90 days. The overall surgical revision rate at 90 days was 6.63% with 7 implant-related revisions, representing an implant-related revision rate of 0.88%. The 90-day readmission rate was 7.13% with 2 implant-related readmissions, representing an implant-related readmission rate of 0.25% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this multicenter case series and literature review suggest current-generation robotic guidance systems are associated with low rates of intraoperative and postoperative implant-related complications, revisions, and readmissions at 90 days. Future outcomes-based studies are necessary to evaluate complication, revision, and readmission rates compared to conventional surgery.

Effect of Surgical Setting on Cost and Hospital Reported Outcomes for Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals seek to reduce costs and improve patient outcomes by decreasing length of stay (LOS), 30-day all-cause readmissions, and preventable complications. We evaluated hospital-reported outcome measures for elective single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs) between tertiary (TH) and community hospitals (CH) to determine location-based differences in complications, LOS, and overall costs. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective single-level ACDF in a 1-year period were retrospectively reviewed from a physician-driven database from a single medical system consisting of 1 TH and 4 CHs. Adult patients who underwent elective single-level ACDF were included. Patients with trauma, tumor, prior cervical surgery, and infection were excluded. Outcomes measures included all-cause 30-day readmissions, preventable complications, LOS, and hospital costs. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients (60 TH, 241 CH) were included. CHs had longer LOS (1.25 ± 0.50 versus 1.08 ± 0.28 days, P = .01). There were no differences in complication and readmission rates between hospital settings. CH, orthopaedic subspecialty, female sex, and myelopathy were predictors for longer LOS. Overall, costs at the TH were significantly higher than at CHs ($17 171 versus $11 737; Δ$ = 5434 ± 3996; P < .0001). For CHs, the total costs of drugs, rooms, supplies, and therapy were significantly higher than at the TH. TH status, orthopaedic subspecialty, and myelopathy were associated with higher costs. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing single-level ACDFs at CHs had longer LOS, but similar complications and readmission rates as those at the TH. However, cost of ACDF was 1.5 times greater in the TH. To improve patient outcomes, optimize value, and reduce hospital costs, modifiable factors for elective ACDFs should be evaluated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Is there a difference between navigated and non-navigated robot cohorts in robot-assisted spine surgery? A multicenter, propensity-matched analysis of 2,800 screws and 372 patients.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Robot-assisted spine surgery continues to rapidly develop as evidenced by the growing literature in recent years. In addition to demonstrating excellent pedicle screw accuracy, early studies have explored the impact of robot-assisted spine surgery on reducing radiation time, length of hospital stay, operative time, and perioperative complications in comparison to conventional freehand technique. Recently, the Mazor X Stealth Edition was introduced in 2018. This robotic system integrates Medtronic's Stealth navigation technology into the Mazor X platform, which was introduced in 2016. It is unclear what the impact of these advancements have made on clinical outcomes. PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes and complications between the most recent iterations of the Mazor Robot systems: Mazor X and Mazor X Stealth Edition. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter cohort PATIENT SAMPLE: Among four different institutions, we included adult (≥18 years old) patients who underwent robot-assisted spine surgery with either the Mazor X (non-navigated robot) or Stealth (navigated robot) platforms. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included robot time per screw, fluoroscopic radiation time, screw accuracy, robot abandonment, and clinical outcomes with a minimum 90 day follow up. METHODS: A one-to-one propensity-score matching algorithm based on perioperative factors (e.g. demographics, comorbidities, primary diagnosis, open vs. percutaneous instrumentation, prior spine surgery, instrumented levels, pelvic fixation, interbody fusion, number of planned robot screws) was employed to control for the potential selection bias between the two robotic systems. Chi-square/fisher exact test and t-test/ANOVA were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: From a total of 646 patients, a total of 372 adult patients were included in this study (X: 186, Stealth: 186) after propensity score matching. The mean number of instrumented levels was 4.3. The mean number of planned robot screws was 7.8. Similar total operative time and robot time per screw occurred between cohorts (p>0.05). However, Stealth achieved significantly shorter fluoroscopic radiation time per screw (Stealth: 7.2 seconds vs. X: 10.4 seconds, p<.001) than X. The screw accuracy for both robots was excellent (Stealth: 99.6% vs. X: 99.1%, p=0.120). In addition, Stealth achieved a significantly lower robot abandonment rate (Stealth: 0% vs. X: 2.2%, p=0.044). Furthermore, a lower blood transfusion rate was observed for Stealth than X (Stealth: 4.3% vs. X: 10.8%, p=0.018). Non-robot related complications such as dura tear, motor/sensory deficits, return to the operating room during same admission, and length of stay was similar between robots (p>0.05). The 90-day complication rates were low and similar between robot cohorts (Stealth: 5.4% vs. X: 3.8%, p=0.456). CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study, both robot systems achieved excellent screw accuracy and low robot time per screw. However, using Stealth led to significantly less fluoroscopic radiation time, lower robot abandonment rates, and reduced blood transfusion rates than Mazor X. Other factors including length of stay, and 90-day complications were similar.

