Focal compression of the cervical spinal cord alone does not indicate high risk of neurological deterioration in patients with a diagnosis of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM) is the functional derangement of the spinal cord resulting from vertebral column spondylotic degeneration. Typical neurological symptoms of DCM include gait imbalance, hand/arm numbness, and upper extremity dexterity loss. Greater spinal cord compression is believed to lead to a higher rate of neurological deterioration, although clinical experience suggests a more complex mechanism involving spinal canal diameter (SCD). In this study, we utilized machine learning clustering to understand the relationship between SCD and different patterns of cord compression (i.e. compression at one disc level, two disc levels, etc.) to identify patient groups at risk of neurological deterioration. 124 MRI scans from 51 non-operative DCM patients were assessed through manual scoring of cord compression and SCD measurements. Dimensionality reduction techniques and k-means clustering established patient groups that were then defined with their unique risk criteria. We found that the compression pattern is unimportant at SCD extremes (≤14.5 mm or > 15.75 mm). Otherwise, severe spinal cord compression at two disc levels increases deterioration likelihood. Notably, if SCD is normal and cord compression is not severe at multiple levels, deterioration likelihood is relatively reduced, even if the spinal cord is experiencing compression. We elucidated five patient groups with their associated risks of deterioration, according to both SCD range and cord compression pattern. Overall, SCD and focal cord compression alone do not reliably predict an increased risk of neurological deterioration. Instead, the specific combination of narrow SCD with multi-level focal cord compression increases the likelihood of neurological deterioration in mild DCM patients.

Advanced MRI metrics improve the prediction of baseline disease severity for individuals with degenerative cervical myelopathy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the most common form of atraumatic spinal cord injury globally. Degeneration of spinal discs, bony osteophyte growth and ligament pathology results in physical compression of the spinal cord contributing to damage of white matter tracts and grey matter cellular populations. This results in an insidious neurological and functional decline in patients which can lead to paralysis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirms the diagnosis of DCM and is a prerequisite to surgical intervention, the only known treatment for this disorder. Unfortunately, there is a weak correlation between features of current commonly acquired MRI scans ("community MRI, cMRI") and the degree of disability experienced by a patient. PURPOSE: This study examines the predictive ability of current MRI sequences relative to "advanced MRI" (aMRI) metrics designed to detect evidence of spinal cord injury secondary to degenerative myelopathy. We hypothesize that the utilization of higher fidelity aMRI scans will increase the effectiveness of machine learning models predicting DCM severity and may ultimately lead to a more efficient protocol for identifying patients in need of surgical intervention. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Single institution analysis of imaging registry of patients with DCM. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 296 patients in the cMRI group and 228 patients in the aMRI group. OUTCOME MEASURES: Physiologic measures: accuracy of machine learning algorithms to detect severity of DCM assessed clinically based on the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) scale. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network registry with DCM were screened and 296 cervical spine MRIs acquired in cMRI were compared with 228 aMRI acquisitions. aMRI acquisitions consisted of diffusion tensor imaging, magnetization transfer, T2-weighted, and T2*-weighted images. The cMRI group consisted of only T2-weighted MRI scans. Various machine learning models were applied to both MRI groups to assess accuracy of prediction of baseline disease severity assessed clinically using the mJOA scale for cervical myelopathy. RESULTS: Through the utilization of Random Forest Classifiers, disease severity was predicted with 41.8% accuracy in cMRI scans and 73.3% in the aMRI scans. Across different predictive model variations tested, the aMRI scans consistently produced higher prediction accuracies compared to the cMRI counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: aMRI metrics perform better in machine learning models at predicting disease severity of patients with DCM. Continued work is needed to refine these models and address DCM severity class imbalance concerns, ultimately improving model confidence for clinical implementation.

