The Influence of Wait Time on Surgical Outcomes in Elective Lumbar Degenerative Spine Conditions: A Retrospective Multicentre Cohort Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: The impact of delayed access to operative treatment on patient reported outcomes (PROs) for lumbar degenerative conditions remains unclear. The goal of this study is to evaluate the association between wait times for elective lumbar spine surgery and post-operative PROs. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of patients surgically treated for a degenerative lumbar conditions. Wait times were calculated from primary care referral to surgery, termed the cumulative wait time (CWT). CWT benchmarks were created at 3, 6 and 12 months. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to measure the associations between CWT and meeting the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 12 months post-operatively. RESULTS: A total of 2281 patients were included in the study cohort. The average age was 59.4 years (SD 14.8). The median CWT was 43.1 weeks (IQR 17.8 - 60.6) and only 30.9% had treatment within 6 months. Patients were more likely achieve the MCID for the ODI at 12 months post-operatively if they had surgery within 6 months of referral from primary care (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.11 - 1.34). This relationship was also found at a benchmark CWT time of 3 months (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.15 - 1.54) though not at 12 months (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.97 - 1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received operative treatment within a 3- and 6-month benchmark between referral and surgery were more likely to experience noticeable improvement in post-operative function.

Temporal analysis of complication rates of cervical spine surgery for degenerative spine disease between younger and older cohorts using the CSORN registry: Is age just a number?

STUDY DESIGN: An ambispective review of consecutive cervical spine surgery patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) between January 2015 and September 2019. PURPOSE: To compare complication rates of degenerative cervical spine surgery over time between older (> 65) and younger age groups (< 65). More elderly people are having spinal surgery. Few studies have examined the temporal nature of complications of cervical spine surgery by patient age groups. METHODS: Adverse events were collected prospectively using adverse event forms. Binary logistic regression analysis was utilized to assess associations between risk modifiers and adverse events at the intra-, peri-operative and 3 months post-surgery. RESULTS: Of the 761 patients studied (age < 65, n = 581 (76.3%) and 65 + n = 180 (23.7%), the intra-op adverse events were not significantly different; < 65 = 19 (3.3%) vs 65 + = 11 (6.1%), p < 0.087. Peri-operatively, the < 65 group had significantly lower percentage of adverse events (65yrs (11.2%) vs. 65 + = (26.1%), p < 0.001). There were no differences in rates of adverse events at 3 months post-surgery (< 65 = 39 (6.7%) vs. 65 + = 12 (6.7%), p < 0.983). Less blood loss (OR = 0.99, p < 0.010) and shorter length of hospital stay (OR = 0.97, p < 0.025) were associated with not having intra-op adverse events. Peri-operatively, > 1 operated level (OR = 1.77, p < 0.041), shorter length of hospital stay (OR = 0.86, p < 0.001) and being younger than 65 years (OR = 2.11, p < 0.006) were associated with not having adverse events. CONCLUSION: Following degenerative cervical spine surgery, the older and younger age groups had significantly different complication rates at peri-operative time points, and the intra-operative and 3-month post-operative complication rates were similar in the groups.

L5-S1 Pseudoarthrosis Rate with ALIF Versus TLIF in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgeries: A Retrospective Analysis of 100 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbosacral pseudoarthrosis is a common complication following adult spine deformity (ASD) surgery. This study assessed the reoperation rate for L5-S1 pseudoarthrosis in the ASD population. Compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs), we hypothesized that anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) would result in lower rates of L5-S1 pseudarthrosis. METHODS: This is a single center study with patient data retrieved from a prospective ASD database. The patients had a long-segment fusion, ALIF or TLIF at the L5-S1 level with a 2-year follow-up and were divided into 2 groups (TLIF and ALIF). The study's primary outcome was to assess the difference in the reoperation rate for clinical pseudoarthrosis between the TLIF and the ALIF groups. The secondary outcomes measured the radiological pseudoarthrosis rate and identified risks for L5-S1 pseudoarthrosis development. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included; 49 patients (mean age, 62.9 years; 77.5% females) were in TLIF and 51 patients (mean age, 64.4 years; 70.6% females) were in the ALIF group. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Thirteen (13%) patients with L5-S1 pseudoarthrosis required reoperation. Clinical pseudoarthrosis was higher in the TLIF group than in the ALIF group (12/49 vs. 1/51; P < 0.001). Univariate analysis demonstrated a higher risk of L5-S1 pseudoarthrosis with TLIF than ALIF (risk ratio, 12.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.68-92.4; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed 4.86 times the risk of L5-S1 clinical pseudoarthrosis with TLIF than with ALIF (risk ratio, 4.86; 95% confidence interval 0.57-47; P = 0.17), but this ratio did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in reoperation risk for L5-S1 pseudarthrosis was observed based on the method of IF. rhBMP-2 was noted as a significant predictor.

