Faculty Bibliography

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.

OBJECTIVE:This retrospective cohort study aimed to develop a formal predictive model distinguishing between symptomatic and asymptomatic distal junctional kyphosis (DJK). In this study the authors identified a DJK rate of 32.2%. Predictive models were created that can be used with high reliability to help distinguish between severe symptomatic DJK and mild asymptomatic DJK through the use of surgical factors, radiographic parameters, and patient variables. METHODS:Patients with cervical deformity (CD) were stratified into asymptomatic and symptomatic DJK groups. Symptomatic: 1) DJK angle (DJKA) > 10° and either reoperation due to DJK or > 1 new-onset neurological sequela related to DJK; or 2) either a DJKA > 20° or ∆DJKA > 20°. Asymptomatic: ∆DJK > 10° in the absence of neurological sequelae. Stepwise logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with these types of DJK. Decision tree analysis established cutoffs. RESULTS:A total of 99 patients with CD were included, with 32.2% developing DJK (34.3% asymptomatic, 65.7% symptomatic). A total of 37.5% of asymptomatic patients received a reoperation versus 62.5% symptomatic patients. Multivariate analysis identified independent baseline factors for developing symptomatic DJK as follows: pelvic incidence (OR 1.02); preoperative cervical flexibility (OR 1.04); and combined approach (OR 6.2). Having abnormal hyperkyphosis in the thoracic spine, more so than abnormal cervical lordosis, was a factor for developing symptomatic disease when analyzed against asymptomatic patients (OR 1.2). Predictive modeling identified factors that were predictive of symptomatic versus no DJK, as follows: myelopathy (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score 12-14); combined approach; uppermost instrumented vertebra C3 or C4; preoperative hypermobility; and > 7 levels fused (area under the curve 0.89). A predictive model for symptomatic versus asymptomatic disease (area under the curve 0.85) included being frail, T1 slope minus cervical lordosis > 20°, and a pelvic incidence > 46.3°. Controlling for baseline deformity and disability, symptomatic patients had a greater cervical sagittal vertical axis (4-8 cm: 47.6% vs 27%) and were more malaligned according to their Scoliosis Research Society sagittal vertical axis measurement (OR 0.1) than patients without DJK at 1 year (all p < 0.05). Despite their symptomatology and higher reoperation rate, outcomes equilibrated in the symptomatic cohort at 1 year following revision. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, 32.2% of patients with CD suffered from DJK. Symptomatic DJK can be predicted with high reliability. It can be further distinguished from asymptomatic occurrences by taking into account pelvic incidence and baseline cervicothoracic deformity severity.

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.

BACKGROUND:Lateral (ie, coronal) vertebral listhesis may contribute to disability in adult scoliosis patients. OBJECTIVE:To assess for a correlation between lateral listhesis and disability among patients with adult scoliosis. METHODS:This was a retrospective multi-center analysis of prospectively collected data. Patients eligible for a minimum of 2-yr follow-up and with coronal plane deformity (defined as maximum Cobb angle ≥20º) were included (n = 724). Outcome measures were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and leg pain numeric scale rating. Lateral thoracolumbar listhesis was measured as the maximum vertebral listhesis as a percent of the superior endplate across T1-L5 levels. Linear and logistic regression was utilized, as appropriate. Multivariable analyses adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, surgical invasiveness, maximum Cobb angle, and T1-PA. Minimally clinically important difference (MCID) in ODI was defined as 12.8. RESULTS:In total, 724 adult patients were assessed. The mean baseline maximum lateral thoracolumbar listhesis was 18.3% (standard deviation 9.7%). The optimal statistical grouping for lateral listhesis was empirically determined to be none/mild (<6.7%), moderate (6.7-15.4%), and severe (≥15.4%). In multivariable analysis, listhesis of moderate and severe vs none/mild was associated with worse baseline ODI (none/mild = 33.7; moderate = 41.6; severe = 43.9; P < .001 for both comparisons) and leg pain NSR (none/mild = 2.9, moderate = 4.0, severe = 5.1, P < .05). Resolution of severe lateral listhesis to none/mild was independently associated with increased likelihood of reaching MCID in ODI at 2 yr postoperatively (odds ratio 2.1 95% confidence interval 1.2-3.7, P = .0097). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Lateral thoracolumbar listhesis is associated with worse baseline disability among adult scoliosis patients. Resolution of severe lateral listhesis following deformity correction was independently associated with increased likelihood of reaching MCID in ODI at 2-yr follow-up.