The Effects of Peri-Operative Adverse Events on Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Observational Cohort Study from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of data examining the effects of perioperative adverse events (AEs) on long-term outcomes for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. We aimed to investigate associations between the occurrence of perioperative AEs and coprimary outcomes: (1) modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score and (2) Neck Disability Index (NDI) score. METHODS: We analyzed data from 800 patients prospectively enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network multicenter observational study. The Spine AEs Severity system was used to collect intraoperative and postoperative AEs. Patients were assessed at up to 2 years after surgery using the NDI and the mJOA scale. We used a linear mixed-effect regression to assess the influence of AEs on longitudinal outcome measures as well as multivariable logistic regression to assess factors associated with meeting minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds at 1 year. RESULTS: There were 167 (20.9%) patients with minor AEs and 36 (4.5%) patients with major AEs. The occurrence of major AEs was associated with an average increase in NDI of 6.8 points (95% CI: 1.1-12.4, P = .019) and reduction of 1.5 points for mJOA scores (95% CI: -2.3 to -0.8, P < .001) up to 2 years after surgery. Occurrence of major AEs reduced the odds of patients achieving MCID targets at 1 year after surgery for mJOA (odds ratio 0.23, 95% CI: 0.086-0.53, P = .001) and for NDI (odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI: 0.11-0.84, P = .032). CONCLUSION: Major AEs were associated with reduced functional gains and worse recovery trajectories for patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. Occurrence of major AEs reduced the probability of achieving mJOA and NDI MCID thresholds at 1 year. Both minor and major AEs significantly increased health resource utilization by reducing the proportion of discharges home and increasing length of stay.

Anterior vs Posterior Surgery for Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The advantages and disadvantages of anterior vs posterior surgical approaches for patients with progressive degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) remain uncertain. Our primary objective was to evaluate patient-reported disability at 1 year after surgery. Our secondary objectives were to evaluate differences in patient profiles selected for each approach in routine clinical practice and to compare neurological function, neck and arm pain, health-related quality of life, adverse events, and rates of reoperations. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients with DCM who were enrolled in an ongoing multicenter prospective observational cohort study. We controlled for differences in baseline characteristics and numbers of spinal levels treated using multivariable logistic regression. Adverse events were collected according to the Spinal Adverse Events Severity protocol. RESULTS: Among 559 patients, 261 (47%) underwent anterior surgery while 298 (53%) underwent posterior surgery. Patients treated posteriorly had significantly worse DCM severity and a greater number of vertebral levels involved. After adjusting for confounders, there was no significant difference between approaches for odds of achieving the minimum clinically important difference for the Neck Disability Index (odds ratio 1.23, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.86, P = .31). There was also no significant difference for change in modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores, and differences in neck and arm pain and health-related quality of life did not exceed minimum clinically important differences. Patients treated anteriorly experienced greater rates of dysphagia, whereas patients treated posteriorly experienced greater rates of wound complications, neurological complications, and reoperations. CONCLUSION: Patients selected for posterior surgery had worse DCM and a greater number of vertebral levels involved. Despite this, anterior and posterior surgeries were associated with similar improvements in disability, neurological function, pain, and quality of life. Anterior surgery had a more favorable profile of adverse events, which suggests it might be a preferred option when feasible.

Consensus for a primary care clinical decision-making tool for assessing, diagnosing, and managing low back pain in Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition causing disability and high healthcare costs. Alberta faces challenges with unnecessary referrals to specialists and long wait times. A province-wide standardized clinical care pathway based on evidence-based best practices can improve efficiency, reduce wait times, and enhance patient outcomes. Implementing such pathways has shown success in other areas of healthcare in Alberta. This study developed a clinical decision-making pathway to standardize care and minimize uncertainty in assessment, diagnosis, and management. METHODS: A systematic rapid review identified existing tools and evidence that could support a comprehensive LBP clinical decision-making tool. Forty-seven healthcare professionals participated in four rounds of a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on the assessment, diagnosis, and management of patients presenting to primary care with LBP in Alberta, Canada. This project was a collaborative effort between Alberta Health Services' Bone and Joint Health Strategic Clinical Network (BJHSCN) and the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI). RESULTS: A province-wide expert panel consisting of professionals from different health disciplines and regions collaborated to develop an LBP clinical decision-making tool. This tool presents clinical care pathways for acute, subacute, and chronic LBP. It also provides guidance for history-taking, physical examination, patient education, and management. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical decision-making tool will help to standardize care, provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of LBP, and assist in clinical decision-making for primary care providers in both public and private sectors.

