Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Instrumented spinal fusion constructs sometimes fail because of fatigue loading, frequently necessitating open revision surgery. Favorable outcomes after percutaneous juxtapedicular cement salvage (perc-cement salvage) of failing instrumentation have been described; however, this approach is not widely known among spine surgeons , and its biomechanical properties have not been evaluated. We report our institutional experience with perc-cement salvage and investigate the relative biomechanical strength of this technique as compared with 3 other common open revision techniques. METHODS:A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent perc-cement salvage was conducted. Biomechanical characterization of revision techniques was performed in a cadaveric model of critical pedicle screw failure. Three revision cohorts involved removal and replacement of hardware: (1) screw upsizing, (2) vertebroplasty, and (3) fenestrated screw with cement augmentation. These were compared with a cohort with perc-cement salvage performed using a juxtapedicular trajectory with the failed primary screw remaining engaged in the vertebral body. RESULTS:Ten patients underwent perc-cement salvage from 2018 to 2022 to address screw haloing and/or endplate fracture threatening construct integrity. Pain palliation was reported by 8/10 patients. Open revision surgery was required in 4/10 patients, an average of 8.9 months after the salvage procedure (range 6.2-14.7 months). Only one revision was due to progressive hardware dislodgement. The remainder avoided open revision surgery through an average of 1.9 years of follow-up. In the cadaveric study, there were no significant differences in pedicle screw pullout strength among any of the revision cohorts. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Perc-cement salvage of failing instrumentation is reasonably efficacious. The technique is biomechanically noninferior to other revision strategies that require open surgery for removal and replacement of hardware. Open revision surgery may be avoided by perc-cement salvage in select cases.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Clinical registries are critical for modern surgery and underpin outcomes research, device monitoring, and trial development. However, existing approaches to registry construction are labor-intensive, costly, and prone to manual error. Natural language processing techniques combined with electronic health record (EHR) data sets can theoretically automate the construction and maintenance of registries. Our aim was to automate the generation of a spine surgery registry at an academic medical center using regular expression (regex) classifiers developed by neurosurgeons to combine domain expertise with interpretable algorithms. METHODS:We used a Hadoop data lake consisting of all the information generated by an academic medical center. Using this database and structured query language queries, we retrieved every operative note written in the department of neurosurgery since our transition to EHR. Notes were parsed using regex classifiers and compared with a random subset of 100 manually reviewed notes. RESULTS:A total of 31 502 operative cases were downloaded and processed using regex classifiers. The codebase required 5 days of development, 3 weeks of validation, and less than 1 hour for the software to generate the autoregistry. Regex classifiers had an average accuracy of 98.86% at identifying both spinal procedures and the relevant vertebral levels, and it correctly identified the entire list of defined surgical procedures in 89% of patients. We were able to identify patients who required additional operations within 30 days to monitor outcomes and quality metrics. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates the feasibility of automatically generating a spine registry using the EHR and an interpretable, customizable natural language processing algorithm which may reduce pitfalls associated with manual registry development and facilitate rapid clinical research.

OBJECTIVE:By minimizing imaging artifact and particle scatter, carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CF-PEEK) spinal implants are hypothesized to enhance radiotherapy (RT) planning/dosing and improve oncological outcomes. However, robust clinical studies comparing tumor surgery outcomes between CF-PEEK and traditional metallic implants are lacking. In this paper, the authors performed a systematic review of the literature with the aim to describe clinical outcomes in patients with spine tumors who received CF-PEEK implants, focusing on implant-related complications and oncological outcomes. METHODS:A systematic review of the literature published between database inception and May 2022 was performed in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The PubMed database was queried using the terms "carbon fiber" and "spine" or "spinal." The inclusion criteria were articles that described patients with CF-PEEK pedicle screw fixation and had a minimum of 5 patients. Case reports and phantom studies were excluded. RESULTS:This review included 11 articles with 326 patients (237 with CF-PEEK-based implants and 89 with titanium-based implants). The mean follow-up period was 13.5 months, and most tumors were metastatic (67.1%). The rates of implant-related complications in the CF-PEEK and titanium groups were 7.8% and 4.7%, respectively. The rate of pedicle screw fracture was 1.7% in the CF-PEEK group and 2.4% in the titanium group. The rates of reoperation were 5.7% (with 60.0% because of implant failure or junctional kyphosis) and 4.8% (all because of implant failure or junctional kyphosis) in the CF-PEEK and titanium groups, respectively. When reported, 72.5% of patients received postoperative RT (41.0% stereotactic body RT, 30.8% fractionated RT, 25.6% proton, 2.6% carbon ion). Four articles suggested that implant artifact was reduced in the CF-PEEK group. Local recurrence occurred in 14.4% of CF-PEEK and 10.7% of titanium-implanted patients. CONCLUSIONS:While CF-PEEK harbors similar implant failure rates to traditional metallic implants with reduced imaging artifact, it remains unclear whether CF-PEEK implants improve oncological outcomes. This study highlights the need for prospective, direct comparative clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE:Dysphagia is the most commonly reported complication of annterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. However, the incidence of dysphagia post-ACDF varies widely-partly attributable to differing outcome measures used to capture dysphagia. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review of the literature to quantify which dysphagia outcome measures have been employed post-ACDF and examine trends by study design, year, and location. METHODS:After removing duplicates, 2396 abstracts were screened for inclusion. A total of 480 studies were eligible for full-text review. After applying exclusion criteria, data was extracted from 280 studies. We extracted the dysphagia outcome measure(s), study design (prospective vs retrospective), year, and location (country). Approximately 10% of studies were repeated for intra-rater agreement. RESULTS:In total, 317 dysphagia outcome measures were reported in 280 studies (primarily retrospective-63%). The largest proportion of outcome measures were categorized as "unvalidated patient-reported outcome measures" (46%), largely driven by use of the popular Bazaz scale. The next most common categories were "insufficient detail" and "validated patient-reported outcome measures" (both 16%) followed by "chart review/database" (13%) and instrumental assessment (7%). Studies examining dysphagia post-ACDF steadily increased over the years and the use of validated measures increased in the past 10 years. CONCLUSIONS:This scoping review of the literature highlights that nearly half of the ACDF dysphagia literature relies on unvalidated patient-reported outcome measures. The current understanding of the mechanism, timeline, and presentation of dysphagia post-ACDF are likely limited due to the metrics that are most commonly reported in the literature.

