The Effect of Patient Resilience on Postoperative Scores After One and Two-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose is to investigate the association between resilience and outcomes of pain and neck-related disability after single- and two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: Patients who underwent single- or two-level ACDF were sent a survey between six months and two years following surgery. The survey included the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ-2). Patients completed the VAS and NDI twice, once describing preoperative pain and disability and once describing current pain and disability. Respondents were classified as high resilience (HR), medium resilience (MR), or low resilience (LR). Demographics, PSEQ-2 scores, pre- and postoperative VAS and NDI scores, and change in VAS (ΔVAS) and NDI (ΔNDI) scores were compared between groups. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients comprised the HR group, 273 patients comprised the MR group, and 47 patients comprised the LR group. All groups demonstrated postoperative improvement in VAS and NDI scores that exceeded previously established MCID values. The HR group demonstrated greater improvement in pain compared to the LR group (ΔVAS: -5.8 for HR vs -4.4 for LR, p=0.05). Compared to the MR group, the LR group demonstrated greater postoperative pain (VAS: 3.2 for LR vs 2.5 for MR, p=0.02) and disability (NDI: 11.9 for LR vs 8.6 for MR, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients demonstrated improvement in pain and neck-related disability after single- and two-level ACDF, regardless of resilience score. Patients with greater resilience may be expected to demonstrate more improvement in pain after ACDF.

Physical and Psychological Impact of Scar Cosmesis after Cervical Spine Fusion Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Patients' and surgeons' perceptions of cutaneous scarring can vary, causing unpleasant physical and psychological outcomes. This study aims to bridge the current scientific literature gap and understand the impact of patient-perceived scar cosmesis after anterior and posterior cervical spine surgery. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients ≥18 years old who underwent anterior or posterior cervical spine surgery from 2017 to 2022 at a large, urban academic group. To select patients with adequate time for surgical scar maturation, only patients who were greater than six months post-surgery were included. The SCAR-Q survey, a surgical scar assessment tool, was administered to patients to assess patient perceptions of scar symptomatology, appearance, and psychosocial impact. Scores range from 0 to 100, with 100 as the best outcome. An additional 5-item Likert scale question was administered to assess overall surgical satisfaction. RESULTS: All 854 respondents who completed the survey were stratified into two groups"Unsatisfied vs Satisfied." Patients who were "unsatisfied" with their surgery had the lowest outcome scores for SCAR-Q appearance, symptom, and psychosocial scores than those who were "satisfied" (p<0.001). Females had significantly higher/"more favorable" responses for SCAR-Q Appearance (77.5 vs. 82.8 p<0.001) and Psychosocial (87.4 vs. 94.3 p<0.001) scores compared to males. Regression analysis performed for each component score showed that increases in all three component scores were significant in patients in the satisfied group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that cervical spine surgery patients unsatisfied with their surgical outcome have lower scar-related scores, highlighting the impact of cosmetic closure and appearance.

The Fragility Index: Understanding its Application in Clinical Research.

With the vast increase in spinal surgery research and accessibility, critical evaluation of studies is paramount. Historically, P values and confidence intervals have been the gold standard, but more recently, the inclusion of the Fragility Index has brought a more holistic approach. The Fragility Index aims to communicate the robustness of a trial and how tenuous statistical significance may be. It can be used in conjunction with more traditional methods for evaluating research.

How to Write an Abstract.

The abstract of a research paper functions to attract readers and highlight the clinical significance of a research project in a broadly appealing manner. Abstract structure is commonly dictated by the target journal, however, a basic style typically follows the "Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion" structure of introduction, materials/methods, results, and discussion/conclusion. The abstract itself is commonly the initial accessible portion of a research paper, so writing in an engaging while informative manner is imperative for increasing manuscript views and citations. Overall, an abstract is a to-the-point synopsis of a research project that succinctly describes the entirety of your work.

Preoperative Hounsfield Units Predict Pedicle Screw Loosening in Osteoporotic Patients Following Short Segment Lumbar Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: (1) To determine if vertebral HU values obtained from preoperative CT predict postoperative outcomes following 1-3 level lumbar fusion and (2) to investigate whether decreased BMD values determined by HU predict cage subsidence and screw loosening. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In light of suboptimal screening for osteoporosis, vertebral computerized tomography(CT) Hounsfield Units(HU), have been investigated as a surrogate for bone mineral density(BMD). METHODS: In this retrospective study, adult patients who underwent 1-3 level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion(PLDF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody and fusion(TLIF) for degenerative disease between the years 2017-2022 were eligible for inclusion. Demographics and surgical characteristics were collected. Outcomes assessed included 90-day readmissions, 90-day complications, revisions, patient reported outcomes(PROMs), cage subsidence, and screw loosening. Osteoporosis was defined as HU of ≤110 on preoperative CT at L1. RESULTS: We assessed 119 patients with a mean age of 59.1, of whom 80.7% were white and 64.7% were nonsmokers. The majority underwent PLDF(63%) compared to TLIF(37%), with an average of 1.63 levels fused. Osteoporosis was diagnosed in 37.8% of the cohort with a mean HU in the osteoporotic group of 88.4 compared to 169 in non-osteoporotic patients. Although older in age, osteoporotic individuals did not exhibit increased 90-day readmissions, complications, or revisions compared to non-osteoporotic patients. A significant increase in the incidence of screw loosening was noted in the osteoporotic group with no differences observed in subsidence rates. On multivariable linear regression osteoporosis was independently associated with less improvement in visual analog scale(VAS) scores for back pain. CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis predicts screw loosening and increased back pain. Clinicians should be advised of the importance of preoperative BMD optimization as part of their surgical planning and the utility of vertebral CT HU as a tool for risk stratification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Risk of noise-induced hearing loss in the spine surgeon.