Stand-Alone Anchored Spacer vs Anterior Plate Construct in the Management of Adjacent Segment Disease after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of surgically treated adjacent segment disease (ASDis) following ACDF with either anterior plate construct (APC) or stand-alone anchored spacers (SAAS). METHOD: Multiple databases were searched until December 2022 for pertinent studies. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life outcomes [JOA, NDI, and VAS], whereas, the secondary outcomes included operative characteristics [estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time (OT)], radiological outcomes [C2-C7 Cobb angle, disc height index (DHI) changes, fusion rate], and complications. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies were included, comprising 210 patients who had been surgically treated for cervical ASDis. Among them, 113 received APC, and 97 received SAAS. Postoperative dysphagia was significantly higher in the APC group [47% vs 11%, OR = 7.7, 95% CI = 3.1-18.9, P < .05]. Similarly, operative time and blood loss were higher in the APC group compared to the SAAS group; [MD = 16.96, 95% CI = 7.87-26.06, P < .05] and [MD = 5.22, 95% CI = .35 - 10.09, P < .05], respectively. However, there was no difference in the rate of prolonged dysphagia and clinical outcomes in terms of JOA, NDI, and VAS. Furthermore, there was no difference in the radiological parameters including the C2-7 Cobb angle and DHI as well as the fusion rate. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that both surgical techniques (APC and SAAS) are effective in treating ASDis. However, with low certainty of the evidence, considering patients are at high risk of dysphagia following revision cervical spine surgery SAAS may be the preferred choice.

Determining minimal clinically important difference estimates following surgery for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine: analysis of the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: There is significant variability in minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criteria for lumbar spine surgery that suggests population and primary pathology specific thresholds may be required to help determine surgical success when using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate MCID thresholds for 3 commonly used PROMs after surgical intervention for each of 4 common lumbar spine pathologies. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Observational longitudinal study of patients from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) national registry. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing surgery from 2015 to 2018 for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS; n = 856), degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS; n = 591), disc herniation (DH; n = 520) or degenerative disc disease (DDD n = 185) were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: PROMs were collected presurgery and 1-year postsurgery: the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg Numeric Pain Rating Scales (NPRS). At 1-year, patients reported whether they were 'Much better'/'Better'/'Same'/'Worse'/'Much worse' compared to before their surgery. Responses to this item were used as the anchor in analyses to determine surgical MCIDs for benefit ('Much better'/'Better') and substantial benefit ('Much better'). METHODS: MCIDs for absolute and percentage change for each of the 3 PROMs were estimated using a receiving operating curve (ROC) approach, with maximization of Youden's index as primary criterion. Area under the curve (AUC) estimates, sensitivity, specificity and correct classification rates were determined. All analyses were conducted separately by pathology group. RESULTS: MCIDs for ODI change ranged from -10.0 (DDD) to -16.9 (DH) for benefit, and -13.8 (LSS) to -22.0 (DS,DH) for substantial benefit. MCID for back and leg NPRS change were -2 to -3 for each group for benefit and -4.0 for substantial benefit for all groups on back NPRS. MCID estimates for percentage change varied by PROM and pathology group, ranging from -11.1% (ODI for DDD) to -50.0% (leg NPRS for DH) for benefit and from -40.0% (ODI for DDD) to -66.6% (leg NPRS for DH) for substantial benefit. Correct classification rates for all MCID thresholds ranged from 71% to 89% and were relatively lower for absolute vs percent change for those with high or low presurgical scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the use of generic MCID thresholds across pathologies in lumbar spine surgery is not recommended. For patients with relatively low or high presurgery PROM scores, MCIDs based on percentage change, rather than absolute change, appear generally preferable. These findings have applicability in clinical and research settings, and are important for future surgical prognostic work.