Do robot-related complications influence 1 year reoperations and other clinical outcomes after robot-assisted lumbar arthrodesis? A multicenter assessment of 320 patients.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted platforms in spine surgery have rapidly developed into an attractive technology for both the surgeon and patient. Although current literature is promising, more clinical data is needed. The purpose of this paper is to determine the effect of robot-related complications on clinical outcomes METHODS: This multicenter study included adult (≥18 years old) patients who underwent robot-assisted lumbar fusion surgery from 2012-2019. The minimum follow-up was 1 year after surgery. Both bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine if robot-related factors were associated with reoperation within 1 year after primary surgery. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients were included in this study. The mean (standard deviation) Charlson Comorbidity Index was 1.2 (1.2) and 52.5% of patients were female. Intraoperative robot complications occurred in 3.4% of patients and included intraoperative exchange of screw (0.9%), robot abandonment (2.5%), and return to the operating room for screw exchange (1.3%). The 1-year reoperation rate was 4.4%. Robot factors, including robot time per screw, open vs. percutaneous, and robot system, were not statistically different between those who required revision surgery and those who did not (P>0.05). Patients with robot complications were more likely to have prolonged length of hospital stay and blood transfusion, but were not at higher risk for 1-year reoperations. The most common reasons for reoperation were wound complications (2.2%) and persistent symptoms due to inadequate decompression (1.5%). In the multivariate analysis, robot related factors and complications were not independent risk factors for 1-year reoperations. CONCLUSION: This is the largest multicenter study to focus on robot-assisted lumbar fusion outcomes. Our findings demonstrate that 1-year reoperation rates are low and do not appear to be influenced by robot-related factors and complications; however, robot-related complications may increase the risk for greater blood loss requiring a blood transfusion and longer length of stay.

Comprehensive Evaluation of Accessory Rod Position, Rod Material and Diameter, Use of Cross-connectors, and Anterior Column Support in a Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Model: Part I: Effects on Apical Rod Strain: An In Vitro and In Silico Biomechanical Study.

STUDY DESIGN: In silico finite element study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of six construct factors on apical rod strain in an in silico pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) model: traditional inline and alternative Ames-Deviren-Gupta (ADG) multi-rod techniques, number of accessory rods (three- vs. four-rod), rod material (cobalt-chrome [CoCr] or stainless steel [SS] vs. titanium [Ti]), rod diameter (5.5 vs. 6.35 mm), and use of cross-connectors (CC), or anterior column support (ACS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Rod fracture following lumbar PSO is frequently reported. Clinicians may modulate reconstructs with multiple rods, rod position, rod material and diameter, and with CC or ACS to reduce mechanical demand or rod contouring. A comprehensive evaluation of these features on rod strain is lacking. METHODS: A finite element model (T12-S1) with intervertebral discs and ligaments was created and validated with cadaveric motion data. Apical rod strain of primary and accessory rods was collected for 96 constructs across all six construct factors, and normalized to the Ti two-rod control. RESULTS: Regardless of construct features, CoCr and SS material reduced strain across all rods by 49.1% and 38.1%, respectively; increasing rod diameter from 5.5 mm to 6.35 mm rods reduced strain by 32.0%. Use of CC or lumbosacral ACS minimally affected apical rod strain (<2% difference from constructs without CC or ACS). Compared to the ADG technique, traditional inline reconstruction reduced primary rod strain by 32.2%; however, ADG primary rod required 14.2° less rod contouring. The inline technique produced asymmetrical loading between left and right rods, only when three rods were used. CONCLUSION: The number of rods and position of accessory rods affected strain distribution on posterior fixation. Increasing rod diameter and using CoCr rods was most effective in reducing rod strain. Neither CC nor lumbosacral ACS affected apical rod strain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Comprehensive In Silico Evaluation of Accessory Rod Position, Rod Material and Diameter, Use of Cross-connectors, and Anterior Column Support in a Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Model: Part II: Effects on Lumbosacral Rod and Screw Strain.