BACKGROUND:Few reports focus on adults with severe scoliosis. OBJECTIVE:To report surgical outcomes and complications for adults with severe scoliosis. METHODS:A multicenter, retrospective review was performed on operatively treated adults with severe scoliosis (minimum coronal Cobb: thoracic [TH] ≥ 75°, thoracolumbar [TL] ≥ 50°, lumbar [L] ≥ 50°). RESULTS:Of 178 consecutive patients, 146 (82%; TH = 8, TL = 88, L = 50) achieved minimum 2-yr follow-up (mean age = 53.9 ± 13.2 yr, 92% women). Operative details included posterior-only (58%), 3-column osteotomy (14%), iliac fixation (72%), and mean posterior fusion = 13.2 ± 3.7 levels. Global coronal alignment (3.8 to 2.8 cm, P = .001) and maximum coronal Cobb improved significantly (P ≤.020): TH (84º to 57º; correction = 32%), TL (67º to 35º; correction = 48%), L (61º to 29º; correction = 53%). Sagittal alignment improved significantly (P < .001), most notably for L: C7-sagittal vertical axis 6.7 to 2.5 cm, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch 18º to 3º. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) improved significantly (P < .001), most notably for L: Oswestry Disability Index (44.4 ± 20.5 to 26.1 ± 18.3), Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary (30.2 ± 10.8 to 39.9 ± 9.8), and Scoliosis Research Society-22r Total (2.9 ± 0.7 to 3.8 ± 0.7). Minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds were achieved in 36% to 75% and 29% to 51%, respectively. Ninety-four (64%) patients had ≥1 complication (total = 191, 92 minor/99 major, most common = rod fracture [13.0%]). Fifty-seven reoperations were performed in 37 (25.3%) patients, with most common indications deep wound infection (11) and rod fracture (10). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although results demonstrated high rates of complications, operative treatment of adults with severe scoliosis was associated with significant improvements in mean HRQL outcome measures for the study cohort at minimum 2-yr follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective review of a single-center spine database. OBJECTIVE:Investigate the intersections of chronological age and physiological age via frailty to determine the influence of surgical invasiveness on patient outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Frailty is a well-established factor in preoperative risk stratification and prediction of postoperative outcomes. The surgical profile of operative adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients who present as elderly and not frail has yet to be investigated. Our aim was to examine the surgical profile and outcomes of ASD patients who were not frail and elderly. METHODS:Included: ASD patients≥18 years old, ≥4 levels fused, with baseline(BL) and follow up data. Patients were categorized by ASD frailty index: Not Frail[NF], Frail[F], Severely Frail [SF]. An elderly patient was defined as ≥70 years. Patients were grouped into NF/elderly and F/elderly. SRS-Schwab modifiers were assessed at baseline and 1-year(0, +, ++). Logistic regression analysis assessed the relationship between increasing invasiveness, no reoperations, or major complications, and improvement in SRS-Schwab modifiers[Good Outcome]. Decision tree analysis assessed thresholds for an invasiveness risk/benefit cutoff point. RESULTS:598 ASD pts included(55.3yrs, 59.7%F, 28.3 kg/m2). 29.8% of patients were above age 70. At baseline, 51.3% of patients were NF, 37.5% F, and 11.2% SF. 66(11%) of patients were NF and elderly. 24.2% of NF-Elderly patients improved in SRS-Schwab by 1-year and had no reoperation or complication postoperatively. Binary regression analysis found a relationship between worsening SRS-Schwab, postop complication, and reoperation with invasiveness score(OR: 1.056[1.013-1.102], p = 0.011). Risk/benefit cut-off was 10(p = 0.004). Patients below this threshold were 7.9[2.2-28.4] times more likely to have a Good Outcome. 156 patients were elderly and F/SF with 16.7% having Good Outcome, with a risk/benefit cut-off point of <8 (4.4[2.2-9.0], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Frailty status impacted the balance of surgical invasiveness relative to operative risk in an inverse manner, while the opposite was seen amongst elderly patients with a frailty status less than their chronologic age. Surgeons should perhaps consider incorporation of frailty status over age status when determining realignment plans in patients of advanced age.Level of Evidence: ???