Timing of Recovery After Surgery for Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

BACKGROUND: The time course over which postoperative neurological recovery occurs after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy occurs is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the time point at which patients experience significant neurological improvement. METHODS: We reviewed data from an ongoing prospective multicenter cohort study. We measured neurological function at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery using the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) scale. We implemented minimal clinical important differences (MCIDs) to guide interpretation of mJOA scores, and we used 1-way analysis of variance to compare changes between follow-up intervals. RESULTS: Among 330 patients, the mean overall mJOA improved from 12.9 (SD 2.6) to 14.6 (SD 2.4) at 3 months, 14.7 (SD 2.4) at 1 year, and 14.8 (SD 2.5) at 2 years. The difference in means was statistically significant (P < .01) at the interval from baseline to 3 months postoperatively, but not from 3 months to 1 year or 1 year to 2 years. The MCID was reached by 161 patients at 3 months, 32 more at 1 year, and 15 more at 2 years, with a statistically significant difference only at 3 months. Patients with moderate or severe disease reached the MCID more frequently than those with mild disease. CONCLUSION: Among patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy, most significant neurological improvement occurred by 3 months after surgery. These findings will facilitate valid discussions about postoperative expectations during shared clinical decision making between patients and their surgeons.

Minimally Invasive Tubular Lumbar Discectomy Versus Conventional Open Lumbar Discectomy: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effectiveness of minimally invasive (MIS) tubular discectomy in comparison to conventional open surgery among patients enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). METHODS: We performed an observational analysis of data that was prospectively collected. We implemented Minimum Clinically Important Differences (MCIDs), and we adjusted for potential confounders with multiple logistic regression. Adverse events were collected according to the Spinal Adverse Events Severity (SAVES) protocol. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-nine (62%) patients underwent MIS tubular discectomy and 211 (38%) underwent conventional open discectomy. There were no significant differences between groups for improvement of leg pain and disability, but the MIS technique was associated with reduced odds of achieving the MCID for back pain (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.99, P < 0.05). We identified statistically significant differences in favor of MIS for each of operating time (MIS mean (SD) 72.2 minutes (30.0) vs open 93.5 (40.9)), estimated blood loss (MIS 37.9 mL (36.7) vs open 76.8 (71.4)), length of stay in hospital (MIS 73% same-day discharge vs open 40%), rates of incidental durotomy (MIS 4% vs open 8%), and wound-related complications (MIS 3% vs open 9%); but not for overall rates of reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Open and MIS techniques yielded similar improvements of leg pain and disability at up to 12 months of follow-up, but MIS patients were less likely to experience improvement of associated back pain. Small differences favored MIS for operating time, blood loss, and adverse events but may have limited clinical importance.

Unexpected intraoperative positive culture (UIPC) in presumed aseptic revision spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Unexpected intraoperative positive culture (UIPC) has recently become increasingly common in revision spine surgery, being implicated as an etiological factor in revision spine surgery indications such as implant failure or pseudoarthrosis. PURPOSE: Utilizing the available literature, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence of UIPC, and its clinical importance in patients following presumed aseptic revision spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis and systematic review. METHODS: Multiple databases and reference articles were searched until May 2022. The primary outcome was the pooled rate of UIPC, and the secondary outcomes were the microbiological profile of UIPC, the risk factors of UIPC, and the clinical fate of UIPC. RESULTS: Twelve studies were eligible for meta-analysis, with a total of 1,108 patients. The pooled rate of UIPC was 24.3% (95% CI=15.8%-35.5%) in adult patients, and 43.2% (95% CI=32.9%-54.2%) in pediatric patients. The UIPC rate was higher when both conventional wound culture and sonication were used together compared to sonication alone or conventional wound culture alone. The rates were 28.9%, 23.6%, and 15.5 %, respectively. In adult and pediatric patients, the most commonly cultured organism was Cutibacterium acnes (42.5% vs 57.7%), followed by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (39.9% vs 30.5%). Male patients had a higher rate of UIPC (OR= 2.6, 95% CI=1.84-3.72, p<.001), as did patients with a longer fusion construct (MD=0.76, 95% CI=0.27-1.25, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The pooled rate of UIPC in aseptic spine revision surgery was 24.3% and 43.2% in adult and pediatric patients respectively. The most common organisms were C. acnes and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus. The impact of UIPC on patients` clinical outcomes is not fully understood. We are not able to recommend routine culture in revision spine surgery, however, adding sonication may aid in the diagnosis of UIPC. There is not enough evidence to recommend specific treatment strategies at this time, and further studies are warranted.