Cost consequence analysis of waiting for lumbar disc herniation surgery.

The economic repercussions of waiting for lumbar disc surgery have not been well studied. The primary goal of this study was to perform a cost-consequence analysis of patients receiving early vs late surgery for symptomatic disc herniation from a societal perspective. Secondarily, we compared patient factors and patient-reported outcomes. This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the CSORN registry. A cost-consequence analysis was performed where direct and indirect costs were compared, and different outcomes were listed separately. Comparisons were made on an observational cohort of patients receiving surgery less than 60 days after consent (short wait) or 60 days or more after consent (long wait). This study included 493 patients with surgery between January 2015 and October 2021 with 272 patients (55.2%) in the short wait group and 221 patients (44.8%) classified as long wait. There was no difference in proportions of patients who returned to work at 3 and 12-months. Time from surgery to return to work was similar between both groups (34.0 vs 34.9 days, p = 0.804). Time from consent to return to work was longer in the longer wait group corresponding to an additional $11,753.10 mean indirect cost per patient. The short wait group showed increased healthcare usage at 3 months with more emergency department visits (52.6% vs 25.0%, p < 0.032), more physiotherapy (84.6% vs 72.0%, p < 0.001) and more MRI (65.2% vs 41.4%, p < 0.043). This corresponded to an additional direct cost of $518.21 per patient. Secondarily, the short wait group had higher baseline NRS leg, ODI, and lower EQ5D and PCS. The long wait group had more patients with symptoms over 2 years duration (57.6% vs 34.1%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of patients reached MCID in terms of NRS leg pain at 3-month follow up in the short wait group (84.0% vs 75.9%, p < 0.040). This cost-consequence analysis of an observational cohort showed decreased costs associated with early surgery of $11,234.89 per patient when compared to late surgery for lumbar disc herniation. The early surgery group had more severe symptoms with higher healthcare utilization. This is counterbalanced by the additional productivity loss in the long wait group, which likely have a more chronic disease. From a societal economic perspective, early surgery seems beneficial and should be promoted.

Practice Variation between Salaried and Fee-for-Service Surgeons for Lumbar Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in surgical practices between salaried and fee-for-service (FFS) surgeons for two common degenerative spine conditions. Surgeons may offer different treatments for similar conditions on the basis of their compensation mechanism. METHODS: The study assessed the practices of 63 spine surgeons across eight Canadian provinces (39 FFS surgeons and 24 salaried) who performed surgery for two lumbar conditions: stable spinal stenosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. The study included a multicenter, ambispective review of consecutive spine surgery patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network registry between October 2012 and July 2018. The primary outcome was the difference in type of procedures performed between the two groups. Secondary study variables included surgical characteristics, baseline patient factors, and patient-reported outcome. RESULTS: For stable spinal stenosis (n = 2234), salaried surgeons performed statistically fewer uninstrumented fusion (p < 0.05) than FFS surgeons. For degenerative spondylolisthesis (n = 1292), salaried surgeons performed significantly more instrumentation plus interbody fusions (p < 0.05). There were no statistical differences in patient-reported outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon compensation was associated with different approaches to stable lumbar spinal stenosis and degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Salaried surgeons chose a more conservative approach to spinal stenosis and a more aggressive approach to degenerative spondylolisthesis, which highlights that remuneration is likely a minor determinant in the differences in practice of spinal surgery in Canada. Further research is needed to further elucidate which variables, other than patient demographics and financial incentives, influence surgical decision-making.