Background: Occupation-related noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) has both negative economic and quality of life implications. The risk spine surgeons undertake in regards to NIHL during operative intervention is unknown. Governing bodies, including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, have recommended exposure limits not to exceed 85 decibels (dB) over 8 hours. The purpose of this study is to characterize noise exposure to spine surgeons in the operating room (OR). Methods: Prospective collection of intraoperative recordings of spinal surgeries (cervical and thoracic/lumbar) was undertaken. Data gathered included procedure, operative duration, presence of background music, and noise information. Noise information included maximum decibel level (MDL), Peak level (LCPeak), Equivalent continuous sound pressure level, time weighted average (TWA), dose, and projected dose. Noise measurements were compared with baseline controls with and without music (empty ORs). Results: Two hundred seven noise recordings were analyzed. One hundred eighteen of those being spinal surgeries, 49 baseline recordings without music, and 40 with music. Maximum decibel level reached a maximum value of 111.5 dBA, with an average amongst surgical recordings of 103 dBA. Maximum decibel level exceeded 85 dBA in 100% of cases and was greater than 100 dBA in 78%. The maximum LCPeak recorded was 132.9 dBC with an average of 120 dBC. Furthermore, the average dose was 7.8% with an average projected dose of 26.5%. The highest dose occurred during a laminectomy at 72.9% of daily allowable noise. Maximum projected dose yielded 156% during a 3-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Conclusions: Spine surgeons are routinely exposed to damaging noise levels (>85 dBA) during operative intervention. With spine surgeons often performing multiple surgeries a day, the cumulative risk of noise exposure cannot be ignored. The synergistic effects of continuous and impact noise places spine surgeons at risk for the development of occupation-related NIHL.

Utilization of In-Hospital Orthopaedic Spine Consultations: Evaluating the Impact of Health Care Policy.

Access to specialty and private practice providers has been a divisive policy issue over the last decade, complicated by the conflict between a reduction in government-funded health care reimbursement and the need for health care providers to sustain a financially sound practice. This study evaluates the orthopedic spine consult service at an academic tertiary care center at 2 separate time points over a 5-year period to better understand the impact of decreasing orthopedic reimbursement rates and the increasing prevalence of federally supported medical insurance on the access to specialty care. In total 500 patients in 2017 and 480 patients in 2021 were included for the final analysis. A higher percentage of consults in 2021 came from the emergency department (74.0% versus 60.4%, P < 0.001); however, the emergency department saw fewer spinal cord injuries (11.9% versus 21.4%, P < 0.001), and the spinal cord injuries were less severe (3.1% versus 6.2% Association Impairment Scale A or B, P = 0.034). A smaller percentage of patients in 2021 went on to receive orthopedic spine surgery following consultation (35.2% versus 43.8%, P = 0.007), and those receiving surgery had an operation performed farther out from the initial consultation (4.73 versus 4.09 days, P < 0.001). Additionally, fewer patients with Medicare insurance (23.5% versus 30.8%) and more patients with Medicaid insurance (20.2% versus 12.4%) were seen in 2021 compared with 2017 (P = 0.003). Overall, this study found an increased proportion of Medicaid patients seen by the spine consult service but a decrease in the acuity of consults. Measures to improve access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act have revealed the complexity of this issue in health care. This study's findings have demonstrated that while more patients did have insurance coverage following the Affordable Care Act, they still face a barrier to accessing outpatient orthopedic spine providers.

Lateral approach to the lumbar spine: The utility of an access surgeon.

