Evolving Trends in the Use of Sacroiliac Fusion From 2015 to 2020.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the evolution of patients undergoing sacroiliac (SI) fusion with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) relative to open approaches. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The SI joint can be a contributor to lumbopelvic symptoms. The MIS approach to SI fusion has been shown to have fewer complications compared with the open approach. Recent trends and evolved patient populations have not been well-characterized. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were abstracted from the large, national, multi-insurance, administrative 2015-2020 M151 PearlDiver database. The incidence, trends, and patient characteristics of MIS, as well as open, SI fusions for adult patients with degenerative indications, were determined. Univariable and multivariable analyses were then performed to compare the MIS relative to open populations. The primary outcome was to assess the trends of MIS and open approaches for SI fusions. RESULTS: In total, 11,217 SI fusions were identified (of which 81.7% were MIS), with a clear increase in numbers over the years from 2015 (n=1318, 62.3% of which were MIS) to 2020 (n=3214 86.6% of which were MIS). Independent predictors of MIS (as opposed to open) SI fusion included: older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.09 per decade increase), higher Elixhauser-Comorbidity Index (OR 1.04 per two-point increase), and geographic region (relative to South, Northeast OR 1.20 and West OR 1.64). As might be expected, 90-day adverse events were lower for MIS than open cases (OR 0.73). CONCLUSION: The presented data quantify the increasing incidence of SI fusions over the years, with the increase being driven by MIS cases. This was largely related to an expanded population (those who are older and with greater comorbidity), fitting the definition of disruptive technology with lesser adverse events than open procedures. Nonetheless, geographic variation highlights the differential adoption of this technology.

Trends in Outpatient Cervical Spine Surgery: Are There Emerging Disparities?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis on prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to (1) assess disparities in relative utilization of outpatient cervical spine surgery between White and Black patients from 2010 to 2019 and (2) to measure how these racial differences have evolved over time. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although outpatient spine surgery has become increasingly popularized over the last decade, it remains unknown how racial disparities in surgical utilization have translated to the outpatient setting and whether restrictive patterns of access to outpatient cervical spine procedures may exist. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study from 2010 to 2019 was conducted using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Relative utilization of outpatient (same-day discharge) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (OP-ACDF) and cervical disk replacement (OP-CDR) were assessed and trended over time between races. Multivariable regressions were subsequently utilized to adjust for baseline patient factors and comorbidities. RESULTS: Overall, Black patients were significantly less likely to undergo OP-ACDF or OP-CDR surgery when compared with White patients ( P <0.03 for both OP-ACDF and OP-CDR). From 2010 to 2019, a persisting disparity over time was found in outpatient utilization for both ACDF and CDR ( e.g. White vs. Black OP-ACDF: 6.0% vs. 3.1% in 2010 compared with 16.7% vs. 8.5% in 2019). These results held in all adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting racial disparities in outpatient spine surgery and demonstrates an emerging disparity in outpatient cervical spine utilization among Black patients. These restrictive patterns of access to same-day outpatient hospital and surgery centers may contribute to broader disparities in the overall utilization of major spine procedures that have been previously reported. Renewed interventions are needed to both understand and address these emerging inequalities in outpatient care before they become more firmly established within our orthopedic and neurosurgery spine delivery systems.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Low-Grade Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort comparison study. OBJECTIVE: To compare perioperative outcomes, radiographic parameters, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between minimally invasive unilateral laminotomy with bilateral decompression (MIS-ULBD) versus MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treatment of low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: While lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common condition, optimal surgical treatment remains controversial. Newer MIS techniques, which preserve bone, paraspinal musculature, and posterior midline stabilizers, are thought to reduce the risk of iatrogenic instability and may obviate the need for fusion. However, few comparative studies of MIS techniques for low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis currently exist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with low-grade (Meyerding grade I or II) lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis treated with single-level MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected spine surgery registry from April 2017 to November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, radiographic data, and PROMs were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients underwent either MIS-ULBD or MIS-TLIF (79 MIS-ULBD and 109 MIS-TLIF). Patients who underwent MIS-ULBD tended to be older, had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, lower mean percentage back pain, higher percentage of L4/L5 pathology, shorter operative time, lower estimated blood loss, and lower postoperative pain ( P <0.05). In both groups, there were statistically significant improvements at one year for five of the six PROMs studied: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS)-back pain, VAS-leg pain, Short Form 12 Physical Component Score (SF12-PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) ( P <0.05). On multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, there were no associations between procedure type and achieving minimal clinically important difference at one year in any of the PROMs studied. CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that both MIS-ULBD and MIS-TLIF result in significant improvements in pain and physical function for patients with low-grade lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCES: 3.