Does extending a posterior cervical fusion construct into the upper thoracic spine impact patient-reported outcomes as long as 2 years after surgery in patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy?

OBJECTIVE: In multilevel posterior cervical instrumented fusion, extension of fusion across the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ) at T1 or T2 has been associated with decreased rates of reoperation and pseudarthrosis but with longer surgical time and increased blood loss. The impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) remains unclear. The primary objective was to determine whether extension of fusion through the CTJ influenced PROs at 3, 12, and 24 months after surgery. The secondary objective was to compare the number of patients who reached the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the PROs, modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (mJOA) score, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, discharge disposition, adverse events (AEs), reoperation within 24 months of surgery, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of prospectively collected multicenter data of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy. Patients who underwent posterior instrumented fusion of 4 levels or greater (between C2 and T2) between January 2015 and October 2020 and received 24 months of follow-up were included. PROs (scores on the Neck Disability Index [NDI], EQ-5D, physical component summary and mental component summary of SF-12, and numeric rating scale for arm and neck pain) and mJOA scores were compared using ANCOVA and adjusted for baseline differences. Patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and surgical details were abstracted. The proportions of patients who reached the MCIDs for these outcomes were compared with the chi-square test. Operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, AEs, reoperation, discharge disposition, length of stay, and satisfaction was compared by using the chi-square test for categorical variables and the independent-samples t-test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were included in this study (101 patients with fusion not crossing the CTJ and 97 with fusion crossing the CTJ). Patients with a construct extending through the CTJ were more likely to be female and have worse baseline NDI scores (p > 0.05). When adjusted for baseline differences, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the PROs and mJOA scores at 3, 12, and 24 months. Surgical duration was longer (p < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss was greater in the group with fusion extending to the upper thoracic spine (p = 0.013). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of AEs (p > 0.05). Fusion with a construct crossing the CTJ was associated with reoperation (p = 0.04). Satisfaction with surgery was not significantly different between groups. The proportions of patients who reached the MCIDs for the PROs were not statistically different at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant differences in PROs between patients with a posterior construct extending to the upper thoracic spine and those without such extension for as long as 24 months after surgery. The AE profiles were not significantly different, but longer surgical time and increased blood loss were associated with constructs extending across the CTJ.

Factors Associated With Return to Work After Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Cohort Analysis From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrosepctive analysis of prospectively collected data from the multicentre Canadian Surgical Spine Registry (CSORN). OBJECTIVE: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is the most common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in North America. Few studies have evaluated return to work (RTW) rates after DCM surgery. Our goals were to determine rates and factors associated with postoperative RTW in surgically managed patients with DCM. METHODS: Data was derived from the prospective, multicenter Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). From this cohort, we included all nonretired patients with at least 1-year follow-up. The RTW rate was defined as the proportion of patients with active employment at 1 year from the time of surgery. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses were used to identify patient characteristics, disease, and treatment variables associated with RTW. RESULTS: Of 213 surgically treated DCM patients, 126 met eligibility, with 49% working and 51% not working in the immediate period before surgery; 102 had 12-month follow-up data. In both the unadjusted and the adjusted analyses working preoperatively and an anterior approach were associated with a higher postoperative RTW (P < .05), there were no significant differences between the postoperative employment groups with respect to age, gender, preoperative mJOA (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association) score, and duration of symptoms (P > .05). Active preoperative employment (odds ratio = 15.4, 95% confidence interval = 4.5, 52.4) and anterior surgical procedures (odds ratio = 4.7, 95% confidence interval = 1.2, 19.6) were associated with greater odds of RTW at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of nonretired patients undergoing surgery for DCM had returned to work 12 months after surgery; active preoperative employment and anterior surgical approach were associated with RTW in this analysis.

Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Patients With Back Pain and Degenerative Disc Disease: An Observational Study From the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network.

STUDY DESIGN: Uncontrolled retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVES: Surgery for patients with back pain and degenerative disc disease is controversial, and studies to date have yielded conflicting results. We evaluated the effects of lumbar fusion surgery for patients with this indication in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN). METHODS: We analyzed data that were prospectively collected from consecutive patients at 11 centers between 2015 and 2019. Our primary outcome was change in patient-reported back pain at 12 months of follow-up, and our secondary outcomes were satisfaction, disability, health-related quality of life, and rates of adverse events. RESULTS: Among 84 patients, we observed a statistically significant improvement of back pain at 12 months that exceeded the threshold of Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) (mean change -3.7 points, SD 2.6, p < 0.001, MCID = 1.2; 77% achieved MCID), and 81% reported being "somewhat" or "extremely" satisfied. We also observed improvements of Oswestry Disability Index (-17.3, SD 16.6), Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary (10.3, SD 9.6) and Short Form-12 Mental Component Summary (3.1, SD 8.3); all p < 0.001). The overall rate of adverse events was 19%. CONCLUSIONS: Among a highly selective group of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease, most experienced a clinically significant improvement of back pain as well as significant improvements of disability and health-related quality of life, with high satisfaction at 1 year of follow-up. These findings suggest that surgery for this indication may provide some benefit, and that further research is warranted.

Mechanical Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Can Spinal Alignment Explain Everything?

STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to verify the validity of the global alignment and proportion (GAP) score, SRS-Schwab, and Roussouly theoretical apex of lordosis in predicting mechanical complications in adult spinal deformity (ASD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Achieving adequate sagittal alignment is critical to obtain favorable outcomes in ASD surgery. It has been proposed that mechanical complications are largely secondary to postoperative spinal alignment. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive primary ASD cases that underwent deformity correction in the same institution over a 5-year period. Association between the 6-week postoperative spinal alignment classification and occurrence of mechanical complications on the last follow-up was assessed using logistic regressions. The discriminant capacity was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: 58.3% (N = 49/84) of patients presented with mechanical complications and 32.1% (N = 27/84) underwent revision surgery. GAP score did not show discriminant ability to predict complications (AUC = 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.40-0.66, P = 0.58). Conversely, the SRS-Schwab sagittal modifier score demonstrated a statistically significant (although modest) predictive value for mechanical complications (AUC = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.54-0.79, P = 0.008). There was a significant association between pelvic tilt (PT) (P = 0.03) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (P = 0.01) at 6 weeks postoperatively and the occurrence of later mechanical complications. There was no significant association between matched Roussouly theoretical apex of lordosis and final outcome (P = 0.47). CONCLUSION: The results point to the complexity of mechanical failure and the high likelihood that causative factors are multifactorial and not limited to alignment measures. GAP score should be used with caution as it may not explain or predict mechanical failure based on alignment in all populations as originally expected. Future studies should focus on etiology, surgical technique, and patient factors in order to generate a more universal score that can be applied to all populations.Level of Evidence: 4.

