Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Complex surgery for adult spinal deformity has high rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions. Preoperative discussions of high-risk operative spine patients at a multidisciplinary conference may contribute to decreased rates of these adverse outcomes through appropriate patient selection and surgical plan optimization. With this goal, we implemented a high-risk case conference involving orthopedic and neurosurgery spine, anesthesia, intraoperative monitoring neurology, and neurological intensive care. METHODS:Included in this retrospective review were patients ≥ 18 years old meeting one of the following high-risk criteria: 8 + levels fused, osteoporosis with 4 + levels fused, three column osteotomy, anterior revision of the same lumbar level, or planned significant correction for severe myelopathy, scoliosis (> 75˚), or kyphosis (> 75˚). Patients were categorized as Before Conference (BC): surgery before 2/19/2019 or After Conference (AC): surgery after 2/19/2019. Outcome measures include intraoperative and postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperations. RESULTS:263 patients were included (96 AC, 167 BC). AC was older than BC (60.0 vs 54.6, p = 0.025) and had lower BMI (27.1 vs 28.9, p = 0.047), but had similar CCI (3.2 vs 2.9 p = 0.312), and ASA Classification (2.5 vs 2.5, p = 0.790). Surgical characteristics, including levels fused (10.6 vs 10.7, p = 0.839), levels decompressed (1.29 vs 1.25, p = 0.863), 3 column osteotomies (10.4% vs 18.6%, p = 0.080), anterior column release (9.4% vs 12.6%, p = 0.432), and revision cases (53.1% vs 52.4%, p = 0.911) were similar between AC and BC. AC had lower EBL (1.1 vs 1.9L, p < 0.001) and fewer total intraoperative complications (16.7% vs 34.1%, p = 0.002), including fewer dural tears (4.2% vs 12.6%, p = 0.025), delayed extubations (8.3% vs 22.8%%, p = 0.003), and massive blood loss (4.2% vs 13.2%, p = 0.018). Length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups (7.2 vs 8.2 days, 0.251). AC had a lower incidence of deep surgical site infections (SSI, 1.0% vs 6.6%, p = 0.038), but a higher rate of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy (18.8% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). Other postoperative complications were similar between groups. AC had lower rates of reoperation at 30 (2.1% vs 8.4%, p = 0.040) and 90 days (3.1 vs 12.0%, p = 0.014) and lower readmission rates at 30 (3.1% vs 10.2%, p = 0.038) and 90 days (6.3 vs 15.0%, p = 0.035). On logistic regression, AC patients had higher odds of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy and lower odds of delayed extubation, intraoperative RBC, and intraoperative salvage blood. CONCLUSIONS:Following implementation of a multidisciplinary high-risk case conference, 30- and 90-day reoperation and readmission rates, intraoperative complications, and postoperative deep SSIs decreased. Hypotensive events requiring vasopressors increased, but did not result in longer LOS or greater readmissions. These associations suggest a multidisciplinary conference may help improve quality and safety for high-risk spine patients. particularly through minimizing complications and optimizing outcomes in complex spine surgery.

Introduction Post-operative physical therapy (PT) following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery is often performed to improve a patient's functional ability and reduce neck pain. However, current literature evaluating the benefits of post-operative PT using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is limited and remains inconclusive. Here we compare post-operative improvement between patients who did and did not undergo formal PT after ACDF using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. Methods A retrospective observational study examining patients who underwent one- or two-level primary ACDF or cervical disc replacement (CDR) at an academic orthopedic hospital and who had PROMIS scores recorded pre-operatively and through two-year follow-up. Patients were stratified according to whether or not they attended formal postoperative PT. PROMIS scores and patient demographics were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square test of independence, and Student's t-test within and between cohorts. Results Two hundred and twenty patients were identified. Demographic differences between PT and no PT groups include age (PT 54.1 vs. no PT 49.5, p=0.005) and BMI (PT 28.1 vs. no PT 29.8, p=0.028). The only significant difference in post-operative PROMIS scores was in physical health scores at three months post-operatively (no PT 43.9 vs. PT 39.1, p=0.008). Physical health scores improved from baseline to one-year follow-up in both cohorts (PT +3.5, p=0.025; no PT +6.6, p=0.008). There were no significant differences when comparing improvements in physical health scores between groups at six months and one year. Conclusion In conclusion, there was no significance to support the benefits of post-operative PT as measured by PROMIS scores. No significant differences in PROMIS were observed between groups from pre-operative baseline scores to six-month and one-year follow-ups.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of outcomes in cervical spine and shoulder arthroscopy patients. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to assess differential improvements in health-related quality of life for cervical spine surgery compared with shoulder surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:An understanding of outcome differences between different types of orthopedic surgeries is helpful in counseling patients about expected postoperative recovery. This study compares outcomes in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with arthroscopic shoulder surgery using computer-adaptive Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients undergoing cervical spine surgery (1-level or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement) or arthroscopic shoulder surgery (rotator cuff repair±biceps tenodesis) were grouped. Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS:Cervical spine (n=127) and shoulder (n=91) groups were similar in sex (25.8% vs. 41.8% female, P=0.731) but differed in age (51.6±11.6 vs. 58.60±11.2, P<0.05), operative time (148.3±68.6 vs. 75.9±26.9 min, P<0.05), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.0±0.5, P=0.001), smoking status (15.7% vs. 4.4%, P=0.008), and length of stay (1.1±1.0 vs. 0.3±0.1, P=0.000). Spine patients had worse physical function (36.9 ±12.6 vs. 49.4±8.6, P<0.05) and greater pain interference (67.0±13.6 vs. 61.7±4.8, P=0.001) at baseline. Significant improvements were seen in all domains by 3 months for both groups, except for physical function after shoulder surgery. Spine patients had greater physical function improvements at all timepoints (3.33 vs. -0.43, P=0.003; 4.81 vs. 0.08, P=0.001; 6.5 vs. -5.24, P=<0.05). Conversely, shoulder surgery patients showed better 6-month improvement in pain intensity over spine patients (-8.86 vs. -4.46, P=0.001), but this difference resolved by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS:Cervical spine patients had greater relative early improvement in physical function compared with shoulder patients, whereas pain interference and intensity did not significantly differ between the 2 groups after surgery. This will help in counseling patients about relative difference in recovery and improvement between the 2 surgery types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

BACKGROUND:Deep surgical site infections (dSSI) following spinal laminectomy and fusion are serious complications associated with poor patient outcomes. The objective of this study is to investigate the monthly and seasonal variability of dSSI rates following common spinal surgeries to investigate the "July effect," which refers to the alleged increase in adverse health outcomes due to new hospital trainees at the beginning of the academic year. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who had a dSSI following laminectomy (without fusion) or spinal fusion (with or without laminectomy) at a single large urban academic medical center between January 2009 and August 2018. The change in dSSI rate over the entire study period was calculated. The monthly and seasonal variability of dSSI were assessed using a Poisson regression model to assess for the presence of the July effect. RESULTS:= 0.04 ). With July as the reference month, there was a significantly higher dSSI rate in April following spinal fusions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The overall decrease in dSSI rate over the study period is consistent with previous reports. The monthly analysis revealed no significant differences in either procedure, calling into question the July effect. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This study is relevant to practicing spinal surgeons and can inform surgeons about seasonal data regarding dSSIs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3/METHODS/:

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Indirect decompression technique may be limited in that it does not include direct removal of the offending intervertebral disc or osteophyte protruding into the canal. PURPOSE: This study evaluates resolution of radiculopathy and perioperative complications in lumbar fusion with indirect or direct decompression techniques. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of large single center academic institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included 116 single-level lumbar fusion patients with preoperative radiculopathy from 2012 to 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Resolution of radiculopathy, visual analog scores (VAS), perioperative complications, motor scores.
METHOD(S): Patients 18 years of age diagnosed with preoperative radiculopathy undergoing single-level lumbar fusion with up to two-year follow-up were grouped by indirect and direct decompression. Direct decompression group included TLIF with or without direct decompression procedure as well as ALIF and LLIF with direct decompression procedure. Indirect decompression group included ALIF and LLIF without direct decompression procedure. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to control for differences in age between groups. Outcome measures were compared between groups using means comparison tests. Logistic regression analysis was used to correlate decompression type with symptom resolution over time.
RESULT(S): A total of 116 patients were included in this analysis: 58 direct decompression (mean 53.9y, 67.2% female) and 58 indirect decompression (mean 54.6y, 61.4% female). Direct decompression patients experienced greater blood loss relative to indirect decompression patients (242.4 +/- 128.5 vs 171.79 +/- 143.9 mL, p=0.007). Additionally, direct decompressionpatients experienced full resolution of radiculopathy at 3 months postop at a greater rate than those in the indirect decompression group (OR: 4.742, [1.97-11.41]; 53.1% vs 13.73%, p=0.002). At 6 months, direct decompression patients demonstrated a significantly larger reduction in VAS score 6 months postop (-2.889 +/- 2.3 vs -0.897 +/- 4.3, p=0.044). With regard to motor function, direct decompression patients had improved motor score with respect to the L5 dermatome at 6 months compared to indirect decompression patients (DELTAmotor score from baseline: 0.1714 +/- 0.453 vs -0.024 +/- 0.154, p=0.019).