Quality outcomes of reinterpretation of brain CT studies by subspecialty experts in stroke imaging.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to determine the clinical importance and relative value of reinterpretation of brain CT studies by subspecialty experts by assessing the accuracy of interpretation by general radiologists at primary stroke centers and to assess interpretive quality outcomes as a function of change in the treatment of patients with stroke diagnoses or acute presentations of suspected stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Computerized medical records for the years 2009-2010 at four major community hospitals were queried for primary interpretation of brain CT studies of stroke patients with an acute presentation of either stroke or suspected stroke as diagnosed by board-certified general radiologists (nonneuroradiologists). A central database was queried that allowed one to query by clinical history or symptoms. Secondary interpretation of images of the identified patient sample was then performed by three experienced neuroradiologists. Each case was initially interpreted as an emergency or urgent study by a general radiologist. The reinterpretations performed by a neuroradiologist were scored as concordant or discordant. The discordant studies were categorized as a major discordance if there was a change in clinical management or as a minor discordance if there was no effect on or change in clinical management. The assessment was limited to brain CT studies without contrast administration. CT angiography and perfusion CT studies were not included in the analysis. Patients with hemorrhagic stroke, brain tumors, abscesses, and AIDS or HIV infection were excluded to limit the assessment to ischemic nonhemorrhagic disease. RESULTS: Of the 560 studies reviewed, 14 studies (2.5%) were identified as discordant. Of those discordant studies, four (0.7% of the original 560) were categorized as major discrepancies necessitating a change in clinical management. Ten (1.78%) were categorized as minor discrepancies, for which there was no change in management. There were no permanent adverse outcomes with respect to morbidity and mortality as a result of a discrepant interpretation, as determined by chart review or communication with the attending or referring physician by the secondary reader. CONCLUSION: Most of the interpreted head CT cases read by board-certified general radiologists for patients presenting with stroke or stroke symptoms did not result in discordant interpretations as verified by subspecialty experts. Discordant interpretations did not result in changes in clinical management in most cases. Double reading of head CT scans for these patients by subspecialty experts appears to be an inefficient method of substantially improving imaging health quality outcomes in stroke.

Computed tomography imaging in the management of headache in the emergency department: cost efficacy and policy implications.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the economic impact and diagnostic utility of computed tomography (CT) in the management of emergency department (ED) patients presenting with headache and nonfocal physical examinations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computerized medical records from 2 major community hospitals were retrospectively reviewed of patients presenting with headache over a 2.5-year period (2003-2006). A model was developed to assess test outcomes, CT result costs, and average institutional costs of the ED visit. The binomial probabilistic distribution of expected maximum cases was also calculated. RESULTS: Of the 5510 patient records queried, 882 (16%) met the above criteria. Two hundred eighty-one patients demonstrated positive CT findings (31.8%), but only 9 (1.02%) demonstrated clinically significant results (requiring a change in management). Most positive studies were incidental, including old infarcts, chronic ischemic changes, encephalomalacia, and sinusitis. The average cost of the head CT exam and ED visit was $764 (2006 dollars). This was approximately 3 times the cost of a routine outpatient visit (plus CT) for headache ($253). The incremental cost per clinically significant case detected in the ED was $50078. The calculated expected maximum number of clinically significant positive cases was almost 50% lower than what was actually detected. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that emergent CT imaging of nonfocal headache yields a low percentage of positive clinically significant results, and has limited cost efficacy. Since the use of CT for imaging patients with headache in the ED is widespread, the economic implications are considerable. Health policy reforms are indicated to better direct utilization in these patients.