Background: Lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs) utilize a retroperitoneal approach that avoids the intraperitoneal organs and manipulation of the anterior vasculature encountered in anterior approaches to the lumbar spine. The approach was championed by spinal surgeons; however, general/vasculature surgeons may be more comfortable with the approach. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following LLIF procedures based on whether a spine surgeon or access surgeon performed the approach. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified all one- to two-level LLIFs at a tertiary care center from 2011 to 2021 for degenerative spine disease. Patients were divided into groups based on whether a spine surgeon or general surgeon performed the surgical approach. The electronic medical record was reviewed for hospital readmissions and complication rates. Results: We identified 239 patients; of which 177 had approaches performed by spine surgeons and 62 by general surgeons. The spine surgeon group had fewer levels with posterior instrumentation (1.40 vs. 2.00; P < 0.001) and decompressed (0.94 vs. 1.25, P = 0.046); however, the two groups had a similar amount of two-level LLIFs (29.9% vs. 27.4%, P = 0.831). This spine surgeon approach group was found to have shorter surgeries (281 vs. 328 min, P = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays Length of Stay (LOS) (3.1 vs. 3.6 days, P = 0.019); however, these differences were largely attributed to the shorter posterior fusion construct. On regression analysis, there was no statistical difference in postoperative complication rates whether or not an access surgeon was utilized (P = 0.226). Conclusion: Similar outcomes may be seen regardless of whether a spine or access surgeon performs the approach for an LLIF.

Sagittal alignment in operative degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a scoping review.

Background: The benefit of surgical intervention over conservative treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients with neurologic symptoms is well-established. However, it is currently unclear what breadth of available evidence exists on regional and global sagittal alignment in DLS surgery. As such, the purpose of the current study is to conduct a scoping review to map and synthesize the DLS literature regarding the current radiographic assessment of sagittal spinal alignment in DLS surgery. Methods: A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from January 1971 to January 2023 was performed for all DLS studies examining sagittal spinal alignment parameters with DLS surgery according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) protocol. Results: From 2,222 studies, a total of 109 studies were included, representing 10,730 patients with an average age of 63.0 years old and average follow-up of 35.1 months postoperatively. Among included studies, 93 (85%), were largely published in the last decade and predominantly represented retrospective cohorts 70 (64%) or case series 22 (20%). A common theme among the reporting of radiographic parameters in the included investigations was the assessment of the magnitude and/or maintenance of a radiographic change postoperatively, with 92 (84%) studies reporting these findings. The majority of studies focused on index DLS level [33 (30%) studies] or lumbar spine radiographic imaging [33 (30%) studies] only. Thirty-seven (34%) studies reported spinopelvic parameters, with only 13 (12%) of included studies assessing 36-inch standing lateral radiographs and overall alignment. Conclusions: There is increasing prevalence of investigations assessing sagittal spinal alignment parameters in DLS surgery. Although, there is an increasing prevalence of studies investigating sagittal spinal alignment parameters in DLS surgery the quality of the currently available literature on this topic is of overall low evidence and largely retrospective in nature. Additionally, there is limited analysis of global sagittal spinal alignment in DLS suggesting that future investigational emphasis should prioritize longitudinally followed large prospective cohorts or multi-centre randomized controlled trials. Attempts at standardizing the radiographic and functional outcome reporting techniques across multi-centre investigations and prospective cohorts will allow for more robust, reproducible analyses of significance to be conducted on DLS patients.

The Effect of Preoperative Exposure to Benzodiazepines on Opioid Consumption After One and Two-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: Investigate the relationship between preoperative benzodiazepine exposure and postoperative opioid use in patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of preoperative benzodiazepine exposure on postoperative opioid use in spine surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing primary 1 or 2-level ACDF at a single institution from February 2020 to November 2021 were identified through electronic medical records. The prescription drug monitoring program was utilized to record the name, dosage, and quantity of preoperative benzodiazepines/opioids filled within 60 days before surgery and postoperative opioids 6 months after surgery. Patients were classified as benzodiazepine naïve or exposed according to preoperative usage, and postoperative opioid dose and duration were compared between groups. Regression analysis was performed for outcomes that demonstrated statistical significance, adjusting for preoperative opioid use, age, sex, and body mass index. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients comprised the benzodiazepine-exposed group whereas 90 comprised the benzodiazepine-naïve group. There was no significant difference in average daily morphine milligram equivalents between groups (median: 96.0 vs 65.0, P = 0.11). The benzodiazepine-exposed group received postoperative opioids for a longer duration (median: 32.0 d vs 12.0 d, P = 0.004) with more prescriptions (median: 2.0 vs 1.0, P = 0.004) and a greater number of pills (median: 110.0 vs 59.0, P = 0.007). On regression analysis, preoperative benzodiazepine use was not significantly associated with postoperative opioid duration [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.93, P = 0.74], number of prescriptions (IRR: 1.21, P = 0.16), or number of pills (IRR: 0.89, P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: While preoperative benzodiazepine users undergoing primary 1 or 2-level ACDF received postoperative opioids for a longer duration compared with a benzodiazepine naïve cohort, preoperative benzodiazepine use did not independently contribute to this observation. These findings provide insight into the relationship between preoperative benzodiazepine use and postoperative opioid consumption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.