Effects of Workload on Return to Work After Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis was performed of a multi-center Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) surgical database. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate and time to return to work (RTW) based on workload intensity after elective degenerative lumbar spine surgery. METHODS: Patients working pre-operatively, aged greater than 18, who underwent a primary one- or two-level elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative conditions between January 2015 and October 2020 were evaluated. The percentage of patients who returned to work at 1 year and the time to RTW post-operatively were analyzed based on workload intensity. RESULTS: Of the 1290 patients included in the analysis, the overall rate of RTW was 82% at 1 year. Based on workload there was no significant difference in time to RTW after a fusion procedure, with median time to RTW being 10 weeks. For non-fusion procedure, the sedentary group had a statistically significantly quicker time to RTW than the light-moderate (P < .005) and heavy-very heavy (<.027) groups. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of RTW ranged between 84% for patients with sedentary work to 77% for patient with a heavy-very heavy workload. Median time to resumption of work was about 10 weeks following a fusion regardless of work intensity. There was more variability following non-fusion surgeries such as laminectomy and discectomy reflecting the patient's job demands.

Preoperative Patient-reported Outcomes are not Associated With Sagittal and Spinopelvic Alignment in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether sagittal and spinopelvic alignment correlate with preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with spinal stenosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Positive global sagittal balance and spinopelvic malalignment are strongly correlated with symptom severity in adult spinal deformity, but this correlation has not been evaluated in DLS. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) prospective DLS study at seven centers between January 2015 and May 2018. Correlation was assessed between the following preoperative PROs: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), numeric rating scale (NRS) leg pain, and NRS back pain and the following preoperative sagittal radiographic parameters SS, PT, PI, SVA, LL, TK, T1SPI, T9SPI, and PI-LL. Patients were further divided into groups based on spinopelvic alignment: Group 1 PI-LL<10°; Group 2 PI-LL ≥10° with PT <30°; and Group 3 PI-LL ≥10° with PT ≥30°. Preoperative PROs were compared among these three groups and were further stratified by those with SVA <50 mm and SVA ≥50 mm. RESULTS: A total of 320 patients (61% female) with mean age of 66.1 years were included. Mean (SD) preoperative PROs were: NRS leg pain 7.4 (2.1), NRS back pain 7.1 (2.0), and ODI 45.5 (14.5). Preoperative radiographic parameters included: SVA 27.1 (33.4) mm, LL 45.7 (13.4°), PI 57.6 (11.9), and PI-LL 11.8 (14.0°). Weak but statistically significant correlations were observed between leg pain and PT (r = -0.114) and PI (ρ = -0.130), and T9SPI with back pain ( r  = 0.130). No significant differences were observed among the three groups stratified by PI-LL and PT. No significant differences in PROs were observed between patients with SVA <50 mm compared to those with SVA ≥50 mm. CONCLUSION: Sagittal and spinopelvic malalignment do not appear to significantly influence baseline PROs in patients with DLS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic level II.

Cervical Sagittal Alignment in Patients with Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Among patients with CSM, we aimed to evaluate the extent to which: (1) Preoperative cervical sagittal alignment is associated with health-related quality of life, function, and symptoms; (2) Surgery leads to changes in cervical sagittal alignment; and (3) Postoperative cervical sagittal alignment is associated with health-related quality of life, function, and symptoms at 12 months of follow-up. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The importance of maintaining or improving cervical sagittal alignment in the surgical management of patients with CSM has not been established. METHODS: We measured C2-C7 Cobb angle, T1 slope, and C2-C7 cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA). We tested for associations with Neck Disability Index, Pain Scales for neck and arm pain, EuroQol 5D, Short Form 12 Physical and Mental Component Summaries, and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores. We adjusted for potential confounders using multiple linear regression, and we performed various prespecified subgroup (cSVA > 40 mm, surgical approach) and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Among 250 patients, adjusted analyses yielded significant inverse associations prior to surgery between each of cSVA and T1 slope with SF12 Physical Component Summaries (T1 slope: -0.14, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.01, P = 0.03; C2-C7 cSVA: -0.13, 95% CI --0.21 to -0.05 P < 0.01). Surgery was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in cSVA across the cohort (+5.8 mm [SD 11.7], P < 0.01) but no change in Cobb angle or T1 slope. At 12-months after surgery, there were no significant associations between alignment parameters or change in alignment and any measures of health-related quality of life, function, or symptoms. Results were consistent across subgroup and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Increased cSVA and T1 slope were associated with inferior health-related quality of life at presentation among patients with CSM, but no significant associations were observed following surgical treatment.Level of Evidence: 3.