CONCLUSION(S): Patients who underwent direct decompression experienced significantly greater resolution of preoperative lower extremity radiculopathy at 3 months compared with those who underwent ID alone. At 6 and 12 months, no differences were noted between the two groups. There were no differences in complication rates. At 6 months postop, direct decompression patients had greater improvement in preoperative motor deficit than ID patients. In particularly debilitated patients, these findings may influence surgeons to perform a direct decompression to achieve more rapid resolution of radiculopathy symptoms. FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS: This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.
Copyright

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A single-center, retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs) between October 2014 and October 2019. OBJECTIVE:To investigate the effect of perioperative narcotic consumption and amount of narcotic prescribed at discharge on patient satisfaction with pain control after single-level ACDF. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Prior research has demonstrated that opioid prescription habits may be related to physician desire to produce superior patient satisfaction with pain control. METHODS:Patients with complete Press-Ganey Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey information were analyzed. Inpatient opioid prescriptions were recorded and converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MME) and tablets of 5 mg oxycodone. HCAHPS scores were converted to a Likert-type 5-point scale. RESULTS:A total of 47 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Average age was 48.1±10.9 y. Average inpatient opioids prescribed was 102±106 MME. Average opioids prescribed at discharge was 437±342 MME. No statistically significant correlation was found between satisfaction with pain control and opioid consumption while in the hospital [r=-0.106, P=0.483]. Similarly, there was no statistically significant correlation between satisfaction with pain control and opioids prescribed upon discharge [r=-0.185, P=0.219]. No statistically significant correlation was found between date of surgery and inpatient MME consumption [r=-0.113, P=0.450]. Interestingly, more opioids were prescribed at discharge the earlier the date of surgery [r=-0.426, P=0.003]. For every additional month further along in the study period, the odds of a patient reporting a top box score for satisfaction with pain control increased by 5.5% [P=0.025]. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study found no correlation between patient satisfaction with pain control and inpatient opioid dosage or outpatient prescription dosage after single-level ACDF. Moreover, satisfaction with pain control increased over time despite a decrease in MME prescribed at discharge. This suggests that factors other than narcotic consumption play a more important role in patient satisfaction with pain control. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Single-center retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate inpatient MME administration associated with different lumbar spinal fusion surgeries. METHODS:< .05. RESULTS:= .009). There were no significant differences in MME/hour and incidence of ileus between all groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing MIS TLIF had lower inpatient opioid intake compared to TP and SP ALIF/LLIF, as well as shorter LOS compared to all groups except SP ALIF/LLIF. Thus, it appears that the advantages of minimally invasive surgery are seen in minimally invasive TLIFs.

Abundant literature exists describing the incidence of dysphagia following anterior cervical surgery; however, there is a paucity of literature detailing the incidence of dysphagia following posterior cervical procedures. Further characterization of this complication is important for guiding clinical prevention and management. Patients ≥ 18 years of age underwent posterior cervical fusion with laminectomy or laminoplasty between C1-T1. Pre- and post-operative dysphagia was assessed by a speech language pathologist. The patient cohort was categorized by approach: Laminectomy + Fusion (LF) and Laminoplasty (LP). Patients were excluded from radiographic analyses if they did not have both baseline and follow-up imaging. The study included 147 LF and 47 LP cases. There were no differences in baseline demographics. There were three patients with new-onset dysphagia in the LF group (1.5% incidence) and no new cases in the LP group (p = 1.000). LF patients had significantly higher rates of post-op complications (27.9% LF vs. 8.5% LP, p = 0.005) but not intra-op complications (6.1% LF vs. 2.1% LP, p = 0.456). Radiographic analysis of the entire cohort showed no significant changes in cervical lordosis, cSVA, or T1 slope. Both group comparisons showed no differences in incidence of dysphagia pre and post operatively. Based on this study, the likelihood of developing dysphagia after LF or LP are similarly low with a new onset dysphagia rate of 1.5%.

STUDYDESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective-comparative; LOE-3. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, an institutional opioid reduction prescribing policy following 1-or-2-level lumbar fusion has on Hospital-Consumer-Assessment-of-Healthcare-Providers-and-Systems-(HCAHPS)-survey results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Prior research has demonstrated that high levels of opioid-prescribing may be related, in part, to a desire to produce superior patient satisfaction. METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively-collected data was conducted on patients who underwent 1-or-2-level lumbar fusions L3-S1 between October 2014-October 2019 at a single institution. Patients with complete survey information were included in the analysis. Patients with a history of trauma, fracture, spinal deformity, fusions > 2 levels, or prior lumbar fusion surgery L3-S1 were excluded. Cohorts were based on date of surgery relative to implementation of an institutional opioid reduction policy, which commenced in October 1, 2018. To better compare groups, opioid prescriptions were converted into milligram-morphine-equivalents (MME). RESULTS:330 patients met inclusion criteria, 259 pre-protocol, 71 post-protocol. There were 256 1-level fusions and 74 2-level fusions included. There were few statistically significant differences between groups with respect to patient demographics (p > 0.05) with the exception of number of patients who saw the pain management service, which increased from 36.7%(95) pre-protocol, to 59.2%(42) post-protocol; p < 0.001. Estimated blood loss (EBL) decreased from 533 ± 571 mL to 346 ± 328 mL; p = 0.003. Percentage of patients who underwent concomitant laminectomy decreased from 71.8% to 49.3%; p < 0.001. Average opioids prescribed on discharge in the pre-protocol period was was 534 ± 425 MME, compared to after initiation of the protocol it was 320 ± 174 MME; P < 0.001. There was no statistically significant difference with respect to satisfaction with pain control, 4.49 ± 0.85 pre-protocol vs 4.51 ± 0.82 post-protocol; p = 0.986. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A reduction in opioids prescribed at discharge after 1-or-2-level lumbar fusion is not associated with any statistically significant change in patient satisfaction with pain management, as measured by the HCAHPS survey.Level of Evidence: 3.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT/BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic caused nationwide suspensions of elective surgeries due to reallocation of resources to the care of COVID-19 patients. Following resumption of elective cases, a significant proportion of patients continued to delay surgery, with many yet to reschedule, potentially prolonging their pain and impairment of function and causing detrimental long-term effects. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to examine differences between patients who have and have not rescheduled their spine surgery procedures originally cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to evaluate the reasons for continued deferment of spine surgeries even after the lifting of the mandated suspension of elective surgeries. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING/METHODS:Retrospective case series at a single institution PATIENT SAMPLE: Included were 133 patients seen at a single institution where spine surgery was canceled due to a state-mandated suspension of elective surgeries from March to June, 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The measures assessed included preoperative diagnoses and neurological dysfunction, surgical characteristics, reasons for surgery deferment, and PROMIS scores of pain intensity, pain interference, and physical function. METHODS:Patient electronic medical records were reviewed. Patients who had not rescheduled their canceled surgery as of January 31, 2021, and did not have a reason noted in their charts were called to determine the reason for continued surgery deferment. Patients were divided into three groups: early rescheduled (ER), late rescheduled (LR), and not rescheduled (NR). ER patients had a date of surgery (DOS) prior to the city's Phase 4 reopening on July 20, 2020; LR patients had a DOS on or after that date. Statistical analysis of the group findings included analysis of variance with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post-hoc test, independent samples T-test, and chi-square analysis with significance set at p≤.05. RESULTS:Out of 133 patients, 47.4% (63) were in the ER, 15.8% (21) in the LR, and 36.8% (49) in the NR groups. Demographics and baseline PROMIS scores were similar between groups. LR had more levels fused (3.6) than ER (1.6), p= .018 on Tukey HSD. NR (2.1) did not have different mean levels fused than LR or ER, both p= >.05 on Tukey HSD. LR had more three column osteotomies (14.3%) than ER and (1.6%) and NR (2.0%) p=.022, and fewer lumbar microdiscectomies (0%) compared to ER (20.6%) and NR (10.2%), p=.039. Other surgical characteristics were similar between groups. LR had a longer length of stay than ER (4.2 vs 2.4, p=.036). No patients in ER or LR had a nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Of NR, 2.0% have a future surgery date scheduled and 8.2% (4) are acquiring updated exams before rescheduling. 40.8% (20; 15.0% total cohort) continue to defer surgery over concern for COVID-19 exposure and 16.3% (8) for medical comorbidities. 6.1% (3) permanently canceled for symptom improvement. 8.2% (4) had follow-up recommendations for non-surgical management. 4.1% (2) are since deceased. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Over 1/3 of elective spine surgeries canceled due to COVID-19 have not been performed in the 8 months from when elective surgeries resumed in our institution to the end of the study. ER patients had less complex surgeries planned than LR. NR patients continue to defer surgery primarily over concern for COVID-19 exposure. The toll on the health of these patients as a result of the delay in treatment and on their lives due to their inability to return to normal function remains to be seen.