BACKGROUND:Accounting for less than 0.4% of disc herniations, intradural lumbar disc herniations (ILDHs) are a rare occurrence primarily described as a complication after lumbar spine surgery. It is speculated that the herniation may propagate intradurally from either an unrecognized dural defect after initial surgery or as a result of adhesions between the dura and posterior longitudinal ligament. This report explores the etiology, presentation, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of ILDH along with a case report and microsurgery video. OBSERVATIONS/METHODS:A 67-year-old patient who 1 year earlier had undergone an L2-5 laminectomy and L2-3 decompression with no known complications presented with low back pain and radiating right leg, buttock, and groin pain for 1 month. Physical examination indicated no numbness or weakness. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a large ILDH. A transforaminal interbody fusion was performed followed by a durotomy, ILDH removal, and dural closure. A ventral dural defect was found and repaired during the procedure. LESSONS/CONCLUSIONS:The treatment for ILDH is laminectomy with dorsal durotomy. Because ILDH has rarely been described in literature, understanding its presentation is crucial for prompt identification and management.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study of a prospective cervical deformity (CD) database. OBJECTIVE:Identify factors associated with distal junctional kyphosis (DJK); assess differences across DJK types. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:DJK may develop as compensation for mal-correction of sagittal deformity in the thoracic curve. There is limited understanding of DJK drivers, especially for different DJK types. METHODS:Included: patients with pre- and postoperative clinical/radiographic data. Excluded: patients with previous fusion to L5 or below. DJK was defined per surgeon note or DJK angle (kyphosis from LIV to LIV-2)<-10°, and pre- to postoperative change in DJK angle by<-10°. Age-specific target LL-TK alignment was calculated as published. Offset from target LL-TK was correlated to DJK magnitude and inclination. DJK types: severe (DJK<-20°), progressive (DJK increase>4.4°), symptomatic (reoperation or published disability thresholds of NDI ≥ 24 or mJOA≤14). Random forest identified factors associated with DJK. Means comparison tests assessed differences. RESULTS:Included: 136 CD patients (61 ± 10 yr, 61%F). DJK rate was 30%. Postop offset from ideal LL-TK correlated with greater DJK angle (r = 0.428) and inclination of the distal end of the fusion construct (r = 0.244, both P < 0.02). Seven of the top 15 factors associated with DJK were radiographic, four surgical, and four clinical. Breakdown by type: severe (22%), progressive (24%), symptomatic (61%). Symptomatic had more posterior osteotomies than asymptomatic (P = 0.018). Severe had worse NDI and upper-cervical deformity (CL, C2 slope, C0-C2), as well as more posterior osteotomies than nonsevere (all P < 0.01). Progressive had greater malalignment both globally and in the cervical spine (all P < 0.03) than static. Each type had varying associated factors. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Offset from age-specific alignment is associated with greater DJK and more anterior distal construct inclination, suggesting DJK may develop due to inappropriate realignment. Preoperative clinical and radiographic factors are associated with symptomatic and progressive DJK, suggesting the need for preoperative risk stratification.Level of Evidence: 3.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Cervical deformity morphotypes based on type and location of deformity have previously been described. This study aimed to examine the surgical strategies implemented to treat these deformity types and identify if differences in treatment strategies impact surgical outcomes. Our hypothesis was that surgical strategies will differ based on different morphologies of cervical deformity. METHODS:Adult patients enrolled in a prospective cervical deformity database were classified into four deformity types (Flatneck (FN), Focal kyphosis (FK), Cervicothoracic kyphosis (CTK) and Coronal (C)), as previously described. We analyzed group differences in demographics, preoperative symptoms, health-related quality of life scores (HRQOLs), and surgical strategies were evaluated, and postop radiographic and HROQLs at 1+ year follow up were compared. RESULTS:< 0.05) with their respective surgical strategies. CONCLUSIONS:The four types of cervical deformities had different surgical strategies to achieve improvements in HRQOLs. FN and FK types were more often treated with APSF surgery, while types CTK and C were more likely to undergo PSF. CTK deformities had the highest number of 3COs. This information may provide guidelines for the successful management of cervical deformities.

Robotic-assisted adult deformity surgery has played a rapidly expanding role since its introduction. As robotic spine technologies improve, the potential to limit complications and morbidity is vast. The improvements in instrumentation accuracy combined with the ability to maintain that accuracy in multiple positions allow creative surgical approaches and techniques that can limit operative time, blood loss, and improve outcomes. In the years to come, robotic-assisted spine surgery and navigation will likely play an expanding role that continues to be defined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5, expert opinion.