STUDY DESIGN: In silico finite element study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate effects of six construct factors on rod and screw strain at the lumbosacral junction in an in silico pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) model: traditional inline and alternative Ames-Deviren-Gupta (ADG) multi-rod techniques, number of accessory rods (three-rod vs. four-rod), rod material (cobalt-chrome [CoCr] or stainless steel [SS] vs. titanium [Ti]), rod diameter (5.5 vs. 6.35 mm), and use of cross-connectors (CC), or anterior column support (ACS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Implant failure and pseudoarthrosis at the lumbosacral junction following PSO are frequently reported. Clinicians may modulate reconstructs with multiple rods, rod position, rod material, and diameter, and with CC or ACS to reduce mechanical demand. An evaluation of these features' effects on rod and screw strains is lacking. METHODS: A finite element model (T12-S1) with intervertebral discs and ligaments was created and validated with cadaveric motion data. Lumbosacral rod and screw strain data were collected for 96 constructs across all six construct factors and normalized to the Ti 2-Rod control. RESULTS: The inline technique resulted in 12.5% to 51.3% more rod strain and decreased screw strain (88.3% to 95%) compared to ADG at the lumbosacral junction. An asymmetrical strain distribution was observed in the three-rod inline technique in comparison to four-rod, which was more evenly distributed. Regardless of construct features, rod strain was significantly decreased by rod material (CoCr > SS > Ti), and increasing rod diameter from 5.5 mm to 6.35 mm reduced strain by 9.9% to 22.1%. ACS resulted in significant reduction of rod (37.8%-59.8%) and screw strains (23.2%-65.8%). CONCLUSION: Increasing rod diameter, using CoCr rods, and ACS were the most effective methods in reducing rod strain at the lumbosacral junction. The inline technique decreased screw strain and increased rod strain compared to ADG. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Effect of Surgical Setting on Hospital-Reported Outcomes for Elective Lumbar Spinal Procedures: Tertiary Versus Community Hospitals.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: As hospital compensation becomes increasingly dependent on pay-for-performance and bundled payment compensation models, hospitals seek to reduce costs and increase quality. To our knowledge, no reported data compare these measures between hospital settings for elective lumbar procedures. The study compares hospital-reported outcomes and costs for elective lumbar procedures performed at a tertiary hospital (TH) versus community hospitals (CH) within a single health care system. METHODS: Retrospective review of a physician-maintained, prospectively collected database consisting of 1 TH and 4 CH for 3 common lumbar surgeries from 2015 to 2016. Patients undergoing primary elective microdiscectomy for disc herniation, laminectomy for spinal stenosis, and laminectomy with fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Patients were excluded for traumatic, infectious, or malignant pathology. Comparing hospital settings, outcomes included length of stay (LOS), rates of 30-day readmissions, potentially preventable complications (PPC), and discharge to rehabilitation facility, and hospital costs. RESULTS: A total of 892 patients (n = 217 microdiscectomies, n = 302 laminectomies, and n = 373 laminectomy fusions) were included. The TH served a younger patient population with fewer comorbid conditions and a higher proportion of African Americans. The TH performed more decompressions (P < .001) per level fused; the CH performed more interbody fusions (P = .007). Cost of performing microdiscectomy (P < .001) and laminectomy (P = .014) was significantly higher at the TH, but there was no significant difference for laminectomy with fusion. In a multivariable stepwise linear regression analysis, the TH was significantly more expensive for single-level microdiscectomy (P < .001) and laminectomy with single-level fusion (P < .001), but trended toward significance for laminectomy without fusion (P = .052). No difference existed for PPC or readmissions rate. Patients undergoing laminectomy without fusion were discharged to a facility more often at the TH (P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: We provide hospital-reported outcomes between a TH and CH. Significant differences in patient characteristics and surgical practices exist between surgical settings. Despite minimal differences in hospital-reported outcomes, the TH was significantly more expensive.

Increased morphine requirements are predictive of acute compartment syndrome in adults with tibia fractures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if increased milligram morphine equivalent (MME) requirements are a predictor of adult compartment syndrome in patients with tibia fractures. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study at a level-1 trauma center was performed over a five year period. Patients with tibia fractures who had acute compartment syndrome (ACS) requiring fasciotomy (n = 26) were matched with controls (n = 25). MME and pain scores were assessed within the 24 hour period preceding fasciotomy (cases) or fixation (controls). The presence or absence of the "6 Ps" and other clinical signs (diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) were also analyzed. RESULTS: Mean MMEs two hours before surgery was 25.5 ± 39.2 for ACS patients versus 8.6 ± 11.1 in controls (P = 0.043), while the mean pain scores were 8.8 ± 1.8 and 7.0 ± 2.5 (P = 0.049), respectively. Multivariable regression showed patients with ACS consumed 16.9 MME more than controls within two hours of surgery (P = 0.043) and scored 1.8 points higher on the numeric pain rating scale (P = 0.049). The mean number of clinical signs of compartment syndrome in the ACS patients was 3.4 ± 1.3 compared to 0.84 ± 0.85 in controls (P < 0.001). DBP was significantly higher in ACS patients within two to four hours of surgery (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Increased MME requirements and pain scores within two hours of surgery were significant predictors of ACS following tibia fracture. Increased narcotic requirements, pain scores, and DBP may be useful objective indicators of evolving ACS, in addition to the traditional signs, and should be closely monitored in the at-risk patient.