Introduction: The objective of this analysis was to compare sociodemographic characteristics and outcomes between cohorts of patients receiving separation surgery for spinal metastases at two neighboring institutions, one private and one public, affiliated with a major academic medical center in a large metropolitan area.
Method(s): Patients who received separation surgery for spinal metastases between 2013 and 2021 were included in this analysis. Sociodemographic factors, treatment characteristics, and outcomes were compared between those treated at a private hospital and those treated at a neighboring public hospital using Rao-Scott chi square tests.
Result(s): Compared to those treated at our private hospital, patients treated at our public hospital were more often younger (p=0.005), of Black or Hispanic race (70% vs. 14.9%, p<0.001), and insured via Medicaid or Emergency Medicaid (48.6% vs. 3.2%, p<0.001). They more frequently presented with ESCC grade 3 compression (81.6% vs. 49.2%), potentially unstable or unstable lesions as denoted by SINS >7 (64.1% vs. 37.7%), and increased neurologic impairment as denoted by ASIA Impairment Scale scores of A, B, or C (35% vs. 7.9%). Local progression was less frequently observed in patients treated at our public hospital (28.2% vs. 54.7%, p=0.001), although this is likely due to poorer clinical and radiographic follow-up amongst this cohort. Median survival was significantly lower in patients treated at our public hospital (Median [Range]: 81 [11-1,873] days vs. 264 [0-3,092] days, p<0.001), although this is also likely confounded by lower rates of follow-up.
Conclusion(s): This study highlights substantial disparities amongst patients treated for spinal metastases at neighboring institutions affiliated with a major academic medical center. Further work is needed to identify reasons for these disparities and create avenues by which to mitigate them

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate associations between time to surgical intervention and outcomes for central cord syndrome (CCS) patients. BACKGROUND:As surgery is increasingly recommended for patients with neurological deterioration CCS, it is important to investigate the relationship between time to surgery and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:CCS patients were isolated in Nationwide Inpatient Sample database 2005-2013. Patients were grouped by time to surgery: same-day, 1-day delay, 2, 3, 4-7, 8-14, and >14 days. Means comparison tests compared patient factors, perioperative complications, and charges across patient groups. Controlling for age, comorbidities, length of stay, and concurrent traumatic fractures, binary logistic regression assessed surgical timing associated with increased odds of perioperative complication, using same-day as reference group. RESULTS:Included: 6734 CSS patients (64% underwent surgery). The most common injury mechanisms were falls (30%) and pedestrian accidents (7%). Of patients that underwent surgery, 52% underwent fusion, 30% discectomy, and 14% other decompression of the spinal canal. Breakdown by time to procedure was: 39% same-day, 16% 1-day, 10% 2 days, 8% 3 days, 16% 4-7 days, 8% 8-14 days, and 3% >14 days. Timing groups did not differ in trauma status at admission, although age varied: [minimum: 1 d (58±15 y), maximum: >14 d (63±13 y)]. Relative to other groups, same-day patients had the lowest hospital charges, highest rates of home discharge, and second lowest postoperative length of stay behind 2-day delay patients. Patients delayed >14 days to surgery had increased odds of perioperative cardiac and infection complications. Timing groups beyond 3 days showed increased odds of VTE and nonhome discharge. CONCLUSIONS:CCS patients undergoing surgery on the same day as admission had lower odds of complication, hospital charges, and higher rates of home discharge than patients that experienced a delay to operation. Patients delayed >14 days to surgery were associated with inferior outcomes, including increased odds of cardiac complication and infection.