Effectiveness of Surgical Decompression in Patients With Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Results of the Canadian Prospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), particularly in mild DCM. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the impact of surgery on patient-reported outcomes in patients with mild (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] ≥ 15), moderate (mJOA 12-14), and severe (mJOA < 12) DCM. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter cohort study of patients with DCM who underwent surgery between 2015 and 2019 and completed 1-yr follow-up. Outcome measures (mJOA, Neck Disability Index [NDI], EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D], Short Form [SF-12] Physical Component Score [PCS]/Mental Component Score [MCS], numeric rating scale [NRS] neck, and arm pain) were assessed at 3 and 12 mo postoperatively and compared to baseline, stratified by DCM severity. Changes in outcome measures that were statistically significant (P < .05) and met their respective minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) were deemed clinically meaningful. Responder analysis was performed to compare the proportion of patients between DCM severity groups who met the MCID for each outcome measure. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 391 patients: 110 mild, 163 moderate, and 118 severe. At 12 mo after surgery, severe DCM patients experienced significant improvements in all outcome measures; moderate DCM patients improved in mJOA, NDI, EQ-5D, and PCS; mild DCM patients improved in EQ-5D and PCS. There was no significant difference between severity groups in the proportion of patients reaching MCID at 12 mo after surgery for any outcome measure, except NDI. CONCLUSION: At 12 mo after surgery, patients with mild, moderate, and severe DCM all demonstrated improved outcomes. Severe DCM patients experienced the greatest breadth of improvement, but the proportion of patients in each severity group achieving clinically meaningful changes did not differ significantly across most outcome measures.

A Comparison of Patient and Surgeon Expectations of Spine Surgical Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Ambispective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Limited data exists comparing surgeon and patient expectations of outcome following spine surgery. The objective of this study was to elicit whether any differences exist between patient and surgeon expectations for common spine surgeries. METHODS: Ten common age-appropriate clinical scenarios were generated and sent to Canadian spine surgeons to determine surgeon expectations for standard spine surgeries. Patients in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry matching the clinical scenarios were identified. Aggregated patient expectations were compared with surgeon responses for each scenario. A χ2 analysis was then completed to determine discrepancies between surgeon and patient expectations for each scenario. RESULTS: A total of 51 Canadian spine surgeons completed the survey on surgical expectations. A total of 919 patients from multiple centers were identified within the CSORN database that matched the clinical scenarios. Our results demonstrated that patients tend to be more optimistic about the expected outcomes of surgery compared with the treating surgeon. The majority of patients in all clinical scenarios anticipated improvement in back or neck pain after surgery, which differed from surgeon expectations. Results also highlighted the effect of patient age on both patient and surgeon expectations. Discrepancies between patient and surgeon expectations were higher for older patients. CONCLUSION: We present data on patient and surgeon expectations for spine surgeries and show that differences exist particularly concerning the improvement of neck or back pain. Patient age plays a role in the agreement between the treating physicians and patients in regard to surgical expectations. The reasons for the discrepancies remain unclear.

Preoperative Factors Predict Postoperative Trajectories of Pain and Disability Following Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: Investigate potential predictors of poor outcome following surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LSS is the most common reason for an older person to undergo spinal surgery, yet little information is available to inform patient selection. METHODS: We recruited LSS surgical candidates from 13 orthopedic and neurological surgery centers. Potential outcome predictors included demographic, health, clinical, and surgery-related variables. Outcome measures were leg and back numeric pain rating scales and Oswestry disability index scores obtained before surgery and after 3, 12, and 24 postoperative months. We classified surgical outcomes based on trajectories of leg pain and a composite measure of overall outcome (leg pain, back pain, and disability). RESULTS: Data from 529 patients (mean [SD] age = 66.5 [9.1] yrs; 46% female) were included. In total, 36.1% and 27.6% of patients were classified as experiencing a poor leg pain outcome and overall outcome, respectively. For both outcomes, patients receiving compensation or with depression/depression risk were more likely, and patients participating in regular exercise were less likely to have poor outcomes. Lower health-related quality of life, previous spine surgery, and preoperative anticonvulsant medication use were associated with poor leg pain outcome. Patients with ASA scores more than two, greater preoperative disability, and longer pain duration or surgical waits were more likely to have a poor overall outcome. Patients who received preoperative chiropractic or physiotherapy treatment were less likely to report a poor overall outcome. Multivariable models demonstrated poor-to acceptable (leg pain) and excellent (overall outcome) discrimination. CONCLUSION: Approximately one in three patients with LSS experience a poor clinical outcome consistent with surgical non-response. Demographic, health, and clinical factors were more predictive of clinical outcome than surgery-related factors. These predictors may assist surgeons with patient selection and inform shared decision-making for patients with symptomatic LSS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.