Low-back pain after lumbar discectomy for disc herniation: what can you tell your patient?

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar discectomy (LD) is frequently performed to alleviate radicular pain resulting from disc herniation. While this goal is achieved in most patients, improvement in low-back pain (LBP) has been reported inconsistently. The goal of this study was to characterize how LBP evolves following discectomy. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected patient data from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry. Patients who underwent surgery for lumbar disc herniation were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was a clinically significant reduction in the back pain numerical rating scale (BPNRS) assessed at 12 months. Binary logistic regression was used to model the relationship between the primary outcome and potential predictors. RESULTS: There were 557 patients included in the analysis. The chief complaint was radiculopathy in 85%; 55% of patients underwent a minimally invasive procedure. BPNRS improved at 3 months by 48% and this improvement was sustained at all follow-ups. LBP and leg pain improvement were correlated. Clinically significant improvement in BPNRS at 12 months was reported by 64% of patients. Six factors predicted a lack of LBP improvement: female sex, low education level, marriage, not working, low expectations with regard to LBP improvement, and a low BPNRS preoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant improvement in LBP is observed in the majority of patients after LD. These data should be used to better counsel patients and provide accurate expectations about back pain improvement.

Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: factors associated with the decision to fuse.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The indication to perform a fusion and decompression surgery as opposed to decompression alone for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) remains controversial. A variety of factors are considered when deciding on whether to fuse, including patient demographics, radiographic parameters, and symptom presentation. Likely surgeon preference has an important influence as well. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the decision of a Canadian academic spine surgeon to perform a fusion for LDS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This study is a retrospective analysis of patients prospectively enrolled in a multicenter Canadian study that was designed to evaluate the assessment and surgical management of LDS. PATIENT SAMPLE: Inclusion criteria were patients with: radiographic evidence of LDS and neurogenic claudication or radicular pain, undergoing posterior decompression alone or posterior decompression and fusion, performed in one of seven, participating academic centers from 2015 to 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient demographics, patient-rated outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], numberical rating scale back pain and leg pain, SF-12), and imaging parameters were recorded in the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Surgeon factors were retrieved by survey of each participating surgeon and then linked to their specific patients within the database. METHODS: Univariate analysis was used to compare patient characteristics, imaging measures, and surgeon variables between those that had a fusion and those that had decompression alone. Multivariate backward logistic regression was used to identify the best combination of factors associated with the decision to perform a fusion. RESULTS: This study includes 241 consecutively enrolled patients receiving surgery from 11 surgeons at 7 sites. Patients that had a fusion were younger (65.3±8.3 vs. 68.6±9.7 years, p=.012), had worse ODI scores (45.9±14.7 vs. 40.2±13.5, p=.007), a smaller average disc height (6.1±2.7 vs. 8.0±7.3 mm, p=.005), were more likely to have grade II spondylolisthesis (31% vs. 14%, p=.008), facet distraction (34% vs. 60%, p=.034), and a nonlordotic disc angle (26% vs. 17%, p=.038). The rate of fusion varied by individual surgeon and practice location (p<.001, respectively). Surgeons that were fellowship trained in Canada more frequently fused than those who fellowship trained outside of Canada (76% vs. 57%, p=.027). Surgeons on salary fused more frequently than surgeons remunerated by fee-for-service (80% vs. 64%, p=.004). In the multivariate analysis the clinical factors associated with an increased odds of fusion were decreasing age, decreasing disc height, and increasing ODI score; the radiographic factors were grade II spondylolisthesis and neutral or kyphotic standing disc type; and the surgeon factors were fellowship location, renumeration type and practice region. The odds of having a fusion surgery was more than two times greater for patients with a grade II spondylolisthesis or neutral and/or kyphotic standing disc type (opposed to lordotic standing disc type). Patients whose surgeon completed their fellowship in Canada, or whose surgeon was salaried (opposed to fee-for-service), or whose surgeon practiced in western Canada had twice the odds of having fusion surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to perform a fusion in addition to decompression for LDS is multifactorial. Although patient and radiographic parameters are important in the decision-making process, multiple surgeon factors are associated with the preference of a Canadian spine surgeon to perform a fusion for LDS. Future work is necessary to decrease treatment variability between surgeons and help facilitate the implementation of evidence-based decision making.