The Impact of Physical Therapy After Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine if outcomes varied between patients based on physical therapy (PT) attendance after lumbar fusion surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The literature has been mixed regarding the efficacy of postoperative PT to improve disability and back pain, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures. Given the prevalence of PT referrals and lack of high-quality evidence, there is a need for additional studies investigating the efficacy of PT after lumbar fusion surgery to aid in developing robust clinical guidelines. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients receiving lumbar fusion surgery by current procedural terminology codes and separated them into 2 groups based on whether PT was prescribed. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient and surgical characteristics, PT utilization, and surgical outcomes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were identified and compared preoperatively, at 90 days postoperatively and one year postoperatively. RESULTS: The two groups had similar patient characteristics and comorbidities and demonstrated no significant differences between readmission, complication, and revision rates after surgery. Patients that attended PT had significantly more fused levels (1.41 ± 0.64 vs. 1.32 ± 0.54, P =0.027), longer operative durations (234 ± 96.4 vs. 215 ± 86.1 min, P =0.012), and longer postoperative hospital stays (3.35 ± 1.68 vs. 3.00 ± 1.49 days, P =0.004). All groups improved similarly by Oswestry Disability Index, short form-12 physical and mental health subsets, and back and leg pain by Visual Analog Scale at 90-day and 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that physical therapy does not significantly impact PROMs after lumbar fusion surgery. Given the lack of data suggesting clear benefit of PT after lumbar fusion, surgeons should consider more strict criteria when recommending physical therapy to their patients after lumbar fusion surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-Ⅲ.

Comparison of Postoperative Opioid Use After Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion or Posterior Cervical Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: Posterior cervical fusion (PCF) and anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) are two main surgical management options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Although ACDF is less invasive than PCF which should theoretically reduce postoperative pain, it is still unknown whether this leads to reduced opioid use. Our objective was to evaluate whether PCF increases postoperative opioid use compared with ACDF. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing 2-level to 4-level ACDF or PCF at a single center from 2017 to 2021. Our state's prescription drug-monitoring program was queried for filled opioid prescriptions using milligrams morphine equivalents (MMEs) up to 1 year postoperatively. In-hospital opioid use was collected from the electronic medical record. Bivariate statistics compared ACDF and PCF cohorts. Multivariate linear regression was done to assess independent predictors of in-hospital opioid use and short-term (0 to 30 days), subacute (30 to 90 days), and long-term (3 to 12 months) opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: We included 211 ACDF patients and 91 PCF patients. Patients undergoing PCF used more opioids during admission (126.7 vs. 51.0 MME, P < 0.001) and refilled more MMEs in the short-term (118.2 vs. 86.1, P = 0.001) but not subacute (33.6 vs. 19.7, P = 0.174) or long-term (85.6 vs. 47.8, P = 0.310) period. A similar percent of patients in both groups refilled at least one prescription after 90 days (39.6% vs. 33.2%, P = 0.287). PCF (ß = 56.7, P = 0.001) and 30-day preoperative MMEs (ß = 0.28, P = 0.041) were associated with greater in-hospital opioid requirements. PCF (ß = 26.7, P = 0.039), C5 nerve root irritation (ß = 51.4, P = 0.019), and a history of depression (ß = 40.9, P < 0.001) were independently associated with 30-day postoperative MMEs. CONCLUSIONS: PCF is initially more painful than ACDF but does not lead to persistent opioid use. Surgeons should optimize multimodal analgesia protocols to reduce long-term narcotic usage rather than change the surgical approach.Level of Evidence:III.

Evaluating Outcomes of Spinopelvic Fixation for Patients Undergoing Long Segment Thoracolumbar Fusion with a Prior Total Hip Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the relationship between spinal fusion and its effects on relative spinopelvic alignment in patients with prior total hip arthroplasty (THA) is critical. However, limited data exist on the effects of long spinal fusions on hip alignment in patients with a prior THA. Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes and changes in hip alignment between patients undergoing long fusion to the sacrum versus to the pelvis in the setting of prior THA. METHODS: Patients with a prior THA who underwent elective thoracolumbar spinal fusion starting at L2 or above were retrospectively identified. Patients were placed into one of two groups: fusion to the sacrum or pelvis. Preoperative, six-month postoperative, one-year postoperative, and delta spinopelvic and acetabular measurements were measured from standing lumbar radiographs. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients (55 sacral fusions, 57 pelvic fusions) were included. Patients who underwent fusion to the pelvis experienced longer length of stay (LOS) (8.31 vs. 4.21, P < 0.001) and less frequent home discharges (30.8% vs. 61.9%, P = 0.010), but fewer spinal revisions (12.3% vs. 30.9%, P = 0.030). No difference was observed in hip dislocation rates (3.51% vs. 1.82%, P = 1.000) or hip revisions (5.26% vs. 3.64%, P = 1.000) based on fusion construct. Fusion to the sacrum alone was an independent predictor of an increased spine revision rate (odds ratio: 3.56, P = 0.023). Patients in the pelvic fusion group had lower baseline lumbar lordosis (LL) (29.2 vs. 42.9, P < 0.001), six-month postoperative LL (38.7 vs. 47.3, P = 0.038), and greater 1-year ∆ pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (-7.98 vs. 0.21, P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Patients with prior THA undergoing long fusion to the pelvis experienced longer LOS, more surgical complications, and lower rate of spinal revisions. Patients with instrumentation to the pelvis had lower LL preoperatively with greater changes in LL and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis postoperatively. No differences were observed in acetabular positioning, hip dislocations, or THA revision rates between groups.