BACKGROUND:Surgical site infections are common and costly complications after spine surgery. Prophylactic antibiotics are the standard of care; however, the appropriate duration of antibiotics has yet to be adequately addressed. We sought to determine whether the duration of antibiotic administration (preoperatively only versus preoperatively and for 24 hours postoperatively) impacts postoperative infection rates. METHODS:All patients undergoing inpatient spinal procedures at a single institution from 2011 to 2018 were evaluated for inclusion. A minimum of 1 year of follow-up was used to adequately capture postoperative infections. The 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching technique was used between patients who did and did not receive postoperative antibiotics, and multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to control for confounding. RESULTS:A total of 4,454 patients were evaluated and, of those, 2,672 (60%) received 24 hours of postoperative antibiotics and 1,782 (40%) received no postoperative antibiotics. After propensity-matched analysis, there was no difference between patients who received postoperative antibiotics and those who did not in terms of the infection rate (1.8% compared with 1.5%). No significant decrease in the odds of postoperative infection was noted in association with the use of postoperative antibiotics (odds ratio = 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.620 to 2.23; p = 0.628). Additionally, there was no observed increase in the risk of Clostridium difficile infection or in the short-term rate of infection with multidrug-resistant organisms. CONCLUSIONS:There was no difference in the rate of surgical site infections between patients who received 24 hours of postoperative antibiotics and those who did not. Additionally, we found no observable risks, such as more antibiotic-resistant infections and C. difficile infections, with prolonged antibiotic use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

We present a patient who was diagnosed 20 yr prior to current presentation with a spinal arteriovenous malformation. This patient had a 10-yr history of worsening back pain (and underwent lumbar fusion), urinary dysfunction leading to 3-yr dependence on intermittent catheterization, lower extremity paresthesias and pain, and progressive weakness with multiple falls, leading to walker then wheelchair dependence for mobility. Magnetic resonance studies showed extensive thoracic cord expansion and edema with enlarged spinal cord surface veins and flow voids extending from spinal levels T6 to the conus medullaris. Partial embolization at an outside institution elicited transient symptom improvement. Repeated spinal angiogram demonstrated persistent T10 pial arteriovenous fistula (AVF) supplied by the posterior spinal artery arising from the right T11 segmental artery as well as by the anterior spinal artery from the left T10 segmental artery. Because additional embolization carried significant risk, we planned open surgery with fistula resection. Informed consent for the surgery and video recording was obtained. The patient was placed in the prone position, and a radial artery access was obtained for intraoperative angiogram. Following a posterior T9-T11 laminectomy and dural opening, a pial dissection was performed to expose the AVF. Intraoperative indocyanine green angiography was used to assist in identifying the feeders and major drainage of the AVF. Post-AVF resection, a formal intraoperative radial access spinal angiogram demonstrated complete resection of the lesion with no residual shunt or early venous drainage. The patient improved significantly and, on last follow-up, is ambulating without any assistive devices.

BACKGROUND:Verification of complete occlusion or resection of neurovascular lesions is often done with intraoperative angiography. Surgery for spinal vascular lesions such as arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) and arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) is typically performed in the prone position making intraoperative angiography difficult. There is no standardized protocol for intraoperative angiography in spinal surgeries performed in the prone position. OBJECTIVE:We describe our experience with using radial artery access for intraoperative angiography in thoracic spinal neurovascular procedures performed with patients in the prone position. METHODS:We reviewed all patients who underwent surgical resection of spinal vascular lesions in the prone position with radial artery vascular access for intraoperative angiography. Patients were treated in a hybrid endovascular operating room. RESULTS:4 patients were treated in the pone position utilizing transradial artery access intraoperative angiography for confirmation of complete resection of the vascular lesions. 2 patients were operated for dural AVFs, one patient had a pial AVF, and one patient had an AVM of the filum terminale. None of the patients faced any procedural complications. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Radial artery access for intraoperative angiography in spinal neurovascular procedures in which selective catheterization of a thoracic branch is necessary, is feasible, safe, and practical.

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective clinical review. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To assess the use of intraoperative computed tomography (CT) image-guided navigation (IGN) and robotic assistance in posterior lumbar surgery and their relationship with patient radiation exposure and perioperative outcomes. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients ≥18 years old undergoing 1- to 2-level transforaminal lateral interbody fusion in 12-month period were included. Chart review was performed for pre- and intraoperative data on radiation dose and perioperative outcomes. All radiation doses are quantified in milliGrays (mGy). Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were utilized for categorical variables. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey test was used for continuous variables. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .313, .051, and .644, respectively). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:IGN and robotic assistance in posterior lumbar fusion were associated with higher intraoperative and total-procedure radiation exposure than open cases without IGN/robotics, but significantly less than MIS without IGN/robotics, without differences in perioperative outcomes. Fluoro-MIS procedures reported highest radiation exposure to patient, and of equal concern is that the proportion of total radiation dose also applied to the surgeon and operating room staff in fluoro-MIS group is higher than in IGN/robotics and open groups.